User talk:LeaNder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, LeaNder, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Shimgray 15:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Thanks for Welcome

What a pity your message has no sound. I am madly in love with Scottish accents!

The titles of the article links you send sound partly familiar. But I will read them at the pace of an article a day.

LeaNder aka Kraut de Cologne

[edit] hi again

Thanks for noticing. My best work. Gzuckier 21:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yaron Brook

I removed the content because it was uncited. Uncited material should generally be removed (unless very common knowledge). This is especially important in cases of living people's biographies, where Wikipedia policy states: "controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately." If someone can find a source AND reproduce the entire interview to give proper context, then the material should be reposted. LaszloWalrus 02:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a really futile argument Laszlo. I have seen the video, I couldn't believe my eyes, my ears. Brook overtook O'Reilly on the far right. Unfortunately the links on the net have disappeared at least for me over here in Germany. Obviously it would be nice to have direct link for all the world to watch this madman. Now I definitely have a problem admittedly since the only transcript on the net is EIR/LaRouche. And I hesitate to use that source. The problem is they did not invent it LeaNder 02:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the video too, and don't dispute the transcript; the problem is that our recollections of it and a Larouche source don't count by Wikipedia policies, especially for living people. LaszloWalrus 04:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. First, I finally decided to devote Wikipedia the attention it deserves. So much I do not know about it. So I will definitely have other problems than LaRouche about whom I might be even more suspicious than I dislike the positions of Yaron Brook. After all there is a chance that Israel might see the problems in the ME much more clearly than we do over here in Europe. Frankly I dislike LaRouche's propaganda [especially the pamphlets distributed on campus by the LaRouche Youth Movements; I haven’t decided yet whom I dislike more campus watch or the LaRouchies, though.], and I did not immediately realize what corners it came from. As I was not aware the video is pretty old news by now. I can see your point in deleting the link. LeaNder 17:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on Brook

I have no problem with what you called your "meanderings" on Talk:Yaron Brook. The real issue is that the RfC was posted but editors who responded to the RfC didn't have a nice clean thread that stated the issue, presented all positions, and grouped the visitors' comments. This is, unfortunately, a very common problem with RfC's.

As for my user page, I was designated as a spelling champion by kizzle after I corrected one of his mistakes. He's also the one who found the "13" photo. Glad you liked it! JamesMLane t c 04:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)C


Hmmm? How did you manage to make this a subtitle, technically speaking.

Concerning my mental "meandering" disposition or my response to your critique: "The purpose of the category system is to help the reader find information. The question shouldn't be answered by hypertechnical parsing of Brook's work or of the terms of the definition." You were pushing at an open door with this comment. Before I read it, I wondered if it wouldn't be helpful to write a little summery concerning the Anti-Iraq War category discussion and put it on top of the whole section. As some kind of invitation. Leave your comment below. You don’t even need to read the whole tread. Your comment was helpful. I was a bit puzzled, admittedly. I wondered if I missed something essential.

Spelling: When I lived in London a couple of decades ago, I could never understand why so many people had problems with spelling. But meanwhile I look at my comments turning red with shame and embarrassment, so your little no. 13 champ raised my spirits considerably. Duties are piling up. LeaNder 12:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

To make a subtitle you use three equal signs instead of two. Open this thread in an edit window and you'll see that I typed ===RfC on Brook=== under the existing thread. You can make a subsubtitle with four equal signs: ====Spelling reminiscences====. I've never gone beyond four so I don't know if there's a point at which the software loses patience.
As for the RfC, I'm sorry my comment was puzzling. I was writing from the perspective of someone coming to the page in response to the RfC. The long and discursive discussion on the talk page may well have been helpful for the improvement of the article, but RfC's work best when they result in input from editors who haven't previously been involved with the article, and who don't want to get fully up to speed on everything being discussed. I see that my comment didn't make that point very clearly. Perhaps an example will be more useful: I was impressed by the RfC setup at Talk:Tucson, Arizona#December 16-23, 2004 vote, which provided the two different versions and a summary of each side's position. Unfortunately, that kind of consideration for the editors responding to the RfC is not yet the norm. JamesMLane t c 19:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


In the Brook discussion I started out pretty much on Tsunamis side, but then I got interested in the objectivist perspective (with the whole load of Old European reservations). … Seems an interesting part of the larger American meme. Now I have arrived at a point were I have to decide if I really want to invest in set of ARI CD-Roms; probably not? But it would be necessary to know "all" of his lectures on the topics discussed. We'll see.

Yes, the Tuscan Arizona example is brilliant. Good work. In the Brook case we would be missing voters. From my limited perspective and attention it feels there are basically two camps, one would be perfectly satisfied if Brook was simply put on the totem pole with the accompanying quotes from his O’Reilly interview, which no doubt was outrageous. The other side does not want to show this too clearly to the world, but does not want to devote too much time either to present him, the roots and developments of this views before the interview and after. Up to a point they seemed mainly busy deleting/reverting.

But now I understand EndlessMike’s comment! Are we voting? I wouldn’t have expected initially but I think concerning the definition B) of the category Anti-War Activist I am leaning strongly towards EndlessMike by now. With all due respect to its authors/creators: The definition leaves a slot, where anybody can squeeze his way in that e.g. criticizes the execution of the war in Iraq (the guilty: Rummy) and makes his view public known. [...) B contains 2 times 2 conditions combined via or, offering two either/or choices thus resulting in 4 times 2 possible combinations, the above is one of them. Brooks both criticizes the execution and he definitely makes his view publicly known. If we like it or not, he would fit the defintion.

Deadline approaching without any indulgence, gone for good now for a while LeaNder 21:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/e/a/User_talk%7ELeaNder_81b0.html"