User talk:Jonel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
|---|
[edit] Re: Opinions on the success of the revival of the Olympic Games in 1859, 1870, 1875
Opinions about the success or a failure of any revival have no place in an encyclopaedia. Besides how can anybody consider the Olympic Games that were held in Athens in 1859, and 1870 as a failure.
Firstly, the 1859 Olympic Games was the first modern international Olympic Games. It had Greek athletes. It had athletes from the Ottoman Empire. It had athletic events comparable to those held in ancient times. It had medals. It had Olympians. It was a success.
Secondly, the 1870 Olympic Games was the first modern international Olympic Games to be held in a stadium. The only country in the world to have an athletics stadium in the 19th Century was Greece. I'll say that again for the hard of hearing. The only country in the world to have a bonafide, refurbished ancient Olympic Games stadium in the 19th Century was Greece. Greece was the first country in the world to host a bonafide Olympic Games in a stadium in the 19th Century. And guess what? Greece was also the second and the third country in the world to host a bonafide Olympic Games in a stadium.
What is even more interesting is that there was no stadium at the Paris 1900 side-show that was called an Olympic Games. To be be perfectly honest, if the International Olympic Committee did not recognise them as Olympic Games they would not be worthy of the name by anybody elses standards.
Then ofcourse they build a temporary stadium for St Louis in 1904.
And guess what? The first Olympic Games to have a proper bonafide Olympic stadium in the 20th Century once again was Greece at Athens in 1906.
Is that so hard to accept. Does it hurt the pride of the rest of the world to accept that. That small country called Greece had the first modern international Olympic Games and it had the first bonafide purpose-built Olympic stadium.
Please elaborate what success or failure means when you use those words. When David C. Young uses them he is referring to the fact that the Olympiad was not maintained. He is not saying that the Games themselves were not a success. Don't take quotations out of context. Don't quote opinions. Surely, that is common sense.
Also, take a closer look at this: 1859, 1870, 1875, 1896, 1906, 2004
Years in which the Olympic Games were hosted in Athens. Does that make every other city that has hosted the Olympic Games a failure?
Evangelos Zappas firmly planted the foundations, the roots, of the modern Olympic Games and those that say otherwise are in denial. That's not an opinion. That is a fact. Nipsonanomhmata 20:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- "Fully revived" means nothing. It is an opinion. Nipsonanomhmata 00:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yeah, it's an opinion. One might even say a point of view. In fact, it represents a significant point of view that has been published in *numerous* reliable source. Which is exactly what we want to include in our articles. Go read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view again. Your own personal views on what it means to have fully revived the Olympics don't dictate how the rest of the world understands it.
-
-
- "Numerous reliable sources" repeating significantly incorrect points of view. Yes, that's par for the course. That's exactly what has been happening. Nipsonanomhmata 19:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Good job
Nice work on Olympic Games, trying to incorporate that "new" material yet keeping the blatant POV overtones out of it. Andrwsc 21:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm trying hard to work with Nipsonanomhmata. He does have some good points about Zappas not getting much credit for his Olympic revival efforts, but his preferred method of working (that is to say, blasting everyone who isn't Zappas with belittlements and ridicule) isn't much fun. Trying to keep things to the generally-accepted consensus (which even Young, Nipsonanomhmata's favorite author, agrees with) is tough. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 22:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Generally-accepted consensus on opinions means nothing. Only facts count. History is not made by the people who talk about it. History is made by the people who do it. Zappas spent a fortune making the revival of the Olympic Games happen. Brookes sent a trophy to the 1859 Games in Athens and listed one of the international participants on the honor roll of the Wenlock Olympian Society. What did Baron Pierre de Coubertin pay for? Some vacations to England and to Greece. Some stationery and some postage stamps. Zappas paid for the refurbishment of the Panathenian stadium. He bought all the land that the stadium stood on and all the surrounding land. Zappas paid for the building of the first purpose-built indoor Olympic arena. Give credit to Brookes as a Founder of the Modern Olympic Movement for 1866. But let's not pussy-foot. Zappas made the first modern international Olympic Games happen. Zappas made it happen in 1859, 1870, and 1875 with a solid foundation for the future and with a stadium that would last for thousands of years. Dr Brookes made things happen in 1866. But there is no legacy stadium from Brookes' efforts. Coubertin never paid for a stadium and the stadiums that the IOC has had built for them, by others, will never last as long as the Panathenian stadium.
-
- What I have contributed has got nothing to do with POV. It's all about the doers and the talkers. Nipsonanomhmata 19:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- We aim to present a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view here. Generally-accepted consensus on the importance of historical details does matter. You continually push the point of view that Zappas was the be-all and end-all of reviving the Olympic Games, and that Brookes and De Coubertin are unimportant. Your view is out of step with basically every Olympic historian who has ever published anything, including Young, whom you are so fond of. Zappas should be recognized, yes, and we do recognize his efforts. But you constantly try to unbalance every article you touch, and include snide attacks (which do, yes, represent your point of view, rather than "facts") on everyone who isn't Zappas. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 19:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- That's not true. Brookes was important (even though the IOC formally doesn't say so). He was the founder of the modern Olympic Movement and preceded Coubertin in this role since Coubertin used many of Brookes ideas without giving him credit. Coubertin was important because he was the founder of the International Olympic Committee. But Coubertin is not as important as the IOC makes him out to be (they stretch the truth at the IOC). The IOC claims that Coubertin was the founder of the modern Olympic Games, they also claim he was the founder of the modern Olympic Movement. Meanwhile, the Wenlock Olympian Society (WOS) claims that Brookes was the founder of the modern Olympic Games. The WOS used to claim that he was the founder of the Olympic Games (isn't that ludicrous?).
-
-
-
-
-
- No. I am not out of step with David C. Young. I agree with all the facts that he has published and to be perfectly honest absolutely nobody else has done the indepth research that he has done and I respect him deeply for that. But I don't have to agree with all of his opinions because opinions are not facts. History should be based on facts and not opinions. Except by those who try to manipulate history. For example, to take Young's opinions and quote them out of context is a manipulation of history.
-
-
-
-
-
- My view is purely based on the facts. Opinions are worth nothing unless there are no facts [opinion]. What actually happened is what counts. Events make history. Opinions are usually there to misrepresent history. Also there are too many people who quote opinions that are not based on facts. Too many people repeat what they hear and do not research the source or even consider why that was said in the first place.
-
-
-
-
-
- You reinstated a secondary source that I deleted today. There is no original information on that page. The person that wrote that page has slightly adapted the information and the information is not accurate. i.e. the source is based on hearsay. Someone else did the original research and published it ... and this source has not even adapted what was in the original article ... they are likely to have adapted from another secondary article ... The source that was quoted is corrupt. It is not a useful source to quote or to recommend. All the other sources have original information.
-
-
-
-
-
- You didn't like my "eat your heart out Baron Pierre" joke! He was born 1863, 1st Jan. Meanwhile, building works for the Olympic Games, including the refurbishment of the stadium, were planned back in the 1850s and the Greek government made them law in the 1860s. How the IOC has the arrogance to claim that the Baron founded the Olympic Games is beyond belief. Also, the Baron had his heart buried under a statue in Olympia. Ofcourse, everybody conveniently forgets that Zappas asked for his head to be buried at the Zappeion well before the Baron died. Nobody mentions that fact. Why? Is Zappas less important than the Baron? Zappas refurbished a stadium that was used for five Olympic Games: 1870, 1875, 1896, 1906, 2004. The IOC conveniently doesn't recognise three of those Games.
-
-
-
-
-
- So what did Baron Pierre de Coubertin pay for when he founded the International Olympic Committee? He didn't pay for the building of any stadiums. Not even at Paris in 1900. Nipsonanomhmata 00:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Jeu de Paume bracket
Oops, I missed that four set match. Sorry! Andrwsc 16:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Not to worry. Easily fixed! -- Jonel (Speak to me) 16:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Scott Crow
Hi, I'm curious why you re-added the Category:American anarchists to the Scott Crow article after I removed it yesterday? Was this just a mistake, or do you know something I don't? Anyway, I have removed it again. Silly rabbit 19:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Definitely did not mean to do that. Must've somehow edited DGG's version by mistake--I really did just want to take out the empty section header. Thanks for taking it back out, and sorry for the confusion! -- Jonel (Speak to me) 19:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I thought so. No worries. Silly rabbit 19:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Vandalism"
I see that you have n o regard to the assume good faith guideline linked from the talk page of sylvia browne. I am trying tol report on what EVERY SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD says - that she is a quack. Vandalism? More like fact checking.
Ah well, new agers can only rely on insults anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by Science Solider (talk • contribs)
- Changing a person's biography so that the first sentence calls them a fraud and a quack is, yes, vandalism. Don't do it again. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 02:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Munich
Dear Jonel, I have replied to your query on my talk page. RegardsNishidani 11:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Munich
(2) Idem, RegardsNishidani 14:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Munich
(3)Jonel, in response, closing the issue.
-
- It is not that I have little faith in sourcing, but rather little faith in pseudo-sourcing. I could source the statement of analogy I made (Noam Chomsky, “Pirates and Emperors, Old and New: International Terrorism in the Real World,” South End Press, Cambridge Mass. rev.edition 2002 p.99 footnote 8) but I don't think it necessary, because an analogy of this kind does not need sourcing since the given, uncontrovertible facts speak for themselves. I.e. you do not need to, but may of course, source the obvious, put a link under 'is' and refer us to Parmenides, or 'fact' and refer us to the dictionary, as any academic knows. The Reeve quote was sourced, but was a misleading item in that page in so far as it was one of any number of subjective opinions immaterial to the article in question. Wiki cruisers should have spotted that before my intervention. In erasing both Reeve's exaggerated and strategically placed 'quote' I have also eliminated my counter-example. And I think the article's first paragraph gains in lucidity.
Regards Nishidani 19:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nishidani"
[edit] Thanks
Thanks for your help with Jared Taylor. Steve Dufour 16:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] BLP Noticeboard
I've been trying to work with User:piledoggie for a while (who has had one of his/her anonymous usernames blocked for vandalizing my talk page), but that user really doesn't seem to understand WP:BLP. I've discussed this on the talk page of Church of Christ (Temple Lot), as well as on some of his/her various talk pages (that user has edited the Temple Lot article under 4 separate usernames, which complicates things), but I can't seem to get this user to understand what WP:BLP is about, evidenced by the fact that said user feels that they are following WP:BLP guidelines in removing my comments (which contain little or no biographical material at all, and certainly no names or references to names) from a talk page. I would have commented over at the Noticeboard, but the requests have already been archived. The Jade Knight 09:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] brackets
These are round brackets () and these are square brackets [], parentheses are {}. --Lucy-marie 10:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- The first are commonly known as parentheses. "Brackets" alone tends to refer to the second in many parts of the world. I've never seen anyone anywhere refer to the third as "parentheses" before; they're curly brackets or braces. "Parentheses" is, to almost everyone in the world, unambiguous and refers to round brackets. "Brackets", on the other hand, is an ambiguous term which could mean any of the above or even <>. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 13:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
In English English which I use the word parentheses is not used at all except to describe {} I see that the cultural divide between the variations of english has struck again. FInally <> these are greater than and less than signs and I have personally never heard them referred to as brackets. I guess we shall just have to live with the difference.--Lucy-marie 19:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Brian Lewis
OK, sorry. Jimfbleak 05:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WP:BLP Noticeboard Richard Lindzen
You closed the entry, saying it was inactive after no one commented on it for a month. [1] Yet the blog info still get readded all the time. Couldn't you just wait until a neutral person looked at it or have done it yourself? --Theblog 05:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hi! I closed the entry on 5 August; there had been no edits to either the article or the noticeboard entry since 21 July. That's a pretty good indication that the noticeboard entry isn't doing much good at that point. The best thing for you to do in such a case if problems continue with the article is to file a fresh noticeboard entry--it's more likely to bring fresh eyes to the article than an entry that has sat for a few weeks and has scrolled away from the part of the noticeboard where most of the attention is going. Please do file a new entry if there are still problems. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 14:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lizel Moore
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Lizel Moore, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Denis Murray (athlete)
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Denis Murray (athlete), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Craig Mason
I have nominated Craig Mason, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Mason. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Blueboy96 14:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] List of colonial governors in 1659
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of colonial governors in 1659, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of List of colonial governors in 1659. MarSch (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 17 | 21 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Rowing at the 1920 Summer Olympics
Having patroled your new articles in Category:Rowing events at the 1920 Summer Olympics I'm wondering if it wasn't better to merge them all into one article as most of them seem fairly short due to limited amount of competitiors. Just a thought.EA210269 (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- The general idea from the Olympics WikiProject is that each event have its own page; reasons include a hope that eventually the event pages will get more information, avoidance of excessive detail on the more general page, and consistency of navigation. That being said, I'm not particularly attached to any method of display for the information. So if you want to be bold and merge them onto Rowing at the 1920 Summer Olympics, or ask at the WikiProject for more opinions, please do! -- Jonel (Speak to me) 16:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WikiCookie
[edit] Bracket templates and their usage
Nice work on those, Jonel! Those results pages look great—simplicity and effectiveness of presentation. Good to see you back — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! I've gotta say, monkeying around with templates is so much more fun than studying for exams. I'm glad you like the results, though I didn't do much original work—I grabbed most of the coding from {{3RoundBracket-Byes}}, with smatterings from other tournament brackets. I'd like to eventually be able to replace most of Category:Tournament bracket templates with a much smaller number of templates. I've got the byes down pretty well, and third-place matches for the brackets big enough to display them nicely (the 8-team bracket is probably going to have to be non-compact to do that). My next goal is probably to make the brackets capable of displaying seeds if desired, while seemlessly hiding them if not. Doing something with byes in rounds after the first might be useful for some of the early Olympic brackets too. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 16:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Take a look at the code I added to Template:4TeamBracket over a year ago to make the seeds optional, if that helps. My approach was to allow the template user to write
RD1-seed1=(or omit the parameter altogether) to remove the little box, or writeRD1-seed1= to insert a blank box, allowing for combinations of seeded and unseeded entries. I have long thought that that category of templates was in dire need of a simplification overhaul, so I would support you in that endeavour! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Take a look at the code I added to Template:4TeamBracket over a year ago to make the seeds optional, if that helps. My approach was to allow the template user to write
-
-
- Testing:
-
| Semifinals | Final | |||||||
| 1 |  Johannes Eriksen (DEN) |
W | ||||||
 Jan Sint (NED) |
L | 1 | Johannes Eriksen (DEN) |
L | ||||
 Edil Rosenqvist (FIN) |
W | Edil Rosenqvist (FIN) |
W | |||||
| 2 | Axel Tetens (DEN) |
L | ||||||
-
-
- Beautiful. Thanks for the pointer to that existing template; I was afraid I was going to have to reinvent the wheel there. Ok, so now the 4TeamBracket-Compact-NoSeeds-Byes is capable of showing seeds or not, and showing byes. It's too small for a third place option underneath the final; maybe I'll try one off to the right... -- Jonel (Speak to me) 17:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] AfD nomination of Carol Cassady
I have nominated Carol Cassady, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Cassady. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Blueboy96 01:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've got no problem with that article being deleted. It was one of a bunch I created quite a while ago, with a different conception of Wikipedia's inclusiveness on political candidates. My guess is that Carl Cassady isn't the only one left that suffers from the same problems. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 03:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 18 | 2 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 19 | 9 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Eremia about Panamerican Games !
Why did you canceled my contributions ! I prefer write Panamerican ! I have said " Panamerican Games " , and you have canceled for Pan American Games ! I think , this is more just to write " 2007 Panamerican Games " ! I do not disagree with you , please , could you give an explanation ! You can write me a message Eremia (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Eremia
- You have already been told the problem with your edits, and have been asked to discuss changes at Talk:Pan American Games. The correct name of the Pan American Games uses two words for Pan American. Our preferences don't really matter much in the issue. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 23:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 20 | 12 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Monica/Eremia/etc
Monica/Eremia/etc. is now blocked indef. Sorry my attempt at reforming them prolonged the agony. Report any more of these obvious vandals to AIV, and in your report, link to: User:Barneca/watch/bvr, and hopefully whoever is dealing with AIV will deal with them quickly. --barneca --barneca (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Don't beat yourself up over it. Some people can be convinced to be helpful, some can't. This one couldn't; oh well. You still get points in my book for trying. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 17:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hugh De Lacy
- Poke* - Just wanted to make sure you saw this (since you created it and are its only major contributor). Raul654 (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 21 | 19 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 22 | 26 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
