User talk:Mantanmoreland

• /Archive1: January 2006 - February 2006 (mainly a heated dialogue on short-selling that I'm tired of looking at).

The Nation

[copied]
Hope you're enjoying Romania. I actually have relatives there but have never been.

Anyway, on the talk page of The Nation magazine there is a renewed discussion on this left vs. liberal issue to which you contributed a while back, in case you have a sec to weigh in.--Mantanmoreland 19:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
[end copied]

Thanks, I put in my 2 cents. I'm barely on Wikipedia right now and may not be for another month or more, so I greatly appreciate it when people "ping" me on things like this. - Jmabel | Talk 06:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I've clarified my vote to indicate I prefer left-liberal, by the way.--Mantanmoreland 14:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Neighborhood boundaries

Sorry, I'm afraid I don't have a good source on that. I live in Queens, so most of what I do on that topic is from my own knowledge, but I've found that finding neighborhood info is somewhat difficult for Staten Island, Brooklyn, and the Bronx. (Manhattan is Manhattan, so of course it's adequately covered; Queens is much more defined by its neighborhoods than the other boroughs, so such information as neighborhood boundaries is more important for residents of that borough and thus is more easily found.) In any case, as I'm sure you know, "boundaries" are more often than not vague and ambiguous and are hardly ever "official." Having noted the Fordham article's lack of sources, as well as various maps I've seen online (e.g., at New York League of Conservative Voters, NYC Dept of City Planning [1][2]), it looks as if maybe someone looked at the placement of the labels "Fordham" and "Bedford Park" and judged 196th Street to be the boundary from its median position. Since you have knowledge of the area, I'd just suggest that you change the article, asserting your experience of the area, and explaining your reasoning to anyone who objects. — Larry V (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Norwood-205th Street

Well, you must have seen the cream of the crop of the NYC subway articles, since (in my opinion) most of them are very inadequate; most station articles were copied off of nycsubway.org. I'm working on them, though. I do agree that a few of the articles (New York City Subway, Times Square-42nd Street, to name two) are quite well done.

About Norwood-205th Street: One of the things that vexes me immensely is the MTA's lack of true "official" nomenclature. For instance, one would think that it would use the same station name whenever it refers to a particular station, but this is far from the truth. The Map says "Norwood–205 St," but many route info signs in Template:NYCS D stations say "To 205 St all times," and unless they've changed it very recently, the signage in the station itself declares it to be "205 Street Station." I've found this to be situation for most terminal stations that the MTA has prefixed neighborhood names for. For example:

• Harlem-148th Street (IRT Lenox Avenue Line) is signed "148th Street–Lenox Terminal"
• Wakefield-241st Street (IRT White Plains Road Line) is simply "241st Street"
• Jamaica-179th Street (IND Queens Boulevard Line) is just "179th Street" (even on the relatively new ADA-compliant elevators)
• Ozone Park-Lefferts Boulevard (IND Fulton Street Line) is signed just "Lefferts Boulevard"
• Inwood-207th Street (IND Eighth Avenue Line) is just "207th Street"
• Bay Ridge-95th Street (BMT Fourth Avenue Line) is simply "95th Street"
• Eastchester-Dyre Avenue (IRT Dyre Avenue Line) is "Dyre Avenue"
• Long Island City-Court Square (IND Crosstown Line) is nothing more than "Court Square"
• Crown Heights-Utica Avenue (IRT Eastern Parkway Line) is signed "Utica Avenue"

Fewer are actually signed with the neighborhood names (e.g., Main Street-Flushing (IRT Flushing Line), Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue, Ditmars Boulevard-Astoria (BMT Astoria Line), Far Rockaway-Mott Avenue (IND Rockaway Line), Rockaway Park-Beach 116th Street (IND Rockaway Line), Jamaica Center-Parsons/Archer (Archer Avenue Line)).

For article titles I prefer to go with the most commonly used variant of the name (in this case, "Norwood–205th Street"), but in the infobox and within the article itself, I lean towards using the name signed in the station itself ("205th Street"). In cases where the signage and the common name are equivalent ... well, there aren't any problems there, obviously.

— Larry V (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic people

Hello, thank you for voting there is a discussion at the +cats Category talk:Anti-Semitic people talk page. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 20:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind suggestion that I change my vote. The vote to keep is prevailing thus far 34-35 to 24, so my vote wouldn't matter much. I think that the potential for abuse of these categories as User:Kasreyn pointed out are reason enough to leave my vote as it is. I do think that there are people that should be in this category, however. Hitler is one of these obviously. I think that Ku Klux Klansmen should be put into it. I just think that the jury is still out on Luther. I am opposed to anti-Semitism. I like the Jewish religion and tradition, and perhaps I should be a little more concerned about anti-semitic writing over the years. If it comes up for a vote again in the future I will simply abstain perhaps, deferring to my Wikipeers who have seen fit to retain it. Thank you for your clear thinking and advice. All the best, --Drboisclair 01:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Just remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy. My understanding is that admins are not required to go by literal vote tallies, and are allowed to give "more weight" to opinions they feel are better put. In general, those who put forward a consistent and rational defense of their position are given greater weight than those who simply say "keep" or "delete" and move on. Best wishes, Kasreyn 22:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This was my response to your comment on my talk page: It was a difficult personal struggle for me as a Lutheran and a Luther scholar. It is always difficult when our "heroes" are found to have feet of clay and black eyes. I reacted subjectively and not with the objectivity of the scholastic. --Drboisclair 14:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see my latest addition to the talk page of this category. I think that you very well understand me as a reformed edit warrior, because that is what I have been. I have also posted the note onto Doright's page. It's time to let bygones be bygones. Take care,--Drboisclair 21:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read my comments too -- you have my admiration.--Mantanmoreland 02:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Your kind word and Wikifriendship

My good Wikifriend and fellow editor, thankyou for your kind words. I have not been very successful through life financially, and I have not been able to secure a graduate doctorate, which I think I have the competence for: I may apply for admission to my seminary's doctoral propram since there is a new Director of Graduate Studies there. That having been said, I have to say that it is kind wishes of my Wikipeers like you that make me feel like my life has been worthwhile. I know that this sounds a bit over the top, but when you reach 50 years old the goals that you had in life when you were 21 begin to fade. In short, thank you. I think that the heated debates on this website help us meet new friends. I now think that I have some very warm Wikifriendships now. CTS, StanZegel, you, Archola, Kasreyn are folks that the Wikicyberspace has put the old boy in touch with. I look forward to exciting online give and take.--Drboisclair 13:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What is helpful in meeting new friends is to get new perspectives. As far as Luther is concerned someone with his graduate masters from Concordia Seminary may not read or hear too much about what scholars on antisemitism are saying about Luther. This, I think, is why my stance was so unbelievable to someone like Slim Virgin, who is more well-read in contemporary non-fiction than I am, and can see the universality in which contemporary authors find Luther to be an antisemitic person. With Slim's dedication to NPOV this can be the only explanation. In your coming on the scene with Kasreyn, you have been able to put a "kindlier, gentler" face on this matter. For me, JPGordon's views were also decisive. CTSWyneken and myself have really had a crash course on Luther and antisemitism. We have been hitting the books. It has been a growing experience in more ways than one! I wanted you to know all of this. Sorry for the length.--Drboisclair 13:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Pelham Parkway, IRT Dyre Avenue Line station

Hey, I figured since you've lived in the Bronx, you could answer me this trivial question. What neighborhood would you consider Pelham Parkway (IRT Dyre Avenue Line) station to be in? It is located at Pelham Parkway and Williamsbridge Road (MapQuest map). I'm thinking Morris Park, but I'm not sure, being more of a Queens guy myself. Thanks in advance. — Larry V (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the basic impression I got, that it was kind of on a boundary, but I wasn't sure. Thanks! — Larry V (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad the Anti-Semite

Thank you for your comment on my talkpage... What should be an obvious fact for any rational person is somehow "controversial" for some islamic apologist Wikipedia editors --FairNBalanced 19:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, MM. FYI, Sarastro777 violated 3RR (as well as many other WP:RULES) and is banned for 24hrs. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Marble Hill

I had the impression that Marble Hill was simply part of the Bronx in a physical sense, but still part of Manhattan and New York County. Maybe it should be mentioned that it's the only part of Manhattan on the mainland though. — Larry V (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, it's probably too minor of an issue to mention on that particular page. — Larry V (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for comments

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. This issue is currently being discussed at WP:ANI#User:Israel shamir - anti-semitism and personal attacks.Timothy Usher 06:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Miscarriage of justice

This whole FNB business seems to be just an opportunity for certain editors to congratulate themselves for being so tolerant and compassionate in theory by being intolerant and uncompassionate in practice. It's patheitc that wikipedia editors trip over one another to enforce taboos on pigs and the purportedly sacred character of Arabic script.Timothy Usher 14:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

It's not just Ahmadinejad supporters who translate it differently. I've cleaned up the text to make it more factual. In the end, it's a rather silly debate; whether he said that Israel needs to be "eliminated" or "wiped off" or "wiped away" from the "map" or "pages of history", it all means the same thing. These tiny quibbles over words show that the translators themselves are ignoring the real issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No doubt it is too long. The section is a summary, so the whole thing should be smaller. The problem is, Ahmadinejad apologists keep finding it, and not liking what they see, so they then insert various defenses of him into it. Another thing that needs fixing is that people keep trying to conflate his Holocaust denial with his calls to destroy Israel, as if they were the same thing. The Holocaust material in the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel article needs to be moved to an Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Holocaust denial article. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"Well I yanked the Holocaust stuff out of the Israel section." I'm not sure what you mean by that. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Good job, but somebody immediately messed it up again. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of section title: "Relationship between religious and racial anti-Semitism"

Please take a look [3]. --Doright 19:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mantanmoreland, lenght of what?--Doright 20:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mantanmoreland, "Who is on first." ;) I think we have some confusion here. I'm not sure we are talking about the same "it." I am referring to a title. What are you referring to when you say, "it seemed at first blush to be a bit long?" The "it" I'm looking at is only 6 words. --Doright 20:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Iranian Wikipedians' notice board

It is indeed an unabashed vote-stacking and revert-solicitation system, which is, sadly, a rule rather than an exception on Wikipedia. However, the treatement of such projects depends on their political orientation. Conservative noticeboartd was speedily deleted and protected among the calls "salt the earth!" An attempt to delete the LGBT notice board went nowhere. Thus, I doubt that anything could be done to the Iranians' page. Pecher ^Talk 06:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of the situation is that a notice board will hardly be assailable if it is devoted to a certain encyclopedic topic. I'm not sure that a "tolerance" notice board will qualify as such. Pecher ^Talk 11:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at Wikipedia:Regional_notice_boards. For some reason, these are deemed acceptable, and of course, LGBT notice board is also beyond criticism. Upon reflection, I must say that Wikipedia:Jewish_wikipedians_notice_board may be worth a try, even though screams of a "cabal" will become even louder. Pecher ^Talk 12:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to talk awhile responding, I've been busy with other things. Pecher is right, on all counts.

Stop by my talk page anytime..Timothy Usher 06:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

83.91.187.9 at Mahmoud Ahmedinejad

I'm not sure what can be done with this IP editor any more. He's set on reverting to his version, and seems impervious to the content policies, insisting that he must publish "the truth" instead (as he sees it). The current version gives a nice chronological listing of events, and I can't see what else to do at this point but revert him. Do you have any ideas? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind e-mailing me? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)