User talk:DanielDemaret/Archives/Archive 3

Wikipedia talk:Censorship

I saw your comment on this page just before I got you message. I responded there. Gerard Foley 22:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, thanks for your comment. As I said on my own talk page, you might like to check out the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism page for info on blocking vandalism. -- Tangotango 14:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism fighting

Anyone can and should revert vandalism. Anyone can and should give warnings. Only admins can actually block vandals. That's what the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism page is for, to bring an admin in on that final step.

But we want to give people a chance before we start blocking them. Thus the warnings. Many brand new users are overwhelmed by the freedom of being able to make any edit they want. They do not realize that, just because they can do something doesn't mean they should do it. The warnings let them know that they should not, and are thus an important way to weed out the true vandals from those innocently messing around. Also serves to let the user know that they are being watched.

For cases like the one in question, where a month ago the user received the full set of warnings, we do not necessarily need to start all the way back to the first warning. I want back to warning #2 of 4, instead of all the way back to #1. It's kinda a judgement call based on how many previous warnings they've had. - TexasAndroid 14:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Email confirmation

I am not the person to ask questions about the confirmation process. I know little more about it than you likely do. Sorry. - TexasAndroid 17:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The IP might belong to your ISP, especially if you have a router. Try this site: http://whatsmyip.net/ to find out if this is the case. - Tangotango 05:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

lol really? Sorry about that. :P Hope the email mystery was solved. - Tangotango 08:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thuggee

I know. Point taken. I know it is wiser to not engage in certain discussions. Sometimes, however, there are comments / assertions that I find difficult to leave unchallenged or -commented. I'll restrain myself duly ;-)Varga Mila 18:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the argument of 'choice' in terms of choosing a religion rests on shaky grounds. I think that is what you were referring to...

I think I guessed your unasked question regarding Thuggee... If my guessing is right, my answer would be 'no'. Varga Mila 18:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

There are too many embedded clauses here: I think you think he would think, and so I think....

I think I thought you thought he might think that Thuggeeism (!) would be a matter of choice and therefore crime, while I think you think that the social transmission of Thuggeeism would effectively border on making it 'racial'..(or at least I think that is the point you would take, for the sake of the argument - but what do I know...

And I thought you thought that you would then 'catch him out', so to speak. But ... who knows

Anyway, your article in mind would be even more hotly contested than the MCs : )

Jesus Cartoons

Daniel, That is the point I would like to emphasis on: Jesus cartoons might not be so offensive for you but you should think and try to feel what might that mean for Muslims. In Jesus case, first of all, it is not clear at all that that person is Jesus. Secondly, he is just standing, there is no bomb in his hand, etc. Thirdly, if you think that the cartoon is clear that it is Jesus, still not a big deal for a Christian. You have His pictures everywhere... But Prophet Muhammad's pictures are forbidden in Islam. Best, Resid Gulerdem 04:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the Jesus part. Best. DanielDemaret 07:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Deconstruction....n critical questioning

Daniel,

In the wake of current proposals in DK to discuss the nature, details, nits, bolts and all of Islam and secularism, one cultural psychologist made the interesting point. .....that the logical deconstruction of the two would lead to 'humiliation' of Islam. That by bringing something fundamentally experiential and unquestioned (by consequence of Islam being an unreformed religion, etc. etc. - your point of prohibition of idolatry while effectively idolizing Muhammed applies here too) onto a stage created by secularism, using the logic and tools of secularism, can only lead to secularism coming out 'on top'. It makes beautiful sense (though more so in the clear phrases of the psychologist than my muddled ones : ), but does mean that all there is to do, is to wait for Islam to go though a reformation process in its own pace and time? I don't think the world has the time for that...Varga Mila 13:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to second guess your mind again. Without entering the straitjacket full on...though.......no.... It is simplistic and only addresses one aspect, but isn't it doomed to dissipation, like most totalitarian systems, if people are given a more 'informed' (whatever that entails) and less constrained choice? Varga Mila 23:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Nothing ever happened - Even while it was happening

Laden with philosophical intrigue. Yes, he is wrong. Only without her, he doesn't know why. Perhaps Berkley, would ask you, does her absence matter..? Surely the trees still feel the falling. So hurt must still be hurt ? And killing still be killing? Varga Mila 22:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)