Archives

2005-2015 2016-2021

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much Gerda! Nine years is quite some time. warshy ^(¥¥) 15:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations on the anniversary! Gale Peterson (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I fixed the problems! I'm sorry that before I accidentally cut part off. I added a reference and link to The Harold Weisberg Archive at Hood College, so I think that should be official! Gale Peterson (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gale Peterson,

Thank you for the note (and the congrats above also). I now finally understand what this is referring to. Sorry, I was busy learning how to archive everything that was above the first 2022 item above this morning, and it took me a while to figure it out.

Yes, you fixed the broken link to a PDF file. But the first ref [39] is still to the private web site of the guy, and this second file I am still reviewing the contents of it, to see if it can stand as a verifiable ref on WP. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just added another reference from the National Archives Catalog, Records of the John F. Kennedy Assassination Collection: Key Persons Files, kept at the U.S. Government site https://catalog.archives.gov. It says Thornley was questioned by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) the day after Oswald was killed and just a few days after Kennedy was shot. It says Oswald and Thornley served in the Marines together. In the interview, Thornley said he had written a novel based on Oswald, but doesn't say the name of the novel. But the others source I put say the novel's name. I hope this passes muster! Gale Peterson (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, you placed this additional ref at the end of the next sentence, not where it should be, which is at the end of the two sentences you added about Thornley. Why the mention about "Discordianism" (whatever that is) needs to be on Oswad's page beats me.

But beyond that, after reading all the material you added and reading more about the guy on his own page, my own opinion has not changed. In my view this guy is a completely non-important, a rather marginal character in the Oswald story, that only serves to add trivial facts and make the whole issue more full of sensationalism and of irrelevant facts. In my view, this rather marginal, non-important character just used the fact that he met Oswald once by chance to try and make a name and a career for himself. I myself would rather remove all mention of him completely from the Oswald page. But I don't want to make a big fuss about something that is little, trivial, and not really important. I would at least remove the mention of "Discordianism" (whatever that is) from the Oswald page, since it does not have anything that relates to Oswald. But I won't do anything for the time being. The whole matter is in my view, again, just a completely marginal and unimportant distraction from the real important matters regarding Oswald and the Kennedy assassination. But then again, at least half of that page consists just of this kind of sensationalist and distracting, marginal and non-important petty gossip about other unimportant characters such as this one. Just so people reading about the matter get distracted and confused by unimportant, marginal bullshit. Oh well, enough of this crap for me, I am just stating my own opinion here in my own page, and that's the end of this matter for me. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 22:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wonder if you'd care to weigh in here, which in my opinion is a question of whether to value academic sources over religious orthodoxy. GordonGlottal (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I opened a DRN for Book of Daniel here

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Book of Daniel Billyball998 (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Gerda Arendt.

In 1st century CE, Hellenistic engineer, [Hero of Alexandria] describes a matter as made up of particles with spaces between them.Even if his account denies the fundamental tenet of classical atomism, it does not change the fact of intrinsic properties like shapes.I have corrected it,can i now upload it Cuando de hyiopi (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, you can't. This is not sourced by any WP:RS, and it looks like WP:OR. The links and the language still has errors, and the connection between shapes and atomism makes no sense at all. As it is it just looks like garbage to me. Sorry. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 21:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok Cuando de hyiopi (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

curious as to wikipedia policy here 67.8.169.171 (talk) 03:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What, the regime of Fulgencio Batista was not a dictatorship? You were removing stable and important information with a clear POV in mind. That is why I reverted it. In any case, you can always discuss your proposed edits at the article's talk page, not here. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 13:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wanted to make the argument that Strauss and Aesopian language does have some link.

To quote from the Strauss article

"In the late 1930s, Strauss called for the first time for a reconsideration of the "distinction between exoteric (or public) and esoteric (or secret) teaching". In 1952 he published Persecution and the Art of Writing, arguing that serious writers write esoterically, that is, with multiple or layered meanings, often disguised within irony or paradox, obscure references, even deliberate self-contradiction. Esoteric writing serves several purposes: protecting the philosopher from the retribution of the regime, and protecting the regime from the corrosion of philosophy; it attracts the right kind of reader and repels the wrong kind; and ferreting out the interior message is in itself an exercise of philosophic reasoning."

I'd like to highlight the section that says "Esoteric writing serves several purposes: protecting the philosopher from the retribution of the regime."

Also in the Strauss article: "Some critics of Strauss have accused him of being elitist, illiberal and anti-democratic. Journalists such as Seymour Hersh have opined that Strauss endorsed noble lies, "myths used by political leaders seeking to maintain a cohesive society"." Although noble lies can be seen as somewhat opposite of Aesopian language (as Aesopian language refers to an underground movement using language to deceive a regime and noble lies refer to a regime deceiving its people)

To me, these quotes relate to Aesopian language as seen with the first sentence in the relevant article:

"Aesopian language is a means of communication with the intent to convey a concealed meaning to informed members of a conspiracy or underground movement, whilst simultaneously maintaining the guise of an innocent meaning to outsiders."

If you think it's appropriate, you can revert the changes to the See Also section under Leo Strauss where I linked to the Aesopian Language Article. I'm willing to defer to you as an arbiter in this case, as you have more experience than I do.

Good luck in your endeavors! BigBulborb (talk) 12:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK,I think I understand you now. Do whatever you think is right. I don't have much interest or knowledge on the issue in any case at this point. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you suggested, I am looking at The History of Skepticism: From Erasmus to Spinoza by Richard H. Popkin. I also read a review of the book by Ezequiel de Olaso, one of his student. It is clearly religiously oriented. The word "God" occurs about 320 times and the book has about 380 pages. It is natural that it is religiously oriented, because it covers the late medieval and renaissance periods and Popkin was himself a scolar in religions. To get other view points, as required by Wikipedia neutrality principle, I am also looking at other books about the history of skepticism, including a book by Chatalian and a book by Floridi, which are less religiously oriented. I hope you do not fear that this might be philosophical forays into post-modern jargon-filled (and name-dropping of any idiot that has ever published anything as a "famous philospher") philosophical streams of consciousness and that I will only do my own synthesis of these post-modern, off-the-mainstream new trends in philosophy. It is not nice to make this kinds of assumptions about other wikipedians. I don't deserve that. Please instead discuss intelligently the sources with me, which is possible, because I provide references. Every thing I contribute is well sourced and can be verified. I appreciate that your inclination toward religiously oriented sources might give you the impression that other sources are off-the-mainstream new trends in philosophy from "famous philosophers" (in quotation marks), but actually I consider valid notorious sources and I think the article (and you personally) would benefit from a better consideration of these sources. It hurts me that you do not have a nicer attitude. Dominic Mayers (talk) 06:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is nothing religious about Popkin's book. The only reason he deals with the god question is because in the early modern period which he is dealing with, that was the main target of skepticism, to begin with. It was to be able to eliminate the hurdle that religion put up in the way of philosophy. I'd prefer you get off my page with your own musings, enough I have to suffer them on the Epistemology page. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 13:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The main point I needed to say in your talk page is please stop being rude. The rest of it was just the context. If you continue to be rude and I cannot take care of this in your talk page, I will go through some third party process. It's up to you. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not being rude in any way. I am expressing precisely what I think about your long musings, which for me rarely say something I feel is worth wasting my time on. Thank you for not bothering me here again. warshy ^(¥¥) 21:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]