User talk:Leonig Mig

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome! 1.1 Additional tips 1.2 Happy Wiki-ing. 2 High praise 3 Userpage images 4 Neitzsche and Romanticism 5 Motorway service stations 6 Nick Boulevard RFC 7 Lickey 8 POTW 9 User:Pigsonthewing 10 Re: Personal attacks removed 11 POTW RFC 12 The Rfar 13 Unprotection 14 Your user page 15 The impostor User:LeonigMig I 16 Welcome Back! 17 Image copyright problem with Image:IMG 0949.JPG 18 Image:IMG 0949.JPG listed for deletion

[edit] Welcome!

— Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:00, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] High praise

Thank you so much for your kind words on my talk page. I am deeply touched.—Theo (Talk) 3 July 2005 18:05 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage images

The images on your user page are absolutely stunning! Did you upload them yourself? If you did, I strongly advise you to put {{gfdl}} or a similar copyright tag on them to prevent them from being deleted. The Wikipedia no longer tolerates fair use images and images with uncertain copyright status.

Secondly, I encourage you to take more images like this, and upload them to the commons so everyone can benefit from them.  :-) --Ardonik.talk()^* July 7, 2005 18:36 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Leonig Mig 7 July 2005 23:19 (UTC)

[edit] Neitzsche and Romanticism

You have to excuse my sluggishness to answer, there was a counteractive technicality for my connectivity between the main network, but it has apparently been restored to my (our) benefit and procession.-- Now--I disagree with your amiss experimentation (there was no attempt at consultation in the discussion page of the main article first to establish any valid indication of your hypothesis's truth) for the sake of luring sharp-eyed wikipedians notwithstanding--I will all the more gladly delimitate a general vignette (perhaps bordering as parody, however, it is suitable enough here) on N along with his opposition to romanticism as he perceived it during his life but without a great deal of detail (for that I could no more strongly exhort you to read Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist by Walter Kaufmann, an immeasurably valuable introduction and clarification to N's philosophical thought as a whole, and indeed other works penned by him are of significant interest). As noted, N's rudimentary anti-romantic traits (indeed, romanticism is to him associated with the "impoverishment of life"--read The Gay Science, section 370, for just this point) extend back to the daybreak of his philosophical work and are the very soil wherein his deprecations against factitious Christianity sprouted, as he saw it, wherein he argued that it had reverted Jesus's teachings (for whom N actually lauds therefor) of his practice (not faith) into an exultation of a double-standard of faith (viz., the creation of 'Christ') in another world that thus deplored the present state of existence and at worst manifested into ressentiment and other such nuances of truly un-Christian notions (e.g., faith versus reason as Luther clearly exonerated the case for the former, which N vehemently censured in favour of reason). That is to say more clearly, N did not at all find genuine Christianity (in accordance with J's teachings) to blame nor did he exhume it as a depreciation of existence, only the Christianity that had developed into something quite the contrary thereof did he find offensive and absolutely reprehensible. As for his repudiation of Wagner, N openly accorded to himself in Ecce Homo how he earlier misunderstood Wagner and made his departure when W permitted himself to the sway of public opinion and produced Parsifal, a thoroughly romantic piece. With that N decided to make leave of him, and in spite of their break N was still deeply affected by their friendship and valued it highly thereafter. This is an all-too-brief sketch that does not allow a grasp of his thought (again, read Kaufmann's book), but it nevertheless provides a sense of how N approached some issues that were very significant for him.-- It is advisable that all of N's published literature is read as well as the above suggestion written by Kaufmann (including his other works on N) as a prerequisite even to declare one has quaffed a minim of understanding and thus to begin exposition in lieu of a well-informed background on N.--Glyphonhart 7 July 2005 04:21 (UTC)

I am rather new, so this came to you quite late, but I had written it before without realising it needs to be placed here (much thanks to RJC for that). I hope this suites well.--Glyphonhart 8 July 2005 01:13 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments. I shall endeavour to search out the Kaufmann book at some point. Leonig Mig 19:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Motorway service stations

Just to answer your comments, I don't see how you can combine the merge and delete votes. I say that because those are 2 separate votes in this case. The delete vote is designed to take all of these off of Wikipedia. The merge vote is designed to merge it into existing articles. These are not the same thing. So that's why my decision was what it was. I am not "supporting" these stubs. If you think that's how closing vfds works, then I don't think you quite understand how the process works. I close these votes with as much neutrality as possible. Should these articles be on Wikipedia? Probably not. But I have to go by the vote, not by my personal beliefs. --Woohookitty 23:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Boulevard RFC

I have asked Andy to stop reposting that criticism of you at Nick's RFC. I have again told him my opinion that such a statement should be a separate RFC or equivalent. Given his stance that he is "not really interested in hearing [my personal opinions"], I am unconvinced that he will heed my plea but I still hope that he find some goodwill over this. I do hope that you will not be disheartened by Andy's behaviour. —Theo (Talk) 00:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lickey

Hi Leonig Mig,

I'm not sure about your comment that Lickey was conceived as a Suburb of Birmingham in Victorian Days. Possibly you are using today's concept of "commuting by car" and transposing it backwards into Victorian day's.

Here are my reasons against this view:

Birmingham did not reach out very far in those days. Northfield (well Northfield and Kings Norton District parish) were part of the County of Worcestershire and they did not become part of the City of Birmingham until (I think) the mid 1920's. The county boundaries were then redrawn to make them part of Warwickshire (Birmingham was in Warwickshire, until the West Midlands Region came into existence). I don't know when Longbridge became part of Birmingham (possibly the late 1920s) but it would have been after Northfield & King's Norton. So when the Austin Motor Company was formed, at Longbridge, the site was in the north of Worcestershire and it remained so for at least another 20 years. The "North" in both Northfield and King's Norton linked them as being to the north of Bromsgrove, which in former days was far more important than Birmingham; and King's Norton was a Berewick of Bromsgrove. Northfield, as a nail making community, had much stronger links with Halesowen and Bromsgrove than Birmingham.

The big expansion of tourism, from Birmingham, to the Lickey Hills, occurred with the extension of Birmingham's tram systems to its Lickey Hills terminus at Rednal; which closed in 1950 (possibly 1952) and was replaced by the No 61/62/63 bus services. Places like Barnt Green had rail links to Birmingham so possibly they may have been targetted by the railway company as "commutor belt". But Lickey did not have a train station. Many of the Cadbury family lived at Bournville and Northfield (one or two near Barnt Green, I believe) so Northfield, Bournville, Harborne and Edgbaston were more likely commutor areas for Birmingham in Victorian days.

My father worked at Lickey Grange from the late 1940s to just before his death in the mid 1970's and he commuted daily from Northfield to Lickey Grange, by Midland Red bus; but it was a long journey time. Lord Austin's "commute" from his home at Lickey Grange to his factory at Longbridge was, I suggest a different matter.

Sorry to be heavy, and I haven't lived in Birmingham for over 30 years so I might have my bus numbers wrong (and I've not checked them against Wikipedia). Do you have any evidence to support your comment? Pyrotec 13:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Good points, I replied on your user page. Leonig Mig 06:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do nothing until Sept, as I need to do some research. I only remember Lickey by travelling on the Midland Red, 144 service, in the 1970's. Lickey then was just a long boulevard (B4096) - Lickey, Lickey Rock and Lickey End (on the 1962 1" OS map No.131). The A39 was moved slightly at Lydiate Ash to accommodate what was then the Northern end of the M5 and joined Lickey at the Marlbrook. However, possibly the Longbridge / Marlbrook bit of the A38 was built as a "bypass" around Lickey; and if so when (1920's road building programme, such as the Wolverhampton New Road from Quinton)? Pyrotec 09:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I think your last answer has clarified my "problem". I don't really "know" your Lickey and I've not yet been to Barnt Green Station; I only know the Old Birmingham Road bit in the 1960s from Rose Hill, at Rednall, to just beyond Lickey Grange. (Have you taken into account the Beaching closures of the local stations on the former Birmingham West Suburban Railway line, until the metro line was reopened to Longbridge & beyond). I might have a stab at Lickey Grange, but I've no idea what is currently happening, perhaps you could update it when I get round to doing it. Pyrotec 12:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POTW

I think its about time a RFC was started against Pigsonthewing, his recent ploy of removing any slight criticism pretending it is a "personal atack" is IMO completely unnaceptable see this . I think a RFC is long long overdue. What do you think. I have already talked to User:TheoClarke and Nick B G-Man 21:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

You have my admiration for your constructive post on Andy's talk page. I consider it brave to reveal your vulnerability to someone who seems hostile towards you. Thank you for making Wikipedia a kinder gentler place. —Theo (Talk) 12:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I know you both don't exactly see eye to eye (to put it mildy!) but to leave comments such as this on his talk page is extremely unhelpful, I know you might be infuriated by his behaviour but this really won't help things. Please try to stay cool and tone down your comment so as not to inflame things. Regards, Joolz 18:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

What Joolz said! I agree that Andy's behaviour is inappropriate. Do not give him ammunition. I suggest that you channel your energy into helping to prepare User:G-Man/POTW RFC. It needs a list of diffs showing Andy reverting aggressively. —Theo (Talk) 18:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey again, I saw your edits to Pigsonthewing's user page, I really advise you not to touch it because it's not going to help things or resolve any issues you both have. As Theo's said, an RFC seems to be being prepared, instead of editing his user page you could contribute to that and raise any issues you have there. -- Joolz 17:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I echo Joolz' comments above; don't fight fire with fire - fight it with water. Leave polite and civil requests on POTW's talk page and let him delete them. It will give you the satisfaction of comparing your behaviour with his. I completely understand your frustration, but by far the best way to show him up is to behave as if he were a decent person, and then let him himself, by his own behaviour, show this to be untrue.

Thank you for your reverts of Tarbigge, incidentally. Occurances of pigsonthewingery have been following me around a bit recently (i.e. a certain user's sudden appearence, as if by magic, at articles I've just edited but which he's never edited before followed by the sudden invention of tenuous pretexts to revert them, or, if that fails, trying to get them deleted, etc.). I do appreciate your recognising the nature of these edits. Perhaps we could coin the word porculovolanticular to describe edits that exist solely to be antagonistic. 80.255 00:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I am very sorry that you are thinking of leaving. I am now watching that offensive user page. Please consider helping to develop the list of evidential diffs at User:G-Man/POTW RFC. —Theo (Talk) 07:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pigsonthewing

I suggest that you stop editing this user's page unless it contains an obvious personal attack on you. If you feel that is the case, I suggest you take it to an admin or get another opinion from someone unrelated to the incident before you take any further actions. And remember to try to take the high road. Regards and happy editing! Sasquatch讲看 03:12, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Protection is not meant to endorse one version over another, see m:The Wrong Version. All pages are protected on the wrong version. I can see that what he said on his userpage isn't very nice, but I don't personally feel it's bad enough to require removal. I'll ask for second opinions however. Regardless, edit warring is not cool, and should not happen. I looked at the diffs he linked to, and I see that you said rfc is a waste of time. Have you tried rfc'ing him? Have you tried anything to resolve the dispute? Maybe you should file an request for arbitration, if you think it's neccessary. --Phroziac ^(talk) 18:05, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

RFC can't ban users. ;) RFAr can, it takes weeks to go through, and they can watch for sockpuppets and ban them too, to some extent. I'm not really sure what to suggest, other then an rfc or rfar, but I know that edit wars don't work. By the way, would you like to just ignore the userpage stuff, and agree to stop reverting it? --Phroziac ^(talk) 19:25, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I unprotected that page. Please, don't revert it anymore. That's no better then what he has done, and you may be blocked if you do it. Good luck with the RFC. --Phroziac ^(talk) 22:35, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! --Phroziac ^(talk) 22:56, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Personal attacks removed

I understand the frustration, and I'm glad you didn't have a problem with my change to your comment. Honestly, I don't see what you can do beyond the measures you're taking already. --Scimitar ^parley 18:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POTW RFC

You probably want to see this: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing --Phroziac^(talk) 04:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

You're on the inside as far as RFC is concerned. By inside they mean the dispute, not just the RFC. I was the only person actually involved in filing the RFC. You should probably certify for the basis of the dispute, remove the outside view (put it on the talk page so people can see it), and add the important details to the main summary. And people will want to see diffs of what he's done and you trying to resolve the dispute. Anyway, thanks for commenting. --Phroziac^(talk) 22:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Rfar

The biggest reason why i've gone through all of this was because of people like POTW bullying people like you. Nobody should ever be bullied into feeling that they're not welcome here. Period. You go right ahead and revert his edits if you want to as long as you follow policy. Your writing style is yours. If someone wants you to change it, they can help you or ask for a compromise and eventually both sides learn and grow. If POTW gives you any more problems, you just let me know.Karmafist 04:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection

Do you want your user page unprotected now? Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 18:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your user page

I unprotected your User page. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Leonig Mig 11:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The impostor User:LeonigMig I

Check his contributions, he was obviously just some random idiot trying to stir up trouble. the wub "?!" 18:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe I've got an imposter! Leonig Mig 02:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome Back!

I'm glad to see that you didn't let all of this mess with POTW scare you off permanently from this username. karmafist 20:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if that means he'll quit reverting all your edits with the edit summary "reverting edits of user who is not here"? :-) *waves* Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 16:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I quite liked the Che Guevara bit actually. Leonig Mig 02:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:IMG 0949.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:IMG 0949.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 11:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:IMG 0949.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:IMG 0949.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you.