User talk:DanielDemaret/Archives/Archive 8

Repent !

Is your cartoon hinting at my ignorance !!?? How insulting ! I demand that you take it down and repent. Varga Mila 17:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Repenting, Ma'am

All right, all right, I apologize. I'm really, really sorry. I apologize unreservedly. I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact and was in no way fair comment and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my cartoon or cartoons may have caused you or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

All cartoons at my own talk page have been transmitted to oblivion in archives or other suitable oblivion. DanielDemaret 18:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You apology seems sincere. But to ensure that it is sincere, I demand that you compensate for the pain and upset that you have caused me. I have a little business; we shall expect your generous contributions shortly Varga Mila 18:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Sincere? I don't know about that. But I was rather bonking on that quote from John Cleese doing the trick. As you know, I am a mere man, and I never really figured the answer to two trick questions: Which cartoon or cartoons were you referring to, and how did you manage to construe an offense from it or them? DanielDemaret 19:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and if you think that I am merely trying to divert the discussion away from the issue of punitive damages, you are absolutely correct.DanielDemaret 19:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You do know that I was Joking, right ? Varga Mila 19:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The compensation part was a reference to the one of the prominent imams at the reconciliation meeting in Denmark last week, who after speaking very emotionally about insult at length, suddenly calmed and very rationally suggested that the Danish government make contributions to the health system and a large number of smaller businessmen in Saudi (I think it was?).

And now that I'm at it, sorry sorry sorry, the apology part was a reference to demand for a certain type of apology (felt at heart or pocket). Varga Mila 19:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I had not heard about the meeting last week in Denmark. Thank you. Every idea seems to come from somewhere, and it interesting to hear where that one came from.DanielDemaret 21:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. :) This in no way preventing me from checking your email to me to see where to send punitive damages, probably in the shape of a cart of bananas for your bonobos, or from wondering how in the world I was going to get out of it. DanielDemaret 19:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"Bonking on Jonhn Cleese's jokes"? Now there's a blasphemous sentence : )

Banking ? Varga Mila 19:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The particular way I use the word is taken from Blackadder. In this case it is akin to betting. Unfortunately for me, not everyone knows Blackadder as well as I do. DanielDemaret 19:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I just checked the script of Black-Adder from the episode "Corporal Punishment", for context, and there it is in black and white: "banking". What? And I have heard him saying "bonking", thinking that it must have been a typical expression of the time by the likes of George. They use the most silly expressions in that TV-series. No more excuses for me then. I totally retract this usage of mine etc, etc, etc.DanielDemaret 20:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm... must have been a case of selective hearing Varga Mila 20:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The paradoxes of the self-rightuous

There's another lovely example of the paradoxes of the self-rightuous in the Little Kingdom. A company has produced t'shirts with a cartoon of the Madonna and a reference to anal sex (funny but very rude, and really quite unnecessesary in its lack of purpose. However, the priest, who has taken it upon himself to prevent it from 'coming into general distribution' (his phrasing was along those lines), is seen photographed showing the t'shirt in several of the larger papers today.... I'm lost for words. Varga Mila 17:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The MC Cartoons

Thank you. This the first time I have been accused of being a racist. Its a bit distressing. But 'my bad', as you would say, I guess I should have left out the comment about logic. Anyway, I think that marks the end of my contributions. No great loss. Varga Mila 18:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Then Nuggan must truly be God. Varga Mila 21:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I almost ought to read Discworld... given your devouted references to it. But....... I have to prepare talk, and write 18,000 words within the next month (typically, I haven't started either ~ and my words don't flow quite as easily as yours seem to do). All on intentionality, joint attention, communication and the possible lack of human species specificity of it all. Does Bapak Greenspan talk of either ? :-)

I thank you kindly for the offer, but, you see, I am a terribly respectless reader - highlighting, jotting down notes and (oh orrror) bending page corners. Although I do love the lending and borrowing of books (though those to and from whom I lend and borrow may do less so !  : ) (I try, but am always somewhat 'undelivered' when I can't mistreat my books). Varga Mila 22:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Policy

Daniel, I am blocked by an admin without prior notification (see my page). I was not reverting, anything. It might be a good friend of MB. Anyways, MB doesn't want people make suggession. MB would like to kill the project. I was wondering if you could help me to put the poll earlier version so that, we can get what people thinks? Resid

That is not fair, you are not helping me a bit in this policy page Wikipedia:Wikiethics :) I do not mean support of course but as an experienced user you could help me to see my mistakes as well. I wish you could share with me what do you think about the current form, at least briefly. Best... Resid

I just read your comment and took a look at the wikiethics discussion page.

I had decided too leave controversial articles for a month, but I shall at least try to look at yours.

I am trying to follow what has happened, but it is almost impossibly hard: for some strange reason the comments do not seem to be in chronological order.

I have been writing since 2004, but never before have I seen messes like the discussions of the MC article and nearly all the articles surrounding it. DanielDemaret 09:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Up to some point, all seemed to have been going well. I am having to dig into the "history" button to have a chance of seeing where it all went downhill.DanielDemaret 09:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. The discussion seem to be going downhill at the lower half of the pornography section. Unfortunatly, it refers to policy changes in the article that are no longer visible in the article, so now I need to correlate the article history with the discussion history. DanielDemaret 10:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have read it, and I imagine that I know approximately what has happened.

I think that Metta could have a lot more patience. I am not going to speculate on why he got angry, but clearly he did. And he does seem to know a lot more about how to use admins than either you or I do.

Am I correct when I assume that the problems seem to have arisen when people, not just you, but several people started reorganizing the talk page? DanielDemaret 10:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand, I think Metta was wrong in principle to bring this it a killing vote. On the other hand, seeing the comments of the votes, I think that David91 is right. The wikiethics policy would , I think, have been voted down even in two months time, simply because it covers too much. The details have not been operationalized, instead the discussion seems mainly to make the policy larger.

Ethics policies exists in smaller rules already. Even the smallest and cleareast of rules, with one single clear statement at the top, and lots of examples filling several pages just to explain one very clear rule seems to be misunderstood by many. Wikipedia:No personal attacks is a perfect example.

Ethics is a very large area. To establish an ethics is as big as establishing a whole new religion.

Right now, I am leaning on that the way to proceed in the futue might be instead

1. To make as small, clear, non-ambiguous, easily operational micro-ethics wikipolicies as possible instead of large ones. Perhaps one could take the part of wikipolicy that one believes everyone will agree to, and just start to add that to a policy?

2. To focus on policies that will help the discussions directly, instead of the contents. For example, the No personal attacks policy is clearly primarily intended to help the discussion page, not the article. This policy was one that all could agree on at some early stage, and those who have followed it 100% even when being attacked and lied to have benefited from following it. DanielDemaret 11:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I am going to see if I can get any kind of support for the wait-vote, even if, as I wrote here, I think it may be useless.DanielDemaret 11:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The MC-cartoon article discussion and every article with talks in it that it has spawned do not look like normal article discussions to me. They look more like wars where everyone is angry at each other. I think Varga Mila is right. I shall not contribute more to any of these. I shall try to take a break now from Wikipedia for at least a week. DanielDemaret 19:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments here. If you would like to contribute further you can always do that on Wikipedia:Wikiethics page. I do not like to fight with people, but just defending myself. Can you think someone you invited come and try to kill an article or a policy page you started? I do not understand User:Metta Bubbles motivation. The mess in that page was not something I would prefer. To fix the things and improve it further I need your help. Thanks. Resid Gulerdem 06:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)