User talk:Viajero/Archive 2

Thanks for the information. We newbies probably look really stupid sometimes. Bmills

not at all. Did you follow the bit about private namespace prefix? I typed it rather hastily. It is quite a useful feature. -- Viajero 12:58, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I'll use it in future. Bmills

I've moved your user talk, originally named Archive 1 to User talk:Viajero/Archive 1, bringing it into your user namespace. - user:zanimum

Well, there are two ways; you can move the page or just cut and paste but I can't find any guidelines on which of these is correct or preferred. Personally, I have always used cut and paste as I think it makes more sense for the page history to be kept together in one place. When I archive an article talk page I only archive the older discussion. I leave anything still current on the page which avoids the problem of people replying in an archive. Perhaps you need to find someone who archives using the 'move' method and find out what their justifications for that are. I can't see any advantage in it really, and the fact that the archive is then added to watchlists is a bit annoying. Angela 20:35, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I always go with cut-n-paste for archives too, since they're effectively read-only repositories of ancient text, and the single page history at the talk page can give you every change back to the beginning even if most of the text was later archived. I suppose we ought to write this down somewhere, the first time I did I was completely unsure about what to do. Stan 21:35, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Re: Neustadt. Can you give me a source? Everything I can find says England. -- Cyan 09:46, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm, see what you mean. Another user mentioned on a (Talk page in a different context that the reference in that article should have been to Wellfleet, Mass. However, checking things, I see the Guardian says he died in London [1]. However, the reference to Welfleet, England (sic) is still wrong; he did have a summer house in Wellfleet, Mass. Just delete it I would say.

This will teach me to believe what I read on Talk pages!!! -- Viajero 09:59, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

As I recall, I made two changes to the page. In the first, I altered the text in a major way. I suppose that I should have indicated what I was doing, but I believe that to be the only breach of the Wikipedia's rules and conventions. Any minor edit I made was to correct a spelling mistake. If I did mistakenly mark the main change as a minor edit, then you have my profuse apologies.

Coming on to the NPOV point, what do you disagree with? Malathir's comments were racist. He has made similar comments in the past consistently enough that I feel labelling him a racist is quite correct. If you want, I will dig up some specific quotes for you. I accuse him of having a myopic view of Judaism. Myopia is not seeing what is really there due a vision fault. If he is an anti-Semite and racist, then his rantings about Jews controlling the world qualify as myopia about Jews. I then do not say that such views are common in the Muslim world. I say that they are common enough to cause concern. Many people I know share those concerns, and they are reflected amongst larger sections of the western world than just people I know.

Finally, the point about Nazi ideology may well have stuck in your craw. I did not say that lightly. Take a look at the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem; he was best buddies with Adolf Hiter. The Mufti's nephew learnt much of his hatred of Jews from his uncle. That nephew is Yasser Arafat. He represents one of the more extreme versions of Muslim anti-Semitism, and he is only one step away from picking it up directly from Hitler himself. Malathir is not that bad, but he is still a vicious bigot. He comes from a region that is supposedly known for its moderate version of Islam, in a country that is one of the most secular in the Muslim world. However, he still produces bilge on Jews ruling the world etc. David Newton 18:47, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I unprotected User:Viajero - assuming accidental/old vandal/etc. If deliberate, please re-protect and drop a quick line of explanation on wikipedia:protected page and/or on the page itself. Thanks. Martin 18:11, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting Mother Teresa. I have been just about fed up with Wiks unilateral decision to start an edit war. I was adding stuff, and i thought there was a Criticisms of Mother Teresa article which had already been decided on, so I removed the info that kept being added. Alexandros 22:41, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, whatever. In any case, Alexander, please take my advice: take Mother Teresa off your Watchlist and work on some of your own article projects for awhile. Don't get burned out on that particular issue. Thanks for your note. Take care... -- Viajero 22:47, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Viajero: I think a post of mine in the talk page of MT's page is interesting because some info (all concerning her beatification and so on) has disappeared in the mess and from the talk page, everybody agreed that this section was OK (it took Adam quite a while to work out his article and now it is crippled). There is no discussion in the talk page concerning that section but it was when Adam's version was first included and now it is not. I know it may be quite controversial, but it is just fair (in my opinion, of course...). TIA. Pfortuny 16:10, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hola, yes, I know the passage you are referring to:

After her death, the Holy See immediately began the process of beatification, the first step towards possible canonization, or sainthood. This process requires the documentation of a miracle, and in autumn 2002, the Vatican recognized the healing of a purported tumor in the abdomen of Dangram, India resident Monica Besra through the application of a locket containing Teresa's picture. Her husband disagrees and believes that the lump in her adomen was not cured by divine intervention, but by later hospital treatment. Meanwhile, according to a TIME Asia report, records of her treatment have been taken away by a member of the order, and the Balurghat Hospital where Besra was treated reported coming under pressure from the missionaries to acknowledge that the healing process was the result of a miracle. [1] Despite the controversy, on 19 October 2003 Pope John Paul II made a formal pronouncement that Agnes Bojaxhiu had been beatified by the church. Teresa's miraculous intercessory powers will need to be further confirmed by the Catholic Church before she is elevated to sainthood.

It is this, right? I remember it because I also edited this section once about a month ago -- it was the only direct involvement I have had in the text. I had to go way back to mid-October to find, at least at 100 versions earlier(!!!). I don't think it is controversial -- it was even one of the parts of the text that Adam took over from the earlier version -- and certainly belongs in the text. At this point though I don't know what to say. Someone will have to take responsibility for mediating some kind of compromise. When that happens, we can insure the text is reinserted.

-- Viajero 17:02, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not clarify. There are two sections missing ("Teresa as a Celebrity" and "Beatification of MT") which were around just before Alexandros started his last sequence of edits, then 2toise reverted his deletions on the criticisms (which is OK) but kept his deletions and "mis"-edits in the ""pro-"" section. It will be more complicated than I thought, but I think as they were in Adam's version and were there till Alexandros' multiple edits, they should appear. No action now, thanks. Sorry for writing so large for so little. I think we might get an easy agreement in the talk page. Don't bother and thanks. Pfortuny 17:06, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it; don't want to do it just yet as they've only had one round so far today. - Hephaestos 19:34, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've suggested an alternative at Wikipedia talk:How to archive a Talk page. I'm not sure whether that should go on the help page though as I don't know whether any objects to the method. Angela 21:30, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hello. I am glad to see you in the Latin America Wikiproject. Do not hesitate to edit that page. --Youssef 11:41, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hola amigo, ya sabías que me interesa mucho este parte del mundo, pero por disgracia recién hoy descubré esta página. Sí, queda mucho para hacer. ¡Adelante! -- Viajero 12:05, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A lot of what he's put on Current Events recently has been a bit borderline as to being of general interest news. Bmills 15:52, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi, before you archived your talk page I wrote "Hmmm, I don't know who this 'niceguy' is. I assumed at first he was Heine as he moved Heine off the page a while ago, but I doubt that now. I doubt it's a newbie either". I've just realised Heine and Nico are (probably) the same person, so I'm reverting to my initial assumption that niceguy is (probably) Heine, hence such removals from Wikipedia:problem users should be watched more closely. Angela 17:50, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the work on Brian Coffey: your intro is much stronger than mine was. I've added a paragraph on his later life that somehow got lost earlier. I seem to be on a run with obscure modernists amd groups of modernists at the moment, and it's nice to see someone is reading what I'm doing. Bmills 14:33, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Could you copy your list comments to wikipedia talk:problem users? There's been previous discussion about renaming, and it'd be good to keep it in one place. Martin 19:27, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

answer@mother_teresa. :)

Thanks for the compliment. I realize I am not the easiest-to-be-read writer, though. Especially when I get worried. Pfortuny 17:37, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

On the lovely Mother Teresa - I'm waiting for agreement from Mr Plank before doing *anything*. Secretlondon 18:48, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but after reading your recent arguments with martin and jtdirl, I think it would be best to refer you to Wikipedia:wikiquette. The line reading, No personal attacks; while criticising the work of other contributors is fine, personal attacks and insults regarding their race, sex, creed etc. are unacceptable. For further guidance, see No personal attacks. especially applies to your comments. Alexandros 00:10, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think I must tell you User:Pfortuny/private1 what I am about to post at the talk page. If you find it too harsh, please do tell me. I will wait for your answer before pasting it in the Mother Teresa talk page. Thanks. Pfortuny 12:40, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I posted it on the mailing list. --Uncle Ed 22:05, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

From your comments I guess you are not happy - although I believe that Pfortuny is. I don't know what Adam Carr thinks - I would not be happy if the article pleases only the catholics - because this will not have solved the problem. Secretlondon 22:09, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to keep an eye on it, but I'm not going to be around for much this evening. Angela 22:21, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I made the comments in his page bc I did not want to have this conversation in public (I guessed you were not in agreement :)...

On one hand I really thought something like what Ed did was necessary to keep the article going on, but I felt quite quite sorry at Adam's withdrawal. But I prefer freedom to depending on someone for editing an article.

I was surprised at Ed's unblocking the page, but then I thought "someone should do it, anyway". I also never assumed my opinion would be definitive for the unblocking... It is quite messy. I am happy for the "unblocking" but unhappy for Adam's going away and your (and others, I guess) worries......

My mind is not too clear, as you can see. Pfortuny 15:32, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. Petermanchester 16:14, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Answer in my talk page. Don't want to waste your disk space :)Pfortuny 16:27, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Viajero, concerning your open letter:

• I never actually wrote I was a Catholic anywhere. Is it so obvious? :)
• You are right. The debate needs and has to be faced. If this is a serious project to last for a good while, these problems have to be studied and solved "in general".

On the other hand, if I may be a bit personal... We would be more convincing if there were no harsh words in our writings. No offence intended, simply thinking aloud.

Again thanks for your help and please inform me if the above debate begins. Pfortuny 21:01, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Nop! You guessed I am a Catholic, and I am one, so why not saying it? I was simply kidding.

The harshness referred not to our conversation (it has NEVER even approached harshness) but some words in one comment of yours in the MT talk page after Ed's unblocking and in the letter to Ed. I did not mean you had been harsh to me ever, sorry for not being clear!

Yes, my words are not written in stone, but... I got so annoyed at Eloquences behaviour I thought it was best for me to withdraw for a while. I'll think it twice, though :) Pfortuny 21:27, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Quick question: how can I ask for Irish literature to be removed from Pages needing attention? Bmills 11:27, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If you think it no longer needs to be listed, just delete it yourself! -- Viajero 11:43, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks again for all your help. Bmills 11:45, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I need your advice. A newbie whose first language clearly is not English has added two paragraphs at the start of Poetry. These are poorly written and I do not believe thaey belong anyway. However, I'd be the last person to want to discourage an enthusiastic newcomer. Could you have a look at the page and suggest a suitable course of action? Thanks Bmills 09:47, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Let see, ummm Poetry... Page History... Mrs.Medha... User contributions... Yep. We are in total agreement on one thing: her text has got to go. Now, you have basically two options, depending on your humeur: You can revert the text with a terse comment in the Summary. Or you can "move" her text to the Talk page with a comment about it "needing work". If you want to be exceedingly diplomatic, you could even leave a note on her Talk page, thanking her for her contribution, saying that it wasn't quite encyclopedic, and referring her to Wikipedia:NPOV and other help/style pages, and saying that you hope she will continue to contribute after familiarizing herself with the site etc. etc. (This will partly depend on whether you think she is just passing by or a keeper.)

Hope this helps. -- Viajero 11:33, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. I won't revert. Bmills 12:06, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Good correction on Current events. I hadn't realised I had removed the cocoa link reference when I removed some other ones. Thats what comes from watching TV and editing a page at the same time! Good revertion. Wikilove. FearÉIREANN 00:18, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Blanaid Salkeld: thanks again. A much better intro. Bmills 09:13, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi Viajero, as you speak Spanish, would you mind having a look at Sotavento(province) please to see if it is worth translating or if you think it should be deleted? Thank you. Angela 19:34, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)