User talk:Dablaze

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Eastern Market

Hi there, I'm glad to see someone else adding local information on DC. I'm wondering whether we really need separate articles on the building and the neighborhood, however. These could just be merged into Eastern Market, Washington, DC, and the neighborhood description included in Capitol Hill, Washington, DC; I've never considered the Eastern Market to really constitute a distinct neighborhood within Capitol Hill, though I've only lived here a couple years, and may not be enough up on local parlance. If they are merged, I also don't think we need a disambiguation page for the Metro article—it's enough to include a mention of the stop in the article itself. Let me know what you think. Postdlf 03:32, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the changes noted above—please let me know if you disagree. I also expanded the content a bit. Postdlf 04:38, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I guess I was being a bit over-thorough -- I think including a paragraph on the building itself in the neighborhood information is fine. Thanks for making the change.

I know Eastern Market isn't quite a neighborhood, but it's a distinct enough area of Capitol Hill that people say that they live near Eastern Market, or in the Eastern Market area. I almost do, so that's pretty much what I tell people where I live. The 8th Street corridor/Barracks Row area is also up and coming.

--Dablaze 05:29, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Astrodynamics on Opentask

Hello. I've reverted your edit on Template:Opentask. Astrodynamics badly needs copyediting, and it's not a stub. -- PFHLai 05:23, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

You've convinced me that Astrodynamics is not ready for copyeditting. I've posted it at WP:PNA. Hope the article will get fixed up soon. -- PFHLai 23:26, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

[edit] About the bold - italic marks

Hi there. Well, I just had the impression, that making those languages bold makes them look too striking. Bold words look like important facts or things like that. I preferred making them just italic, because then still you can spot them easily in the text but they do not jump into your eye like bold words. It was a nice idea though, didn't thought of that when writing the table. :) — N-true 13:32, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Science

(This is a bit off-topic for the talk page.)

To clarify the matters:

The French government (I don't know about the Belgian government) does not, by law, recognize, salary or subsidize any religion. As a consequence, it does not grant official recognition, nor classifies religions. This is very important to understand in the light of groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses that sometimes complain that the French government does not grant them recognition as a religion. [1] [2]

However, the government grants recognition to "1905 law organizations of worship". Note the enormous difference between recognizing a religion (which would imply granting legal recognition to a doctrine, and, for instance, adjudicating doctrinal quarrels through the judicial process) and recognizing religious organizations. Actually, the process to recognize religion does not pay attention to doctrine and theology per se, a fact that is often shocking to outsiders from other countries: as far as I know, one can start a worship of the Sacred Carrot and get recognition. The main importance of this recognition is being able to receive inheritance and inheritance-like donations without being submitted to inheritance tax (which can go as far as 60%, as far as I know, for inheritances to random associations that are neither associations of worship neither associations of public usefulness).

Government services then apply very formal criteria for this recognition. The association must, in practice and in statutes, solely organize religious worship, which is largely defined by what it cannot do, like running a commercial publishing house (the normal workaround is to have another association, with separate account, for running other activities). Another criterion is that it should abide by "public order", a loose concept largely defined by the case law of the Conseil d'État.

As far as I know, inciting people to refuse blood transfusions to their children in jeopardy, or to refuse them medical care, can be easily construed a breach of public order. A parent preventing his child from getting adequate medical care can be prosecuted on criminal charges, and I doubt it very much that the religious excuse is accepted. Advocating criminal behavior is probably against public order.

The fact that Christian Science has long been considered a "religion" in the United States has absolutely no bearing on the case.

Now, back to the parliamentary report. The parliamentary report listed a number of "cultish" behaviors, like inciting people to apply faith healing to their children. It also quoted some lists of "cults", which included Christian Science. It did not specifically list Christian Science in the main body of the text.

Of course, a parliamentary report is not an official opinion of the government of the country, and has nil regulatory or statutory importance. It would therefore be extremely misleading to state that the French government considers Christian Science to be a cult.

On the other hand, I think that it is a safe bet that the average person in most Western Europeans countries would consider a religion requiring people to renounce medical treatment to be a cult. David.Monniaux 18:17, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Sophie Tucker

Good work on improving the Sophie Tucker article. One thing I wondered was why you removed the mention of Ted Shapiro. If it was wrong, should be rewritten, or if there is a reason it should not be in the article, please explain on Talk:Sophie Tucker. Thanks and best wishes, -- Infrogmation 19:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi DB from DC

I just found your note at the Tina Modotti piece and promise to fix it tomorrow. It is interesting [to me] that an article that sat for sooooooooo long unattended is suddenly being looked at by all sorts of folks. Life is a wonder. Carptrash 05:31, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well we shall see what Sunday brings. Part of the reason that i never polished off the Modotti article is that a lot of what went on, when it went on and God[dess] save us from WHY it went on is not clear. Folks who worked for the Stalinist secret police did not exactly bare it all. Still, the article needs to be improved. I have also been having an increaingly difficult time getting around wikipedia due to "error" and "you can't go there now" and that sort of thing. If Wired Magazine does come out with an article on it, the number of hits will increase by about a zillion [carpmath] for a couple of weeks, all of them by computer and web savy folks, so i hope we [wikipedia, you and me] are up to the task. Carptrash 18:27, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is proving to be a slower process than expected. Someone [wisely] chopped out Vidali and Mella and made them into separate entries and I'm finding myself working on them instead. I had ADD long before it was fashionable, long before it even had a name and this sort of situation brings out the best in it and perhaps the worst in me. You seem to have been the person who added that Modotti & Mella were married. I believe that to not be the case. I find no mention of it in any of her bios [I have 3 + assorted other stuff] - only a reference to Mella's wife back in Cuba. Life goes on - though not for those folks.
You know, i really didn't think that you put in the misinformation about Modotti and Mella's marrage, but i could not discover exactly where it was entered by going through the history. It was an odd thing for someone to do. I am having a difficult time navigating through wikipedia these days, only half my clicks work - clicking your pyrimid writing link, for example, did not. But yes, i am too close to Tina, too hung up in details and need to step back and just look at the forest for a bit. thanks for hanging in there with me. Carptrash 17:22, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS this post, for example, has already refused to take, twice, - thrice - four - five - six this has now become a scinece experiment] .

Well I have posted a revised Tina Modotti article, much better, I think, but I'd be interested in your opinion. Redoing it has reminded me once again what an amazing person she was and how fortunate it was that Madonna did not play her in the movie, as was once intended. - 2,3,4.5.

[edit] Hi [cont.]

Thanks for the thoughts on Modotti. The Center for Creative Photography at UA in Tucson has a bunch of her work, as well as some by Mather and Weston. I am writing to them [and might even stop by on my way to Phoenix in a couple of weeks] and try and wrangle some shots out of them. TM is sort of a cult photographer, and since I'm part of her cult, well it's hard for me to evalute her general effect. On the other hand, I have 6 or 7 books on her, so there mist be a fair amount of interest. Wish me luck with the CCP folks. Carptrash 01:10, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your profile (particularly the bit about Wickye-Pædia) made me laugh.

Thanks for spicing up Wikipedia with some valuable creative expression. Ground 12:56, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] we be yammin'

Hi! Yes, I just kind of fell into the yam thing. I think the candied yams page came up in one of the task lists on the Community Portal, and I wanted to try editing. That got me to reading a couple of other webpages about yams to check facts and so forth, and my inner trivia geek took over from there. Like you, I have it on my watchlist because I edited it, so once in a while I come back to it. See you 'round the tuber! FreplySpang 04:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religious tolerance

In fact, it was your comment that convinced me that it was time to wade back in there to take a few more punches. However, I think he will desist if more than one person engages him. I'm currently working on getting him to understand the meaning of consensus (general agreement; not necessarily unanimity). Sunray 09:30, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

Just to let you know I've placed the Common Era page on WP:RfC. I have outlined on the talk page what I see the dispute as being about - I have done this in a Q&A format. Please feel free to add more Q&As if you think fit, but please do not amend mine. I would add that I'd much prefer it if you were able to find an alternative, but credible, website that espoused the same views as Robinson - my objection to the link is that Robinson is hardly authoritative and that it is dangerous to Wikipedia when other users, on the back of our link, go quoting him as authoritative, which I have already seen. This is about intellectual rigour, not about pushing, or not pushing, a POV, jguk 09:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thanks!

You're quite welcome! Although I am not sure I understand which sentence you were referring to about being tough to follow. No, I have never attended the University of Chicago, although it is a fine school. I do know people there, though. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] on refrence to da kind

I reade your message and I am willing to allow and help you put hawaiian phrase and word articles for you. Link to my article if you want and message me if you want me to add anything.

link25 12:19 AM 28 Mar 2005

[edit] BCE/CE and our friend Jguk

Dablaze: You might want to take a look at this: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk. In my evidence, I've included some of the events that occurred during the Religious Tolerance debate on Talk: Common Era. Sunray 19:56, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. The ArbCom has begun deliberating here. Sunray 15:13, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom decision

Yes, my sentiments exactly. Fred apparently grasped the situation accurately. However, the dynamics of the committee seemed to confound a reasonable decision. Some of the others seemed to be reacting in a way that was counter-suggestible to him. Our lad appears to have learned nothing from the experience. Sunray July 4, 2005 07:13 (UTC)

[edit] Jguk 2 Arbitration request

Since you were involved / gave evidence in the first arbitration case involving User:Jguk and date notation, I thought you would be interested in a new arbitration request that has been lodged, again regarding User:Jguk and date notation. Please see WP:RFAr#jguk 2 if you would like to comment. Sortan 19:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)