User talk:Teiresia

Archived Topics[edit]

Your deletion of the edit regarding Breivik's praise of Bin Laden's organization abilities[edit]

Hi Teiresia, I know there are a couple of slightly different versions of the 'Manifesto' floating around with slightly different page numbering, but please do a word-search of your copy of the manifesto for the phrase "if Muhammad was" to find this quote. I have reinserted the quote for now, as I think you may have had a different page numbering on your copy. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think, that you confuse me with someone else. I did not knowingly delete anything of that kind. If you are sure that it was me, please provide me with a link to the edit in question. --Teiresia (T) 17:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. You are correct and I apologize. I got your edit mixed up with a certain kind of "edit war" I was having with another user that you could read about at the "Breivik article talk page" if you wanted. Thanks much, Scott P. (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are making the same point in different places. Please read this edit, and tell me what you think. You could perhaps also somehow point to it in your "conflict"? --Teiresia (T) 18:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the majority of the editors of the page seem to be so afraid of anyone doing anything besides listing direct quotes from the manifesto, that they are beside themselves with fear that there might be a misinterpretation. I've never seen a group of Wiki editors this paranoid about how to use primary source material before. At any rate, they seem to be OK with using pre-digested secondary source quotes, which are usually not too hard to find, so I guess with this group of editors, we will have to wait until some other "real" person "discovers" that Breivik's definition of "Christian" may not require a belief in God or in Jesus' teachings re: God. Sorry it took me so long to reply. The attitudes of these editors has confounded me. Scott P. (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no hope, at the moment, to achieve anything productive by editing the article itself. Instead I try to reach those, who are open enough to consider differing opinions, by editing the discussion page. If they understand, maybe it will shift their focus.

One problem with this article is, that there are so many "crowds" out there. who want to push/minimize harm to their own agenda by either including or excluding information.

The Freemasons want to keep their name clean.
The Christians want to keep their name clean.
The anti-Israel-crowd, muslim and secular, want to portray him as a fanatic Zionist.
The anti-theist crowd wants to portray him as a religious crackpot.

and so on...

And who wants to really find out what the real ABB is all about?

sigh

BTW: I don't know very much about Quakers, but I know about their fight against slavery and for peace, and their deeply held belief that all humans are created equal. For that reason, I have the utmost respect for your congregation, no matter what other ideological or religious differences there may be between us. --Teiresia (T) 20:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks my friend for the assist over there! I think that that there might be a pro-Islamic element too that doesn't want anyone to see the parallels between Breivik and Bin Laden. Sometimes it simply boils down to strength in numbers I guess. Gotta go for the night now finally. I don't speak any German, but many many danke's! Scott P. (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From your comment it seems as if you have some kind of religious agenda here. I would strongly warn you against letting that influence your editing decisions. I see you are a Quaker, a subsect of Christianity, the same religion the shooter had. This should be of absolutely no importance when proposing edits. We should here strive to be as objective as possible in our documentation efforts.--Johanneswilm (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Scott P. and Osama bin Laden are both members of a subsect of Abrahamism, the same religion that Bob Marley and Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk had. --Teiresia (T) 01:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teiresia,

It appears that I sometimes grow overly attached to one editorial point or another, so much so that I inadvertently alienate other editors in my editorial zeal. After 7 years of editing here, I'm still learning that half of the work here is simply "keeping the peace" with the other editors. Please accept my apologies for the edit. I had to stop editing for almost a week, just to try to improve my perspective here. Take care. Scott P. (talk) 11:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red Link Recovery[edit]

Hello. As a German-speaking WikiGnome, I'd like to solicit your help in testing a new tool. For a few years now, the Red Link Recovery Project has been using the Red Link Recovery Live tool to track down and fix unnecessarily red links in articles. Recently, the tool has been expanded to work on non-English Wikipedias. A small set of suggested fixes for red-links on the German-language Wikipedia have been prepared and I'm hoping to interest some German-language speakers (such as yourself) to work through them.

If you are interested, please visit http://toolserver.org/~tb/RLRL/quick.php?lang=de. Each time you refresh the page you'll be presented with three new suggested fixes. I'll be happy to answer any questions on the tools talk page. - TB (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid Sexuality Scale[edit]

I sent this article to AFD. I know we dont canvass, but since you mentioned on the talk page that you dont think its notable, i am alerting you incase you arent "watching" it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]