User talk:EricR

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome, EricR, to Wikipedia!

Enjoy editing here on Wikipedia and I hope you will stay! Be sure to post your name on the Wikipedia new user log. Below are some useful tutorials and places of interest:

You can sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes: ~~~~; this adds your name and current time to your comments. If you need any more help, come to Bootcamp, add {{helpme}} to your talk page, or contact me on my talk page. Have fun!

--TBC??? ??? ??? 03:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Space

I'm not entirely clear on what you mean. Are you suggesting you create a page on Three dimensional space? Steve block talk 23:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that blue linked. Would it be worth redirecting links to three dimensional there? Is that what you are asking? Steve block talk 23:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see. If you want to create an article that better explains all the space usages and meanings in maths go ahead, although the best place for it would be Space in mathematics, as it would then be a sub-page off of Space rather than a page with a disambig header. I hadn't realised Three dimensional space existed either, to be honest. Steve block talk 14:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eric

You flagged CBC specials to be aired as a file that needs deletion...I agree...but the deletion tag at the top of the page links to CBS_Kids deletion page!

[edit] Kyoto

The "intelligent" part of Kyoto in the original document (of the 2nd meeting of the Target Committee) seems to me rather clearly to list it as a reason for bombing it, not against it. The fact that the document itself still lists Kyoto as the top target seems to back that up, as well as the fact that Stimson himself later got Kyoto removed from the list. I also think that I better summed up the reasons for the selection of Hiroshima than the version you reverted to, if you look at the document itself.[1] --Fastfission 03:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think we agree on all this then, sorry about that! I got a bit confused with the diffs there. --Fastfission 19:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Those articles

At least two seem to me to be blatant vanity, and the others are questionable. Wikipedia appears to be the major source on three-sided football, which is always a very bad sign. Absent evidence of significance from multiple reliable sources I would be strongly tempted to nominate it for deletion; AAA is also a possible candidate. Psychogeography looks like a reasonably widespread pseudoscience. Constant Nieuwenhuys appears to have no signifciance outside the minor subject of Unitary Urbanism; there appears to be a walled garden in operation here. Just zis Guy you know? 11:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] lettrists

how do you know that the lettrist international is not verified? please explain your tag in the talk pages that your tag. thanks. --Buridan 12:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

see the thing is that I can't tell what you think is missing. I terms of situationism and lettrism most of the translated documents are available at either notbored, the situationist international online www.cddc.vt.edu/sionline or bureau of public secrets. depending on what you think is missing i might be able to provide something but without description... i'm lost. --Buridan 20:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help!

I am being attacked by Nescio with a punative RFC regarding Rationales to impeach George W. Bush, which I feel is unwarranted. Please go there right away and comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merecat. Thanks. Merecat 18:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] *** Important - Your input requested ASAP ***

Please see this Wikipedia:Deletion review#Rationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush.

Merecat 00:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science

The "reference desk" is new to me. I see that you edit there alot. Do the editors they have to sign up on a list or something? How do we know the answers are accurate? - Sal 09:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] notability hotels

Left on the talk page but copying here to make sure you read the invitation.

I would be more than happy to write a guideline with a wider scope. The problems I see are two-fold: first it's going to be hard something that's really general but still reasonnably short and clear. Secondly, the task is daunting and the wider the scope the harder it will be to adress all concerns. Still, if either of you is interested, I am more than willing to give it a shot if I get at least some continuous feedback from other experienced users. Pascal.Tesson 18:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Isles

No problem. I didn't put in that stuff as padding or anything. In the area of Anglo-Irish relations terminology has been changing in recent years at an astonishing pace. New terms have appeared and grown (e.g., IONA) while others have come and gone just as quickly. I think it is important, given that these terms are constantly mentioned in relation to Anglo-Irish relations often as replacements for the British Isles, to mention them. They are real terms that have featured in serious sources so I don't see how we can not mention them. And if we don't, someone else will. So I think we should try to get the information in now in as neutral a way as possible. The problem with these terms is that they are evolving so quickly that their origins and unambiguous meanings have not been defined. Some, for example, British Isles and Ireland have patiently obvious meanings. Others, like IONA, seemed to have moved on from being institutional names to quasi-geographic ones. Often a particular term seems to be only used in a set section of society: academia, or broadcasting, or politics, etc. British Isles and Ireland intrigues me because it seems to be far and away the most widely used, and to be used in a very broad range of areas, from medicine to broadcasting to academia to politics, etc. It is an intriguing way of "solving" the sensitivities over the "British Isles" names. Even more curiously, it seems to have been adopted almost exclusively by British people. It wasn't something pushed by Ireland, the way IONA has been (even it that one didn't have Irish origins). I suspect in time British Isles and Ireland will be the predominant name. Who says Anglo-Irish relations aren't complex! lol FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please be more specific

Please be more specific. Which sources aren't reliable? --Reza1 20:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting. --Reza1 20:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Eric. 1. Is this the corect way to send a message to another user? I have been the recipient but never the sender. 2. It loos like Reza1 above was blocked and an IP-only user who agreed with him mysteriously appeared. It seems to be an attempt to circumvent blocking, but I don't know if it is stoppable. Could a sysop tell? I don't know how to contact them. I am afraid my Wiki knowledge goes as far as clicking "Edit" and "Discussion"

EricR, I contacted Prof. Ernst because of the concern you raised. But User:Dy-no-miite removes them saying "nothing sacred about "sourced material" in and of itself". I was the only editor whom you singled out and reported for 3RR violation. Now I ask for your help if you think the material is well sourced. --Reza1 22:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Balance

Hi EricR,

I have honestly done my best to keep the balance on the Spencer article. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Spencer#Balance . Thanks --Reza1 09:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Also, please note that I found and added some quotes from Bat Ye'or in defense of Spencer and put them at the top of the section. --Reza1 09:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BNC

Hi, I have seen your good work at British Isles and admired your patience. I am almost certainly teaching you to suck eggs: you seem to have impressive systems for finding references; however, on the off chance that you have not met it, you might very much enjoy the British National Corpus [2]. It's a bit old (1994), but still fun. It has been superceded by the International Corpus of English[3], which is only partly completed and many parts require deep pockets, but there are some accessible bits. MAG1 22:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the links- I dare not look at most of them yet out of the fear that all of a sudden it will be two in the morning. The Westfall archive looks reliable and verifiable to me, so I would use it. MAG1 21:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom voting policy

Thanks for your note calling my attention to your post about counting votes at ArbCom. I away for the weekend but will take a look when I get home and perhaps add a few thoughts. Newyorkbrad 12:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano

Well spotted. Mindspillage's recusal was presumably counted as well as her absence due to illness. --Tony Sidaway 20:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

You may like to weigh in here [4] as I notice you have an interest in this page. bunix 11:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acts of the Apostles

Thanks for finding those quotes! Yes-- one of the big complications is that almost all scholarship considers Luke and Acts to be a single two-part work, Luke-Acts. So, while there's tons of evidence that Mark&Q were the source for Luke-Acts, it's hard to know whether to list those sources in Acts of the Apostles. Obviously, the ideal solution would be to just have a single article on Luke-Acts, but, I think that would probably be an article title that implies a non-NPOV view, namely, that the Luke and Acts are two-parts of a single work written by a common author. Anyway, thanks for helping out! If you have an opinion about whether Mark&Q should be mentioned on the Acts page, do drop by and join in the chat. -Alecmconroy 20:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Furies

An educated person! Wonderful. It's the malice that disturbs me; but I'm young, tough and smart, Eric, and I will survive. I must. Anyway, we'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when...etc. etc. Clio the Muse 20:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've posted one final comment from me on this business on the RD talk page, Eric, under the relevant heading. Nothing more will be said, no matter what follows. Many thanks. Clio the Muse 08:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Eric, have a look over the latest 'drama' on the Humanities talk page (Calls for Suggestions etc.) My response touches, in part, on corrective action taken by you, so I thought you should know, on the assumption that you have not already seen this thread. It really is very sad. Clio the Muse 20:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you been involved in the RD discussion before speaking form the cheap seats? SCZenz's comments are not helping anything, merely stirring up more drama. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanx

Thanks for the link Eric. Crisco 1492 01:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zanzibar and Africa Addio articles.

Eric,

I've modified the Zanzibar article and added the Africa Addio article, as per the discussion at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Zanzibar_and_Africa_Addio. I used much of your material. You said you would like to know so you can add additional sources.

StuRat 02:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, also i found Zanzibar Revolution, we missed that one when the question came up, not much links to it.—eric 04:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gerard Montgomery,

Eric, where did you source that quote?--Vintagekits 21:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Eric, I never doubted the veracity of your statements. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

In effect you did--Vintagekits 03:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Why are you causing trouble? I never doubted his veracity, I just asked where he got the articles. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Vintagekits, skepticism of the sources for biographies of living persons is absolutely warranted, it should be very difficult to declare someone a murderer within an article. There are still open questions regarding those Mail articles, and insistence that more than one editor be able to read and evaluate them before the information is added to an article is completely understandable. Deleting those articles is no big deal, they can be easily restored, but the issues surrounding the quality and appropriateness of the sources should be resolved first.
The only complaint i have is that there is no place left to discuss these sources. I would think Talk:Robert McCartney (murder victim) would be the place, but since Tyrenius nuked w/ prejudice Talk:Gerard Montgomery after the articles were quoted there i'm not so sure. Zoe, what's the best place to discuss the articles, and is it appropriate to quote from them on a talk page?—eric 17:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Good question. Maybe you can put an entry into Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and discuss it there, or on the Talk page there? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference desk

I highly resent you removing my response to the question about Chinese internment as "purely speculative." The question was not in regards to the Constitutional authority strictly but also about whether it was a realistic possibility. An answer which takes into accounts changes in attitudes towards the interments of the 1940s as well as the incredible change of racial/national politics in the United States since then is perfectly within the purview of the question. An answer which blindly cites aspects of the Constitution is in fact less likely to be useful to answering the question of whether it is likely or not. Removing soap boxing is of course valid but removing valid, thought-out, and quite topical responses is highly irritating and insulting. I have restored my response and others which I thought were potentially useful for thinking through the question as well, whether or not I agreed with them. It is not your place to mandate which responses are "purely speculative" and which are not, and it is not your place to remove "purely speculative" responses in the first place. If such a policy were mandated about 80% of all answers would be removed pronto! In the future please take into account that removing people's comments is irritating to them (and requires a lot of investigation and clicking on the history page to even figure out what has happened to them) and should only be done in situations which truly warrant it, and in such cases you should probably leave a message on the appropriate talk page if the responses are not just vandalism or nonsense. There are real people behind these questions and responses, as you no doubt know, so please try and treat them with a little respect. --24.147.86.187 01:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a section for comment on this question on the Ref Desk talk page, i've copied your comment there.—eric 15:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orvietan

Hi Eric, I saw you added Venice treacle in bold letters to the introductory sentence. Do you have this from Kenilworth? I'm asking because the article on Venice treacle (and my Italian source) seem to suggest that it's not the same potion. Anyway, I'm thrilled that you took an interest in contributing to the project. Take care. ---Sluzzelin 19:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops! reverted. (yup, was from Kenilworth).—eric 20:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I caught your note and left a short reply and a genealogy link on the talk page. The article is totally lacking references from the Anglosphere. To my distress, I am going to be spending the next five days packing boxes, disassembling furniture and moving. ---Sluzzelin 21:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sirnuke.sytes.net

I didn't even realize that my site had a whitelist entry. I had been using degrendel.com for a whileish, but had not updated my userpage. I have updated it, and put a removal request on the whitelist talk page.--SirNuke 21:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UN maps

You've presumably noticed the OTRS reference on the UN maps template talk page - it's all legit (I sorted that out a long time ago). Actually, there seem to be quite a few UN-sourced maps on the Commons that don't meet the criteria and are undoubtedly copyvios. Thanks for prompting me to look at the issue. :-) -- ChrisO 11:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of response to ref desk question

I see enitrely no benefit to be gained from removing my inoffensive, reasonably accurate, indeed, potentially informative answer from the reference desk. There exists within the reference desk pages a list a mile long of semi-debates on answers to questions - I should know I spend the vast majority of my wikipedia time there helping individuals looking for information/informed responses. The desks are not helped by reverters/deletionists removing answers because they potentially violate an arbitrary code on what the reference desk is for/is not for. ny156uk 21:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I had not noted the discussion before the thread was deleted. Whilst i disagree entirely that the question shouldn't remain (there are threads day in day out on the reference desks) i'm sorry i was a little rude about it. Regards 22:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just Wondering

I'm just wondering why you removed one of my posts. I've reproduced it below for your convenience. I've read the post over several times, and though it may be very passionate, I don't see any wiki guidelines being broken by it. I mentioned no names, and attacked no one personally, even by implication. I was merely stating an opinion about a previous post. It's true, some individuals were curious as to what I was saying and asked me to clarify on my talk page. Even if what went on on my talk page was indeed inappropriate, I still don't understand why this post was removed. At worst it was provocative, yet certainly not inappropriate in and of itself. Please explain.

"Though I'm dedicated to holding true to my word, I must make occasional exceptions. Hopefully I'll never have to do this again. I'd just like to say that I take extreme offence at even the mere suggestion that Nazism and the ensuing Holocaust can in any way, shape or form, be rationilized, even to the slightest degree, as being the result of some sort of "outburst of years of built-up resentment". The admittedly harsh treatment of the German people meted out by the Treaty of Versailles is in no possible shape or form an excuse for Nazism. Hyperinflation, exhorbitant war reparations, economic chaos and the disdain of the rest of the world may all indeed be a real bitch, yet still are utterly unnaceptable rationales, unworthy of mention, in examining the rise of the Third Reich. Many other peoples have undergone far worse treatment, yet never sunk to such levels of unprecedented inhumanity. Loomis 17:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)"

Loomis 15:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsolicited assessment from a concerned passerby: Both the content and subjective tone strikes me as Soapboxing rather than providing objective information. While I haven't read the remark in context (as no pertinent link is provided), I would question whether it's based on a misreading, imputing "reason = rationale = rationalization." -- FWIW/HTH, Deborahjay 22:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Further, to elucidate: The main—and perhaps only—"unprecedented" aspect of the Nazis' implementation of the Final Solution is its industrialized mass extermination of a civilian population. Otherwise, targeting the Jews was not unique. I would suggest that ranking the relative severity or enormity of acts of inhumanity is inherently soapboxing. -- Deborahjay 23:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (non-legal/medical) "Advice" on the Ref Desk

I appreciate your intervention, Eric; I found it instructive. Besides having engaged in some discussion on the user's Talk page (however doubtful I may be as to its efficacy), posting my concern on the RD discussion page seemed my best option to solicit input. -- Deborahjay 22:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Isles

Hi, just a note to let you know that I've added a ref to your collection of references at British Isles/References. It's an impressive collection. Hughsheehy 17:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop

Please stop reverting my posts and calling it trolling. Thank you.

[edit] On Japanese beating

I can't demonstre now if the texts cited by you are trustworthy or not, but I retain that military and civil codes forbade physical punishment. Howewer, if soldiers preferred death (who was often very terrible) to captivity, how beatings could scare them? --Vess 19:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Warning

Your recent edits on Wikipedia:Reference_desk/guidelines are dangerously close to a 3 revert rule violation, including, but not limited to, your two reverts of the "Wrong Answers" section I added. StuRat 15:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you on about with this warning Stu? I reverted your addition twice, two days ago.—eric 16:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Accomplishing anything

Sorry about the annoying remark which, you are right, probably wouldn't have accomplished anything useful. I do sometimes have the impression that the loudest, boldest, and most adamant accomplish much more than anyone else (here, just like everywhere else), and it frustrates me (just like everywhere else). This is no excuse, however, and I certainly didn't wish to piss you off, eric. Please accept my apologies, and take care. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Header

Hi, Eric. Why are you reverting the changes to the reference desk header? A.Z. 03:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Cilo_the_Muse.2C_Hipocrite.2C_Rockpocket.2C_StuRat.2C_Loomis51.2C_A.Z._.26_me_Eptypes

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Cilo_the_Muse.2C_Hipocrite.2C_Rockpocket.2C_StuRat.2C_Loomis51.2C_A.Z._.26_me_Eptypes. --Eptypes 23:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clio is back

Clio is back, thanks to you and many other decent people like you. You will find a note of explanation on my talk page. You are my very own Éminence grise, Eric, silent and wise. Love Clio the Muse 00:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minnie D. Craig

Hi Eric. I thought you might be interested to have a read of Minnie D. Craig. I had a few hours spare so thought i would tackle your suggestion Rockpocket 08:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Stupidity or treason" speech

I belatedly copied your excellent reply to Pavel Milyukov. Hopefully you don't mind :) --Ghirla-трёп- 21:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd AFD for New Lettrist International

FYI - You previously participated in an AFD on New Lettrist International; it has been renominated a second time (AFD. --Lquilter (talk) 08:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] edit clash

Sorry about all the edit clashes on the ref desk. I think I prefered your near the dump phrase :) David D. (Talk) 05:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

no problem, i'm just having a bad ref desk day.—eric 06:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for refdeak

Thanks for providing the Coleridge citation. I still have Qs, and have re-posted. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] a gentleman in every parish

Thanks Eric, I appreciate what you have written. I note your wish for contributions from "the ref desk's heavy hitters" and have approached Clio to see what she has to say. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject invitation

I would like to invite you to my WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aquatic Invertebrates. I think you would be interested, and I am in need of someone with your experience.

Jourdy288 (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)