User talk:Jibal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Hello, Jibal, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  IZAK 05:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


Your edits have the trademark of User:Arminius. Netscott 07:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Since I am not Arminius and had never heard of Arminius, you are clearly wrong that my edits have the trademark of Arminius. A halfway intelligent and decent human being might have said that some of my edits seem to resemble those of Arminius, and politely asked if I am Arminius, instead of just blabbling out an assertion. -- Jibal 22:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

News-Press Controversy[edit]

I entered section headings in the Santa Barbara News-Press controversy article. snug 02:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


Please read this and kindly fulfill my request.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Requests for me to change how I live my life are not welcome. -- Jibal 03:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, please stop factoring your replies to interpose into other threads. Keep the conversation flowing properly. Thank you. Please go back and properly refactor your inserted comments. ThuranX 02:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't interpose into other threads, I merely added my responses above other responses to the same comments. If that's against policy, I'm not aware of it. -- Jibal 03:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you take a break from your editting of Wikipedia. All I did was kindly ask that you [personal attack deleted], [personal attack deleted]. Any further disruption from this account will result in a block from editting.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your suggestions about how I live my life, nor your mischaracterizations of exacerbation -- assume good faith. And your threat is an abuse of power (apparently, from your talk page, one of many), as is your vandalism of this page when you removed my own contributions. -- Jibal 04:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
How am I suggesting that I change how you live your life? I was asking you to [personal attack deleted]. [personal attack deleted] (and as a note, I replaced everything that was on this page prior to my edits that were removed through my rollback and your removals of ThuranX's comments).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not modify the archived thread on ANI. The edits occurred at roughly the same time so there is no need to remove anything. Thanks, Naconkantari 03:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Moving Denial of the Armenian Genocide[edit]

I have suggested that Denial of the Armenian Genocide should be moved to Denial of the Armenian Genocide allegations. I assume that you would be interested in the debate and would like to submit your opinion on the proposal. See: Denial of the Armenian Genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--Scientia Potentia 16:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Listen, I would appreciate if you didn't refer to my comments like "Wikipedia would be a much better place if you all left your nationalism and ideologies at home" - you really don't know what I think or anything. It is the first time that I see you comment on that page, so I am assuming that you kinda headdived in there, but my points and comments are much more subtle than that - I was referring to a consistent push by certain users to label anyone who wonders if the events could have the "genocide" label (rather than something else) as a vulgar Neo-Nazi. Re-read my post, and my point about the latest ICJ case concerning Bosnia v. Serbia and the room needed for research free of political correctness. There are users in that page who consistently try to shut up every user who comes wondering about the genocidal nature of events by treating them like creationists, Neo-Nazis etc. Holocaust deniers deny outright that any Jews died, claiming that it is all one big conspiracy, however in this case, the dispute centers on the genocidal nature of events: not on weird alien conspiracy theories. Anyways, just wanted to let you know that things are more complicated than they seem, that's all. Cheers! Baristarim 04:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

ok, it was just a note.. I didn't ask you to not make your comment stand :) cheers Baristarim 05:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
They should, so should everyone who treats that talk page like a forum.. However, what I meant was the attitude of some "during discussions about the article" - recent debates about two sections in the article easily degenerated into such a debate even though it started as a "article-only" discussion. However, the improvements that an editor can bring to an article is inevitably influenced by his/her opinions, therefore it is also inevitable that debate degenerates constantly since editors differ greatly in their views as to how the article can be improved. I rarely comment on that talk page or the article, one of the reasons being that specific problem. You cannot isolate the disputes so easily by saying "people should edit and not wonder" - it is not about the Pythagoras' theorem. That's all. I agree that people shouldn't use it a as a forum, I have left tons of messages in that talk page to that effect, removed many post personally for that reason, but it never stops!! Where do you draw the line finally? Baristarim 06:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You are right, maybe I was just winding myself up too much. Anyways have a good day. Cheers! Baristarim 06:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I suppose you are right. I had never studied holocaust denial that much, and as far as I knew it had always been about people who say "it is all one big alien scam and global conspiracy, and that Jews were secretly evacuated" :) I didn't mean any offense by re-writing it above, I hadn't understood your original response to begin with - I wasn't trying to one-up you. Anyways, my only point was that it is not right to put events into the same category - when you categorize something, the notion starts to become degenerated. What I am saying is that the word "genocide" is not a one-size-fits-all word in the sense that events carry different characteristics. I would also oppose putting the Holocaust into the same category as what is happening in Darfour - they are all different - thus the tyranny of the words: people get too fixated upon words and forget the real underlying human social needs/suffering/pain/movements. Anyways... Baristarim 06:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sith edits[edit]

I noticed your comments on the Sith page, and I agree with them. At midnight CST, I am going to begin to remove all information that isn't cited. Most will probably be moved to the discussion page, as I am not sure that the info cannot be cited. Wanna help? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

As an academic specialist in this topic, I appreciate your recent comment to Theories of Humor talk. You are right, there is good cause to include Dennett and Hurley, but the need is not terribly "severe". It is not evident that a currently published theory has the potential to dominate the field. In fact, an article is now being prepared for publication, designed to discredit Professor Hurley's theory.Cdg1072 (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You claim there are articles or essays which attack the current theories of humor, and I assume you mean the several mentioned in Theories of Humor. I know this literature very well and there are no articles (besides mine) attacking the views of benign violation, or the ontic-epistemic theory, or the GTVH. I am the only author of articles which attack or refute any of the theories mentioned in this wikipedia article. You seem to claim in your answer, that I seem opposed to mentioning Professor Hurley and Professor Dennett's theory. (I only thought it made sense to mention that this theory is likely to be refuted or fail. This may have no bearing on whether they should be mentioned). You then questioned my use of the word "discredit", as though professional writers never refuted anything. Professors and academics have many times refuted or "debunked" erroneous theories. Cdg1072 (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Articles About Humor Theory[edit]

You wrote, "There are papers opposed to all of the mentioned theories." That was rather inaccurate. Ontic-Epistemic Theory lacks such a paper, as does Pattern Recognition Theory, and Computer Model Theory, and the major example of Benign Violation Theory (except for my article). I don't mean to attack you or anyone. I was wrong to write, "no criticism of any theory exists." Though I slipped, I was not wrong about there being no critiques of several of the mentioned theories.

There can only be one true theory. Yes, I claim to have it, but that does not make me biased.Cdg1072 (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Dead Sea Scrolls[edit]

Hi, I noticed you replied to a seven-year old comment at Talk:Friends of Science and an old (but not quite so much) at Talk:Climate change denial. In my opinion, commenting on antique remarks of others isn't really helpful and might not do the best for your rep as a careful diligent editor, assuming you care about that. Anyway, I just stopped by to suggest checking the date of whatever you might wish to reply to and remember the adage about letting sleeping dogs lie. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I already know the date of what I replied to -- do you think me blind or stupid? And I put no stock in silly old adages. Go condescend to someone else. -- Jibal (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)