User talk:Sensemaker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Quisling

I was reverting the edits of User:Sindicate, a banned editor. Regarding the comparison between "Quisling" and "Benedict Arnold", that sounds like original research to me. Do you have a source for that? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Gee, if you removed my comparison by mistake why don't you just say so. We all make mistakes, but defending an error is to err again (and a much worse error in my opinion).

Do you really need a source just for pointing out a synonym? With such strict standards wiki would be stuffed to the gunwhales with links and source references. Just read the Benedict Arnold article and the Quilding article.

It is not original research. I found it in a dictionary. I'll see if I can find out which one.

Sensemaker

It wasn't an "error". Along with the edits of a banned editor, I removed that addition, because it looked like original research to me. I wasn't going to make a big deal of it, but you need to source these kinds of things. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have seen a few synonyms given i wikipedia but I have never seen anyone source their synonym. Nor have I ever seen the "citation needed" mark on any synonym. Nor have I read a rule saying that synonyms must be sourced. Please give me a source to your claim that synonyms must be sourced. Sensemaker 12:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I got rid of the comparison because I didn't think it added anything to the article, as above. It seemed somewhat OR to me, and also rather Americocentric in an article about a European politician. I hope that makes sense. --Guinnog 15:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not American (and have only visited the US once, briefly), I'm Swedish, so it's kinda odd to be accused of being Americocentric. The reason I put it in is that every European I have told about the expression "a Benedict Arnold" has immediately understood what I meant when I said it was an American version of "a Quisling" and vice versa (I have American acquaintances online). They all found it enlightening and interesting. When I first learned of the expression "a Benedict Arnold" I certainly found it interesting. I do believe it adds something to the article. An American immediately understand how the term works because he can compare it to a common American word and a European gets to hear about an interesting parallell that he can look up in a link. -Sensemaker

[edit] Peter Englund and Medieval 2

The translation I'm referring to is yours- I condensed it down, because in the end, all you're saying is that he is praising the aesthetics (it does a great job of depicting medieval warfare). By putting the whole thing like you have, you are putting far too much emphasis on his review. Very short summaries of reviews are preferable, otherwise the criticism section gets too long- note that websites that review games (such as IGN and Gamespot) only got a sentence each. Mr. Englund shouldn't get significantly more than that. Cheers --DarthBinky 13:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Något som anknyter till detta: använd gärna "riktiga" signaturer på diskussionsidor (dvs. ~~~~) så att man bättre kan följa diskussionen och dela in den tidsmässigt. Hälsningar, Scoo 16:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'll try to remeber that. I believe there is also a rule about writing in English, though, Scoo. Sensemaker 18:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop policing the Medieval 2 article by reflex-reverting me. You can't fall back on previous discussion as though anything following it is a breech of consensus. I made a very detailed motivation for my edits over two weeks ago, and you appear not to have read it. I also tweaked the prose and the the citation, which in no way interferes with what previous discussions have been about, yet you reverted these improvements with no reasonable motivation.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion has been answered on the discussion page. -Sensemaker

Thank you for replying, but could you please not reply in the middle of my post? In combination with the fact that you don't use a ~~~~-signature, it makes the post very difficult to read. Could you consider formatting your reply so that it doesn't hack my text to pieces?

Peter ^Isotalo 10:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. -Sensemaker

[edit] the Medieval 2 thing

The aesthetics thing I based on your initial paragraph. You have since clarified that the emphasis was on the genre, not on the game's aesthetics. The article now reflects that.

We've already been over that, and we've already come to a consensus with which we're both reasonably happy. There is no point in continuing that argument because you are not convincing me, and, judging by the extreme length of that conversation, I am not convincing you. So let's stay with what we know works and leave it at that.

Agreed -Sensemaker

And no, I completely disagree with your final assertion. We should not assume that someone knows something or doesn't know something based on where they live, nor is it relevant to the article. Unless someone tells you what they know or don't know, you cannot possibly know that, and it's wrong to assume you do. While odds are, someone from China wouldn't know about the Battle of Little Bighorn, you never know when you're going to run into someone who DOES know about it- especially so in a place like this! --DarthBinky 16:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Talking about your general assertion that it is wrong to assume that someone knows or doesn't know something based on where they live, I am not sure if you mean wrong in the ethical sense ("a bad thing") or wrong in the sense that it is irrational, a fallacy. I utterly fail to see why it would be ethically wrong. If you meant that it was a fallacy I must point out that we make assumptions on what other people know all the time (though not usually based on geography). Whenever I decide to use or not use a word I make an assumption as to whether the listening person would understand the word. Without some assumptions as to what the other person understands, human communication is impossible. It is not often you can make such assumptions based on where the other person lives -but sometimes it is relevant. For instance if you were in a new city and needed directions would you first ask a person from a foreign country or a person from the city you are in? Of course it makes much more sense to ask the local because one can assume that he knows the city better. This is assuming that someone knows or doesn't know something based on where they live. I have hopefully now demonstrated that it is not always wrong to assume that someone knows or doesn't know something based on where he lives.

Returning to the case at hand, I never did assume things based on where you live. I thought you didn't know about the middle ages based on what you wrote. To me you seemed to call 1632 medieval. Therefore, and not because of where you live, did I assume that you did not know when the middle ages ended. Since you did not answer this particular point I thought I had embarrassed you by pointing this out, so I tried to make things better by saying that this is not something an American is expected to know. If an American did know, it would be exceptional.

Using the parallell with a Chinese person you can put yourself in my shoes by imagining that you bring up Little Big Horn 1876 (it was 1876 wasn't it?) and he seems to have thought that it took place during the American war of Liberation. When you point this out, he goes silent on the subject. You assume that you hurt him by pointing out his error and feel bad about hurting him. So you say that Little Big Horn is not something a Chinese person is expected to know, it would be exceptional if he had know and you certainly don't know what years the Taiping rebellion took place. That is what I was trying to do. -Sensemaker

[edit] your utilitarianism in regards to talk:Heinz Guderian

you claim to be a utilitarian, so let me put you in the following situation: you have Anne Frank and her family stashed away in your attic, and the Nazis (assuming you live in occupied Europe) come to your door and ask if there are any jews there. what do you do? If you are utilitarianistic you would tell the Nazis where Anne is hiding because by giving up the jews you save the life of you and your family, whereas saying u dont have any jews hiding in your attic will not only put Anne Frank in the concentration camps, but your family as well.

there is no way you can claim that killing Guderian and Kluge would shorten the war, as you are assuming they would have been replaced by worse commanders, I however beg to differ. They were "yes men", especially Kluge, they allowed Corporal Hitler to think he was a great commander, and thus helped shorten the war. All of your claims are pure conjecture, there is no way you can tie Guderian's death to a quicker peace

you said: To give another example, if I could travel back in time I would kill Hitler and Stalin as infants, or even better, made sure they never existed at all. again pure conjecture, how do you know a more evil man then Stalin (i know it would be hard to top his 100 million murders) would not have taken over the USSR. or how do you know that there wouldnt have been another Hitler, the man does not necessarily make his own fortune, Germany was ready for a radical leader after the rape of Versailles, if not Hitler then someone else, Hitler was in the right place at the right time to exploit the situation, how do u know someone else wouldn't have done so with more disastrous result.

--Jadger 00:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That was indeed many questions and other things that merit comment. I shall take them one by one in roughly descending order:

1. Anne Frank example, descriptive question. The question was "what do you do?" which can be read both as a question of descriptive psychology (what would you actually do) or as an ethical question (what is the right thing to do). I start by reading it as a question of psychology. The most honest answer I can give you is that I have absolutely no idea as to what I would do. Any psychologist can tell you that a "what would you do if..." question is extremely unreliable -people's answer to that question will differ a lot from what they would actually do if you put them in such a situation. In particular we tend to assume that we are more level-headed and upstanding people when we really are. It is particularly hard to guess how one would behave in a stressful situation with little time to think. It is also very hard to guess how one would behave in a situation that does is different from anything you have ever experienced. I have never been in immediate danger of losing my life, nor have I ever had a family of my own. Thus I am extremely unqualified to answer the question. However, human self-preservation instinct is generally very strong and so is the family bond. In stressful situation these things typically rule our behaviour. Most people would rat on the Franks in that situation and I have no particualr reason to believe that I would act braver and more principled than an average person. So while I cannot really answer your question, the statistical odds of human behaviour are that I would take the cowards way out.

2. Anne Frank example, ethical question. If we instead read the question as "what should I do" or rather what should a utilitarian do. Well, since fewer people die if I rat on the Franks it seems that there is more happiness (positive utilitarianism) and less suffering (negative utilitarianism) that comes from this alternative. Most utilitarianists would argue that out of those two horrible options, ratting on the Franks is the lesser evil. Of course, this is only true if you are reasonably certain that you cannot protect the Franks successfully. A rule utilitarianist, however, is of the opinion that we should act in such a way as to cause maximum happiness to the greatest if our behaviour was applied as a rule. If all people resisted the Holocaust, even when threatened to their own existence, there would be less human suffering and more happiness. Thus the right thing to do is to somehow defend the Franks, even when such a defence is futile. I for my part, am not a rule utilitarianist. In my opinion, what would happen if anyone acted like you is a very poor ethical guide (if everyone went to the library at noon the library would be crammed and people might die -thus it is wrong of me to go to the library at noon).

3. Like you say, all utilitarianistic practice is based on the assumptions on the consequences of your actions. In reality this can be very, very hard. In the strictest sense, everything that has not yet happened is conjecture, even something as obvious as the fact that a pen will fall to the ground if I drop it. It is all a matter of reasonable assumptions. It is in my opinion reasonable to assume that an imcompetent yes-man can be defeated more easily than a competent and proven general. Of course, the big weakness in this conjecture is that I have no idea as to who would replace von Kluge and Guderian. Strategists that have studied WWII generally have a very high opinion of Guderian, though. Also he was one of very few people that actually succeeded in both telling uncomfortable truths to Hitler and even making him change is mind a few times. Therefore there cannot be many Guderian replacements that could have done a job as good or better than his.

4. You are suggesting that von Kluge was a "yes-man" and not particularly competent. I recall some not particularly reliable sources rating him as a highly competent German general. Do you have a better source on this? It seems odd to think of him as one of Hitler's yes-men when he was actually involved in an attempt on Hitler's life.

5. What would history be like without Hitler? Hard to know of course, but I have read a few Hitler biographies and a few eye-witness accounts, and they tend to emphasize what a unique person he was. Granted, he was in the right place at the right time, but more importantly he was the right person at the right time. We can assume that barring a communist coup or revolution, German politics would have contained revanchistic and militaristic tendencies even without Hitler. It is unlikely that another leader could have unified so many diverse groups with diverse interests under one party. Even if we assume he could, it is not certain he would have succeeded in seizing power. Even if he had, it is far from certain that he had been expansionistic to the point of provoking a second world war. A German Mussolini or another Franco seems more likely. Even if we do assume even that, it is unlikely that he would have had the talent required to be as successfull as Hitler in war. Even if we assume that, it is very, very unlikely that he would be such a fanatic anti-semitic. Anti-semitism was not prevalent in German history of you compare with Poland, Austria, France or Russia. Therefore I consider it fairly safe to assume that without Hitler there might not be war at all and if there were, it wouldn't be as bloody as the real thing. On the down side, after the real WWII both institutional anti-semitism and fascism had lost all credibility and was reduced to a ridiculed fringe movement. Without Hitler fascism might still be a fairly mainstream political movement.

6. Incidentally, I believe the injustice of the peace of Versaille has been overstated. It is much more reasonable than for instance the peace in Brest-Litovsk that the German's forced upon the Russians. Germany's behaviour was the main cause of the war and they introduced many new and brutal methods into the war and maltreated the civil populations greatly. That said, blaming the entire German people wasn't too smart and not particularly just. I oppose all forms of collective guilt (or collective innocense for that matter) on both ethical and practical grounds. War crime tribunals would have made more sense and been fairer.

7. I don't think Stalins body count goes as high as 100 million in a reasonable estimate. According to "Black Book of Communism" the total body count of communism amounts to slightly less than that figure and China is the largest contributer. Do you have a source for such a high body count for Stalin alone?

8. You keep emphasizing that I cannot be sure what would happen if one thing or another had not had not happened. Well, that is true. Strictly speaking, the fact that an object will fall to the ground if I drop it is speculation until I actually do drop it. Still, it is our duty to make reasonable assumptions and do our best of it. If I could indeed make one change in history, it would be my duty to try to estimate what would benefit mankind the most. Acting makes me responsible for the changes I cause. Not acting would make me responsible for everything that I could prevent but didn't.

-Sensemaker

[edit] HagermanBot

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that Rich Farmbrough came up with a fantastic idea for HagermanBot which I think you might enjoy. The bot now supports an opt out functionality. This allows users who do not want the bot to sign their unsigned comments to override the engine permanently. The problem with our discussion earlier on my talk page was that by making an exception for your account, it would also do so globally and affect other users as well. This new procedure eliminates the need to globally affect all users. The instructions for opting out are located at User:HagermanBot/OptOut. If you run into any problems, please let me know. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 03:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, an opt out option was all I was asking for. A sensible but persistant appeal to a gentleman's sense of decency and reciprocity almost always succeeds. I am glad it did so in this case too. I have done a simple test and it seems to have worked. Thank you. -Sensemaker

[edit] Signing pages

I've noticed that several times at [Talk:Medieval II: Total War: Kingdoms]], you have removed Sinebot's automatic signature, saying that you had already signed the page. You included your name, but you didn't exactly sign your post. To sign your post, put four tildes (as in ~~~~) after your post. Imperator3733 20:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Imperator 3733, but I strongly prefer to sign my posts myself. -Sensemaker

Just so you know, you can opt out of having you're comments automatically signed by adding [[Category:Users who have opted out of automatic signing]] to your user page. Imperator3733 23:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've pasted that on top of my userpage. We shall see if it works. -Sensemaker