User talk:Eloquence

Unlike other Wikipedians I don't archive Talk pages since old contents are automatically archived anyway - if you want to access previous comments use the "Older versions" function. But I keep a log of the removals:

Removed all comments prior to Jan 2003. --Eloquence 04:42 Jan 1, 2003 (UTC)

Why not "quixotic" in K. Kay Shearin, please? The courts call it "frivolous." -- isis 04:08 Jan 1, 2003 (UTC)

The statement is not NPOV because Kay would certainly not agree with it. But if you provide proper attribution (perhaps a quote) somewhere in the article that's fine with me. --Eloquence

Of course I agree with it -- I wrote it. -- isis 04:12 Jan 1, 2003 (UTC)

Oh! Hm, if it's quixotic - delusionary, futile etc. - then why are you doing it? Feel free to add it back to the article, but I would prefer it if you wrote something like "which she calls quixotic" or "which she recognizes as quixotic" so that others don't repeat my mistake. (Reminds me of an incident where Ed, who is in the UC, wrote that the Unfication Church people "take their teachings seriously" only to be reminded by a non-churchie that this is not NPOV. ;-)--Eloquence

My dictionary says "romantically idealistic" and "impractical." I do it because I see it as the right thing to do -- people who sit back and let other people do bad things, without even protesting, are complicit in the wrong-doing; the people who are doing wrong may not know any better, but I do, and maybe if I stand up and say it's wrong, they'll realize it is. That's why I think it's important to make the point in the article that I know it's usually going to turn out to have been only a gesture, but I feel a moral obligation to make the gesture even if it does turn out to have been futile. -- isis 04:28 Jan 1, 2003 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the popular image of Don Quixote is more that of a delusionary fool who thinks windmills are evil giants. This may not be the impression you want to create of yourself. --Eloquence

The Delaware and New Jersey Supreme Courts want me to see a shrink before they reinstate my licenses to practice law there -- aside from how I may want people to see me, I think for an encyclopedia article this is as NPOV as it can be without distorting the facts. They think I'm crazy; I think I'm principled. Maybe we're both right, and doesn't that make it "quixotic"? -- isis 05:13 Jan 1, 2003 (UTC)

Well, as a rule, I think such terms - crazy, idealistic, quixotic etc. - should be used with attribution only, but if you can agree with it yourself, it's no big deal. BTW, are you familiar with Colby, Gerard: DuPont Dynasty. Secaucus NJ: Lyle Stuart, 1984? (968 pages!) It's probably the most comprehensive critical analysis of DuPont's history. The company tried repeatedly to suppress the book. It sounds like the kind of book you may be interested in, and it would certainly be valuable to have some of its information on Wikipedia. --Eloquence

No, I don't know that book -- is it just about the company or about the family, too? There's certainly enough dirt to fill a couple of books that size; did you read what I had to say about duPont in Diamond Dust? Several folks tried to squelch it, too, told me they'd have it published if I'd take out the parts they didn't like. I, too, believe some of this info should be in the 'pedia, which is why I posted the full text of Diamond Dust. (I donated two copies to the public library here in 1992, too.) -- isis 07:07 Jan 1, 2003 (UTC)

It's about the company and the family. Yeah, I read your mention of them, that's why I asked here. The book is out of print, which makes it even more interesting in my opinion. Alas, there's already too much in my pipeline. Uploading the full text of your book is a nice gesture, but most people still prefer printed books; have you looked into publishing on demand? That allows you to sell your book at an unlimited supply (digitally printed). Some of them are even free (but they pay lower royalties). DMOZ has a list of these companies. --Eloquence

I don't think there's any "demand" to print it on. I didn't sell more than about a hundred copies of it back then, and it's no longer current -- the people have climbed the political ladder, and the recent corporate scandals have way overshadowed the E. F. Hutton ones of the 1980s. I've authorized Project Gutenberg to publish it as an e-text (and given them an ASCII copy) but don't know whether they will (or when, if they do). But thanks for the thought. -- isis 17:49 Jan 1, 2003 (UTC)

heh thanks i was trying to do that manually Vera Cruz

Try the links for ISBN 0-8184-0352-7 -- some people are asking $400+ for Du Pont Dynasty: Behind the Nylon Curtain, but some are selling on half.com for less than $25, including shipping. -- isis 06:27 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

Egad, what a huge price differential! very odd! Sort of makes you think there's something seriously wrong with either the cheap one, or with the person asking $450! -- Someone else 06:35 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

I looked for Colby, Gerard: DuPont Dynasty figuring it'd be a fun read. You know someone's asking more than $400 for a copy of it!?!??! -- Someone else 03:01 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC) By the way <G>:

(1) Edward I, King of England (1239 - 1307)

  & Alianore de Castille (~1244 - 1290)

(2) Joan of England (~1272 - 1307)

  & Gilbert de Clare (1243 - 1295)

(3) Elizabeth de Clare (1295 - 1360)

  & Roger Damory ( - 1321)

(4) Elizabeth Damory (<1318 - <1363)

  & John Bardolf (1311 - 1363)

(5) William Bardolf (1349 - 1385)

  & Agnes Poynings ( - 1403)

(6) Cecily Bardolf ( - 1432)

  & Sir Brian Stapleton (1379 - 1438)

(7) Sir Miles Stapleton (~1408 - ~1486)

  & Catherine de la Pole (~1416 - ~1488)

(8) Elizabeth Stapleton (~1441 - 1504)

  & Sir William Calthorpe (1409 - 1494)

(9) Anne Calthorpe ( - >1494)

  & Sir Robert Drury ( - 1535)

(10) Anne Drury

  & George Waldegrave (1483 - 1528)

(11) Phyllis Waldegrave

  & Thomas Higham

(12) Bridget Higham

  & Thomas Burrough ( - 1597)

(13) Rev. George Burrough

  & Frances Sparrow

(14) Nathaniel Burrough ( - ~1682)

  & Rebecca Style

(15) George Burroughs (~1650 - 1692) (executed at Salem, Massachusetts for witchcraft)

  & Hannah Fisher (1653 - 1681)

(16) Hannah Burroughs (1680 - )

  & Jabez Fox Jr.

(17) Thomas Fox

  & Mary Lawrence

(18) Mercy Fox

  & Moses Johnson

(19) Fanny Johnson

  & John Call Jr.

(20) Eber Call

  & Violette Lawrence

(21) Charles Call

  & Henrietta Gross

(22) Flora Call (1868 - 1938)

  & Elias Disney (1859 - 1941)

(23) Walt Disney (1901 - 1966)

Nice! Is that unusual or typical in genealogy? --Eloquence

Not usual, but if you pick out two famous folks, you can find ancestors in common in, as a guess, maybe 5% of cases, so not that unusual either. I like to think of it as 6 cousins from Kevin Bacon <G>. -- Someone else 08:35 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

Oh, and if you like that, check out the genealogical reference I added to Brooke Shields.... one of my favourite titles.... Someone else 08:39 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

I have to recall the former discussion between Liftarn and Dan Koehl at the Swedish wikipedia. From my point of view Liftarn just tried to stab Dan in the back again with a whining message att the International wikipedia mailinglist. Even if he's saying he would nott like Dan banned, the way he acts suggest that is what he wants. It would have been perfectly allright to continue the discussion here, instead he starts it over again at another place. The reason must be he wants another result. // Sven Eriksson 09:22 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

Sven, if you cannot resolve the issues, I suggest posting to wikipedia-l or sending Jimbo a mail directly. wikipedia-l is read by far more people than intwiki-l. --Eloquence

Hi. Don't worry about adding back the bit about the Netherlands I wrote for "Sex ed" that was lost in an edit conflict -- the stuff you've added on DiCenso is great! -- Tarquin 23:44 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, note that the Dutch data is cited as part of this study. I'll work on sexual abstinence next and include a study about virginity pledges that might interest you. --Eloquence

Erik, you are now a sysop. Use your powers for good and not evil ;-) --Uncle Ed 16:22 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll relinquish them as soon as I'm finished. --Eloquence 16:23 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Why has the word dishonest been singled out for special NPOV documentation requirements? Eloquence, for example, at 06:29 Jan 26, 2003, says "sorry, but if you say 'dishonest' you have to back that up)." Amazingly, however, Eloquence does not mind the undocumented use of offensive and unethical.

I merely stated, as is the policy at wikipedia, the opinion of some people when I wrote dishonest. Note that I was inarguably correct in my assertion. I never said that PETA was dishonest! I said some people (I'm a person!) consider them dishonest! Can Eloquence prove that I don't consider them dishonest? This was unreasonable and unqualified editing! Back up your assertions, Eloquence! I can back up mine! (I'll leave it to you to fix what you broke, and so will not start an edit war--regardless of the correctness of my assertions.)

C'mon, Eloquence. Censor everyone or censor no one! Isn't that what NPOV means?

Arthur, the statement that PETA is dishonest is, in my understanding, not one that is frequently leveled against them. I would like to see some references for that statement (not that they are dishonest, but that people say that about them, and in which frequency). The other parts of the article seem OK to me. --Eloquence 15:45 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Can you give me references for PETA being "unethical"? I bet not! You are not being honest--even with yourself--are you?

I say that PETA is dishonest. I'm a person. I'm, therefore, inarguably correct when saying "some people consider PETA dishonest."

but you don't care. you merely change what you don't understand.

Arthur 16:02 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

I did not add the statement that people claim PETA to be unethical to the article. In fact, I weakened its quantification somewhat by stating that some people consider PETA "even" to be unethical. I am somewhat puzzled by the claim myself, but I think it should not be too hard to find references for it. However, as for PETA being dishonest, I'm not aware of much criticism in that direction -- feel free to point it out in the article. The fact that this is your opinion does not matter; as per our NPOV policy, opinions need to be factually verifiable, i.e. published in relevant form. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, it is an encyclopedia. Are we supposed to write "Arthur3030 considers PETA dishonest"? --Eloquence 16:10 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Sigh all you want.

it is an unqualified fact that some people consider them dishonest. Your POV prevents you from hearing that. I will never edit your comment like you edited mine.

I have removed the statement from the article because it is surprising to the reader and therefore in need of attribution. I asked for attribution, you did not provide any. You don't even know what my POV is. I did not edit your comment. --Eloquence 16:19 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

As I said, your POV statements will stand because I will never edit your statements like you did mine.

Arthur, there is no ownership of articles on Wikipedia. Do you understand that? --Eloquence 16:24 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

I appear to be the only person who understands that. I'm the only person, for example, who has not changed the target article to reflect my opinions. I've left it alone--unlike others--and not changed it to reflect my views. Can you say the same? Arthur 16:29 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Actually, you have changed my revision to include the "dishonest" claim again, which, as you stated above, is your opinion. As you state: I say that PETA is dishonest. I'm a person. I'm, therefore, inarguably correct when saying "some people consider PETA dishonest." So your addition was a reflection of your personal views. My removal of that statement was not a reflection of my views, but merely in line with existing Wikipedia policy on attribution of surprising statements. --Eloquence 16:37 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

no i didn't, but i no longer care. ignorant people often argue endlessly, and i can't keep up this silliness. be ignorant! I don't care! Censor people! I care less! You win because of your position--not because of your knowledge! Arthur 16:45 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not interested in "winning" anything. I'm interested in good, well-researched articles. And I would appreciate it if you wouldn't spam my talk page with horizontal rulers (----) all over the place. --Eloquence 16:48 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

is this statement false?:

some people consider PETA dishonest?

THE ANSWER IS NO!, because some people obviously do--however much some disagree.

yea, I know you don't like the dashes. Arthur 22:48 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

If it's false, then why did you insert it into the article? If you know I don't like them, why do you put them on my Talk page? --Eloquence 01:00 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

Somebody keeps censoring my opinions. Somebody insists that their POV is the only correct one. Me? No! I refuse to do such things! Eloquence doesn't!

I use dashes (and don't complain when others don't) because I don't insist on my own POV over others!

Once again, I can only advise you to read about NPOV and, for good measure, censorship again. You act like an immature child, did it ever occur to you that a project like Wikipedia might go beyond your intellectual capacity? Perhaps you should stick to lab rats. --Eloquence 01:55 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

wow. what an idiot! Let me say, once again, "WHO LAST EDITED THE PETA PAGE?!" Not me, because I don't consider myself the authority of the universe. Somebody does, though, don't they?

Arthur 01:58 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

Maybe if you would stop calling people names, shouting, and crying "censorship" or "POV" (both of which you don't seem to understand), it would be possible to have a serious discussion with you. As I have stated many times before, you are free to add the removed statement back to the PETA article if you provide proper attribution as our policy requires. --Eloquence 03:36 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

RE Opera: I moved it to Opera (browser) because of a complaint at the Village pump (now in the January archive. The main argument is that it is easier to link ([[Opera (browser)|]] vs. [[Opera web browser|Opera]]). I was going to move the other browser pages as well. However, I'm not strongly committed to the move. -- Stephen Gilbert 16:18 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

Eloquence,

I apologize for the name-calling bit. It was completely wrong.

Arthur

No problem, Arthur. So, what do you say, do you want the "dishonest" statement back in the PETA article? I'd still be interested in attribution for that one (e.g. scientist so and so claims that PETA is dishonest because .. as published in the NYT on .. etc). --Eloquence

I think i've a good one. Adrian R. Morrison, University of Pennsylvania [1] wrote in The The Physiologist that PETA used a "cleverly edited" video and so "grossly distorted" the truth. There are several claims of dishonesty in the article.

Don't know how to integrate it, though. Maybe you can find a way.

Arthur 22:22 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

I wish to apoligize for my lack of eloquence. As I would like to add some information on Salim I al Sabah, Kabbar, Abdul Aziz ibn Abdul Rahman ibn Saud, Najd, Faisal I, Political Titles of the Ottoman Empire, Warba, Abdulla II al Sabah, the First Kuwaiti Crisis, Abdullah ibn Hussein, Mashian, Failakah, Auhah, al Khalifa, al Jalahima, al Sabah, Abdul Karim Qasim, Jaber III al Ahmad al Sabah, Muhammad I al Sabah, the Second Kuwaiti Crisis, Zaki Arsuzi, Salah al Din Bitar, Ghazi ibn Faisal, Bakr Sidqi, Abdullah II al Sabah, Ahmad al Sabah, Abdul Ilah, and Percy Cox, as well as (obviously) the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of October 1922, the Turkish Petroleum Company, the Basra-Baghdad Highway, the Berlin-Baghdad Railroad, and the Abudllah Khor Waterway, Nuri al Said, Abdulla III al Sabah, Aramco, the Kuwait Oil Company, and the Anglo-Kuwaiti Treaty of 1899; I would like to inquire as to what objections you might have to my doing so? Vera Cruz

If you wish to contribute to this project again, here's what you should do.

Post to the wikien mailing list under your real name. Apologize for past behavior that may have caused offense, and promise to treat other Wikipedians with respect in the future. Explain why you chose to subvert the ban, and apologize for doing so.
Send a private mail to Jimbo to the same effect.
Start adopting different editing practices. For the most part, try working on your text in a text editor before publishing it to reduce the problem of a very high number of minor edits (every minor edit requires us to store a complete copy of an article in the database, it makes revision comparing harder, and clutters recent changes for those who cannot use the enhanced version).
Explain your edits better. If you want to change the wording in a text significantly, at least provide a rationale on the article's talk page.
Read NPOV again. Do not use it as a "killer phrase" but only change sentences where doing so is necessary to reflect a controversy.

It is obvious that you are addicted to Wikipedia, and I cannot fault you for that. However, your repeated attempts to subvert community decisions will meet with failure. Either work with us, or stay away. Being honest is the first requirement for cooperation. Many people would like to work with you, but your past behavior has made that impossible until you follow at least the first two recommendations above. --Eloquence 00:14 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

Ok Dude, I'll try to be less NPOV as I see you're a big time "J". I'm a "P" so we have a classic case of a P-J conflict. I'm causing chaos which drives you nuts because you prefer order. I'll do my best to try and colour within the lines.

Mr. Herman

In the spirit of order, NPOV means "neutral point of view", and it is not something you are expected to "be" (and certainly not less), but a rule you are expected to conform to when writing for Wikipedia. You can hold whatever views you like, as long as you present them in the spirit of this policy, that's fine. Personally, I think Meyer-Briggs is too simplistic to be useful. For example, I can be both very intro- and very extroverted. This oversimplicity makes MB eligible to be turned into a pop religion. It's no coincidence that modern cults like Scientology are riding on the personality test wave. --Eloquence 19:08 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

hmm, well maybe it is a pop religion but it works for me. I now realize that most arguments come down to some sort of personality conflict. e.g. either you prefer order (J) or you prefer chaos (P). You can't change what somebody prefers - all you can do is deal with it. Oh ya and I meant to put 'more' instead of less. P.S. in case you're wondering - you're an INTJ (same as Linus) here's your description: http://www.geocities.com/player2000gi/intj.htm

How do you know I'm "introverted", how do you know I'm "intuitive"? You seem pretty judgmental yourself. And do you really like chaos? Did you enjoy this day? --Eloquence 21:11 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I tend to come across a little blunt sometimes and get carried away. I'll drop the MBTI rant, I just thought that you might be an INTJ. L8R 4llig8or

Kay, Tarquin is one of the good guys. Please take a step back and relax. He did not mean to hurt or libel you. --Eloquence 22:45 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

He hasn't been a "good guy" to me or within my sight, but it you say that's your opinion, I accept that it is. I agree with you that he didn't mean to hurt or libel me, but he did mean to stir up trouble on the 'pedia, and he did libel me, and he made me the subject and object of messages intended to be hurtful, and I think taking him down is the best way for me to get him and the other jackals off my back. It doesn't do any good for you to say he didn't mean any harm, when he took the opposite position when I gave him the opportunity to say that himself. So I sincerely appreciate your effort to tone down this situation, but it's too late. And I think it will be good to establish that the Internet in general and the Wikipedia in particular are not outside the law, that conduct society does not permit elsewhere it does not allow here, either. What I find puzzling, however, is why people who keep making a big deal about the possibility of people's suing for copyright infringement here don't see that defamation is just as valid a cause of action. -- isis 06:14 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)