User talk:Flammifer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Eugenics

Flammifer, you utterance's reflect your prejudice and I am sorry but i cannot apologise to you. I have read the wiki policy on personal attacks and to be honest i think that universal rules - such as this one - exist to be broken, especially when confronted with the likes of your outrageous comments. You really should be ashamed of yourself.--Nicholas 8 July 2005 09:33 (UTC)

I'm not ashamed of myself (sorry !) but I was never asking for or expecting any apology either - I don't feel particularly offended by anything you said. I don't think my comments are particularly outrageous - I haven't strived for political correctness but I haven't tried to be provocative or offensive either. I tend to be a cold-blooded rationalist, and talk about things in a detached manner, yes, and that's probably what you're having troubles with. That shouldn't prevent us from cooperating on an article. Flammifer 8 July 2005 09:57 (UTC)

[edit] Salut

Salut Flammifer! Vous etes en Chine! Normalement je n'aime pas la cuisine Chinoise mais c'est simplement parce que je suis une <<cuisinciste>> insensible :) Tiens, je ne suis pas en accord avec cet avis de Nicholas... bon courage! Wyss 8 July 2005 09:35 (UTC)

Tiens, salut Wyss ! pour la cuisine chinoise, j'avoue que le restaurant universitaire tous les jours, c'est pas le pied :-P Ah, manger de nouveau avec une fourchette ! ... Flammifer 8 July 2005 09:57 (UTC)

Very clever. We are conversing in French now, are we? --Nicholas 8 July 2005 09:50 (UTC)

Well, we're not saying anything very mean, just saying hello and talking about chinese food ... Wyss also said "Hmm, I don't agree with the opinion Nicholas just expressed", and that's it. Flammifer 8 July 2005 09:57 (UTC)

Je comprends. Mais mercis de la traduction.--Nicholas 8 July 2005 09:59 (UTC)

Voila! Tout ensemble et content! C'est cool! :) Wyss 8 July 2005 10:03 (UTC)

[edit] Ritual violence

Hello! I don't feel I really know much on the subject, but maybe in a couple months I'll know more since I'll be taking an anthropology class with someone who will probably lecture on the topic. Also I don't want to spend too much time since I am trying to limit my Wikipedia contributions to quick-and-dirty stuff like copyediting in order not to avoid my thesis work too much. But I did just want to point it out. A less Western point of view on that page would help a lot. One thing is that there is a difference between violence and pain (female genital mutilation probably falls more under the category of pain) which I don't think it being made on the page. It would probably have helped resolve the issue on the Talk page. Bonne chance. C'est un sujet qui risque de causer beaucoup plus de controverse à l'avenir. Mona-Lynn 03:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

OK :) I wasen't there yet during the big "is genital mutilation violence ?" war, and apart from that I don't think it's such a controversial issue. I hope you'll bring some stuff from your anthropology course :) Flammifer 03:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Flammifer, I understand that we have had our disagreements in the past and I hope that we can call it water under the bridge. Hopefully, from this experience, i can learn to moderate my contributions with evidence based argumentation.

I'm no longer interested in contributing toward the postmodern music article, although i stand by the basic content of my argument. It's a shame that Mr Newbury would not work with me.

Maybe you could do me a favour and contribute something to the RfC? Say whatever you like about me; but please rest assured that i am not a troll, nor a vandal. I have a bona fide interest in wikipedia and the mutual construction of knowledge.

By the way, thanks for your comments in the discussion so far.--Nicholas 17:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bible Students

Thanks Flammifer for creating this much needed article. Hopefully it will enable the Charles Taze Russell article to deal more with his life and less the post-death controversy. --K. 23:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. It's interesting that the biblestudents.net FAQ has a refreshingly clarity about the historical timeline and doctrinal connections between Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses. I wonder if that's why himself kept deleting the link? Tearlach 18:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bible Students in Germany

I hope that this answer can help: Discussion:Freie Bibelforscher --Bibelforscher 15:47, 20. Aug 2005 (CEST)

[edit] RE: VOTE!! - HDI in country infobox/template?

Hi! Thanks for your comments. I've placed the notice to vote on any pages where human development issues/HDI may be relevant (usually, but not exclusively, where links are present) and -- as well -- on the Information page, as the HDI (on the Country template page) was challenged as not being 'information'; maybe that's obtuse and if I erred, I apologise. My purpose is is to garner as wide -- and relevant -- a consensus as possible to support or deny the HDI's inclusion in the infobox. Make sense? Feedback? Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 03:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the feedback. It goes to the nature of what data should be included in a Wikipedia infobox; as purveyors of information here, we should have a concern. I would not have placed it on the Information page per se had it not been referred to initially. Also note, though, that it was another user who restored the survey to that page ... to each his own. Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 05:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Still testing?

Sandbox Watchlist Test junk Rich Farmbrough 12:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vote for JW structure

Please vote for or against the adoption of the proposed structure for WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses on the talk page and sign your name with ~~~~. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Editing Jehovah's Witnesses articles

Because of the volatile nature of religious opinion in general and opinions about Jehovah's Witnesses in particular, I am making it my goal to recommend to new and existing editors interested in JW articles to review (or re-review) Wikipedia's policies:

WP:NOR - no original research: your findings on Scripture have no place here
WP:V - verifiability: your references must be commonly verifiable
WP:NPOV - neutral point of view (this one is critical to JW pages edits especially): present opinions as opinions, facts as facts
WP:AGF - assume good faith: even if an edit is wildly divergent from what you are accustomed to, are comfortable with, or want to see in a particular article, don't assume bad motives on the part of the editor. They could be inexperienced, or have access to information that you may very well have never seen before. This means giving the benefit of the doubt to the largest extent possible.
WP:CIV - Civility - "We cannot always expect people to love, honor, obey, or even respect another. But we have every right to demand civility."
WP:SOCK - No Sock puppets - do not use multiple accounts to bolster support for your edits, or to avoid personal attacks (see next point for how to deal with personal attacks)
WP:NPA - No personal attacks: calling into question someone's character, intelligence, or integrity by means of insults or condescendingly toned jabs simply because you don't like their edit or their position is unacceptable. If you keep making negative comments on the editor and not the edits, you could be banned (see WP:BAN.)
WP:VAND - Vandalism: what it is, what it is not, and how to deal with it.

As Wikipedia is a serious academic endeavor, it is not the place for proselytizing or promoting (or detracting from) issues of a religious or spiritual nature. Discussing the validity or failings of a particular religious viewpoint are both wastes of your time here, as they are opinions that do not contribute to the desired end result. It is expected of every editor to contribute positively, abide by the rules of the forum and stick to the facts. This will help us not only keep these articles and the discussions behind them free from ineffective and off-topic banter, but present a respectable product that addresses all sides in their proper perspectives.

It is best to ignore insults and off-topic discussions, addressing only the pertinent points so as to reach a consensus regarding the content of these pages. If you must address them, it's best to simply cite the Wikipedia standards and redirect your focus to content and format. I hope my suggestions help. Happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony 15:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

Hi Flammifer, thank you for your efforts to disambiguate links. I just thought I'd bring this to your notice: you accidentally removed nearly half an article while disambiguating Objectivist metaphysics: [1]. I've returned the article to its proper state (and have reinstated the disambiguation). Be careful with that edit button! ;) Cheers, Tangot a ngo 12:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Haha, sometimes I get that senstation too :) (Just kidding) -- Tangot a ngo 12:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your constructive comments on the Great Disappointment talk page. I really appreciate the outside view. -- Jeff3000 15:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for rewriting segregate (taxonomy)

I admit I didn't know what a segregate was before I encountered it while researching for another article. So input from a specialist was greatly needed! :) Flammifer 08:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Probably there is more to be said on the topic. Brya 08:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split between Gundeshapur city and Academy

Both articles look OK. There is a lot of duplication between them, but I suppose it can't be helped. At least the organization is logical now :) Thank you for the work. Zora 09:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Already have an article

We have an article called Arabic name. You may want to take a look at that. Zora 20:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banu Musa

Hi there, I noticed you created Bana Musa brothers but I have to tell you that Banu Musa brothers (redirect) and Banu Musa already exist. I am pretty sure Banu Musa is the correct transliteration so I suggest changing Bana Musa brothers into a redirect. Green Giant 00:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. :) Green Giant 22:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Futureobservatory

Hi Flammifer, I wanted to let you know that I posted about User:Futureobservatory on the Admin's noticeboard: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Futureobservatory.27s_edits. --F a ng Aili ^說嗎? 16:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mumia Abu-Jamal

Thanks for your comments and edits on this and associated articles. Anyway, cool name, brings up memories of Latin class and reading Cicero et al. :) -- Deville (Talk) 14:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm glad as well. It started out that Steven Argue was adding stuff straight off of webpages, and I was reverting that and trying to get him to engage on the talk page. But for a while he wasn't saying anything, and I thought he was just going to ignore me. But now that he has responded I think we can make this work. And, anyway, for the record, "flamma" means flame (surprise!) in Latin, so your name is something like "carrier of the torch", which is solid. -- Deville (Talk) 16:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Science Collaboration

The current History of Science Collaboration of the Month is Science wars.

--ragesoss 15:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Randomness

You had proposed last year to merge some random number articles. Not sure if the ones you suggested can be done, but there are others in the category. Wikipedia:WikiProject Integration Cwolfsheep 19:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Would you please help in writing this article ? Thanks.--Welondekaw11:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Arabic)#poll for standard transliteration. I noticed that you previously contributed to the discussions on Arabic. thanks. Cuñado - Talk 01:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] House of Wisdom