User talk:Ishmaelblues

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Ishmaelblues, 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! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Henrygb 02:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] (how to do) Vandalism warnings

Howdy and welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for reverting vandalism! You may find the templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace handy for warnings about vandalism. In particular, usually the first vandalism gets {{subst:test1}} the second, {{subst:test2}} up to test4. After test4, go ahead and report the vandal to WP:AIV (instructions on the page) for blocking. There is a test5, but it is for admins, after the person is blocked.

If the vandal is blatent, you can use {{subst:bv}}, but it is usually best to give the person the benefit of every doubt. Remember to never atribute to malice what can be attributed to error, so in general, err on the side of more warnings whenever possible.

A few other things you might find helpful:

  • Check the vandal's other contributions (you can do this easily by clicking "my contributions" and replacing your name with the vandal's.
  • Spam (see WP:SPAM) has it's own set of warnings, {{subst:spam1}} through {{subst:spam3}}.
  • Using the "subst:" at the begining of the template saves the server time, see WP:SUBST.
  • It is sometimes necessary to look at the page history to see when the last unvandalized version was.

Thanks again for your work. Feel free to write a note on my talk page if I can help with anything. --Hansnesse 05:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I like blues

At the beginning of |this song there's a short instrumental that I really like - can you recommend any music on this basis? Thanks! --Username132 (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Best revision policy: stick to the templates

The following refers to your contribution to User_talk:68.15.239.57: Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Antonrojo 19:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, you might look into the polices over at Wikipedia:Recent_changes_patrol Antonrojo 20:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ishmael, please refrain from personal attacks. If you warn someone use the appropriate templates. Cheers -- Szvest 20:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popups

Hello, just a friendly reminder: don't use the Popups to do reversions on articles unless the edit being reverted is a clear case of vandalism. It equates to reverting someone's edits without providing a justification for your action. Disputes over content, such as with what's going on with the Led Zeppelin article right now, are simple content disputes that need to be worked out on the talk page. Thanks! -/- Warren 23:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians

Could you explain the reasons for your edits to Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians. Why do you keep reverting the article?Altarbo 21:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

i added some old info that is sourced, reliable and relevent, so it may look like i reverted to a very old copy but i actually took some of an old version and put it back in

[edit] Confucianism, List of founders of world religions

Ishmael, please read the list of caveats at the bottom of the article, one of which is that some people say that Confucianism is NOT a religion. It's arguable -- after all, Confucianism believes in a "Heaven" that requires the proper performance of religious rituals for the land and the family to prosper. However, that is argued in the article to which we link. I think that in a borderline case such as this, it's better to include the tradition (which is, after all, followed by millions) and make it clear that it's disputed. I don't think you can have read the whole article, because you removed the entry in the table without removing the explanation at the bottom.

This list has been extremely contentious, and the bottom is nothing but acknowledgements of all the disputes that have arisen. It's not all clear what founder, major, and religion mean! So we say that the list is just a suggestion for further reading. Zora 08:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia New York Meet-Up

NEW YORK CITY MEET UP!!
NEW YORK CITY MEET UP!!

Howdy! Please come to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC
--David Shankbone 19:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] science and religion comment

I appreciate your support. I want to urge you to rephrase your comment, however; "moronic" is a little harsh for the friendly environment we're shooting for here, and the other editor's suggestion was an honest attempt to improve the article, if misguided. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 22:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religious adherents at God

Hi! I was wondering if you could clean up your addition to the numbers of adherents to various religions on the God page with either some commas or a column or something as it's hard to read. Plus we need a cite, preferably from the source of that wiki page you got it from, as wiki articles are not always accurate. Thanks. Roy Brumback 21:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your personal attack

Your personal attack against User:Dark Tea with the statement "who ever wrote it should be shot" on this edit is against Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks which suggests to not make death threats against other editors.----DarkTea© 14:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signing your talk

You have been signing your talk pages by manually typing in your username. This is not how Wikipedians sign their talk pages. All you have to type in is four tildes ~~~~ and the automatic Wikipedia mark up will sign your contribution with your signature.----DarkTea© 21:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] psychohistory

please discuss in talk page instead of reverting without good reason: it's against the policies of WP. Thank you. —Cesar Tort 04:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

yes it is so i would like to note you do the same

-ishmaelblues

I posted my reasons in edit summary. Have you read it? —Cesar Tort 04:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
You have not addressed the reasons why I reverted. Do you agree to take this page to mediation? —Cesar Tort 23:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

no the page is better now execpt for the graph which has some little technical things to be worked out Ishmaelblues (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean that you don't accept the process of formal mediation? —Cesar Tort 23:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

please refrain from rhetoric, the page is fine now the graph however, i need to know more about after the begining of a new stage does the stage continue to grow as suggested on the graph as the bottom stage remains stationary? or does a stage begin and continue with with the same influence? in other words should the curve be more like a step seeing how a slope may not be applicable

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishmaelblues (talk • contribs)

Please respond in talk:psychohistory to my objections to your recent edits in that page, especially to what I say of Wikipedia:PROVEIT#Burden_of_evidence. —Cesar Tort 17:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Burden of evidence

I am copying and pasting part of my post here about what you reverted without discussion in talk page. You added to psychohistory article:

  • "many in the history profession consider it pseudohistory.[20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]"

Of the above, only a single critical chapter on "Psychology, Psychoanalysis and Historical Thought" in Lynn Hunt's book mentions psychohistory as understood in this page.

I'd like to ask to you this question: Do you have a specific quote in which Hunt states that deMause's approach is "pseudohistory"? If not, the above-sentence must go. On the other hand, if you do have the source, it must be quoted verbatim and attributed to the author.

As to the other references, numbered above, I am copying and pasting what I wrote in my edit summaries, and you ignored, about my removals of these sources:

  • rm - it's not clear from the abstract that "Naturalistic Psychohistory" is the same subject of this article
  • rm - this source does mention deMause - in a footnote! Hardly a source for the claim that the source states psychohistory is pseudo
  • rm - this source mentions the word "psychohistory" in relation to Freud: again, a subject almost unrelated to the content of this article
  • rm - this source mentions the word "psychohistory" in a totally unrelated subject to the content of this article

You re-added all of these footnotes without discussion to support your claim that Demausean psychohistory is widely regarded as "pseudohistory". Please discuss your reasons in talk page. Otherwise the claim ("many in the history profession consider it pseudohistory") will be removed soon. Thank you.

—Cesar Tort 14:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC) The above sentance is gone look at the current version of the page its been gone for awhile actually, i changed upon your request i beat you to it (one of the many commands you have given me)Ishmaelblues (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

honestly why did you write all this about a two-three outdated version of the page? i do not know how familar you are with wikipedia but just type the subject into the search and youll get the current version, if you want to learn more about wikipedia there is always the sandbo. Ishmaelblues (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] response

I responded to your post in User talk:Arthur Rubin. —Cesar Tort 19:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute tags

Hi,

I've replaced the {{disputed}} tag on psychohistory - tags should be removed when all the editors agree that there is no more issue (or failing that, when a posting on the talk page about removing the tag receives no objections for a week or so). Please make sure that Cesar Tort agrees there is no issue before removing again; in other words, seek consensus to remove the tag. Ideally, ask Cesar what he thinks is disputed, see if you agree, then work towards a position you can both live with.

Thanks, WLU (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)