User talk:RichardWeiss/Archivehistory

If you want to find some historical talk please go here and use Ctrl F but be warned its a huge archive page and may mess with your web browser.

This user is not an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

Haile Selassie

Greetings, there is a user who has been edit-warring and now arguing on my talkpage that Mengistu Haile Mariam should be listed in the boc as the "successor" (de facto) to H.I.M. Haile Selassie I. This is of course legally and factually incorrect both from the Imperial Constitution POV, but also from the opposing POV of Marxism, which is why the Marxist Derg never proclaimed Mengistu as a "successor" to His Majesty. Besides, if anything, you'd think Teferi Banta might have been called His Majesty's immediate successor from the Derg POV. Regards, Til Eulenspiegel 14:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think its been fixed, if you think otherwise give me a shout, SqueakBox 20:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image

The image I changed on your user page was a fair use image. They are not allowed on user pages. However, I tried to leave a link and something that looked decent enough. If you would like, I can play around with the box a little more to change it if you don't like it. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I removed the entire image, fair use is important, SqueakBox 19:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo nui... that works too. --Ali'i 20:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

PJ

I think you have a misunderstanding of the BLP policy. It does not apply to neutral information, such as a famous person's name. It applies to poorly sourced, or unreliably sourced negative information. When a piece of information is sourced by MSNBC, New York Times, and Rolling Stone that establishes both notability and reliability. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes but how does it help the article to include the information and how does it hurt it to exclude it. Surely BLP is also about taking the subject's views into consideration and Xavier has made it clear to me in a private email (and I know it is him) he doesn't want his birth name included. So it is not an RS issue but it is a notability issue (and I others dont think this info is notable enough for inclusion, SqueakBox 23:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It helps the article by establishing the name of the director of the organization. As for notability, the fact that it was covered by the NY Times, MSNBC, and Rolling stone, as well as dozens of other sources, is clear proof that it is notable. As for what Xavier sent you in a private email, is irrelevant. If he has a problem with it, he can contact the Wikimedia Foundation. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and as such it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic."

This kind of sums up why this info should not be included. I am not interestsed in back-door deals re this issue and certainly dispute that the subject's views are of no importance tot he editors of the article. Merely because something is in the NYT etc does not mean we have to include it or indeed that the information is notable enough for our purposes. I certainly agree we need to recognise the founders but we have done that in my version too as Xavier is clearly identified by his legal name. Unless there is a serious reason for this inclusion (ie that it makes the atrticle better) it should be removed, and as Xavier is clearly identified already by his legal name and has never publicly been known by the birth name its incvlusion does not make for a better article nor its inclusion for a worse article. This is not a conservatively written sentence, its a radical, sensationalist sentence, SqueakBox 00:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

He is a public figure. The paragraphs you cite do not apply...the information is well sourced, not unencyclopedic, neutral, and on topic. It does no harm, it is not sensationalist, it is not a "titillating claim", and there is no good reason to exclude it. It makes the article more complete. It fits in with our other articles on people who have changed their names: we use their original names too. It does not matter what is currently his legal name. We are not writing this article for him. We are writing it for the user who is reading this and wants to know more about PJ and its founder. And we're using the information given to us by some of the most notable of all sources. This information BENEFITS the article.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to bed for the night, we can continue this tomorrow. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I'm going off now too. Cheers, SqueakBox 01:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

While I think that it's poetic justice to have his personal information on the Web, that's no way to make decisions about what goes in an encyclopedia. The standard you propose above, SqueakBox, seems to me to be higher than the current community consensus standard for such an inclusion. While I disagree with your view that BLP tells us we mustn't have his name in the article, I can see an argument being made about whether it adds to the article. Ordinarily, in an encyclopedia, when the real name of a person who uses an alias is known, it is reported. In this case, what harm is the inclusion doing to someone who has sought and courted media interest and publicity for his project for years? On the other hand, what contribution is the information making to the article? These are primarily, to my mind, editing questions, not questions of BLP. Could mediation, a third opinion, or a request for comment help move the article past the impasse? --Ssbohio 03:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Work took me longer than I thought, now I'm headed to bed. Ssbohio, yes I agree, so long as a fair and random supply of reviewers get brought in. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Necesito ayuda con la clase española

I'm taking my first Spanish class in college and I was wondering if you'd be at all interested in conversing with me, in simple form, to improve my skill? --Ssbohio 03:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Tal vez, SqueakBox 19:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Pero no se comop conversariamos y yo, como los hablan espanol; como nativos, lo hablo bastante rapido a pesar de mi acento gringo, SqueakBox 18:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the gist of it is that I won't like it because you speak Spanish fast enough (quickly?), unimpeded by your foreign accent. Am I close? --Ssbohio 01:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

Why do you have such a huge talk page archive? Wouldn't it be easier to split it up into sections of 20, 25, or 30 headings? —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope cos I use a search buttion to search and searching 10 archives ior whatever would be tedious in the extreme. I used to have an enormous talk page but was eventually persuaded to archive it. I have no intention of making more than 1 archive page, we should be designing wikipedia for computyer friendliness and I think the current archive policy, which makes search well nigh impossible, is what needs changing as search buttons like big pages, SqueakBox 19:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I figure that its not fair to make my talk page huge because people use it whereas my archive is only occasionally used so it seems fair enough to me, SqueakBox 18:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Volcano Vaporizer

In view of your many edits to the Cannabis (drug) article, you may be interested in participating at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volcano Vaporizer. Thank you. -- Jreferee T/C 16:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

I owe you a big thank you for supporting me in My RfA, which was successful with 67 supports and 20 opposes. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Chris Langham

Many people have strong feelings about him but this does not mean that we should expose Wikipedia to a possible libel action. Langham, through his lawyer, made a statement stating he was not a paedophile but trying to purge his own demons. Neither the professional assessors who saw him pre-sentence nor the judge who sentenced him expressed the opinion that he was a paedophile.He was convicted of downloading child pornography: this is an offence, whatever the reason behind it (clinical research, curiousity, prurience etc). It is not necessary to spell these things out: people will form (and have formed) their own judgement. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 18:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've posted this to Talk:Chris Langham#"Convicted paedophile". If you think a response is appropriate, that's probably the best place for it. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 18:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Unacceptable edit

I see this as destructive behavior that can affect other editors, Wikipedia, and people that read Wikipedia. I suggest that you refrain from editing pedophilia-related articles. A.Z. 06:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It isnt acceptable to either claim my attempts at NPOVing a totally disputed article are destructive let alone that, in your opinion, I should desist from editing pedophile related articles. Check the history of the PPA article for some background on the endless socks of banned users that have made the article into such a POV mess but do not tell me what articles you think I can or cannot edit, especially given I am a regular editor and mature adult (what we in English call a grown-up) with substantial experience on the project not some newbie who doesn't know what he is doing. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe people don't access Wikipedia's articles interested in your rants. That page shouldn't be protected: you were the one causing trouble and you should be the one blocked, so people who are interested in writing an encyclopedia can edit the page. That you are a regular editor is yet another reason why your edit was so incredibly unacceptable: you certainly had a lot of time to learn how to write a decent article. If after 30,000 edits you weren't able to do it, I feel other editors have no reason to keep trying to teach you while you disrupt Wikipedia like that. Your comments on your alleged maturity, your comment regarding your age, your comment on experience on the project, and you teling me that I don't know what I'm doing and that I'm a newbie all back up my feeling that you should be banned. It's people like you that make Wikipedia not so great. The next time you add something like that to an article, I will ask an administrator to block you. A.Z. 21:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You are just demonstrating your bad faith and if continuie like this you are likely to be the one to be blocked. Admins do not block people for disagreeing with you and given you havent made a single constructive point I assume your comments to be pure trolling from a user who appears not to understand good faith. I'l,l be keeping a good eye on your edits from now on, now please leave my talk page in peace. I certainlyu did not say you were a newbie and have already checked out your edit count etc.. To accuse me of causing the page lock is plain silly, check the 3rr page and the admins comments for an understanding of why the page was actuially locked, but then empty acusations filled with seething anger apear to be your speciality. Any further atempts to write top me here on this subject will be treated as hostile as you have shown a serious lack of good faith. if you wish to edit the pedophile article like anyone else you are welcome to do so, if you just want to block users who disagree with you you are in the wrong place, while if you think you can iontimidate me with your bad faith rant you have chosen the wrong person to troll, SqueakBox 21:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll preface this by saying that some of my differences with SqueakBox run so deep that a week's work with a shovel wouldn't fully unearth them, but, in other areas, he & I are on the same page. So, take this for what it's worth:

SqueakBox edits the lede to begin Pro-pedophile activism or Pro-paedophile activism (Commonwealth usage) encompasses pro-pedophile organizations and activists that argue for certain changes of criminal laws and cultural response in order to allow pedophiles to abuse children. The obverse movement is anti-pedophile activism, which aims to protect children from predatory pedophiles. Much as I sympathize with his sentiments, such emotionally-charged terminology is sure to generate more heat than light. It doesn't sound like a neutral approach to the subject (and the subject doesn't sound neutral to begin with, but that's a separate matter).

Instead, try this on for size: Pro-pedophile activism or Pro-paedophile activism (Commonwealth usage) encompasses pro-pedophile organizations and activists that argue for certain changes of criminal laws and cultural response in order to remove barriers to what they see as sexual freedom and youth liberation but what the vast majority define as child sexual abuse. The counter-movement is anti-pedophile activism, which acts to further what it sees as protecting children from predatory pedophiles, but what pedophile groups have viewed as harassment, intimidation, and entrapment.

Is that language less strident regarding pedophiles? Of course. Is that a problem? I think not. The vast majority of us already know that in Western culture, an adult having sex with a child is a form of abuse, without needing to be told. Sometimes it's better to neutralize the emotional appeal in the language when it's clear that the message has already come through loud and clear. No one is going to read the second version of the lede and suddenly reverse their thinking about pedophilia. The same change of tone can be applied to the rest of the edits, as well. --Ssbohio 02:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ssbohio, I do not see how an adult having sex with a child is necessarily a form of abuse. I realize that people can abuse children, and adults, and old people, and I find any form of sexual abuse repulsive, including that of children, but children certainly don't dislike all things sexual, and they could, I think, find someone older than them to be sexually attractive.

SqueakBox, I think I was too disturbed by your edit, and it made me see you as an evil person that should be banned from here. I made up my mind, and every time I thought of trying to converse with you, I remembered of your edit and I thought that the kind of people that inserts without any sources, nor consensus, their own personal opinion, and an attack, in the introduction of an article, being an experienced user, was someone with whom there was nothing else to be talked. Being capable of writing "falling in the hands of pedophiles" after 33,000 edits made me think you were a lost case. You were, to me, using Wikipedia as your soapbox, and I was sorry that other editors had to deal with what I thought was such an obvious disruption from an established editor that had years to learn that what he was doing is wrong. I am not sure now whether I was right about you being evil. I am sorry for the way I acted, and I hope you forgive me for accusing you of being destructive, and suggesting your block, without even hearing what you had to say about the matter first. A.Z. 02:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ssbohio, I appreciate the suggestion. Here's my two cents on the matter:

The majority of users working on editing the article have actually agreed on the version of the introduction that exists now. You might want to offer your input on the current version of the intro, which reads, in part: Pro-pedophile activism or Pro-paedophile activism (Commonwealth usage) encompasses pro-pedophile organizations and activists that argue for certain changes of criminal laws and cultural response associated with pedophiles and adult-minor sexual relations.... Some pro-pedophile activists advocate social acceptance of adult sexual attraction to minors and legalization of adult-minor sexual activity, which is currently defined as child sexual abuse. The movement stands in contrast to anti-pedophile activism, which aims to uphold and apply more rigorously current laws.

I think this version does a good job of briefly laying out the subject of the article while remaining neutral. I think it's best to save a more detailed description of the views for later in the article, where they can be explained better. I think if we try to go into too much detail in describing the views of both sides, as it were, in the introduction, we risk distorting and oversimplifying them (for instance, it's not only pedophile groups that consider some aspects of anti-pedophile activism to be entrapment).

Let me know if you think the current version of the introduction is a good solution. Mike D78 04:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)