User talk:Lucyintheskywithdada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 No, its not a personal attack. It is a objective statement. 2 Holy Fuck 3 Spiritualism (Western philosophy) 4 Zhuge Liang 5 Hi 6 Your editing 7 pro-Tibetan protester 8 BKWSU 9 Split section

[edit] No, its not a personal attack. It is a objective statement.

get hold of master po again, its good to have wise men around ... :) how are you doing btw ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Fuck

Hi there, I noticed you moved the Holy Fuck article to Holy Fuck (band). I'm wondering why you felt it necessary to disambiguate the article when there were no others with the same name; I can find nothing in the the naming convention guidelines that indicate this should have been done, rather they indicate that disambiguation should be done only when necessary. I feel the move should be undone as the article on the band is now almost impossible to find. Cheers Strobilus (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, I understand where you're coming from in moving the page; however, you might want to check out Help:Moving a page before moving articles. Typically an article is first tagged for a potential move so editors have a chance to discuss and come to consensus about the move. Once an article is moved, you should click the What links here button and fix any incoming wikilinks that are affected by the move. In the case of the Holy Fuck article, there are now over fifty wikilinks that are misdirected. When there is more than one article that a search term may apply to, a redirect should not be used, but rather a disambiguation page should be created to enable readers to find the article they are searching for. As there is no article about the exclamation Holy fuck, it probably would have been easiest to put a disambiguation link at the top of the article about the band rather than move it. Cheers Strobilus (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A couple more editors have become involved in this issue. The discussion is taking place on my talk page for now, though we can move it to Talk:Holy Fuck (band) or Talk:Fuck if you feel we should solicit additional opinions. Cheers Strobilus (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spiritualism (Western philosophy)

Perhaps you'd like to drop the content here at the Spiritualism (Western philosophy) article, instead of the redirect. I believe you said the reason for deletion was that its comparative form was wrong. Since it's not titled "Difference between materialism and spiritualism", it's not framed as a comparison so the previous AfD wouldn't matter. I didn't read through the article entirely, just suggesting a place to put it. That'll solve all the hoopla over at the Spiritualism talk page about the "Idealism" redirect, which I don't particularly care about. It doesn't matter to me if it's a redirect or an actual article. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zhuge Liang

None with Tibet. It's just that "Wuhou Temple" is 1) grammatically incorrect and 2) makes no sense without context. It should be the "Wu Hou Temple", the temple to Zhuge Liang, who was a Marquess (Hou) and given the posthumous name "Zhongwu" - "loyal and martial", hence "Zhongwu Hou", or, for short, Wu Hou. The shrine to Zhuge Liang in Chengdu is known as "Wu Hou Ci" - "Shrine to Wu Hou". The surrounding district is called "Wuhou" after the shrine. The wikilink to Zhuge Liang helps readers to know what this "Wu Hou" is. Personally, I think a vague designation like "a neighbourhood around the University and the Wu Hou Temple" is pretty superfluous, unless they can actually nominate the name of the neighbourhood. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi there,

Hope you are doing fine, just wanted to ask, how do we file for checkuser, as you had informed me somertimes back, I feel there are few socks troubling me... --talk-to-me! (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) --talk-to-me! (talk) 07:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your editing

Thank you for trying to keep things NPOV in the article 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay. But please be careful with your editing. You seem to have removed my edits by mistake, and I've had to restore them. Please use the preview function to check what you're doing. Thanks. (If that wasn't you who actually messed that up, then I apologise. The edit history sequence in the archives doesn't seem to make much sense, so I'm not entirely sure what happened.) Aridd (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You were definitely write to remove "steal" (and that wasn't mine). But it looks as if what you did was actually re-add it by mistake. And, in the process, you deleted my correction of "plagued" into "marked", for example (you reverted it back to "plagued"). If we were editing at the same time, one of us should have been stopped by an "edit conflict" message. Anyway, I'm not too sure what happened. Never mind. I've already restored everything of mine that was deleted. Aridd (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] pro-Tibetan protester

That's not NPOV-ing. It's casting aspersions using weasel language without reasonable cause. There is no reasonable ground to suggest that the protester was anything but pro-Tibet. The protester clearly displayed his own sympathies, and none of his actions suggested otherwise. A fortiori, there is no reliable source that suggests that he is anything but sincere in his beliefs. Just because there is some crackpot conspiracy theory out there (if there is - again, no reliable sourceS), it is no reason to imply - as your version of the caption doubtlessly does - that he is somehow not a genuine protester. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for *your* well reasoned response. A self-professed Tibetan protester attacks a torch bearer in Paris - those are the facts and it is plain for the world to see. I don't know how you can see the picture as propaganda. Your reasoning, it seems, proceeds as follows: The picture assists the anti-disruption side of the debate --> It helps the Chinese government --> it must be propaganda --> But how can it be propaganda when a pro-Tibet protester actually did the act ....? --> Ah, therefore he must not be a pro-Tibet protester, but a Chinese paramilitary officer in disguise!

I appreciate your logic, but I stress again, there is no reasonable doubt -- no published evidence in a reliable source -- that he is anything but what he appears as in the photograph. If you think he is anything but a pro-Tibet protester, why don't you come out and say what you think he is?

Even if you are sympathetic about a cause -- and I can see you are sympathetic about a cause -- as a responsible editor you cannot choose to believe and deny bits that you like or don't like. How can I tell you are sympathetic about a cause? You are inserting unreasonable doubts into statements about the pro-Tibet protesters, but I don't see you editing the captions on Chinese protesters to say: "Allegedly Chinese protesters -- they might be Tibetan for all I know -- bash up another protester..." or whatever.

Followers of all causes will range between a spectrum of opinions and methods. I will freely admit that I am antipathic to violent disrupters of the torch relay, and have no sympathies whatsoever for the bunch of deposed nobles and privileged monks and their descendants holed up in Dharamsala chanting for the restoration of an inequitable world order that will never come back (I'm referring to the government-in-exile, not to the Dalai Lama). However, that does not mean that I am going to go around insinuating that all pro-China protesters are good. When pro-China protesters turn violent or thuggish, then they should be reported as such -- and not as "allegedly pro-China protesters, who by implication of the word 'alleged' might actually be Tibetan agents". And the same applies to the other side. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No I have not. Care to share the reliable sources you have come across? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I missed a whole section of your message earlier. Having read it, I'd like to point out several things.

One, yes the Chinese embassy is (probably) encouraging local Chinese organisations to organise for supporters to attend torch relays. However, I've seen no hard evidence of that. It could just as well be sponsored by Chinese businesses. Something that the mass media seems to have missed is that the disruptions to the torch relay has genuinely offended most if not all (culturally) Chinese people. As one commentator put it rather well on the (London) Telegraph website, the Kellys might be feuding with the McCoys about their fence posts, but they don't gate crash the wedding and defecate all over the floor. Political ranting aside, there is no hard evidence, and regardless of whether you are more suspicious than the average person or not, it is not appropriate to insinuate allegations that have no reliable sources.

Two, what photographs with Chinese protesters? You keep referring to these images, but I have not seen them. If they are published in reliable sources, please let me know.

Three, an attack on the torch being held by a torch bearer is an attack on the torch bearer. When a robber grabs and runs off with the purse, the police does not interview the purse and sue in its name.

Four, how do I know he is a self-professed pro-Tibetan agitator? By the fact that he is wearing Tibetan symbols and attacking a Chinese torch bearer. When someone does that, the natural and logical conclusion is that he supports the Tibetan cause, whatever that may be. If you are going to insinuate that he is not what he appears to be, you'd better have evidence. Your cynical suspicions are not good enough.

The bottom line is: bring up some hard evidence of your allegation that the protester is anything but pro-Tibet. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Not going to say anything about the politics or the ethnic identification issues you raise - save that... do you actually know what Mongols, Uighurs, Buyis, or Khazaks are thinking? Or, for that matter, what the Hans or the CPC is thinking? Or how about Tibetans on the ground, as opposed to that bunch of exiled feudal nobility and theocrats holed up in Dharasamla? I find these gross generalisations a little patronising.

Re mugging: actaully, a theft combined with the use of force is called a robbery. At common law, a robbery is simply defined as "assult + larceny". "Assault" is the reasonable apprehension of the imminent application of unlawful force, and "larceny" is taking and intending to carry away chattel without legal authorisation. Sorry if I bore you with my "lawyering" - but that's the matter of the fact. If the torchbearer had insisted on pressing charges, the man concerned will almost certainly be convicted of attempted robbery in a common law jurisdiction just on the published photographic evidence alone.

Re your photos. So this guy (and several other non-Chinese) people were photographed walking down a public road along with other, Chinese flag-waving people walking down the same road. In fact, when I looked at the photo more closely, those in the background were carrying Tibetan flags. Only the girl in the foreground, and an arm in the background carry Chinese flags. Err... What did you expect them to do? Whack each other as soon as they set eyes on each other? I walk down the street past - or in the same direction as - many people who manifest their political views in one way or another, views with which I do not agree - and have always somehow managed to refrain from whacking them - and they me.

If you would care to indulge in a little logic now: you are implying that this guy is not a pro-Tibetan protester - perhaps a Chinese agent - because he was photographed on the same road as some Chinese people. By that logic, wouldn't the two people carrying Chinese flags in that picture, against a background of about five (apparent) Tibetan independence supporters - wouldn't they be "not-really-Chinese-people" but Dharamsala agents in disguise?

As for what a person conveys by their headgear - a person, in my experience, who publicly displays a political symbol, tends to be expressing support for that symbol - unless, of course, their other hand is holding a lighter and about to burn the symbol in question. I think you are letting your political emotions get the better of you when you insist on a conspiracy theory that has no factual basis.

I can see how your suspicion is plausible - but I still fail to see how it can be reasonable. Please, find some reliable sources before you insinuate.

And, right, monks raping nuns, people bashing people, monasteries burning down. I don't see what that has to do with the stylistic issue in question. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BKWSU

Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skbhat (talk • contribs) 07:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

But I still feel that this site http://www.brahmakumaris.info/forum/portal.php should be put in reference section. Just see http://www.brahmakumaris.info/forum/whoarewe.php for info about this site.

Thank you.--Skbhat (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Split section

The Talk:2008 Summer Olympics torch relay#Propose split does not seem to generate much comments. But I am willing to help split the section. What next? Benjwong (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)