User talk:PainMan: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:46, 29 May 2006

I live in Southern Nevada, approxiametly 20 miles from the fabled Vegas Strip. I am completely disabled from an unusual disease. I also suffer from dyslexia; a condition I now believe has been with me my entire life--though I've only become aware of it in the last few years. Though I strive hard to proof my pages, the dyslexia coupled with degenerating eye-sight makes my writing sometimes verge on the incomprehensible. I am a full-time Dad and have a lot of time for my scholarly pursuits and my writing. Though I've made much more progress in the former than the latter, the latter still remains my passion and my goal. I invite correspondence and conversation about all my interests, history, science fiction, paleontology, astronomy, Babylon-5, Dune, Lord of the Rings, English, French, Soviet, Roman and American history and politics (though I am NOT interested in the usual partisan bickering and venom). This is my first stab at this, so I expect it to be an on-going, evolutionary endeavor.

Signing

To sign your comments on Talk pages just type ~~~~ at the end of your comment and Wikipedia will automatically insert your Username and a timestamp. AlistairMcMillan 14:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting your insert your username on the article pages. Each page has a history, that is where people can identify who contributed what. Just look for the "Page History" link. AlistairMcMillan 14:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Page history. AlistairMcMillan 14:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Since you are new here I don't want to discourage you, but please be aware of the Three-revert rule. AlistairMcMillan 16:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IP address

The IP address appears because you weren't logged in at the time you made those edits. It used to be possible to get IP address edits reassigned to your username, however that service doesn't seem to be available at the moment. Changing attribution for an edit AlistairMcMillan 16:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE help me. I very much appreciate any and all help. There's a lot to digest here. Time is valuable and I thank you for expending a little of yours on helping me. PainMan 16:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will help anywhere I can. However please do not duplicate information that is covered more appropriately elsewhere. I'm actually going out right now, but I'll check in once I get and answer any questions you have. AlistairMcMillan 16:30, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia

Sorry if the discussion on Windows 95 is a little strong for your first time edits. Don't let that turn you off. Usually other users see new edits from new users and post a welcome message, but I don't see one here for you. That usually has some helpful information on contributing and such. I'll find one and copy it here for you.

Everyone here is still learning, believe me! If I can help you out, feel free to ask. You might try out some smaller edits to see how they go as you get a hang of it. And not everything happens in real time here. Sometimes even controversial edits on obscure topics go for days (or even never) before being noticed! SchmuckyTheCat 16:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a starter to the community: Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset. You've done well with rule 1. See the caveat to rule 2. :) SchmuckyTheCat 16:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading the "Wikiquette" page as we exchange these messages. I've violated one of my own, well Voltaire's rules: "Define your terms." I'm out of my depth (on technical issues) and, as a historian, should know (d*mned dyslexia!) better than to repeat what's apparently gossip I can't (or am unwilling to) source.

So I'm feeling rather chagrined at the moment.

PainMan 16:55, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having just read Wikiquette, bad article ideas, simplified ruleset, I think I'm more confused than I was. Obviously, I'm going to have to digest this material. Some of its seems paradoxical, e.g. there seems to much more ink (so to speaK) spent on what wikipedia is not rather than what it is. As this is an intial impression, I hope it changes.

But at the moment I kind of feel like I've been assinged to learn how to pilot the space shuttle by being dropped into the cockpit as its starting the landing cycle. My hair's on fire and my face is rather flushed.

Certainly not the first time I've jumped in with both feet without checking the depth. :o)

Well, we learn by doing, not pouting. Unfortunately, pouting is much easier. I now understand the paradigm better. I'm still not sure why a short history of GUI evolution is undesirable in article on the most important GUI ever created, but, to quote a certain Tarantino character, I'm trying real hard.

PainMan 17:25, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well, it's about topic. The topic of Windows 95 is neither Microsoft, anti-trust, the history of the GUI, etc. Since there is an article specific to the GUI, that's the most appropriate place to put it's history.

I read your stuff on Will Durant. I'd never heard of him before. It doesn't look bad to me - not that I'd know.

And, I wouldn't necessarily decline to edit articles where you aren't an expert - be bold! Maybe think twice about huge blocks of text, or propose them on the talk page of the article to see how other people take to it for large changes. SchmuckyTheCat 21:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Logging In

Hi,

just looking at your entries regarding problems logging in, although I am not sure that you will check this page if you cannot log in. I'm a mac person, so can't really help you, but it might be worth posting to the Village pump. By the nature of wikipedia there is no real single webmaster.

Good luck -- postglock 4 July 2005 02:58 (UTC)

No problem, any time! Just bought a Mac Mini recently myself, which is well worth the price! (BTW, to sign your posts on talk pages, type ~~~~. this just makes a link back to your own page.--postglock 07:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions!

Pls feel free to email me to discuss all and sundry. Intellectuals can die of thirst in this country so I welcome all informed correspondence, whether you agree with me or not. As my grandfather used to say, you never learn anything if you only talk to people with whom you agree.

Talk:Rigoberta Menchu

Article talk pages are not the place for unrelated political discussion. Wikipedia is not a message board. It doesn't matter whether or not it is "the truth", it is irrelevant and not the purpose of those pages. Also note that personal attacks will not be tolerated. Gamaliel 22:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus, laughable, non-sensical and contemptuous of the truth. PainMan 12:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response

While I'd have to say you're far from 'elouqent', I'll grant that perhaps I misjudged hastily (It's a sad fact that if you work on the sorts of articles I do, you see a *lot* of nutcases, both left-wing and right-wing, and the paranoia of "Oh geez, not another one..." starts to set in.

I'd disagree with the claim that Nazis are today still being hunted, compared to the free pass given to leftists criminals - the truth is, until Wiesenthal got the bulk of his media attention, through the 40s, 50s and 60s, we gave a lot of Nazis a free pass, I don't think the "turn a blind eye syndrome" is strictly limited to leftists or right-wings.

(btw, I've heard of the umbrella event, but know no details surrounding it)

I agree with your taste in books though, which is odd since we seem to come away with very different worldviews because of it - but Shirer's Third Reich is one of those exhaustive masterpieces that inspire me to go "Okay, so who history deems "Nazis" were real people, they had wives, they had careers", and what fascinates me isn't studying people's crimes, but their background. Ziad Jarrah's behaviour on September 11th isn't very interesting to my mind, what is interesting is that he had no reason/excuse to be so fuelled by hate, he was from a very wealthy family, he was married (a point of contention, but for the sake of argument, at least common-law), he kept in close contact with his family...and he was in the United States far longer than any of the others...what damn reason did he have to be aboard those planes. To finish the quote on the image on my userpage "...what lies or threats led him on this long march from home?"

My reference to Africans wasn't actually in relation to slavery (which coincidentally, I agree with you, is misrepresented as a strictly American venture), but more simply the Imperialistic attitude that has always sort of seen them as varelse to be exploited for Euro-American benefit, and the billions who have died in the past century because of malnourishment and crippling poverty that extends today. (And yes, I actually paid attention to the "current day slavery" when it was in the news a few years ago)

To current presidents, I made the Bush jab lightheartedly as I pointed out, because honestly, that's a can of worms that I prefer not to delve into - in honesty, both sides are probably greatly inflating their stories, and no matter how much I may believe a certain side, I'll certainly never convince anybody to abandon their own view, so why bother studying it to discover the truth? It's better to spend that time delving into things like Hugh Thompson, Jr. that not only do people not know their story, but half the world doesn't even know such a guy existed. (Another reason you'll notice I wrote about him, Colburne and Andreotta...but not Calley...the name Calley is indelibly marked on the public consciousness as tied to My Lai...but why isn't Thompson? Wasn't he just as central a figure in the event? Why can 80% of the population name Calley, but probably less than 1% can name Thompson?

As per Clinton, trust me, while I consider myself more leftist than right, I have no respect for Clinton and can't believe what the American public let him get away with. If Bush today replicated the Waco siege, there would be an international uproar at his suspension of civil rights, his overreaction, his dependence on the military and his fear of religious freedom. Instead Clinton got away brushing it off as "one of those really neat things that happen sometimes"

I'm vaguely curious btw, if the German movie you mention, is Der Untergang? Anyhow, enjoy ROTS, for me, it's off to studying for my law exam on Monday. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 07:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak German and its been over nearly fifteen years since I saw the German movie, so I don't know. I'd like to have it on DVD--I have the entire 6 hour version of Das Boot for example and I always watch it in German with the subtitles. Were you aware that the submarine branch of the Kreigsmarine suffered a 75% KIA rate--the highest of any branch of any military of any country in WWII. Nearly all the crews were basically boys average age of 19. Something like Vietnam. Though they were violating the laws of war, I can't help but have a large measure of empathy for them, dying in the icy, dark waters of the Atlantic for a cowardly swine of dictator. PainMan 02:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving for the holidays in about 20 minutes, and still have some packing to do, so suffice to say I'm male, I agree that Right/Left is too rigidly thought-of in society, and I'll write you after Christmas Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 01:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good time. Looking forward to continuing the conversation. The final smack down between the Jedi and Palpatine's about to go down. Gots to watch. Have a safe trip. PainMan 02:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

liberal-pedia

I agree wikipedia is a liberal circlejerk now. Its just the demographic that is drawn to it currently. I believe this will change as more conservatives get online. It may take years.--Capsela 05:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel your pain man. Sorry, bad pun. I've had my own run-ins with this Gamaliel person when I dared to write an article about his patron saint, Mumia. She/He is the pedantic type that will watch the PainMan page in eternity, and footnote to my comment here. The liberal persuasion orientation of Wikipedia is self-evident, but what to do about it? The liberal advocates are the most diligent of the editors here. Trying to correct their POV is mostly pointless, as there's a determined group of people with the same Marxist-Liberal POV that show up here and edit in that direction. In that respect, the self-correcting promise of Wikipedia fails, and probably will never be remedied. Indeed, Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable source has been deeply bruised by recent events, and probably won't recover without significant reform. The Co-Founder of Wikipedia, whose name we "dare not speak", believes that the answer is to hire editors to sift the candidate entries, and has formed his own Wiki-like venture to pursue that aim. In the meantime, this stuff is mostly harmless, and maybe even a little fun. How we edit or don't edit these articles will not lead to the destruction of the Western World. Wikipedia is just a starting point, not the last word. Of course, that doesn't mean that we cannot give the lib-POVers a taste of their own medicine. I suggest we form a Cabal for the purpose of supporting each other in these French-cheese-eaters vs. rational world wars. Cheers brothers. Morton devonshire 18:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes at Rush (band)

I've reverted them for the time being, nothing against you. I've explained why at Talk:Rush (band), and I hope you can hop into the discussion! I hope the two of us can reach a compromise on your changes there. Cheers! —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent changes were reverted mostly because they read like flowery unencyclopedic fandom - Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor a place for original research or your personal perceptions. Leave POV and subjectivity for amateur music review websites and the like. No offense intended at all. I invite you to participate in the discussion on the talk page so that perhaps an agreement/compromise can be reached, but unless you can tone down the POV and citationless jargon, I highly doubt any of your changes can be accepted Cheers. Wisdom89 00:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your latest changes. Please see Talk:Rush (band) for my reasoning. regards --KaptKos 11:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To help us reach consensus, a sandbox version (and revert-free zone!) of the Rush article has been created at Rush (band)/Sandbox. Once we get to a version everyone agrees with, we can merge that back with the main article. Please remember not to revert any other person's edits, and stay away from the main Rush article for the time being, and we'll all be peachy. Thanks! —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peachy for whom? I'm not feeling very peachy. If we can't edit, can't add our opinion, can't make changes, then what's the bloody point? I'm just supposed to wait while you and your friends email the article back and forth and then post a version you like--and then, I suppose, the page will be locked down--SOL PM!

Sorry but I am major, major problems with this approach. I really don't think I can adhere to it.

At least not without further discussion and explanation. PainMan 19:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there's power in numbers.

Lonecanine