User talk:Marlow4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!

User:Sam Spade

Contents

[edit] Image moved

Hello! The image Image:Shorthand sampler.png that you created was moved to the Wikimedia commons, so that it can be used on other wikis as well. It is now accessible on this wiki through the name Image:Eclectic shorthand by cross.png instead. Regards, Sam Hocevar 11:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I moved your nice picture t--Marlow4 17:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)o commons. I added informations in the description. I found most shorthand method author' names. But, who is "Cross" ? (and full name of Lindsey ?)
--Victor Stinner 11:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
For Cross, see the article on Eclectic Shorthand, which is really quite a unique and interesting system. I don't know anything about Lindsley, other than that Mr. Cross considered it a serious competitor in 1897, but I don't know anything more. --Marlow4 23:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Native Latin speakers?

Greetings, fellow Latinist. If you have second, please cast your two cents in on the discussion of a category for native Latin speakers who are also Wikipedians. --Flex 13:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emergency department

I wonder if you would consider supporting Emergency department at Wikipedia:Article improvement drive, to raise the profile of medicine on the wikipedia. The ED is a key area where the public receive emergency care, but the current article is very inadequate.--File Éireann 23:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please vote to keep CDP-USA userbox

Please consider going to here and voting to keep the CDP-USA userbox. Thanks.  IS Guðsþegn – UTCE – 20:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ‎"‎װיקיפּעדיע‎"‎ and ‎"‎װיקיביבליאָטעק‎‎"‎


[edit] Ancient Greek Wikisource

I understand from your userboxes you're interested in Ancient Greek. I've submitted a proposal to add an Ancient Greek Wikisource on Meta, and I'd be very grateful if you could assist me by either voting in Support of the proposal, or even adding your name as one of the contributors in the template. (NB: I'm posting this to a lot of people, so please reply to my talkpage or to Meta) --Nema Fakei 20:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Garlic

Your contributions history doesn't look like the average vandal's. Why did you just do that to garlic? Please don't. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Duly chastised, won't happen again. --Marlow4 17:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deja vu all over again

It's baaaaack! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous members of Mensa (2nd nomination) ... your 2¢ would be appreciated. --Dennette 15:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BC/BCE...

Got your message. I really don't agree, but since it's apparently a "touchy subject", I'll leave it alone. This was neither "revert warring" nor "unilateral". As for "substantial reason", I kinda thought not referencing time based on the inaccurate, antiquated birthday of a religious figure seemed fairly reasonable. Having read thru much of the Wiki discussion on this, I'm still not sure why BC/AD persists. The most common argument for keeping it appear to be: "well, that's the way it's always been". Or even better, "no one really thinks of it in religious terms...". Yikes.

I mean really, doesn't it seem just the slightest bit odd to time stamp Chinese history based on the birthday (again, inaccurate) of the Christian Savior? I might even cut the idea some slack if it were BJ (before Jesus), because than at least an historical figure is referenced. But, as you know, "the Christ" is whole other level.

In their essence, BC and AD are Euro-Christocentric. Doesn't matter that "that's what we've always used", or that "it's really not religious anymore". Oh well. Glad to know someone out there is keeping an eye on this particular subject. Guess I'll add it to my watchlist and see what happens...--Jonashart 02:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not made and will not make the counter-argument on this issue; I suppose most BC/AD proponents would argue on the basis of tradition and the preservation thereof, as you say. It's also questionable whether the objections you raise regarding BC/AD are really solved in any meaningful way simply by rebaptising them BCE and CE--the cultural origins remain unchanged. Besides, one could just as well argue from the left against BCE/CE, on the grounds that this perpetuates the Western self-understanding as the 'neutral' viewpoint, against which all other cultures (Chinese, Islamic, etc. with their 'quaint' ways of dating) are contrasted. Instead of admiting that the Western calendar has a historical and cultural foundation and bias just like every other culture's calendar does.
But that is not the point. The idea of NPOV on wikipedia is not that it is right--only that it is neutral. Nobody here makes the assertion that neutrality is always right: of course it isn't. But our aim is not to be right, it is to be neutral.
The reason being as I understand it that a community-based encyclopaedia cannot be built if we make it a forum in which to debate and decide on the validity of political correctness, abortion, the Iraq war, or any other contentious topic you like. Take your previous comment and fill it with equally powerful justifications of a given stance on Iraq or abortion and I think you can see that, even if you have proved to your satisfaction that you are right in what you say, you will only provoke a huge argument--you will never be able to convince everybody else that you are right. Wikipedia has had thousands of such argument already, and although there will always be some that go looking for them, most agree that it is in the larger interest of the project to avoid the contentious and stick to a neutral policy that avoids making 'rulings' on topics people feel strongly about. --Marlow4 21:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, just now seeing that you've replied. You've raised a very interesting point re: 'rebaptizing' as neutral. That's taking the next step (or the current step) in post-modern thought. Just the kind of thing I like to do with my students. A nice twist.
Anywho, point taken. Little "t" truth vs. big "T" Truth, eh? Gotcha gotcha gotcha. And to your point, relabeling doesn't actually change the point in history from which the clock starts. Lesson learned. Thanks Marlow.--Jonashart 21:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tax form 2555

I noticed you removed the fact tag on this section. If the statements are referenced in the external links, could you please turn it into an inline citation for the statements. Also reading through it, the statements in that section seem POV. Statements like "allowed it to slip in" & "entirely failed" should be reworded for neutral tone. I also don't see any POV from Grassley on why the change was included. I'd work on it myself but I'm a bit busy at the moment and would have to read through the articles. It seems you already have some knowledge on the topic. Morphh (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to vouch for the article section or its sources, but the links clearly do back the statements which is why I removed the tag. It seemed silly to have a "citation needed" followed directly by the link to the source. Again I don't vouch for the validity of the link or anything in the article; I was looking on this as more of a style edit. --Marlow4 14:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/r/User_talk%7EMarlow4_806e.html"