On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Nathan wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 4:42 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>> George Herbert wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Nathan wrote:
>>>
There is a mailing list for block reviews, this isn't it. We also
don't usually get into discussing spe
Nathan wrote:
> Your arguments focus on the definition and description of the
> Holocaust as an event, not Holocaust denial as a phenomena. The
> counter argument, which you've chosen to ignore, is that Holocaust
> denial as a phenomena is nearly absolutely limited to the "Jewish"
> portion that y
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 2:00 PM, stevertigo wrote:
> Nathan wrote to Ray:
>> This is an amazing thing you've written. I've read your posts for
>> perhaps two years, but I will read all future comments in an entirely
>> new light.
>
> Well, I think what Ray is doing is trying to conceptualize a ki
Nathan wrote to Ray:
> This is an amazing thing you've written. I've read your posts for
> perhaps two years, but I will read all future comments in an entirely
> new light.
Well, I think what Ray is doing is trying to conceptualize a kind of
systemic bias in a certain historical area and how it
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Original research perhaps; disruption perhaps, but it is dishonest to
> call it "intellectual support of holocaust denialists."
I already took George to the woodshed for that remark, Raymond. I'm
sure he doesn't like being reminded of that experience.
> Expanding a term t
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 4:42 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> George Herbert wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Nathan wrote:
>>
>>> There is a mailing list for block reviews, this isn't it. We also
>>> don't usually get into discussing specific content issues here unless
>>> there is a point o
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> The distinction between using "reliable sources" and "using source
> reliably" is not likely to be productive.
If a fundamental editorial foundation is flawed because of
subjectivity is in the mix, that means we need to reformulate the
mixture. The Titanic came apart not ju
George Herbert wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Nathan wrote:
>
>> There is a mailing list for block reviews, this isn't it. We also
>> don't usually get into discussing specific content issues here unless
>> there is a point of wider significance to the encyclopedia.
>>
>> You believe
stevertigo wrote:
> Risker wrote:
>
>> Using a _reliable source_ means that we depend on the source to be reliable;
>> the qualitative analysis is on whether or not the source can be reliable.
>> Using a _source reliably_ means that it doesn't matter the quality of the
>> source, as long as we
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
> It would help to have a list of things this list is *not* for. I
> suspect this thread is one of them, but am not certain.
One of its roles is as a further avenue for review/appeal when things
get heated on WP itself. It used to be the place to
stevertigo wrote:
> And if the *shadow men* had not squashed the open support
Hm. I was thinking of "Can-Toi" actually, but forgot the English translation.
-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mai
Carcharoth wrote:
> It would help to have a list of things this list is *not* for. I
> suspect this thread is one of them, but am not certain.
Well if you people had supported Thomas' idea of creating a
wikilists-l list specifically for mailing list issues, your complaint
itself would be better m
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Would anyone care to define the boundaries or goals of this
> discussion? Is it really going to be "Let's all analyse everything
> Stevertigo has ever said or done, or had said about him?" That could
> take a very long time.
It would help to
stevertigo wrote:
> Later comments seems to agree.
Er, '..with Ec,' that is.
-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Steve Summit wrote:
> Ah, so you *are* a troll.
Well, at least give me credit for *not* being a dick.
> And (if only out of courtesy to the natives, who are getting
> restless) this will be my last post to this list in this thread.
Restless? I hear no such restlessness through the grapevine.
>
Stevertigo wrote:
> Steve Summit wrote:
> > Yes, we've noticed. I couldn't think of a word for it just then,
> > either.
>
> "Pwnage" is the word you're looking for.
Ah, so you *are* a troll.
>> and therefore that we are all quite wasting our
>> time by letting you engage us in elaborate discus
Would anyone care to define the boundaries or goals of this
discussion? Is it really going to be "Let's all analyse everything
Stevertigo has ever said or done, or had said about him?" That could
take a very long time.
Steve
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
Wi
Steve Summit wrote:
> Yes, we've noticed. I couldn't think of a word for it just then,
> either.
"Pwnage" is the word you're looking for.
> George did you the courtesy of, rather than accusing you of
> actually being something objectionable, mentioning that that's
> the impression you were giv
"stevertigo" wrote in message
news:7c402e010909232119j41f3a425l27bd1934c8b8c...@mail.gmail.com...
> User:Tznkai would like your opinion:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Invitation_for_review
...I think it takes for it to become clear if the edit
Stevertigo wrote:
>Steve Summit wrote:
>> And I think it's astonishing, Stever, that someone who is as fond
>> of wordplay and intellectual arguments as you seem to be could so
>> blatantly miss the distinction between "looks like" and "is".
>
> ...I don't do "wordplay." I do something quite.. dif
George Herbert wrote:
>>> This dispute looks either like some combination of original research,
Stevertigo wrote:
>> I think its great George how you can just throw out an accusation like
Steve Summit wrote:
> And I think it's astonishing, Stever, that someone who is as fond
> of wordplay and int
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 4:39 PM, stevertigo wrote:
> George Herbert wrote:
>> This dispute looks either like some combination of original research,
>> disruption, or possibly active but intellectual support of holocaust
>> denialists.
>> Even without the latter, and AGF, if what you're doing is s
stevertigo wrote:
>George Herbert wrote:
>> This dispute looks either like some combination of original research,
>> disruption, or possibly active but intellectual support of holocaust
>> denialists.
>
> I think its great George how you can just throw out an accusation like
> "some combination of
PPCP:
- and then say well even it ifs just a a matter of "AGF."
+ and then say 'well even it if it's just a matter of "AGF."
- your question is with a question anyway:
+ your question with a question anyway:
-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiE
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Nathan wrote:
> There is a mailing list for block reviews, this isn't it. We also
> don't usually get into discussing specific content issues here unless
> there is a point of wider significance to the encyclopedia.
True, and there are also those that want to disc
Risker wrote:
> I wasn't commenting in any way on the sources you were using in any article.
> I was responding directly to this sentence in your statement: "I would
> prefer instead that we 'use sources reliably.' "
> I am questioning how that is at all a reasonable position.
Do I understand cor
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Nathan wrote:
> There is a mailing list for block reviews, this isn't it. We also
> don't usually get into discussing specific content issues here unless
> there is a point of wider significance to the encyclopedia.
>
> You believe Holocaust denial can only be defi
There is a mailing list for block reviews, this isn't it. We also
don't usually get into discussing specific content issues here unless
there is a point of wider significance to the encyclopedia.
You believe Holocaust denial can only be defined using the separate
definitions of "Holocaust" and "de
2009/9/24 stevertigo
> Risker wrote:
>
> > Using a _reliable source_ means that we depend on the source to be
> reliable;
> > the qualitative analysis is on whether or not the source can be reliable.
> > Using a _source reliably_ means that it doesn't matter the quality of the
> > source, as lon
Previous post correction patch:
stevertigo wrote:
- Hence my opposition simply wants to omit using that same "reliable"
source in a "reliable" way.
+ My opposition simply wants to omit using that same "reliable" source
in a "reliable" way.
-Stevertigo
__
Risker wrote:
> Using a _reliable source_ means that we depend on the source to be reliable;
> the qualitative analysis is on whether or not the source can be reliable.
> Using a _source reliably_ means that it doesn't matter the quality of the
> source, as long as we use it in a consistent ("rel
2009/9/24 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com
> The latest device is this notion that
> we can just sort of pick from "reliable" sources. I would prefer
> instead that we 'use sources reliably.'
>
> Well, that is not the same thing at all.
Using a _reliable source_ means that we depend on the source to
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Good luck! The process seems unbalanced. Dealing with such sophistries
> as "Holocaust denial is not the same as denial of the Holocaust" can be
> very challenging. My impression was that a handful of true believers
> have chosen to monopolize the Holocaust on behalf of th
stevertigo wrote:
> User:Tznkai would like your opinion:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Invitation_for_review
>
>
Good luck! The process seems unbalanced. Dealing with such sophistries
as "Holocaust denial is not the same as denial of the Ho
User:Tznkai would like your opinion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Invitation_for_review
-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
h
35 matches
Mail list logo
