User:RyanFreisling/Archive 5

Any time[edit]

I forgot to say—if there's anything I can do for you, let me know. You got it :-)
Best regards, Arbo talk 09:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Only trying to find a way to return your help, good advice and encouragement. By "anything I can do for you" I don't mean pitching in with your dispute resolution and political work. That's not my concern. I'm an editorial specialist, so if you need good word-smithing skills, votes for featured pic candidates, or whatever.
Best regards, Arbo talk 09:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Chalk it up to a busy week - and nothing more - my friend. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Kewl :-)

L8ter, Arbo talk 14:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent use of typefaces... and of course I love Oscar Wilde. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I asked a question on your talk page about that unusual Iowan font family. Not sure I love it - it looks odd to my eye somehow. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Aww, so demanding. What are your favourite faces?

Arbo talk 19:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"Sorry to be so pat about it, but 'I knows what I likes' :) ..."

Absolutely (I don't think you're being pat). Type is personal and subjective :) Type designers and typographers live in an abstract world.

Arbo talk 22:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I only like Iowan for its beautiful craftsmanship, fine finish, consistency of design (integration), and large useful family. But it lacks personality, and the short ascenders and descenders make it look undistinguished, pedestrian. That's what readability theory and studies have done -- robbed the world of the grace arising from eccentric design, in the name of efficiency. Give me an old font with faults and tall extenders any day—they only read 5 percent slower :)

Arbo talk 17:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Iowan old face[edit]

reposted from User_talk:James_Arboghast:

I have a more-than-passing interest in typefaces as well, and this was the first I'd seen this face. Is there some info you could direct me towards regarding the rationale and context underlying its' creation? It's seemingly 'heterogeneous' character forms (the serifs and 'color' of the letters seems to vary widely thoughout a single weight) seems designed for maximum readability in electronic means, but also a decidedly old-school look. It looks like a mix of Garamond, Adobe Serif and perhaps a touch of Myriad... What's the skinny, Arbo? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It's that pesky Freisling harrying me with her pesky kvestions again! (much chuckling). I'm listening to Tehillim on radio. It's great. :-)

Geared Bull conveniently asked much the same thing at User talk:GearedBull#Excellent Bodoni sample.
Here's the modified answer;

Iowan Old Style is by the much-respected contemporary American sign painter John Downer. It's an old-style Renaissance-era book roman in the Venetian mode of Aldine and Jenson. It retains their low-ish line contrast, diagonal stressing and incised bracket serifs, but has a larger x-height, tighter letterfit and reproportioned capitals, suiting it to "...today's demanding Freisling-driven typographic environment" – ;-) It looks kind of Goudy-ish going by the italics and capitals. The conception and finish are much neater than the abberations Goudy put into his fonts to make them personal works of art with intentional faults, yet Downer's production is every bit as meticulous and artistic.

"It's seemingly 'heterogeneous' character forms (the serifs and 'color' of the letters seems to vary widely thoughout a single weight)"

Three different sizes in the sample may account for some of that impression. The heading is 20pt, body 14pt, footer 12pt italic. As book romans go Iowan's color and contrast are about midway between genuine old style Venetians and the transitionals like Baskerville and the Fell romans. The serif size range you're noticing is partly an anachronistic carry-over artifact of the metal punch-cut medium and its abberations, associated with old style type and integral to it—even in digital form.

Adobe Serif and Myriad are kind-sorta modelled on the old-style Venetians, Myriad more so than A.Serif.

Arbo talk 14:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Logistical support for The troubles with Gutenberg[edit]

Your valuable skills are needed to help solve The troubles with Gutenberg. My plan needs boosters.

The community's expectations are very high >>
Arbo talk 21:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll be taking a deep look at that page this week, and I'll offer any assistance I can based on what seems right to me. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. There's no hurry, just that when the time comes—when the material is a sorted out—Johannes Gutenberg and the articles User:DGG has suggested be written may need sheparding, a strong arm etc, protection from historical revisionist cranks. So I imagine, but I could be wrong (panic mode). I don't expect you to do any writing; only to facilitate in ways you feel appropriate, if at all. If it's out of your range that's fine too.

Keep in mind I won't be writing the revisions to Johannes Gutenberg. That's DG's job. I plan to finish History of typography by the end of October, then spend November releasing some overdue fonts. After that, I can't predict the rest of 2006.

Arbo talk 16:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Miaow! Crank alert. We need all the help we can get --- User talk:MONGO#The Phaistos disc, Gun Powder Ma, the troubles with Gutenberg. Meow-meow!

Best regards, Arbo talk 09:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Lists now, just like Derex. Take it off your talk page and keep where you and Derex can easily find it.--Scribner 05:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Derex, so I don't understand that part. Moreover, it's my understanding that it's perfectly acceptable to keep notes of other editor's edits on one's talk page. Can you help me understand why it isn't? Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Jgp[edit]

I have blocked him, and reported my action at WP:ANI. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm just sorry he didn't reconsider when I asked him nicely. A whole day of potential edits of mine have been stalled dealing with what appear to be willing disruptions vis-a-vis ED. In any case, thank you for your administrations. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Well, yourself and a number of others were busy today defending me and Wikipedia. A sincere thank you is the very least I can offer in return and a reminder that when things get tough for you here, please don't hesitate to let me know.--MONGO 04:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It's my pleasure to help and I'm grateful to you for the acknowledgement. Keep your head up and enjoy what's starting to look like a beautiful day! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Good faith[edit]

Hi Ryan.

Please don't worry; I don't imagine you're "baiting" Bdj. I did point out to him that, whether or not you are, accusing you of it is counterproductive. I don't mean to imply that you're actually baiting anyone. Sorry if that wasn't clear. It's pretty clear to me that you're working in good faith for the good of Wikipedia; I didn't realize there was any quesiton about that, since there wasn't in my mind. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sunset[edit]

File:October 23 2006 sunset.jpg

October 23, 2006 sunset in Nebraska

Thanks for the flowers...very nice...and much appreciated.--MONGO 04:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What a lovely picture - the poles are "the touch of artificiality that make it real". :) Take care. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

How odd...I just looked at the metadata on the above image and is says the 19th! So either I pulled it out of the files thinking it was the same sunset as tonights or I have the calendar messed up on the camera. Anyway...thanks again.--MONGO 04:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

questions[edit]

Thought you might has some useful questions regarding this arbcom nom, since you've been in an arbcom proceeding with him. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Phil Sandifer. Or you might not care; just letting you know. Derex 08:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

disruptive and deliberate misquoting of WP:BIO[edit]

User:Badlydrawnjeff has been deliberately misquoting and misrepresenting the content of WP:BIO on numerous AfDs today, claiming it says "television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions" are inherently notable, when it clearly says no such thing.

Jeff continues to repeat this falsehood on AfDs even after it's been pointed out that what it actually says is: "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions" and then goes on to spell out specific criteria regarding what constitutes "notable".

He has regarded it as a personal attack that I am repeatedly pointing out where he is leaving out the crucial part of the sentence every time he cites WP:BIO. Please advise. wikipediatrix 17:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please use citations[edit]

No, I'm not being intentionally disruptive and I think it's confrontational, uncivil and unhelpful of you to make the accusation. I am asking for citations and full context is all. Please support the consensus use of a male personal pronoun to describe Brandon by providing acceptable citations of multiple major news stories, articles from peer reviewed scholarly journals and other published works, thanks. Gwen Gale 20:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not consensus - it's WP policy to refer to transgendered individuals by their chosen identification. Mr. Teena chose to be identified as a male before his murder, and therefore the pronoun usage you used is incorrect. The pronouns policy is cited frequently on that article's talk page and in its' history. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom election[edit]

Hey Ryan. You probably already know, but just in case you don't, there's an arbcom election happening. Don't miss it! :) -- noosph e re 20:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

XY-chromosome intersex people can bear/have borne children[edit]

Hello Ryan, I did some more research as I think it's important to have some prove on the matter. I found the information in the book 'm/v, doorhalen wat niet van toepassing is' by Karin Spaink. The note in the book links to the website of Intersex society of North America. There was an issue in the Olympics since 1968 where athletes were disqualified as they had XY chromosomes. Spaink also say Jamie Lee Curtis happens to have XY chomosomes and is still an actress, see also the text what ru?. I googled it for you but have to find to read it all and I might start an article about it if it's not there already. Artgoyle 11:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page. ISsues of sex typing in the Olympics, Jamie Lee Curtis etc. are irrelevant, as I am asking specifically about the capacity for XY-chromosome intersex individuals to give birth... -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Google is your friend: http://www.google.nl/search?q=pure+gonadal+dysgenesis+pregnancy

As far as I could tell, all the pregnancies obtained required ovum transplantation. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

ummm, ovum transplantation isn't the right word. In medical terms it is egg donation. By any means those women can bear and have borne children. It is exactly the same as with XX women who are born without ovaries because of MRK or XX women who don't have ovaries anymore because of cancer or whatever. A bit off topic, but in regard to what user Artgoyle wrote: if Jamie Lee Curtis says that she doesn't have XY-chromosomes, she doesn't have XY-chromosomes. Period. (sorry, I'm not logged in here - my name is Miriam van der Have)

Ummm (which is a slightly obnoxious way to start a post, by the way) again - those aren't eggs with the XY-chromosome (because eggs don't develop in XY-chromosome individuals, correct)? So while XY-chromosome women can receive an 'egg donation' and then carry and bear the children, they are not their own genetic offspring, correct? That was the gist of my question. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Great that Miriam posted the answers before I could have a chance. The start of the issue was whether people with XY chromosomes are men, one user on the talk page of Gwen Araujo said "Unfortunately, sex is a biological fact, regardless of current political situations. Each cell of a male human has an XY chromosome, regardless of whether the person or the state recognizes said individual as female." So there are XY women after all, they, XY-intersex females could conceive and give birth and the discussion can go to another level. Artgoyle 21:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

XY-intersex females can conceive? Can you show me that proof? Miriam's answer referred to individuals who received a donated ovum. Are you saying that your answer assumed that 1) they would be able to fertilize that ovum (with their own sperm), and then that they would 2) carry it (as a pregnant female)? While I don't disagree with your premise, your post didn't require such technological gymnastics... -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by conceive? And of course they don't have their own sperm, but as Miriam wrote they do carry and I don't have more information than she does, sorry if I may not be using the right words but I am lost now in what we need to prove anyway, by Artgoyle 18:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The word 'conceive' (from 'conception') refers to the insemination of eggs by sperm, in this case human. My original question was regarding whether XY women can bear children. And as you and Miriam pointed out, it's technically possible for them to 'carry' children, from fertilized donated ova. But it's not possible for them to 'conceive' (have their own genetic offsprin), neither with their own sperm nor with their own eggs. That is sad, but hopefully science will catch up someday for XY-intersex females. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a girl with Swyer Syndrome, XY females cannot have their own genetic babies, but some like me are able to carry IVF babies from another's egg. It takes a lot of hormone therapy, though. I personally hope to adopt some day anyway. I'd feel guilty for bringing yet another child into the world when so many are going hungry. --60.228.30.94 13:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove Swastik[edit]

Hi Ryan, I see that you are a Jew and you may be insulted by the symbol. Please read Swastika. The Nazi swastika is a different design and the Hindus are very peaceful people. We regard the symbol as holy. The Aum you replaced it with needs updating anyway. It is black which is not an auspicious colour in Hinduism unlike the red Swastik. Thank you Gizza^Chat ^© 00:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm fully aware the swastika means different things to the Hindu people than to Jews. However, it's my hope that you will agree that the Aum is far more major of a symbol than the swastika, and does not have the same affiliation for Europeans as the swastika does. With that in mind, I believe it is therefore more encyclopedic when addressing general Hindu issues. Also - what leads you to believe I am a Jew? I ask kindly that you return the Aum and discuss it further on the template pages. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ryan, while I agree with this, please weigh in at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 00:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Will do - thanks for the invite! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: I've created and uploaded a red version of the 'aum' symbol, to use the red color User:DaGizza mentioned as being more auspicious for Hindus than the black of the original 'Aum.png':

Thank you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

All due apologies. I couldn't help but arrive at "Mr." from "Ryan". :-p With respect, I wasn't addressing your arguments vis-à-vis the "2nd most important symbol" thing, since I regard that argument as patent nonsense, but rather your statement regarding relatives lost in the Sho'a as a source of emotional attachment (without prejudice...I wasn't saying your arguments were based in emotion, just that that's the part of your arguments I was addressing in my statement) to the issue at hand. Doing my best to not sound like I'm backpedalling... :-p Tom e r ^talk 06:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No apologies necessary - I rarely correct folks but you seemed honestly good-natured and interested in addressing the issue, so I figured I'd start on the right foot. And understood regarding your statement. Honest thanks, and good night to you! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

NP. For the record, I'm pretty ambivalent about what happens regarding whether or not the Hindus continue to use the swastika in their templates. I just don't want to see it taken out because of what I regard as inappropriate sentimentalism. G'nite to you too :-) Tom e r ^talk 06:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

We're of like mind. My argument on that page regarding the relative importance of the two symbols has been subsumed in a sea of antipathy, misattributed comments and emotional fervor. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...could you possibly be single? Please? If it helps, I'm part of the much-feared Wikipedia Zionist Cabal... :-D Tom e r ^talk 06:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God, so am I (see my user page)! What a coincidence - but you'll have to show me your secret decoder ring to prove it. Yes, I'm single - but I'm high-maintenance, and as you might have guessed, a bit opinionated. Good news is, I'm as kind as I am bold. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Ryan, I hope I wasn't offensive in any way. I've seen civilized democratic countries banning the Swastika, and I was wondering if wikipedia is heading that way. Luckily it's not. I hope you found the discussion healthy and productive. See you around! Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 06:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey butt out, deeptrivia. This is now the Romance Zone. Start your own section. :-) Tom e r ^talk 06:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Pshaw, Shilo... the only thing lamer than meeting a date online is meeting a date on Wikipedia. Can you imagine that dinner conversation? *shudder*!

Thanks again for your kindness, deeptrivia. I learned a lot, and hope you have too. Be well and sweet dreams. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What are you smoking? I didn't delete anything you posted. I actually reposted something the gremlins apparently deleted previously... And, for the record, pshaw. nevermind, if you're that closeminded, it's not worth it. If you change your mind, you know where to find me. Tom e r ^talk 06:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Shilo, I'm lost. I didn't say you deleted anything of mine. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at my talk page, yeah you did. :-) I think you may have meant to have left it on Ghost's talkpage, but you didn't. :-p As for the date, I'm more than happy to meet on a parkbench in a garden of tulips. So, sometime this spring then? :-) If things go well tho, you must let me cook you a delicious meal for our second date. :-D Tom e r ^talk 07:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I meant to direct that comment to Ghost (sorry it was unclear). What kinds of meals do you cook with joy and passion? The emotion of the cook is the greatest seasoning... -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, and this only adds just a little bit to my geeky intrigue, you're the first person I've come across who might possibly be able to type as fast as me...and using proper grammar and correct spelling to boot! I'm <censored for minors/> Tom e r ^talk 07:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Aber beklecker nicht das sofa!!! Gute nacht, mein freund. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What kind of meals do I cook...well, generally, stuff my mother classifies as "too spicy". :-p I'm a big fan of Morroccan and Thai cuisine [what a mélange!]... but generally I cook based on what I have and what strikes me as "good". To my palate, it's always good...cook's prerogative, but aside from my mother's lack-of-gall-bladder-induced complaints, I've never received anything but praise for my cheffery. :-) I hope you can stomach copious quantities of foods seasoned heavily with paprika, peppers, garlic, za'atar (sorry, I don't know the English word), and the occasional reek of onions... :-) After-dinner mints help. :-) Tom e r ^talk 07:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The wisdom of garlic and onion meals on dates aside, and mints notwithstanding, your mention of paprika has sealed the deal for this Hungarian. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sweet! How are you with the park benches in Herald Square? Tom e r ^talk 07:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, next time you're wandering about the city w/ your camera in tow, you might consider taking some more relevant pix of Herald Square...the ones in the article don't do it justice... Tom e r ^talk 08:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea - I could do with a few more things from Macy's. I live and work waaay downtown but occasionally I can make it up there without getting a nosebleed :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Thanks Ryan for the kind words and the beautiful photograph :) I'm going to try to take another break from all this; I let myself get sucked back into it far too quickly. csloat 01:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Rebecca 00:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for presenting your viewpoint with such civility. Though we may have disagreed overall, at the end of the day, we did finally (and coincidently) express the same thoughts. :-) Abecedare 06:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel the same way, and I do indeed wish you well. Thanks for the civility and good faith as well, and although we may find ourselves on opposite sides of the next debate, I look forward to it and to learning from the process of interacting with you. Be well, and sweet dreams. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pic. We have the same model camera too! :-) Abecedare 07:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My 'older' camera Canon SD400 has a view-finder, but it's picture would have shown purple-fringing in a brightly lit shot like the Union Square Park photo you sent. So its difficult for me to make the choice ... so I usually just pick the "slimmer" one. Abecedare

Vandalism[edit]

Your deletion of my comments was vandalism. I'm sorry that I deleted your comment when I reverted your change. I failed to see that you had made an addition. Why leave messages about me on other's talk pages? Just contact on mine. I don't think I should "prove you wrong". I think it's been proven that you've deleted my post twice. So, if I went through and found your edits inappropriate, I could delete them? That doesn't make any sense. I'm sure you are going to strike this from your page because you feel it is uncivil.(Ghostexorcist 13:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC))

You're wrong. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Swastika Discussion[edit]

You may be right about straw polls. However, I am becoming increasingly skeptical about Wikipedia process. Do you have an idea of how to proceed? Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 00:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

sigh* Groupthink is ugly and I share your concern about the failings of WP process to defeat it.

I recommend that we proceed S L O W L Y, with discussion. :) We were getting somewhere before the racist arguments and multiple polls showed up. To me it's obvious that those who would want to frame the issue as Hindus vs. Jews (the sensitivities of each pitted against one another) are creating a Gordian Knot, and that's not something that is done when someone wants to reach consensus... that's the kneejerk reaction of someone who superficially assesses the situation and acts on bias, not someone who has read and understand the arguments involved. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As is often the case (in real life!) we know what the only possible consensus solution is; but the process and a few ingrained positions ensured a stalemate/staus quo that benefits nobody. I am disappointed, but perhaps its important to keep in mind that this was relatively a minor issue. Anyway it was good to educate myself further about swastika and aum + make your acquaintance in the process.
May our future wikipedia activities be more fruitful ! :-)Abecedare 02:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely - and I have sincerely appreciated your insight on these issue from the beginning. 'Everything is Impermanent'. It's in the daily motions that the wheel of life turns! I'm very glad to have met you as well and I'm sure we'll collaborate again before too long :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ms. Freisling, your can-do spirit and optimism impresses me ! Even though I have counter-argued against some of your arguments (note: not against you) and may do so again in the future, believe me when I say that I will be rooting for you in this debate. All the best. Amen, אמן,

:-) Abecedare 04:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As irritating as I might seem to you, I have to also say I am very impressed with your spirit and energy. We need more people like you here on Wikipedia, frankly. I doff my hat to you...I presume Frau Freisling?--Filll 05:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

And I have to admit, you are making me wonder about this issue. I do not want anyone to be unduly offended, but it seems like people are going to be offended no matter what happens. And since there are many fewer Jews than Hindus, it is a sort of difficult position to be in. I am neither, but it just seems mind numbing to watch. --Filll 05:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If we keep our focus on the encyclopedic value of the content, and we do our very best to consider one another's perspective without bias while expressing sincere respect, whatever happens we shall have left the encyclopedia better than we found it. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of our difference of opinion on the matter, I am thoroughly impressed by the manner in which you are almost singlehandedly conducting the discussion, without losing temper. I only wish your arguments were defendable (in my opinion) and I could have supported you :) deeptrivia (talk) 05:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If I am incorrect, then I will have done the work of educating everyone else who has the same opinion. If I am correct, I may have done the same for those who disagree. Either way, if the debate is civil, it improves WP. Thanks for the very kind words. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What you were able to do, was to hold off a horde of other editors, the vast majority of which held the opposite view. Over an extended period. Its impressive. I would have given up, to be honest.--Filll 05:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Ryan, but I think it is possible for me to use my time more productively. I don't think we needed such a big discussion, and I think many things we are discussing will not have an impact on the final conclusions. Not only such things with little relevance are discussed, they are repeated ad nauseum. I also think the final outcome of this discussion will not change if I leave. I hope you understand. It was definitely a pleasure discussing this stuff with you, and definitely a valuable learning experience. If you find any interesting references regarding the significance of the shape of Aum in Devanagari, please add it on the relevant article, and let me know too -- it will be interesting to learn something new that challenges what I know already. If you don't find anything, please delete that text from those articles. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you made this minor amendment. I hope that I did not demoralize you with my comments, as I agree with you in large part. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 02:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hehe - thank you! No, I think I've made my point clearly, and it's important to me not to be misunderstood as having disrespect or disdain for Hindus. Since that's the way the conversation began to go, I don't see much value in continuing to passionately debate the topic... for now, silence will be fine. Whatever happens tomorrow, there are many tomorrows to come. And thanks for the kind note. I look forward to speaking on the topic (and others) with you again. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Good discussion[edit]

Just wanted to say that I enjoyed your discussion regarding the use of the swastika. I hope there are no hard feelings even though we disagree on it. MetsFan76 02:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

LIkewise. I'm hopeful that ultimately, the decision that is made (whatever that is) will be that which benefits our readers most. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. How's the air in Manhattan doing? MetsFan76 02:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No gassy problems since mid-day... thank goodness! :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's definitely a good thing! MetsFan76 02:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Aum Sha-nti Sha-lom[edit]

Hi Ryan, In spite of our disagreement over how to get there, I think we are in fundamental agreement that we would like to eradicate ignorance and promote peace between people of different faiths. When I signed off with 'Aum Shanti Shanti', I sincerely meant that. 'Shanti' is the same as 'Shalom', and I don't think it's a coincidence that both start out with the same syllable - there is a single source for all true religions. And I appreciated your signing off with 'Aum Namah Shivaya' - Shiva is the destroyer - of evil, ignorance, and delusion. I respect your sincerity, as I respect the sincerity of everyone who was discussing an issue that was very emotional on all sides. ॐ Priyanath talk 03:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Priyanath - I appreciated the sentiment of your peace wishes to me. And since I was a young person, I have recited the Aum Namah Shivaya - not only as a prayer to Siva but to acknowledge the importance of selflessness, and as renunciation of this material world in favor of the next. In any case, I am most gratified by your comments and I also respect your sincerity deeply. The love between all of us is all that we take with us from this life, and so your kindness is a powerful gift. May you also have peace! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Worshipping you-know-who[edit]

Sorry for the typo - I edit conflicted with you in the process of correcting it. I assume you know me well enough by now to have realized that that was a (embarrassing) typo. :-)

Thanks for removing your remark to avoid confusion. I just hope no editor gets on a high horse and takes umbrage at the discussion and supposed accusations/counter-accusations. Abecedare 05:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, it's no sweat. I have the feeling that some will - and others may feign insult, in order to keep the conversation acrimonious (and therefore unproductive). It's increasingly clear to me that many folks in the dialogue are motivated by a desire for better relations between people, but that some people seem to have a lot of personal stake in the issue. I would not have looked for newsitems if Priyanath hadn't asked Tomer for a source. If the situation were reversed (allegations of racism by some ethnic group towards Indians) I would have done the same research. Sometimes even doing research can be seen as a political statement. Sigh! :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I spoke too soon in expressing my hope above. Sigh, indeed ! Abecedare 05:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Narendra Modi is a polarizing Hindutva (Indian nationalism/Hindu pride movement) leader in Indian (rather Gujurat state politics) and like any such politician (c.f. Virgil Goode) he assumes extremist positions which make him a hero to some and a villain to others - with hardly anyone holding neutral views. So anyone who praises or criticizes him is sure to get passionate response - many/most Indians are pretty sensitive to him being perceived as a representative model for them.
With regards to the Gujurat textbooks : though the issue would not be handled at a Chief Minister (eqiv. Governor) level, it would have reflected the views of his appointees (picked up from the Hindutva ideologues, of course), some of whom would find a "good" side to Hitler, not because of his antisemitism, but rather his Nationalism. Perhaps the closest point of comparison would be Dover ID case, except that there is no pro-Hitler movement even in Gujurat - rather an attempt by some ideologues to instill nationalism in students. Hope this is useful background for your future research in the area. Abecedare 06:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It most certainly is. I'm very grateful for the background. As far as Virgil Goode is concerned, Ellison's use of Jefferson's Qu'ran was a masterstroke. Amazing how the words of some of the most virulent racists can be undone by the Founding Fathers... bright and prescient men, they were. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was an absolutely brilliant move, especially given that Jefferson is an icon from Goode's own state !

Indian politics, like American, is in turns an invigorating and infuriating topic to follow. Also, surprisingly for a "developing country" India has a significantly free media. In fact the confrontational nature of the news media is closer to the British model, rather than the more respectful approach of the American (so called MSM) counterparts. That, coupled with, a multi party (as opposed to two-party) system makes it more interesting than any soap opera. not that I have found a soap opera interesting :-) Abecedare 06:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The small text joke made me snort soda out my nose. As far as the MSM is concerned, you say 'respectful', and I say 'bought and paid for'. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The IHT link you provided summarizes the issue quite well. Thanks and good night. Abecedare 06:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Troubling?[edit]

As I and I think everybody else probably is deeply troubled by your flat and complete refusal to respond to any of the questions or qualifications of your position which you never, ever, respond to. By doing so, you are making yourself, and your conduct, the issue. If you wish to engage in a normal conversation, that involves responding to the opposing points. Again, I point out that you have completely failed to do so. It is much harder to assume good faith when dealing with someone who never responds to any of the points raised against them. If you wish to engage in a thoughtful, reasonable, conversation, I strongly suggest that you start responding to points made against you. Badbilltucker 18:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I ask you again - which points I have 'refused' to answer? I want to satisfy your concern that I'm doing so. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Contemptability[edit]

Should you post one more inflammatory or insulting comment on the Hinduism talk page, I will request formal mediation and also request that you be considered for temporary blocking. I see nothing contemptible in displaying my own rather unique credentials in this matter, or in asking anyone else how they are able to make comments. And, again, your failure to clearly and explicitly answer any questions is I believe far from serving the purposes of reasonable discussion and actively goes against the interests of wikipedia. Good day. Badbilltucker 19:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you will interpret any such comment from me in that way, and so I welcome mediation now, and I request that you ask for my blocking now as well. Please note that I'm heading out to lunch so I may not respond for 1-2 hours or so. Thanks for your patience and I hope we can resolve this amicably. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixing phrasing, I should have said "requesting information from others regarding what expertise they have on the subject." And, again, if you can allow the conversation there to continue without continually restating your own already repeatedly stated opinions, there is no basis for such comment. I did not use the phrase "shut up", as you accused me of, by the way, and I wonder whether anyone would appreciate such willfully condemnatory rephrasing of their own statements, which I know in this case was a statement I tried to phrase as fairly and unprejudicially as possible. And, honestly, the easiest way for this to be handled amicably is to let the discussion proceed without further repetition from any parties involved. I would be more than willing to let that happen if you would. It however, I think, remains to be seen if you are willing to do so. Badbilltucker 19:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully point out to you that you did indeed use that phrase:

"On that basis, I would request that all parties more or less shut up about the subject and allow other interested individuals to chime in." [1]

As I've said before, I'm happy to leave it lay if you'll stop as well. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't be too surprised by this - BadBill has a history of extreme reactions to the slightest disagreement: [2][3][4][5], and especially [6] are excerpts from his last encounter with Izak. Dbratton 22:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

We're working it out and we're both grownups. I'm hopeful we'll become fast friends after this baptism of fire! :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, and I hope that things turn out well in the end! I've mostly removed myself from the welcome template discussion - the continual tangents and pointlessly divisive polls have sapped my will to edit. ;) Dbratton 00:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a shame - but if you feel to return your views are just as valid and crucial as everyone else's. In any case, I'm grateful for your goodwill :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow[edit]

Wow Frau Freisling. I want you on MY side of any argument on here. I am impressed. Dang! You are a total machine. I am blown away. I have not kept up with the argument to be honest (my apologies; I said my piece, and I did not think it was fruitful for me to waste any more of anyone's time with repeating it further, and I did not have high hopes for thinking of anything new to add). But the fact that you are still hanging in there...wow. I can hardly believe it. I would give you a gold star, whether I agree with your position or not ! I would love to channel some of your energy into some of our projects on here for sure :) --Filll 20:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hehe - thanks. I'm a person with feelings like anyone else, but I honestly just want to help the encyclopedia. I intentionally meditate on issues, and I try to act respectfully - but no one is perfect and everyone makes mistakes. I'm really glad for your comment and while I can't accept a gold star, my page is barnstar-light. :) :) Thanks for your sweet words. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		To RyanFreisling, for having incredible endurance in the face on seemingly impossible odds to try to bring a difficult situation to a positive resolution. Even those of us on the other side of the debate cannot help but be incredibly impressed with this effort. Filll 20:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Awww, for little ol' me? Thank you, you shouldn't have. :) :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Option C[edit]

Like I said, your previous support for B was already indicated in the earlier totals. Also, according to the rules for Wikipedia:Consensus, each option is to be considered individually. "A or B" votes aren't supposed to be an option. I hope you can understand the reason your name was added there, and, if you want that opinion to be included, I sincerely hope that you replace it yourself. Badbilltucker 22:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If I choose to do so, I will. I understand your rationale and certainly didn't mean to condemn you for it (if indeed you perceived removing your placement of my sig as such) - but I think it's best that I sign on my own, to avoid confusion. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Also, I would really ask you to read the comments on the third archived page. I think I have pointed out how your statements to the effect that the swastika is the "only" religious symbol to be involved in genocides in the 20th century (sorry, don't have the exact phrasing in front of me) are fairly clearly wrong. Certainly, the Yugoslav genocide of Turks occurred, as did the regular killing of Hindus and Muslims in Parkistan and India. I think that you yourself might be (don't take this wrong) a bit too used to taking a certain position that you might not in fact connect the fact that other peoples have suffered much the same fate, sometimes in even higher percentage numbers. {Here thinking of The Killing Fields.) Also, as was pointed out on that page, there were supposedly (sorry, can't cite sources, someone else said it) more Indians who died in World War II than Jews. If anyone should have an objection to the use of the swastika, it would presumably be them. They however are the ones who still are using it. And, again, Christian and Islamic wars also happened in the 20th century (as did wars with Israel, sometimes defensive, sometimes not so clearly) that all those symbols can be seen by significant populations as suffering the same image problems. None of them face the same sort of criticism, though. Just repeating a few points I made there. Badbilltucker 22:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I made any such claim (that the swastika is the 'only' religious symbol to be involved in 20th-century genocides - it isn't), and I'd view that as a misreading of my position. As a species, we cannot weigh one genocide against another genocide if we are going to stop genocide. So personally, I wouldn't equate the scope of Nazism with the Yugoslav-Turkish atrocities because I don't equate such things. Your 'more Indians than Jews' claim seems FAR too potentially antagonistic of a topic for me to weigh in on, so I will not respond to that in any way shape or form, except to say that I will bear the comment in mind and will do some research to understand what I can of the situation. If/when you locate a citation for that claim, please let me know. As far as characterizing me as not connecting with the suffering of others, that's equally a contentious concept and I'll not respond, preferring to leave you to your opinion. I hope my choice not to respond to those two comments will not be seen as avoidance, but rather as respectful of all peoples. And I do appreciate you responding in a constructive way. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Please understand I was not equating them. I was simply pointing out that the claim which I think you did make to an exclusivity overtly or implicitly to the reaction to the swastika can also be found to any and probably just about every other religious symbol out there. Also, as opposed to the survivors of the concentration camps many of these others are actually of the age where they might actually see those images on wikipedia. People in their sixties, which survivors would have to be, are notoriously absent from the internet, and presumably from wikipedia. Also, the claim about WWII deaths among Hindus was made by someone else on that page, not me. That's why I qualified it the way I did above. My guess is that many died as members of the British Imperial or Commonwealth Army, and that many others suffered in the wars of India-Pakistani independence and separation, which were probably conviently started at the same time, given the amount of weapons tied up by the main war. Badbilltucker 22:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I made no such claim. As you said regarding 'dab's comments, we should not assume any claims are made implicitly, especially on such loaded topics. And I'm not sure how to convince you of that, except to read my comments carefully and suspend your preconceptions as you do so. - User:RyanFreisling @ 22:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the 'Indians vs. Jews' statement is taken from a misreading of something I posted a few times. Since only 2.5 million Indians fought in WWII, it would be hard for more Indians than Jews to die in WWII, even if the estimate of 6 million is an overestimate (which I do not believe it was, given the very large numbers of Catholics that died, and Slavs, and mentally and physically disabled, and homosexuals, and gypsies etc, and my impression is that Jews were higher on the hitlist than any of those other groups; if several million of them died, why would I expect fewer Jews to die? I would not expect this). So if a misreading of my posts caused them to be misconstrued I apologize. I also posted about 5 or 10 other examples of religious symbols used by the Nazis, however, they have not resonated in the public mind as much as the Nazi swastika,, probably because the Swastika was used more prominently (flag etc).--Filll 22:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I would also point out the widely-held view that over 30 million citizens of the Soviet Union are believed to have died in WWII as well. But you cannot compare two funeral pyres to ask which is more tragic... -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the whole thing is sort of sickening really. And then Stalin followed it up with some more carnage. And Mao decided to try the same thing with the same results as Stalin. Ugh. Horrific. However, in Stalin's and Mao's partial defense, I do not think they INTENDED that to happen, which the Butcher clearly did. And the other distinction is that as a percentage of the population, the mechanized extermination of huge groups of gypsies, slavs, homosexuals, mentally and physically incapacitated and Catholics and Jews (any groups I missed?) might have been worse than the horrific bloodshed on the eastern front. Adding to the extra horror of it all is that it was systematized, and organized, and relentless, like slaughtering cattle. I would suggest everyone who has a chance should visit one of the Holocaust Museums (there is one in DC, and one in NYC I think, and Israel, and a few at the site of assorted camps, and maybe a few more). One "advantage" of the Jewish Holocaust is that we have pretty good records and evidence of it, whereas the Cambodian one, the Rawandan one and the one in Kosovo are a little more obscure. Therefore, visiting a Jewish Holocaust museum can be a pretty startling and sobering experience. If you want to get a good lesson in what kind of beasts humans really are under our veneer of purported civilization, that is one place to start. Awful, just awful.--Filll 22:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. There is also a very impactful Holocaust museum in Frankfurt-am-Main. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

AWESOME![edit]

de nada--D-Boy 04:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A frak fir dir[edit]

Bis du wirklikh a yid? Tom e r ^talk 06:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ich sind wirklich ein Mensch. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Ich sind"? :-p Tom e r ^talk 02:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ja, Sie und ich. Ich bin er, da Sie er sind und wir ich sind und alle wir zusammen sind. Goo goo goo joob.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Your statement[edit]

Ryan, please don't consider this bad faith or anything but we sort of decided that you shouldn't reply to others comments in their statement otherwise we'll just get a series of threads of discussion. For your convenience, here are your comments:

You may create your own statement if you wish. You may notify Priyanath of his fault with the tilting of the Nazi Swastika (although it should be noted that the Hindu Swastika is never tilted) and he may modify his statement. Regards. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 07:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Noted, no bad faith assumed - thanks! I'll add a heading (although I thought prior contributors to the discussion weren't going to be adding their statements to that page (perhaps I was incorrect). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Swastika note[edit]

Hello, in addition to your comments, for sorting purposes, could you please answer the questions in the Guidelines section. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No, for now I'll leave my answers as-is. I've maintained from the beginning that I oppose any attempt to 'validate' the background of editors nor to 'separate' the editors responding into camps. I'm not sure the questions help anything. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the reason I personally supported the questions was because they allowed us to emphasize on users that aren't of Hindu background and knowledge, we already know Hindus find it sacred, it's important to find out what non-Hindus and people that don't know much about Hinduism think about it. If they all dislike it then we have no choice. I think you are assuming that it's an attempt to class different groups from knowledgeable to non-knowledgeable, that's not the case. At first I didn't even want members of WP:HINDU to respond, but seeing people responding I didn't want to tell them to withdraw their comments. Notice that despite creating the page and reminding people to answer questions, I haven't made any statement, because I think it's unnecessary. We want comments from people unrelated to the discussion in my view. Anyway, we know enough about you and your stance on this debate without you answering the questions. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand your point of view and I appreciate you posting it here! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Support[edit]

Hi Ryan,

Seeing as I mentioned a potential arbitration regarding your exchange with Badbill at the Swastika talk page, it's only appropriate that I let you know that if it does come to that at some point (not that I expect it to), I'm fully behind you. I'm moving house over the weekend (a truly wretched undertaking) and my wiki time will be nonexistant, but just let me know via email if I can contribute any input and I'll make time. :) Daniel^C/_T+ 00:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help on that page - your and Abecedare's comments really helped to 'clear the air', and I'm really really really sure it won't be necessary to go to Arbitration. I'm hopeful that all the passion should dissipate and the discussion should return to the topic, given a constant effort to preserve good faith. Again, a very sincere thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Your input may be useful[edit]

Hi Ryan. I very much admire your ability to remain steadfast in the face of negativity. Alas, I am hoping that you can spare some of your fortitude. There has been a conflict for which you may find an "executive summary" at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. Central to that conflict was the WP:Profanity guideline, which has recently undergone some revisions. The revisions in the WP:Profanity guideline will, I think, cause a shift in the locus of the discussion. If you have the time, I would very much appreciate it if you would take a look at these materials, add the links above to your watch list, and participate in discussion should that become necessary. Thanks. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 01:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hiya Beantown! I'll familiarize myself with the issues involved and think it thru. If I can contribute constructively to the issue, I'd be happy to get involved. Thanks for your warm words. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Cabalistic confessions[edit]

Hmm. most disturbing. What do you think the chances are that he's being honest about the whole thing? I'm not too up on wikipolitics-- I try to just stay in the trenches working on articles rather than getting mixed up in all that, so I'm not sure how to assess the reliability of him vs the individuals he named. Email me. --Alecmconroy 15:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the episode is part of one huge trolling campaign, to be quite honest. I don't usually go offline for WP issues so I'll refrain from emailing for now, just keep your eye on your own goals, and don't let distractions, attacks or feeling 'baited' let you do anything that erodes your effectiveness here on WP. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ryan knows part of it was true because me and Rex were pals, Ryan had a thing against them, no clue what and even went on to accuse me of being rex many many times. I do now know where they end up in the whole thing honestly. But I think its past us, me and Ryan just avoid eachother now, after many many umm ... incidents. Just want to say I think its real big of you to avoid the off wiki drama, I got out of that too some time ago. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 18:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)