User talk:DanielDemaret/Archives/Archive 5

Thanks

I appreciate your willingness to help, but I think this guy is beyond hope. He constantly mixes the definitions of words, such as the difference between 'insult' and 'offense,' and he constantly omits or twists (in his mind) key words in the existing policy he quotes. As a psychology major, I find his behavior fascinating and disturbing. Haizum 14:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel like there has to be some sort of protocol for dealing with this type of person. To me, a debate is emperical, meaning that if the discussion is purely factual and logical with no fallacies, then the debate will end in one of two ways; either both sides finally agree on the same thing, or one side will end up being flat out wrong.

The problem with this philosophy is that if a person doesn't understand/accept what a fallacy is, or doesn't fully understand the language they/others are using, then they essentially become immune from the progressive forces of logic and cogent debate. I find it very disruptive. Haizum 14:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Nothing ever happened - even while it was happening

No, no hidden statement, question or indeed agenda Varga Mila 18:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Save that your Koan made me think of Hitler's remark, "Who remembers the extermination of the Armenians?"

And his suggestion, that anything beyond the gaze of the world, it is beyond judgement.

And the comment about America's games abroad that Harold Pinter's made when he received the nobel prize last year: "Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest."

Somewhere, lone men are always talking, and trees always falling. Even if unheard.

..anyway, I'm sure that's what you read, so, nothing hidden. Sunday night, deadlines.. I'm obviously procrastinating in any way possible!) 23:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, dissipative then

It is a fascinating point (violent system-wide reactions to extremely small pertubations/irritations). But how do you suspect that this tendency to be 'easily irritated' has become intrinsic to Islam? Is it a consequence of history, the nature of the 'scriptures' or is it something as simple as a tool of raw political subjugation (in which case it should really apply to most totalitarian leaders concerned with self-preservation) ?

I am not too unfamiliar with the use of mathatical models in terms of (the simpler aspects of) animal behaviour. Still, I'm fascinated by their predictive power in terms of the evolution of political systems, given that the models are only as precise, as the definitions of their parameters. In the light of the number of interacting factors, plus that complexity of human behaviour (crowd behaviour, in particular, even being a psychologist doesn't make it feel all that predictable!), would, I should think, make it very difficult create a powerful model of this ? Varga Mila 18:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

How it became intrinsic, I can only guess wildly, so I shall try to restrain myself there. I have seen that it is intrinsic in dissipative structures, more than any other commonly found structure in nature, and that both populations and animals have been successfully modeled as dissipative structures.

I still think our professor was merely lucky, but when I remembered that lecture 10 years later, it left a very strong memory in me. He WAS sure that the soviet was going to collapse, however, I will give him that. I wonder if he published this somewhere? DanielDemaret 18:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm intrigued.. I thought you were a linguist in your own private Tower of Babel.Varga Mila 19:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Anon --> Raphael1

Hi Daniel, I am sorry to hear that Raphael1 (formerly 62.116.76.117) has casued you trouble. [1]
I haven't reviewed everything this user has done, but my casual observation agrees with your observation that at least "...he is not like some who just vandalises for the sake of it, he believes what he is saying." I have tried to do a little coaching to him already. For example, I urged him to get an account [2], and I've urged him not to expect opinion to change swiftly, and not to interpret a few positive comments on a sub-page discussion to be sufficient grounds for changing the content of the cartoon article. [3].
Please be aware that Raphael1 did not remove Tasc's warning. Tasc lowered that warning himself. [4].
I presume Tasc lowered the warning because I left a message for Tasc saying that I felt a {{test4}} warning was over-the-top and that a {{test1}} or {{test2}} might be appropriate. [5].
I will see what he has been up to since creating his new account and I will try to see what other advice I may be able to give him. Hang in there, Johntex\^talk 19:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Could you please point me to where he edited your comments? That would save me a lot of time looking at diffs. Also, I can tell you he is aware of "User talk" space because he he left me messages (which I have already archived) yesterday. Johntex\^talk 20:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Raphael, JOhntex and Haizum.

I should have explained more about the editing. It sounds a bit worse than it was. Let me repeat what I told you before Johntex, that what Raphael did, I do not think it was intentional. I would not have brought it up at all, if it were not for the fact that he kept doing it after I asked him not to.

What was done repeatedly I think might be better termed "slashing into my text". The problem with this, was that when I, or anyone else read it, since he did not always put his signature, it looked as if I had signed some of his text, and and sometimes it looked as if he had signed some of my text.

So it looked as if Raphael had changed my text at several places. Again, not intentionally. It is the kind of thing one does sometimes with email, but it really doesnt work here, especially if not every line is signed by the slasher.

I should also note that when I asked him to clean it up, Raphaels did try to do this. Unfortunately, it was not enough. Some of my text was gone. So, I added a note to the section that it would be better to start anew that to try to salvage the old.

And then, unfortunately, slashing happened again. I still do not think that it was intentional, so there is not point in tedious looking into history to look for it. I have also seen it being done after that in the mohammed talks, and there, since no cleaning was done, when last I looked, one can find instances of slashing into Haizum's text. I did not check whether the texts there were confused or not.

I hope this clarifies things. I accept the apology that Raphael has made me, of course, and I will apologize for being unclear about the exact nature of my accusation. DanielDemaret 21:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• It was the repeating of slashing even after being asked not to do it that made me tense and curt when I complained about it.DanielDemaret 21:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

personal attacks

I have accidently read your comment on Haizums talk page. I don't think, that I have ever changed your text. If I you have any evidence, please show me the diff. If you feel attacked by me, I apologize. I never intended to do so. Raphael1 20:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

* I mixed something up here. The apology was for the attacks, if there were any, not the slash-editing. I shall not change my "letter" above, but simply correct myself here.

* I shall now look up the references to personal attacks to show them here.

DanielDemaret 21:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The first one was easy to find, in archive 15 of the mohammed cartoons. I just had to look for the word "stupid". Easy to remember, since I do not recall anyone using that word in wikipedia before. I have seen so very few personal attacks in wikipedia before.

having a poll about the rights of a minority is stupid

The problem here is that saying the above sentence implies that all the hundreds of wikipedias that partook in the polls are stupids. So it is a personal attack directed to hundreds of wikipedia editors. To say that one did not call anyone stupid, only the poll stupid, does not help, since the poll is not an separate entity. A poll is what people do. Anyone that read that sentence could easily have taken it as a personal affront, a personal attack. I know that at least some did. This kind of thing may make some editors angry. When people get angry things can go bad, and the proper writing and discussion of articles grind to a near standstill, or even get reverted. DanielDemaret 21:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the second one was, I think in the censorship debate where you wrote "don't you read the papers?" suggesting that I was somewhat illeterate. After having read about 300 articles in six different languages about it, I took offense at that.DanielDemaret 16:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Censorship policy

(reply)

Hi Daniel. I just want to discuss the introduction. I'm not interested in the ongoing dispute regarding the inclusion of the cartoons, that's something I'm not going to touch with a ten-foot pole :P. It's confusing to me why you would even bring this up? Perhaps you are reading into my responses too much? Anyway, I hope there is no misunderstanding now. I only want to discuss the intro. --Ben 00:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

In absence of

Your presence is missed Varga Mila 22:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm locked in my St. Andrews tower, with only the sea gulls, coffee and a mountain of videoclips to analyze. I've woved to leave my computer for nothing but the bare essentials until order is interjected - deadline obviously came ... and went!. Thus your challening questions, ideas and ponderings are a fun and welcome source of procrastination. And missed when absent. Varga Mila 18:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I envisioned (and plan) an adventure in the Ugandan jungle. But, much against my desire, methods had to tested and an experiment with a population of captive chimpanzees run. Against my desire because, if possible at all, treating others as intentional beings may pull them into a world of intentional sharing and manipulation. My interest is the evolution of cognition, and that of humanly cultured chimpanzees brings only whispers.

No, no subtle references, plain and profane; ) I'm in St. Andrews, in a building only half as old as the 12th century tower. Varga Mila 19:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion Subpage

Yes, your absence has been noisy.

I would love to read the aforementioned analyses by muslim and former muslim women.

As I suspect others would, too. Perhaps you could mention them on the Talk page (now that there may be some breathing space - although I'm less optimistic than you on this matter, I think it will be only a short rebate ~ then again, my parents never called me 'the smiling Buddha' : )

Your suggestion regarding the link and sentence sound good. Please do make the amendments.

I'm intrigued to read more about the illustrious First Rule ~ however I'm drowning right now. Varga Mila 15:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Censorship

I am trying to make some improvements in the project Censorship. I thought you might want to know about it. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Resid Gulerdem 15:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of that particular argument you mentioned. But I am trying to improve the text in a way that some unnecessary restrictions dictated by the current text are eliminated. It is based on that editors should decide about what kind of descriptions (verbal, visual) they need to choose. The argument: 'we do not care if some descriptions is porn or insult to someone' is not good for me. Resid Gulerdem 16:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It is just that if there is no basic policy against censorship, then what is the point of a guideline that explains what the word means here?DanielDemaret 16:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Weekend

Daniel, I hope your week was as challenging as busy; I do wish mine was as short, as busy.

Look forward to delving into all the reading and views of the Supergirl and burka clad women (it conjures up such funny images ! : ) but I've acquired tunnel vision, and words to you need some degree of thought and clarity of mind. In stead, I have a pseudo-koan for you

Is being kind necessarily always being right ? Varga Mila 20:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Your Questions

1. I dont know what viewpoint your talking about.
2. No consensus is appearing, the poll looks split 50/50 to me. Gerard Foley 23:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)