User talk:Jersyko/archive3: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:48, 4 February 2006

Click here to post a new message thread at the bottom of the page.
Please sign your posts (you can do so with ~~~~)
I reserve the right to delete posts without a signature

Archived Comments, January - May 2005

Archived Comments, May - September 2005

Myfortress

Why are you removing all the links to myfortress.org? Articles are allowed to have external links that are critical of the article. These pages simply list quotations by the individuals. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-1 23:10

We worry about the verifiability of our articles, not of other sites. External links are allowed to be controversial. Just look at a controversial article, you'll see external links split into two different categories (pro and con). The sites are unlikely to be very factual in either case, and more likely to spout opinions, but they are still allowed to be external links. In any case, the Myfortress site lists numerous quotations by the individuals, which can be useful. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-2 04:32

Adrian

Oh, I am sure the hulabaloo will be tremendous... and I would just like to point out that wikipedia was one of the first internationally read website to break the news. :-P -Dozenist 15:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I was wondering what was up with the sigs as well. -Dozenist 17:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful. The sigs work great now. -Dozenist talk 00:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Rogers

Why are you insisting on including reference to a one-time "slavery" comment that was obviously taken out of context? That does not at all define who Adrian Rogers was, as all that knew him can attest. If this reference has to be included, there should be a reference to a rebuttal as well. - 70.60.86.45 (unsigned anon)

I responded on your talk page, but i'll reproduce my response here:

Hi, thanks for your comment. While I did not add the slavery quote to the Adrian Rogers article in the first place, I do think, after some consideration, it belongs in the article. While the quote is taken out of context, as quotes often are, I think the contextual issue as it has been presented is not very relevant, as I explain on the article's talk page.

I am all for offering evidence in the article that Dr. Rogers was not, in fact, a racist or a supporter of slavery. I think the article does indicate, in the sentence following the slavery quote, that Dr. Rogers was not a racist or a slavery supporter, but more could be added. I'm vaguely familiar with a story about when Dr. Rogers was fairly new at Bellevue and told some deacons, who were contemplating not allowing African-Americans to join the church, that he would resign in protest if they decided to ban blacks from the church. I would love to see something about this in the article, assuming that it's true and a source for the story can be found. If you can find verification for this story, and can add something in the article about it in a neutral point of view manner, I, among other editors, would welcome such an addition, i'm sure. - Jersyko talk 22:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. In response to Dr. Rogers comments about resigning if the church didn't allow African-Americans to join, I have heard as well. I will try to obtain a quote from an eyewitness to the incident. (Sorry if I didn't respond in the correct manner on editing this page, but I am obviously new here.) - 70.60.86.45 (unsigned anon)

Tooth development

Why thankyou for your comments on the article. To adequately cover the topic, as I am sure you would guess, the article needs to be a lot longer, and the use of these pictures will be very helpful. But it is going to have to be something that develops over time. Histology is not my favorite topic (as I am sure that is how it is with most people), and so hopefully I can overcome my distaste for it and keep editing. As with the tooth enamel article, you just let me know if there are any confusing statements, and you are always welcome to edit my work... we are on wikipedia, you know. -Dozenist talk 02:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a couple of days. I'll let you know when. There are just some minor things I want done before it being sent to peer review. -Dozenist talk 00:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but I think this means someone is translating the tooth development article into Japanese. - Dozenist talk 15:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Profane, Insulting Entry

Please remove the redirect you put up for co#! su!@^$^>" fa)#!^

I am sorry someone called you that, but it still doesn't make that established English. If a term is not yet established in the English language, it doesn't merit a page here. thanks. Jazz1979 19:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about, I have certainly not created any insulting articles with profanity in them (or redirects for that matter). Take a look at my contributions if you aren't convinced. You must have the wrong person, please make sure you get your facts straight next time, or you might wind up falsely accusing a user of something he or she didn't do again. - Jersyko talk 20:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, i think i know what you're talking about, this redirect, perhaps? I did my best to explain why I made the redirect in my edit summary, but it seems you weren't persuaded. I meant no offense by creating the redirect, and I'm dismayed that you took offense as such. However, please realize that the article is about the slang use of the word "faggot", and the redirect is a somewhat common, albeit derogatory, slang use of the same word (like i said, a vandal used the term on my talk page and created a dead wikilink to the phrase, prompting me, before deleting said phrase from my talk page, to go ahead and make the redirect). I think the redirect is appropriate, given the subject matter of the article. If you diagree, nominate it for deletion and we'll determine this by consensus of editors. Thanks. - Jersyko talk 21:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Buchanan

Young Man,

If there is some reason you feel that the edits on Mr. Buchanan are inaccurate, then you are invited to correct the facts.

However--reversion to a previous version--which erases ALL edits--effectively categorizes said updates as 'vandalism', as I believe the convention goes in this forum.

I've seen Roy; I knew Roy; I feel as much a guardian of his talent as you. So kindly do not--IMO--abuse the privelege afforded to us in upholding his memory. Feel free to truly EDIT. I can take it.

Many thanks!

--A 50 year old AOL member; guitarist for 42 years. Buchanan fan. - added by 152.163.100.8

This is a response to your message on my talk page about the Roy Buchanan article. I would like to direct your attention to the following Wikipedia policies: no original research and neutral point of view. While several of your edits could probably be a nice addition to the article if rewritten, the edits contained (1) ebulliant praise for Mr. Buchanan and (2) your personal impression of his work. I hope you see how these edits are not in the spirit of neutral point of view and no original research. I would ask that you rewrite your edits to the article keeping these policies in mind and remove any edits that you added that you do not believe can conform to the policies. Also, I would invite you to consider that many Wikipedians are neither young nor male when interacting with other users. - Jersyko talk 04:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No sir;

I present FACTUAL information, not impressions. It is, of course, YOUR privilege to edit --edit NOT erase entire contributions-- sections you feel are 'non neutral'.

I cite some examples that apparently led you to waste my time and discount an authoritative voice wantonly, IMO:

1) There is no evidence that the Rollings Stones EVER made an offer to Buchanan to join. At best, one may charitably call it 'alleged', as stated; 2) The TV show did NOT lead to a recording contract with Polydor. Buchanan was already UNDER contract to Polydor; had delivered an album of tracks BEFORE the show that was produced by Charlie Daniels--and was rejected by the label. Thus I 'neutrally' stated this as 'rejuvenated'; 3) It is stated explicitly from witnesses, as reported in AMERICAN AXE that Mr. Buchanan sustain injuries that could not be attributed to suicide, hence my addendum there. 4) Buchanan commonly told others (I heard it; and it is also indepndently reported in AMERICAN AXE-- that the Snakestretchers was a band name parody with a ribald allusion.

Do you want me to cite others?

If you wish to WRITE history that's fine. But don't pretend that you are in a position to Re-WRITE history.

I invite you to edit. Now the second said invitation so proffered.

Regards,

BUCK fan - 205.188.116.8

I think, perhaps, that I was not as clear as I could have been in my response. Allow me to try again. I do not dispute the factual accuracy of what you have added to the article, nor do I accept what you have added as factual, either. The historical fact or fiction of what you have added is not the issue. The issue is that your additions to the article are presented (1) with nothing but praise for Mr. Buchanan (note the numerous use of adjectives in your edit, which is something that Wikipedia generally discourages because of the neutral point of view policy) and (2) as your own first hand impression of his music and person. Again, I invite you to take a look at these two policies and decide for yourself whether your edits adhere to the spirit of both. I do not mean to discourage your participation in Wikipedia, quite the opposite, I hope that you take a look at these and other Wikipedia policies and continue to develop as a contributor to this great resource. Thanks. - Jersyko talk 16:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This assertion is spurious: If I am presenting FACTUAL information, then how is FACT to be construed PURELY as SUBJECTIVE PRAISE? The failing sir, is, IMO, in your understanding of the nature of the contribution.

You are allowed at any time to remove purely subjective material. The fact that you have not done so with the extant page indicates , IMO, your unwillingness to make your point in a valid way. I believe that your point lacks validity, ergo you fail to correct and instruct.

I note, quite compellingly, that you have failed to justify the reversion of the page. I presume this is because there does not exist a valid justification, and, IMO, such a decision was arbitrary. I do not presume it was intended to be capricious.

Go edit.

Regards. - 205.188.116.8

Please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. You continue to invite me to edit, yet you have added the praising, original research material back into the article in nearly identical fashion three times now. I have only reverted it once, another user reverted it another time, and, as of right now, the material remains in the article. I am certainly able to edit what you have written, and may do so. My ability to edit what you have written, however, does not excuse you from adherence to the two relevant policies, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, in your edits. Again, I encourage you to continue editing on Wikipedia, and also to continue to grow as an editor by reading about and adhering to these policies. - Jersyko talk 17:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to abide by the rules. You continue to assert that I have NOT done so. That is by no means evident. In fact, as best as I can tell, your statement is false. I request that you do not present an opinion as a fact. Thus, I invite you here, to take, say --3-- examples of my added text that you assert does not abide by said rules. Let's discuss them here. - 205.188.116.8

Here are some examples that I see just after a quick glance: "a lively but fizzled effort to meet the quixotic pop market" (makes a value judgment as to the effort and the nature of the market); "he took a typical, if stereotyped, 'country' instrument and taught it to rock and cry the blues" (this is an example of original research, your firsthand opinion or observation, as well as POV); "Buchanan had the extraordinary ability . . ." (value judgment as to the ability, this type of observation appears many times in the article); "Regrettably, the smaller venues made Buchanan less accessible, although many of the live CD's after his death capture the unusual and electric excitement of his talent." (makes value judgments as to "regrattability" and his talent). Let me emphasize that I think much of the substance of what you have added to the article could certainly be a welcome addition, provided that NOR and NPOV are adhered to. Thanks. - Jersyko talk 17:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, this is an extraordinary example of self-interpretation and pedantry.

No; your opinions here do not constitute fact. It is remarkable how your opinion is at odds with other other extant entries. Examples...look at 1)Jimi Hendrix; Eric Clapton; Dick Dale; and so on.

You captured my attention. However, I leave you with the opinion that your concerns are not valid.

Next time you take an extreme measure, think before you act. A piece of sound advice.

Regards, 64.12.116.8

I also regret that you've chosen to disregard Wikipedia policy, attack my opinion as completely invalid, and respond to my suggestions with mere empty rhetoric instead of endeavoring to adhere to Wikipedia policy. I offered substantive constructive criticism, and you have proffered no response other than to call everything I have said "invalid" and to personally attack me. If the other articles you have cited do, in fact, contain similar passages, they should also be edited to conform to the policy, but that is irrelevant to the question of whether your edits conform to that policy. I assume the user that left the above note is the same one that I have been dealing with in regard to the Roy Buchanan article, though the constantly changing IP addresses might mean that my assumption is false. In either event, such empty, rhetorical attacks on what I have said have no place on Wikipedia, or, I would offer, in other realms of life. - Jersyko talk 19:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

      -------------------------------------------------------------------

I regret that you do not understand that your interpretation lacks validity.

I also note that you fail to understand the distinction betwen a personal attack--that is, defamation and libel--from an **opinion** in which your COMMENTS are disputed.

- Examples

Specific examples of personal attack include but are not limited to:

Accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll", or "Jane is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom. Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life." Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. Religious epithets are not allowed even if the contributor is a member of a purported cult. Using someone's political affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said political affilitions are mainstream or extreme. Profanity directed against another contributor. Threats of legal action Death threats. Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time which may be applied immediately by any sysop upon discovery. Sysops applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and Jimbo Wales of what they have done and why. **

I have made no personal attacks.

If I meant to defame you I would have done so.

I again state the opinion that your interpretation of the NPOV rules lack validity in this case.

But I AM amused: and that is a fact.

Cheers! - unsigned anon

Please sign your post with this: ~~~~. Your continued insistence that my opinion is flatly invalid (without responding to my reasoning) as well as such statements as "think before you act" (implying that I have not thought in this instance) are borderline attacks on my person instead of attacks on my reasoning or, as you put it, my "opinion." Please rip my reasoning to shreds with arguments of your own, but I suggest that you not simply state that my opinion is invalid without supporting arguments. Regardless, this discussion over whether you have personally attacked me is a red herring - the real issue here is adherence to the two relevant policies, NPOV and NOR. It might be wise for us, at this juncture, to get an administrator or other seasoned editor involved so that our conversations on this subject can remain focused. - Jersyko talk 22:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see why that is an issue: I am certainly happy to have neutral parties get involved, just as I have been happy to see any edits on the material. You have not executed ANY edits; you have assumed that I either have the full clarity to have anticipated said edits--or are unwilling (which is not the case). It is also salient to note that my contributions have not been edited in the last week, while they have been viewed by many. In other words: there has been ample opportunity for the editing process, yet no one has felt it necessary to do so.

However--

You have, IMO, abused this forum by making an allegation that I have PERSONALLY ATTACKED YOU. This has been made demonstrably false: In fact, I have made no such statement(s) that give false nor malicious expression against your person. You have failed to provide evidence for such. I have consistently pointed out, that as my OPINION, your STATEMENTS are the issue.

To wit: a person is not a statement.

Yes; I would welcome some further opinions. And if I disagree based upon compelling reasons I present as justified, I will continue to edit --as is the intent of this forum.

I continue to invite you to EDIT--although you have failed to do so on the article.

Cheers, - unsigned anon

I will delete any further posts without a signature, simply type this at the end of your posts: ~~~~. If you feel i have abused Wikipedia or its policies in any way, as you continue to insist with appropriate accomanying rhetoric, I invite you to contact an administrator and alert him or her to my conduct. I have not edited the article because I simply do not know the subject-matter well enough to do so without a decent amount of research. I am certain, however, that some of your edits violate WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and I've already (1) pointed out specific instances of these edits and (2) pointed out which policies they violate. Your response included one reasonable argument, that other articles also violate these policies (an argument that, as i pointed out above, has no bearing on whether your edits should or do adhere to these policies), and a lot of rhetoric to the effect of my opinion being "invalid" and telling me to "think before you act." Once again, the issue is whether your edits adhere to these policies, I would prefer to stick to this issue. I've pointed out multiple instances of how your edits violate these policies. How, exactly, could the phrase "Regrettably, the smaller venues made Buchanan less accessible, although many of the live CD's after his death capture the unusual and electric excitement of his talent" and others like it POSSIBLY be written from an entirely neutral point of view????? I invite you, again, to read the relevant policy statements. - Jersyko talk 02:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have invited comment on the Roy Buchanan talk page. I would prefer that this discussion, if it is to continue, continue there. - Jersyko talk 02:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Memphis, Tennessee

Hey, Jersyko... Glad to hear positive feedback on my article revisions. I'm slowly working on individual neighborhood articles, too, for at least those areas with which I'm more familiar. Cordova, Germantown, and Cooper-Young have been easiest so far, but I'm hoping to get something to help out the Midtown article, too. — ArkansasTraveler 18:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thin Skin

You flatter yourself if you think that I have read rather than skimmed your talk pages. A quick scan revealed that you are somewhat thin skinned and I suppose I'll have to leave it at. Albatross2147 04:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I shouldn't make assumptions about your reading skills, please forgive me. Since you are a large bird, however, I thought your efforts would have to be a bit more focused than they apparently were. - Jersyko talk 05:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De minimis and Albatross

Uncivil... yeah, that about sums it up. An RfC might not be out of place if he keeps harassing you. Right now, considering we didn't actually fail to resolve the dispute, an RfC probably would be removed. I've added Albatross to Wikiquette alerts, so I'm hoping we can get some more outside views. You've been holding up pretty well under the pressure; just keep being civil towards Albatross, and this is sure to turn out in your favor. Deltabeignet 22:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the abramoff thing

is over I didn't know I was crewing up the article and when I did I apologized.

69.111.90.47 05:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames for Memphis, Tennessee

Nickname for Memphis Is not Southwest of the star or whatever else is on there. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris2008 (talk • contribs)

You're right, I apologize, and have responded on the article's talk page. - Jersyko talk 04:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lin

He must be getting active again, I blocked one of his socks a few days ago. Just blocked the account you gave me, but the IP is dynamic. You may want to post his most recent incarnations to WP:RFCU to see if he's created any other sockpuppets. It'd be great if someone could contact Comcast about this. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 05:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Cole

Was this article deleted for a specific reason? I happen to know Cole was in Nigeria at the time of the crash, and that the last contact received from him indicated his intention to board that flight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacificarms (talk • contribs)

Response from pacificarms - I'm not familiar with how to reply directly to your message, so please forgive me. I posted it the first time, and it didn't appear - it was also only the first line of the article. I waited a day, purged the cache etc., still no article. I then posted the entire article, but due to an error (eg the incorrect number of persons killed on the flight), and failing to mention the location of the crash, and a typographical error, I edited it. The article was not reposted six times. -pa

Furthermore, the article was not left open to deletion debate. I had more information ready to post, but was not given adequate time to substantiate claims and expand the article.

Jersyko - I think you may have misread the article. Any claims that were unsubstantiated were clearly marked as such, "believed to have been" aboard the flight, "rumours" of MEND involvement, "reports of sightings" in Quito. Claims stated as fact either were, or were soon to be, backed up with citations. Furthermore, it was never stated that his works were books; they were articles written during university tenure, and I was in the process of locating them to include excerpts in the article. Further still, there was no mention of a "miraculous escape" - the article simply mentioned that his body was not recovered from the wreckage. According to best information he was going to be on that plane, yet Sosoliso will not provide a passenger manifest or confirm if he was indeed onboard. Even more disturbing is your cursory fact checking which consists of simply running his name and titles of work through Google, and having no results be sufficient evidence for you. Do you fact check every article this thoroughly? I should think this would call into question many arbitrary decisions you have made in the past. I highly doubt you have access to the same newswires we are receiving our information from, and your subtle insinuation that I am Cole removes further credibility from your response. -pa

Albatross again

Sorry to see things aren't going well. If you want to file a user conduct RfC, I'll help out as best I can. Deltabeignet 03:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A useful little script

Jersyko,

I recently ran across a useful little user created script that produces little previews of articles when you hover over a link. It's called Navigation Popups. You might want to give it a look. --Zantastik 22:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A rebuttle

Jersyko

I am a fairly civil man but what your friend did (at least I am assuming he is your friend) is clearly out of line. I have been working with other wikipedia people to redo this article and we have all collected a good amount of research. Unfortunately a lot of it says amalgams are very bad for you. This is just the results of our research. I have asked for literally months for positive scientific viewpoints about amalgams that were not directly sponsored by the ADA - NO ONE HAS GIVEN ME ANYTHING. All I did was post the research online that I have gathered on the talk page - not even putting it on the real page - and your friend deleted it. He not only deleted it but he covered his tracks and deleted the history of it.

Additionally, last night I tried to move all opinions on amalgams to the controversy page and move all historical amalgam information over to the dental fillings page. Your friend was hard at work again and deleted a lot of what I did and then re-posted the FDA's view (which I might add he conveniently spun).

I let the first incident last night slide. To do it again today, and try and bury what I did...that is borderline grounds for being reported. I took the civil route and decided not to press the issue with authorities and try and work it out instead. Maybe you should ask your friend what he did and see if he confesses. This behavior will not be tolerated - I may be fairly new to this but Im not an idiot.

Take Care Staypuftman 22:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check the facts

Jersyko

He is the history log from the amalgam controversy talk page:

(cur) (last) 05:31, 30 January 2006 Dozenist (→Some Progress - research from all fields support the safe use of amalgam)
(cur) (last) 04:21, 30 January 2006 Staypuftman

Now you may be right and there was some server glitch - wikipedia has many problems like that. But it sure does seem like I posted all the research and then Dozenist came in and erased it saying research from all fields support the safe use of amalgam. Also - it is very easy to modify the history of past pages - you simply click edit the page on the previous version of the page.

Something very fishy occured - do you not agree? Dozenist even gave justification for his action...which I still hope he more fully explains to me and now you. This is very troublesome to me considering in the research I have done on this topic; there have been many accounts of people associated with the dental industry trying to shape opinion on this issue. Troublesome indeed.

Staypuftman 23:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You left out the most important detail!

How do you make sense of that history comment - (→Some Progress - research from all fields support the safe use of amalgam)???? I checked the dif pages - they compare historical pages, which I pointed out to you in my last comment, can easily be manipulated. Do you not think this is odd???

Its pretty easy to change the history of a page

Just look it up in the history folder, click the time stamp then edit the page. It even prompts you -

WARNING: You are editing an out-of-date revision of this page. If you save it, any changes made since this revision will be removed.

Editing an older page clearly overwrites the more recent posts and erases the history of the edits that came after it. The wikipedia engine even says so! Additionally - that comment still goes unexplained...despite the technical difficulty the server was having.

Staypuftman 01:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it dropped

Something very wrong occured here, we can chalk it on up to server error but this odd comment still remains a point of contention of me. If it makes you happy, I can overlook this...but if it accidentally continues to happen you'll hear from me.

Your little cyberspace buddy, Staypuftman 02:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In re Guardianship of Kowalski

A very informative and well-written article. It was interesting, to say the least. On a side note, and please forgive my ignorance on this, what does the "In re" refer to? - Dozenist talk 03:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I take it back. I sort of know now that I read the article on it, and found that the translation reads to "in the matter [of]," but I still did not get in what situations you use it. - Dozenist talk 03:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking User:War cow

Done. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 01:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Restoration Spectacular

Thank you for removing the edit of this DEMON "The Final Solution". He is posting a virus - I had to restart my computer cause of him! NicAgent 02:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Nope, not for me at all. I have yet been able to use it once. - Dozenist talk 23:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocrite

I've read your replies and you sound like a second year undergraduate repeating proundly, stuffy intellectualisms that you've overheard in a classroom from the mouth of an erudite. You routinely quote Wilkipedia policy, but seem to have ignored this: "Wikipedia follows the writers' rules of engagement: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations", as in your dislike of the photos of David. Is it his hair ? Perhaps his profile ? Maybe you'd prefer a coat and tie ? Do you dislike blondes ? What is you your pleasure Mr. Jersyko, law student, Wilkipedia editor extraordinaire ? Am I wasting my time, or do you prefer to engage in additional stuffy intellectualism. (sic)