User talk:Yeago
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Fourth way
[edit] Laws
What you wanna do with the laws. Aeuio 01:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm thinking a merge, and one-by-one explanation just like the centers. I'm honestly not that familiar with the different 'laws'. What texts do they come from? I think the article, as it is, says nothing. Law of two just directs to dualism. Law of seven just redirects to enneagram without any elaboration. What do you think?Yeago 01:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- The laws are from Miraculous and Beelzebub, although only law of 3 and law of 7 are mainly discussed. I was thinking of transferring the two to another article and getting rid of the entire laws article. If not, then go ahead with the merger. (O, and although its poorly explained, the enneagram is supposed to explain the law of seven.) Aeuio 15:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm... transferring them to which article?Yeago 15:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Which ever one you had in mind when you put the tag. I'd say put them all in the Laws (Fourth Way) Aeuio 16:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry. It confused me when you said 'I was thinking ... of getting rid of the entire laws article'. You were?Yeago 20:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Which ever one you had in mind when you put the tag. I'd say put them all in the Laws (Fourth Way) Aeuio 16:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm... transferring them to which article?Yeago 15:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- The laws are from Miraculous and Beelzebub, although only law of 3 and law of 7 are mainly discussed. I was thinking of transferring the two to another article and getting rid of the entire laws article. If not, then go ahead with the merger. (O, and although its poorly explained, the enneagram is supposed to explain the law of seven.) Aeuio 15:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Oops, should have said "other laws articles" instead of "entire laws article" as the laws article should only state the law of three and seven (as they were mainly focused on), while the rest of those articles and links should be removed (or just touched upon)...Just my suggestion, do what you have in mind Aeuio 23:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Nope, that sounds pretty good. I'll do the restructuring, maybe you can copy some material over from Ray of Creation and Enneagram to put in the article.Yeago 12:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds good, I copied the basics and will expand later. Aeuio 19:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merging
The Fourth Way Transmission article merger is not a good idea as it was created to separate the two things. (Or rather, in the future it will do that) See talk Aeuio 16:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I replied to this in the discussion page at that article. Check it out buddy.Yeago 17:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Links
Could you see the Fourth Way article and talk page and make a suggestion about the external links section. Aeuio 02:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Websides Gurdjieff
Point taken, reference changed.
Mme. Vanity is not involved
[edit] Request for help?
I could really use some help over on Prickly City and you seemed like the right guy to come to. There's a couple people over there who want to add a smear site link to the article under the premise of it offering "analysis" and I've asked them repeatedly to actually add any significant analysis to the article and add the site as a source instead of attempting to apply it in a blanket manner. Honestly, I'm a bit too much of a wikinoob to really know how to deal with the situation and was hoping you could help me out. They're even removing my POV tags without discussing the matter at all and calling my edits "vandalism." --Pellucid 08:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sure buddy. I'm not sure that the link doesn't belong in Wikipedia. But still, I really don't think its fair they just outright revert you just because you're a neocon crazyass =) Anyway, I did something there I hope you will appreciate. Perhaps if you give them some reason (citation) why you think its a 'smear site' and not an analysis, that would be helpful (for me as well).Yeago 14:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- I added a ton of quotes from the blog that show the bias and, surprisingly, idiocy of the blog writer. I tried to think of a less offensive word than idiocy, but that's really the only appropriate adjective. He thoroughly mocks Stantis for a strip he did about carbon credits except it's clear that he has no idea what a carbon credit is (he seems to think that it means you pay other people to pollute for you). --Pellucid 16:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you may have to find a more centrist term than 'idiocy' if you're going to have any success =). We all know there are plenty of things that are totally idiotic that earn themselves representation and notability on Wikipedia. I would approach it from the standpoint of notability: Asking is the link worthy of inclusion? If so, should be by merely included or does it have something to add to the article? Is the sitemaster himself the one adding the link and text? etc, etc, etc.
- It can be tough but if you know the rules and can take a less absolutist vantage, most of the time you can find a fair solution. Even if the link is included (so long as unsourced screed isn't placed in the article), is that so bad?Yeago 20:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- I actually specifically told them that if there are inaccuracies in the comic strip that they could indicate on a specific basis that they could feel free to add them and use Shrubville as a source if they so chose; I just don't like the idea of adding it as a link that's supposed to honestly analyze the strip. --Pellucid 22:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, well that's reasonable enough. I kind of agree--its not really honest analysis according to your links. I'm interested in seeing a real reply from them.Yeago 09:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I dunno Pellucid. I am leaning for inclusion of the link so long as the author can establish its not just some one-man show. I don't neccessarily think inclusion of a link is grounds for an NPOV claim. However, I do think its clear that the link be included with a byline indicating it is severely critical. We'll see.Yeago 21:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- My main problem with it is a matter of consistency. If I posted BlameBush! on the entries for liberal blogs in Wiki, it would be reverted almost instantly. There would be no chance of sustaining a similarly critical link on any entries about anything liberal, and honestly, I wouldn't want to. I don't think that smear sites are particularly relevant sources. If there truly is a need for criticism on the strip, shouldn't there be a more neutral and reputable source that could say the same things that guy does? I mean, I could find hundreds of sources that say the Holocaust never happened. Does that mean I should change the Holocaust article to present such a view as a fact? No; I could present it in a section that specifically says "some people claim [but are wrong]." If a more authoritative and neutral source can be presented that makes the same claims or at least isn't clearly not educated enough to understand the humor (as he demonstrated by failing to understand what carbon credits are), I would in no way oppose the addition of the link. I mean, would you want a link added to the math article that claims that 2+2=22? --Pellucid 12:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I dunno Pellucid. I am leaning for inclusion of the link so long as the author can establish its not just some one-man show. I don't neccessarily think inclusion of a link is grounds for an NPOV claim. However, I do think its clear that the link be included with a byline indicating it is severely critical. We'll see.Yeago 21:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, well that's reasonable enough. I kind of agree--its not really honest analysis according to your links. I'm interested in seeing a real reply from them.Yeago 09:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I actually specifically told them that if there are inaccuracies in the comic strip that they could indicate on a specific basis that they could feel free to add them and use Shrubville as a source if they so chose; I just don't like the idea of adding it as a link that's supposed to honestly analyze the strip. --Pellucid 22:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- I added a ton of quotes from the blog that show the bias and, surprisingly, idiocy of the blog writer. I tried to think of a less offensive word than idiocy, but that's really the only appropriate adjective. He thoroughly mocks Stantis for a strip he did about carbon credits except it's clear that he has no idea what a carbon credit is (he seems to think that it means you pay other people to pollute for you). --Pellucid 16:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Notability of Julius Langbehn
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Julius Langbehn, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Julius Langbehn seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Julius Langbehn, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Julius Langbehn itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 03:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been nice on the Talk page but enough's enough: cease your hostility and incivility. It's neither welcome nor productive. You can disagree with other editors without being disagreeable. --ElKevbo 16:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Uhm, you called my contributions to wikipedia a "problem" and somehow (although there is no Wikipedia precedent) think that I have not contributed enough in my creation of the Langbehn article. You think I am being uncivil and hostile simply because I don't value your opinion? Wrong. I don't value your opinion. I read it, thought about it, and decided it was just an excuse for going hog-wild on the delete button. You're free to interpret that as uncivil or hostile, but its my opinion and I'm entitled to it. Go make your apologies for poor deletion in some other direction but mine.Yeago 16:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] DYK
 |
On 25 June 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Das Dritte Reich, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Carabinieri 15:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 3rr
careful on the 3 revert rule there --Buridan 19:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- =] of course.Yeago 02:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Warning regarding personal attacks
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Your accusations about my "ignorance" are unwarranted and not helpful. Please desist. ---TheoldanarchistComhrá 16:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know who you think you are to welcome me to Wikipedia, as I have been an editor for several more years than you. At any rate, if you wish to translate the word 'ignorance' to 'extreme unfamiliarity' you are free to do so; I will use whatever word that describes my observations.
- It is unfortunate that my observations about your ignorance in the Mumford matter are not helpful. Were you to make help of them and do some further research you'd see that the sources I provided range from educated opinions to definitive conjecture. One is a rather comprehensive article from JSTOR, and so it is in dismissing that you are "willfully ignorant".
- While my remarks about you are firmly posited in one subject and reasoned, your flagging my Talk page with the intro flag is unmasked condescension. So while you're asking me to 'desist' attacking you, you're just up to passive-aggression. You really ought to get some more tricks as every elite Wikilawyer plays more or less the same game.Yeago 19:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] welcome to wikipedia
Yeago I know you are new to wikipedia so i want to explain to you that it is very rude to remove the comments of another editor on an articles talk page even if they seem rude and pointless. The only time it is Appropriate to remove an editors comments is if they Slander an individual or are blatant vandalism. If the editor had written a rant about Dennis Miller being a Nazi or just added the word poop in red letters then I would support your effort to delete the comments but these comments fall into neither the slander or vandalism catagory and are valid because they lead to the editors question of why the article contains so little information on the shows right wing slant.
I hope that you find editing wikipedia both fun and educational but remember to be civil to the other editors no matter how much you disagree with their opinions. Wikipedia is a big place and there is room for everyone. --The Emperor of Wikipedia 05:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
p.s. i thought you had left the hhnh article. You know you can remove it from your watch list if it is causing you stress
- The message I removed from that page's discussion was not a legitimate piece of discussion. The words are blatant vandalism to the talk page, he makes an obvious ad hominem attack against Dennis Miller. I find it rather strange that you wish to immortalize such plap even when the person who wrote it is miles away and will never thank you for being such a great knight to the first amendment.
- This article gives plenty of credence to the slantedness of this show--much of which I wrote myself. However, this article is not the mouthpiece for Fox News ax-grinders. Also, I think projects like Conservapedia.com popped up because of discussions such as this--whether I disagree with them or not I am not interested in alienating Conservatives from this article. After all, Wikipedia is a big place and there's room for everyone.Yeago 07:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Celebritarian Corporation
In case a proposed merge there is actually no need to bring the article to a deletion discussion. Moreover, if the merge has already been proposed, but nobody seem to care or object, you may want to go ahead and just do it. Happy editing! --Tikiwont 12:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Philip F. Deaver
[edit] AfD nomination of Philip F. Deaver
An article that you have been involved in editing, Philip F. Deaver, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip F. Deaver. Thank you. David Shankbone 16:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- That's because you're dense, holmes.Yeago (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unsourced
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Chloë Sevigny. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. --Yamla (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- You don't know what you're talking about. How about you read the article? PS: You've already been reverted by others. See sentence one. Yeago (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Commercialization of traditional medicines
Saying that "most of [my] edits are suspect" comes close to accusing me of bad faith. I have tried to scrupulously maintain balance in this article, trying to keep the balance between the characterization of this activity as "biopiracy" and the characterization of it as "bioprospecting". If you can make the "Ownership" section into something other than original research. I'd greatly appreciate it.
At the moment, it's an essay, and an essay with occasional cites is still an essay, as can be seen from the use throughout of passive and/or free-floating phrases like "One might argue that" and "[a] virtue-based approach might argue that", "would probably have", and "it is intuitively intolerable that". In each case, someone either actually made these respective arguments in a reliable citable source, or they didn't. If it can be cited, attribute it. If not, take it out. Providing a cite for each individual section in the "ownership" section would be a start.
Removing {{fact}} tags does not make the need for cites go away.
If you want to raise these issues, please first consider discussing them on the talk page of the article, rather than rushing to mediation. -- The Anome (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Xeni Jardin
The tenet you require is WP:BLP. Ty 02:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
