User talk:AntelopeInSearchOfTruth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] About FFT

Hi there, tis me, LuvLuv G again, I'm still new here, and I'm not sure if this counts as a pm section for you, but I found the FFT Ending vid!

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz7tQ3v5ba0

The annoying parts always the credits, but if you take a look, the guy who did post below me at the discussion page was indeed right. Also, GameFAQs, RPGClassics, and that FFCompendium sometimes can't be trusted because GameFAQs is like here, Anyone can post anything, and the others start messing up proper info. (ie: saying Job Classes are others, where in fact they're only similar, and not the same, and giving out biased approaches to helping others.) Thanks again for once again hearin me out, kind sir.

[edit] Hello

I'm agree with you in many point for the article 2005 Paris suburb riots. Here is a wiki, we can change this article to improve it. I just hope than US and english people will not talk about this event with "american eyes" (involve in 9/11 ; in Irak; etc.). We work to improve ^-^y. See you Yug (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I just take a look to the same article, I think it have improve. I still think this article is to much write "by american for american" but it is better now than 24 h before~~ Yug (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] (No subject given...)

Thought I give you a buzz. Do you recomend that a PUBLIC investigation of this mess should be initiated? I've read that these riots have spread, have lasted 10+ days. That is why I had asked IF the French government will initiate Martial Law to end these riots. If these riots continue, get worse, cold, hard logic indicates that the French people will DEMAND that something be done about the riots.

I am new to this format, so do'nt bite me, I do'nt taste good.Martial Law 22:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Found 2 POSSIBLE new sites concearning riots...............

One states that Europe is in a WAR, the other appears to be a LEFT wing site.

They are:

  • Brussels journal[1]
  • Ace Pilots site,allegedly from CIS[2]

The bottom one appearantly originates from Moscow,CISMartial Law 09:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Just investigated the Ace Pilots site. It is NOT, REPEAT: NOT a left wing site. It is a US Veteran site. Someone on the 'net is trying to insult US veterans.Martial Law 09:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I don't know where find that and that's a bit bad because I read many things (mostly in the talk page) talking about naive cause : racism. That is an american view, etc. One thing is true : discrimation against suburb inhabitants. French policemen did and do it too. Fact is than the 30 last years immigrant are mostly from africa, muslim and black, recently chineses, and from the east of europa.
  1. Most are french people now (from recent immigrations).
  2. It still have french origines peoples in this area (workers, students).
French people know this situations of economic discrimination, and french wikipedia act to keep the english article clear with this. We think act more on this article when the riots will down and when less people will edit this article.
For sources, please ask user:Rama for help, he is a french user but really more "english" than me.
have a nice day :]

Yug (talk) 10:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] your remarkon "of immigration origin"

following your comments: "most seem to have been unemployed. I'm not sure what is wrong with saying "immigrant". In any case, "immigration origin" is bad grammar." on 2005 civil unrest in France page, on 05:45, 17 March 2006.

1. immigration origin might be bad grammar, sorry about that, I am a not a native English speaker... as a matter of fact, you might want to know all those debates do not exist so much on the French version! I will tell you what is wrong with "immigrant youth", because it is precisely the heart of the debate. That's the problem: they are not immigrant youths, they are French, but, for example, their grand parents are "harkis" and fled from Algeria in 1962. Thus my "of immigration origin", and that's why you can't just write "immigrant youths".

In every country in the world, including the US, immigrants have to make efforts to integrate, and will suffer somehow from discrimination, everywhere! There would not be so much debate if they were "only" immigrant youths.

So unless you suggest a better wording that is clearly explaining this, I will write back "of immigration origin".
2. The above is to explain the wording. Coming back to the article, the "2005 civil unrest in France" is NOT about all this, I mean not directly. The "2005 civil unrest in France" is about the violence and the car burning by gangs of youths, and my efforts in this article is to explain to foreigners that those gangs did not have any message, except pure rage! Car burning is unfortunately not new in France, but the extent has caught attention outside! The discrimination issue has come along from the press, and is a related issue as those kids come from immigration background. Therefore my "led to" debates: the events are not the fuss about the discrimination, the fuss is a consequence of it!
3. you are right to mention unemployement. Like I wrote several time, "integration" problems are true, but the reasons behind are precisely economic slowdown and therefore unemployment(unlike the US who has jobs for everybody, or almost!), and above all the fact those cités are like ghettos: wrong urban planning. Those places were built by government to house immigrants in the 1960s, and are subsidized housing: you go there because you have no job and no money! Again, nobody choses to go there, and all will get out as soon as they are more comfortable. This has never been clear enough in the article.
Anyway, I suggest the unemployment part is removed from the opening paragraph, BUT HAS TO BE added later in "context" to better explain the cocktail: former immigration+economic slowdown+unemployment+urban planning mistakes=violences.
All those lines for you, AntelopeInSearchOfTruth, so what do you think?Toh-mah 11:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

and by the way I did not realize the way you wrote; not only they are not "immigrant youths", but also, being most of them below 20 (it is mentionned several times by others and "proven" by articles), it is ñot exactly accurate to mention they are unemployed, as they might be too young to be employed or looking for the job. And about the rioters, and this time it is only my opinion, I don't think they are in the situation of trying to find a job!!Toh-mah 11:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AntelopeInSearchOfTruth?

I'm curious on why you named yourself Antelope In Search Of Truth? Why antelopes? --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Long story. Old gamer tag.  :) (What brought you here, out of curiousity?) (Antelope In Search Of Truth 21:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC))

I saw your username on one of the Project pages (forgot which one), and became curious, --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chomsky's political views

Antelope, would you mind casting your eye on a disagreement between myself and Lao Wai on the Politics of Noam Chomsky page, would be interested to hear your take on this. I have also requested mediation to avoid an edit war. Thanks. --Zleitzen 11:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

np.  :)
(Antelope In Search Of Truth 21:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for taking a look at the Chomsky political views page. You have pointed out what I feared to suggest, that Lao had a pre-conceived opinion of Chomsky's position that doesn't necessarily correspond with actual statements. Chomsky's communication style lends itself to such misinterpretation however. He has that certain sarcastic, contrarian manner which can easily be misunderstood, and his position can seem more ambiguous than it needs to be. Sometimes I feel like I'd rather let Chomsky stew in his own juices! But then, the search for truth is non-negotiable! Good work Antelope. --Zleitzen 23:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Btw, have reason to believe that ben-ze'ev who is watching the Criticisms of Chomsky page is this guy [3]. Which if true means we have to credit his relative restraint and reasonable attitude on Wikipedia so far. --Zleitzen 00:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Moyer's edits

Nice work on the Bill Moyers page. I was a bit scared after seeing someone had made over a dozen edits that I was going to spend the next several hours of my life in revert hell. --Osbojos 21:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What can I say, sometimes it takes a lot of picking to get somewhere, but I do try to be orderly and organized about it, according to Logical argument form. And as "objective" as possible. -shrugs-
Thanks!  :)
("I was a bit scared...." Nothing like a little excitement, no? lol)
(Antelope In Search Of Truth 21:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Hello

Hi, I responded to your comments to me at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alan_Nicoll Sorry, I don't know the usual practices for User Talk. Alan Nicoll 07:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] My Turn? (originated on Zleitzen's talk page)

I'm having a lovely conversation with another editor on the Bill Moyers talk page, regarding some possible original research. Could I trouble you to have a look? I have taken some mediation steps, but I wonder what you think? Am I perhaps confusing the man? Maybe I have failed to present my side? Thanks much.  :)

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 09:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for coming. I think I'm going to take a short break. My fear is that he will continue to dump things that Moyers has said into the criticism section just because it supports a critic's point, even if that critic has not referred to the "Moyer material". And that he will continue to dump links to unrelated claims of criticism in an attempt to support that particular claim in the criticism section.
-sigh- This is tiring. Am I making any sense?
(Antelope In Search Of Truth 19:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

I agree with your edits Antelope, though it might be worth waiting a while to see how things pan out and if things calm down. Making a tactical withdrawal, so to speak --Zleitzen 20:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Just a sanity check.
Also wondering if I could be approaching my points in a way that is more understandable.
(Antelope In Search Of Truth 20:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

Personally I had no problems understanding your edits and reasons. But it seems that an unusual degree of patience is required to contest edits with that particular editor! Something I've noticed: one of the more successful tactics to employ is to span out edits over a longer time rather than change a whole lot at once. For some psychological reason this seems to reduce the friction. The same works for the talk pages, writing less and posting less frequently can lower the temperature. There is the chance that the other editor will simply find the slow turnover dull and move on to another challenge. If they're not showing particular commiting to wiki-values then that's quite likely. But it certainly is a trial of patience! --Zleitzen 14:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I get a little carried away sometimes. It is also a challenge to find the most succinct way to make a point. But then, as you might have implied, less is more. Balance can be tricky. :P
(Antelope In Search Of Truth 23:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC))
Hi Antelope, that's a great response from the user below. Makes you feel that it's worth it contributing to the site. In contrast, an ugly dispute that I've been watching unfold on the Cuba site is turning very nasty indeed. I'm just calling for NPOV perspective in depictions of Cuba and some perspective in relation to other nation pages, certain others are arguing to the death on all manner of issues. Read the talk page, but avoid entering the tedious edit war. Yuk! --Zleitzen 19:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah.... sometimes after things die down, everything comes out in the wash.
"Read the talk page, but avoid entering the tedious edit war. Yuk!"
Yeah yeah, I know I've been prone to edit war participation.  ;) ;) lol.
(Antelope In Search Of Truth 19:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Bill Moyers

Hi, this is Gerkinstock. No sweat on the Bill Moyers edits, as I did get very emotionally involved myself. I am happy with the current state of his page (as I last checked it a few days ago), as it addresses the full scope of his career. As heated as my confrontations get sometimes here at Wikipedia, I am always a happier person once they have been resolved. I apologize for any name-calling I may have engaged in (most of what I posted is now a blur to me).

Anyway, thank you for the message. -- Gerkinstock 02:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] By the way (The message in question, posted at Gerkinstock's page before "Bill Moyers")

"Just please don't try to make the ridiculous assertion that "progressive" and "liberal" aren't the same thing in American political jargon again."

The main thing that got lost (I think) was that while they are similar, the only difference I was trying to point out is that Progressives state that they specifically focus on "economic and environmental justice, and sustainability,".

I have been looking at this whole conversation as an opportunity to better ourselves. This is more curiosity than who is "right" or "wrong". I see more value in approaching things with curiosity than judgement. I am sorry that things got a little heated.

I understand your assertion: progressives = liberals. The reason I am questioning your assertion is because it appears to me that there are liberals who focus on issues other than, "economic and environmental justice, and sustainability." Like abortion, victim rights, etc..

Just like not all conservatives push the same exact issues. (Antelope In Search Of Truth 00:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Frivolous Side-Bar

I've been editing the page on the Architect (from the Matrix). I've been going through parts of the 2nd and 3rd movies for a few hours now verifying what people did or didn't say. ugh.

Time to eat. Anyway, I wondered what you thought of the edits. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architect_%28The_Matrix%29 )

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 22:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC))

Hi Antelope. Funnily enough, although I've spent years involved in media and film theory I know virtually nothing about the Matrix. I'm more of a Battle of Algiers person myself (if you've ever seen that film you'll know I'm no fun at all when it comes to movies). The edits seem fine to me, I bet it's great editing a non controversial topic for a change. I should give it a go! The dispute I'm involved in is making the newspapers [4], I guess I should count myself lucky I don't get a mention!! --Zleitzen 02:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
-shrugs- Oh I don't know, a good "historical film" can be good. As for non-controversial, well.... the Wachiowski Brothers went out of their way NOT to explain what *they* meant, thematically, in the trilogy because they didn't want to invalidate what others would take from the movies. They were interested in getting people to question things, not decide one way or another. So I was trying to stick to what objectively happened in the movies, without interpreting the "why" of it. That's where I expect opposition; someone who has a pet theory about what something meant and saw what he wanted to see and needs the article to reflect that.
-sigh- It's an epidemic, and I'm not immune, though I do try to check myself whenever possible. I guess I was hoping you had seen them and maybe analyzed them and had a grip on some of the nuances. Alas......  ;)
I stopped by that article that is making the newspapers. Didn't really see what I could do there. The debate was a bit of a mess, but it appeared at the time that it was winding down a bit. I guess I might be wrong if it made the newspapers?
(Antelope In Search Of Truth 20:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC))\

[edit] Chomsky quote

If you look my note on the Talk page, the quote was actually added by another user (68.20.192.126, but actually User:Skovoroda). I removed the reference to a now-deleted article, and put in a cleanup tag. Hopefully someone with a good sense of Chomsky's views on anarchism can decide whether to delete it, rewrite it so it isn't just a blob of quotation, or add to it. - David Oberst 23:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Painters

Hi Antelope, it looks like the two pages you are concerned with are translated straight from Spanish speaking homepages. I recommend you go through the wikipedia deletion process. Tag the articles with deletion templates, put the details on the deletion page and they should be deleted per norm.--Zleitzen 13:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help with possible vanity spammers?

If you could take a look at Mariano Ristori Morakis...I found it while following a chain that started at Cristian Mac Entyre, which I also had to tag.

Will you help by taking a look at either of these articles? I'm only one man (or Antelope)....  ;) --Antelope In Search Of Truth 20:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

a bit busy at the moment, but I'd be glad to dig through those pages later in the week. I'll add them to the watchlist and see what happens --Osbojos 22:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fisking

Good call on the Norwegian thing - looking at the translations of fishing it doesn't seem to be true (it's "Fiske"). Kind of obvious really, "-ing" is an English ending for verbs, and not likely to be the same in Scandinavian languages... Rd232 talk 06:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've posed a question on talk about the use of a blog post as evidence for the term's origin -I'd like your input. Cheers, Armon 14:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Antelope. Again there are arguments on Fisking. Your input please. Cheers, <<-armon->> 08:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Aligned Movement

Antelope, I'd like to draft you to help settle a dispute between me and a few other editors on the Non-Aligned Movement page. Full messy details available here: Talk:Non-Aligned Movement#Representative.3F. Let me know if you're unable to help out so I can find someone else. Thanks. --Osbojos 21:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your help. We'll see if a criticism section develops... --Osbojos 19:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: my comments in Chomsky criticism

hi - my post was not specifically directed at anything you wrote or did. In fact I generally agree with your insertions of appeals to expand various sections. Nevertheless...

you wrote:

"Firstly, the Wikipedian policy, WP:NOTE helps keep everything and the kitchen sink from being added.

But the page that you linked to refers to the Notability of subjects for articles rather than specific guidelines for content.

"Secondly, what I am essentially speaking out against is the *smearing* that easily happens when criticisms of a subject are submitted, minus an accurate rendering of what is actually being criticized. It slants the content when we submit the criticism, absent it's own context (i.e., the very subject of the criticism).I'm not saying add everything and the kitchen sink. I'm saying add it right and accurately."

I agree with you and I feel (like you, I presume) that the Chomsky criticisms page does not measure up to these standards....

1. Chomsky's commentary on the Vietnam War

There is no context for Huntington's statment. And of course, contra Huntington et al, Chomsky's analysis of Vietnam has been praised and cited by notable authors, for example by Ben Kiernan, director of The Cambodia Genocide Project in a recent book (perhaps such a counterracting fact is notable too?).

2. Oliver Kamm quote on Kosovo/East Timor

same as above

3. Paul Robinson's quote is nothing but a sound-bite. It gives no reasons why Chomsky's foreign policy analysis is simple-minded.

4. Carol Eisenberg is herself a left revisionist historian. She and Chomsky disagree only on emphasis and degree. I think it would be far more instructive to include Chomsky's reply to her and attempt to outline the (respectful) differences between them. She emphasizes the role of nationalist ideology in U.S. foreign policy while Chomsky allows for nationalist ideology but subsumes it under the socio-economic institutional structures that he affords primacy. (He is largely borrowing from the work of Gabriel Kolko in his reply to her.)

5. The point about David Horowitz and "Marxist Intellectual Construction" contains no argument just assertion. On the face of it, I find it a highly dubious assertion since class analysis predates Marx by centuries.

6. Cambodia sections, once again there are quoted assertions, in fact, soundbites, without substantive arguments, especially ones that accurately reference what Chomsky (and Herman) actually wrote in its intended context.

7. Criticism of the authenticity of Chomsky's political views

The irony is that Zerzan's status as an authentic anarchist is disputed, especially among anarchists adhering to the historical tradition. It is also, again. a soundbite without argumentation.

Lastly, I would suggest that if stubs cannot be expanded upon in due time they should be removed. As I said, if someone from a left perspective applied the same approach, leaving half-assed assertions on the pages of right-wing icons, if they were not predictably and summarily removed by true-believers, wikipedia's political and economic oriented articles would appear as a total mess. This suggests that there are double standards at work. Total crap is tolerated on Chomsky-related pages, while the pages of right wing icons constitute strictly controlled hagiographies. BernardL 00:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/t/User_talk%7EAntelopeInSearchOfTruth_3824.html"