User talk:T. Anthony/Archive 6

I need to stick to my original goal of only working on pop-culture and small town articles. Hopefully I'll be gone until the weekend when I will devote my time pretty much only to Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz--T. Anthony 16:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The point on institutions is a good and crucial one; of course there should be articles on monastic institutions and their role in perpetuating knowledge. A category for the religion of mathematicians (all, in all ages!) is not the best way to do this, however. Things become worse if we talk about "Jewish mathematicians". The category started to fill up in earnest after the Enlightenment. There were no Jewish mathematical institutions to speak of, as there were French ones or (to a lesser extent by this point) Catholic ones; rather, people of all origins used all national institutions (while sometimes restricted from doing so by the numerus clausus...). Bellbird 18:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I have little to more to say or at least I hope I don't.--T. Anthony 18:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Blaise Pascal

Hi T. Anthony. The text associated with Category:Christian mathematicians states:

This is a category for those who are known for their Christianity and mathematics.

Blaise Pascal appears to satisfy this description, so I curious as to why you deleted the category tag. Sincerely, --BostonMA 23:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Because I have a strong feeling the category will not survive the deletion vote. That said he is maybe a classic example of one that fits very well as some of his theological notions were almost probability based. (Same with Bayes, but I think I kept Bayes in)--T. Anthony 00:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No ethnic slur

"Yid" is the Russian for "Jew" and is the word that actually appears on the papers of Russian Jews, no doubt including Grigori Perelman's.--20.138.246.89 09:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware of that. In French, and usually in English, it is an ethnic slur.--T. Anthony 09:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

My Russian cleaning lady once said that "Zhid" is not a nice thing to say - it's an insulting term for Jews. On the other hadn "Yid" in English is noramlly used between Jews in a nice way. --ArmadilloFromHell 07:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh well maybe I was wrong. I still think I'll avoid saying it just in case.--T. Anthony 07:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't "yid" Yiddish for Jew? Johnbod 04:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

in my mothers tongue Yiddish it is a very sweet name. could be because of this...--yidi 13:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Umm this discussion basically ended, for me, two months ago. I guess if people want to keep talking about it here they can, but I'm not really interested anymore.--T. Anthony 19:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Atheist rage

Dear T. Anthony, if You wanted to reply to my comment, you can do so on my talk page. Cheers. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I got confused. I'll consider it, I don't go on talk pages much. In fact I only returned to Wikipedia reluctantly and I intend to mostly limit myself to articles on jazz. (Interestingly I've said some very critical to hostile things about Wikipedia, but as far as I can recall I've never been blocked. The times I was off was voluntary)--T. Anthony 11:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		For your ongoing efforts to create intelligent, useful stub articles for overlooked Jazz musicians. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 09:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Good work. Put it on your user page, if you're into that sort of thing.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 09:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahh thanks. I was actually downright hostile to this place not too long ago, but once I started devoting my time here to things like jazz I enjoyed it a good deal more. This helps that, thank you. (I just hope none of them is a copyvio from All Music or BBC as I did lean on them heavily as a source)--T. Anthony 09:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You didn't copy the bios verbatim, and you included a link to your source, so it seems fair to me. Mostly, I think it's good that these obscure-but-notable musicians now have articles, to balance out all the self-authored band articles that I keep having to nominate for speedy deletion.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 09:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that some of the CfDs are closing

Now that 'no consensus' seems to ensure most of the religion-based cats are staying, I hope you will help to keep the cats free of individuals for whom their religion is irrelevant to their notability. Thanks, and good luck!Hornplease 23:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't promise to do it with all of them, but I will look them over each weekend. Most or all of the names in Category:Christian mathematicians were placed there by me. It looks like a fair amount, but I think I set a fairly strict standard as several of them used some kind of mathematical analysis of the Bible. (Admittedly I'm not sure I see the point of that, but they did it anyway) I'll put these links to Category:Mathematicians by religion and Category:Actors by religion here to help my efforts. Now "Category:Hindu athletes" is one where I voted delete so I'm not sure what to do there or if I should feel any responsibility about it.--T. Anthony 00:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply; I dont really wish you to feel any more responsibility than I do - groaningly - after I voted delete on all of them. But just looking over what you can every weekend is OK, and I;ll try to do the same. More to the point, if there are any doubts about inclusion, I'd like us to be able to call on each other to restate to any doubters that the deletion debate firmly determined that the cats can stay if religion and occupation are jointly notable for the individuals in question. Hornplease

That's very big of you, thanks. I'm going to try to be as strict as plausible with this and if I add a name to any of them that you feel is inappropriate just tell me. (Although I don't plan on adding any more people to these categories)--T. Anthony 08:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The Category:Jewish mathematicians did not take the note too kindly. Mentioning the guidelines was considered an NPOV violation. I did worry that it might be offensive to that as Jewish is a different situation. Oh well.--T. Anthony 18:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

could you have a look at Talk:Jyotiraditya Madhavrao Scindia if you have time? A question about the application of policy and what constitutes self-identification.Hornplease 01:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll look at it, but I don't want to get dragged into a fight between you two.--T. Anthony 06:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes you may notice that the user above has gotten more and more obstinate as the argument has gone on telling me to "live with it". As I noticed, the CFD consensus was unconditional (not like Hindu actors/athletes/ etc) meaning my actions reflected the scope of the cat and consensus.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Back doing science fiction

The first things I edited here were science fiction involved and I quit because I assumed Wikipedia would probably do fine there. To my rather strong surprise this is actually not the case. It does very well at Sci-Fi, the media arm of science fiction, but a great deal of significant names in science fiction either have no articles or their articles are barebone stubs. Even the major names like H. L. Gold have articles that are pitiful compared to say Splashdown (seaQuest DSV episode). So I might go back to work on SF articles as I'm burning out a bit on jazz articles.--T. Anthony 03:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No Ziggy until now?!?

Man, I wish I had a dime for every time I used to play that trumpet solo on "And The Angels Sing." I was by far the youngest member of a local big band and a couple of guys in that group actually knew him. Great article. - Lucky 6.9 06:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to help. He sounds like he was a big name and I'm surprised he wasn't up until now. I am interested in the swing and Big Band eras, but my knowledge I'm realizing is limited to the biggest of the bandleaders. Still I probably have heard him and was glad to learn of him while working on it.--T. Anthony 06:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I put this on a list, but I'm not sure it was appropriate for it. So I'll put it here for my own amusement.

• Downbeat Readers Poll

This kind of relates to Ziggy in a way.--T. Anthony 14:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sexual and reproductive rights, etc.

I think it was a wind-up, mate.

As an American, I've been waiting for an opportunity to say that (in context). The Office, David Brent. I love that.

I agree with you. However, I think there's a bit of trolling going on there. Elliskev 04:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I came to the issue late because I'm trying to avoid articles on religion or politics. I checked it though because a deletion debate on Anti-Hindu reminded me of it.--T. Anthony 04:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Re

I wasnt replying to you.Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. Sorry for any confusion, have a nice day.--T. Anthony 16:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Apple II survey

I'm conducting a survey about the Apple II -- any former users are invited to participate. I found you were active on Apple II related articles.

Come to User:Applephreak/survey

Applephreak 19:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on Pavlov

I just thought I would thank you for your comments on Ivan Pavlov. ACEO 21:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad to help.--T. Anthony 04:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Annie Whitehead

Hi, I thought you might be interested in Talk:Annie Whitehead#Missing biographical data?. Best regards, BNutzer 14:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of category:anti-polonism from articles

Hi, I've noticed you've been removing Category:Anti-Polonism from a number of articles recently. I'm sure you're acting in good faith, but you may be unaware why the category belongs to certain articles. I'd suggest to discuss this first. Thanks. --Lysy^talk 17:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The category looks like it's going to be deleted so I'm trying to thin it down to the least arguable cases. Are there complaints that trying to do that is a way of tainting the discussion?--T. Anthony 17:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. But I've noticed that you considered the articles exemplifying of Nazi racist polices targeted against Polish nation not to fit to the category. Do you think that Category:The Holocaust would fit to Category:Antisemitism ? --Lysy^talk 18:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I got overzealous, but I didn't think I went that far. Sorry.--T. Anthony 01:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've re-removed due to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 2.--T. Anthony 18:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Changed the page some

Different picture, went crazy with categories.--T. Anthony 00:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Talking about the previous generations (or I hope I get old before I die)

In part I wonder this as a surprising, to me, amount of the interest in the Jazz project seems to be directed at Jazz fusion and Smooth jazz. I think I just assumed there would be much more energy in swing (genre), bebop, cool jazz, and especially Brazilian jazz type stuff. I shouldn't exaggerate there is some in all those, but it's not just or even mainly jazz. There are other areas where I kind of wish I knew where the older generations were as I think they could help. Like when I start things on people who won the Pulitzer Prize back in the 1940s or on popular figures of the 1950s. So kind of a hey to Category:Baby boomer Wikipedians, Category:Wikipedians born in the 1950s, Category:Wikipedians born in the 1940s, and User:Bduke. And if any Wikipedia is in the Silent Generation speak up!"g"--T. Anthony 09:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

List of Seventh-day Adventists

Hi T. Anthony, I just wanted to say thanks for your work on List of Seventh-day Adventists. Cheers, Colin MacLaurin 12:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That was awhile go, but thanks. I saw it on List of Christians and thought why not? Not to offend, but I'll concede it's not a religion I personally relate to much. It has a right to exist as much as any other Christian list though and they have had some admirable or at least interesting members.--T. Anthony 13:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Aargh I'm still here

Not doing well at giving up for the holidays. Still I have two weeks until Christmas maybe I can be free of this place most of that time. Also I'm not creating articles much or at all of late.--T. Anthony 12:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD and DRV

It's no conflict at all, you are allowed to comment on a DRV for an AfD that you voted on. I'll restore your comments for you -- Tawker 05:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

In part I said that to avoid getting a troll at my talk page. Although really I meant to be out for the holidays so I can get work done on my Master's thesis. I feel slightly less guilty writing here, but that I'm still doing stuff at Wikipedia makes me feel guilty.--T. Anthony 05:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Conflict

Regarding [1] standard practice in such circumstances is to simply note how one was involved in the AfD. JoshuaZ 05:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Space Opera

Hello.... I noticed that on Talk:Space opera in Scientology doctrine awhile back, you expressed concern that the article was unfair. With that in mind, I'd like to, at the very least, propose that the article be renamed Space opera and L. Ron Hubbard, since there is little or no proof that Hubbard's fanciful lecture stories such as "The Obscene Dog Incident" have ever truly been considered a part of Scientology doctrine. I think it's much fairer to say that these Space Opera stories are associated with Scientology's founder than to actually claim they're associated with Scientology. Can you visit the talk page and have a look at the discussion going on? Highfructosecornsyrup 00:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I might. I had intended to lie low for the holidays, but that's not working so far. The idea you propose is interesting, but I'm wondering if it will work. I hope this doesn't offend you, but I actually do not care for Scientology at all I just am willing to credit their own statements about their own religion.--T. Anthony 01:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm neither pro-Scn nor anti-Scn. I just think many of these Scn articles are unfair as currently written. I don't see how the title Space opera and L. Ron Hubbard couldn't work, since we DON'T know for a fact that it's core doctrine, but we DO know for a fact that Hubbard did discuss these things in his lectures (which often had nothing to do with Scientology or Dianetics). The problem seems to be a mindset that anything that ever came out of Hubbard's mouth is "Scientology doctrine" when that just isn't so. Highfructosecornsyrup 01:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Difficulty I have with your rename is that the article really isn't about him and Space Opera. If it was it would just be about varying aspects of his writing career more than any lectures he gave. It's more about what he said about Space Opera to Scientologists. Whether he was using Space opera as a metaphor, a form of fiction of interest to Scientologists, a kind of satire, or something else entirely isn't really clear to me. Still I think it is about Scientology even if "in Scientology doctrine" is likely overstating the matter to a bizarre degree.--T. Anthony 03:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article would have to be rewritten somewhat, of course, to show that although Hubbard frequently talked about these subjects in lectures, that doesn't mean it's "Scientology doctrine". And by the way, most of the lectures he gave in the 50's and 60's (where most of this stuff comes from) weren't just given to Scientologists, they were attended mostly by general-public curiosity-seekers who wanted to check out a lecture by "that eccentric Dianetics guy". The Congresses are the lectures that were strictly for Scientologists, and those represent less than one percent of the thousands of lecture Hubbard gave. Highfructosecornsyrup 04:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Critics of Islam

Greetings, I noticed that you've recreated this category. It is liable to be re-deleted (I tend to agree with its existence myself). You should read this CfD discussion. (→Netscott) 03:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh I didn't know it was a recreation. I created it because the list was deleted or something and someone mentioned they'd prefer a category. Or I think they did anyway. I also did that two months ago so I kind of forgot it. If anyone wants to delete it I don't much care either way. This is actually not an issue I feel that strong about. I have some interest as I took a year or so of Islam related studies, but I don't have that strong a position on the subject. (Maybe I've made posts that would seem to indicate otherwise, but I don't think so. Even if I did sometimes I just get in the middle of things and sound more intense than I am in reality)--T. Anthony 05:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Jay Grdina in Category:Roman Catholic entertainers

"... category for entertainers who either identify as members of the Roman Catholic Church ..." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/15/garden/15JENN.html?ex=1397361600&en=3e0359841e9017c4&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND "Mr. Grdina has always considered himself a practicing Catholic." Ipso facto quod erat demonstrandum. Pax vobiscum. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 02:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of him. I just did that because the category is on CfD so I'm trying to remove any non-essentials.--T. Anthony 03:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Neil deGrasse Tyson

Thanks for posting that - I had been meaning to look into why that category was added and it slipped my mind. Tvoz 10:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I believe I created that category, but I wanted it to be fairly strictly used. I want every name placed in one of the subcategories of Category:Scientists by religion to be well justified. (I hope that sentence didn't sound confusing) I took out a couple names and thought I'd need to take out his too. Then I looked up his name+atheist and found it was justified.--T. Anthony 12:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

makes sense to me Tvoz 05:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Erased segment

I erased a segment because it was simply a request to save a list. I understand the urge to save a list as I like lists and I'm willing to save some of them. Still I respectfully ask that people refrain from any special pleading on such matters at my talk page.--T. Anthony 06:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

For those into lists and deleting lists

Wikipedia:List of lists/uncategorized has many lists and probably enough really out there ones to fulfill a delete-listers dreams.--T. Anthony 16:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

List of dictators

I'm really annoyed.

After I and you and many others worked hard to make this article truly excellent and indeed an exemplar list on wikipedia, the same people that tried to get the previous list deleted come along a pull a scam like this.

I don't know if the deletion was marked at the top of the page, but I check the article from time to time and didn't notice it. They picket the holiday season when no one was looking, lost the vote, deleted anyhow using the same argument that was explicitly rejected by the community now and before. They gave no notice to the people who were watching the article. Doc Glasgow had previously been involved in the article and should have recused himself anyway. Hundreds of hours of people's time have been deleted on the whim of a admin with in axe to grind.

Carefully worked out criteria, methods of discussion, 120 references, dozens of articles linking in, a fantastic resource.

Again to refute the silly argument made by some that dictator is an "inherently POV" descriptor, simply search wikipedia for the word dictator and notice how many people are described that way. Britannica, Encarta etc all do so, as do all news outlets.

What can we do?

juicifer 13:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I take it failed at deletion review. When it comes to political or religious things I think the system of Wikipedia itself is proned to screw up. Those most interested are either prone to bias or to react against bias in an extreme manner.

I'm not sure there's much you can do after deletion review to revive the original list. However I created List of Christian thinkers in science after a similar list deemed unacceptable was deleted. There's also a List of groups referred to as cults, which has been nominated several times and survived each time. Anyway point being you might wait a few weeks and start something with a similar concept, but more spelled out. For some reason many Wikipedians need things thoroughly spelled out. Therefore you might create a List of rulers referred to as dictators, using the cult example, or List of rulers of one-party states. The first is kind of passive voice, but on Wikipedia that seems to be okay. It indicates we're reporting the non-neutrality of others rather than making any judgments on any issue. You should wait a few weeks and decide what's best to do on that. For now you might work on saving or improving List of military dictators by rank.--T. Anthony 20:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Your last edit in Ambedkar

re: that he was hindu. that's a good one! although the subject is rather contentious and modern dalit thought would reject the notion that dalits are (or ever were) hindus, i think in ambedkar's case it'd be safe to consider he was. from his testimonies, it's clear that his parents did attempt to indoctrinate the cultural facets, at the very least, of hinduism in him, if not the religious ethos itself. good edit! cheers -- mowglee 17:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Uhh thanks I guess, but see below. I did try to use it where it seemed appropriate, but I'm uncertain I know enough about Hinduism to say whether I'm correct or whether it's a valid category. I just felt if it's going to exist it might as well be used and then we can discuss it. I think it might well be valid in some cases and this is why I did not CfD the category. However I honestly don't know if it's ever valid so didn't vote. I feel this should be decided by people more aware than I.--T. Anthony 00:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Apostates

Of note to you may be the line in Apostasy "there is no Hindu or Buddhist procedure that defines apostasy". In fact Hindu texts are silent on apostasy.Bakaman 18:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm not sure that category should even exist. I used it where it seemed appropriate to give it greater visibility. I figured with greater visibility it would get a bit of discussion and those "in the know" could decide. I am not any kind of expert on Hinduism nor do I claim to be. (China and the "Sinosphere" being more my area)--T. Anthony 00:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Pastorwayne

I left a comment on User:Pastorwayne and his rapid category creation at WP:ANI. The comment asks for Pastorwayne to be regulated regarding category creation. Feel free to comment. Dr. Submillimeter 22:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who trust Jimbo

Hey. You nominated Category:Wikipedians who trust Jimbo for deletion on WP:CFD. I moved it to WP:UCFD, which should contain all user category nominations. You probably already knew this, but I'm just dropping you a note in case you wonder where it went. Thanks, Prolog 10:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I'd forgotten they were separate. Thanks.--T. Anthony 15:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Placement of stub tags

Hi, T. Anthony! On Jimmy Raney, I have noticed that you put stub tags above the Category entries. Since that makes the stub categories show first in the article's categories box, I think it is nicer to put them below the category entries, so that stub categories are at the end of the category list. That is my personal opinion, but I am not alone, see Wikipedia:Stub#Categorizing_stubs: "However, since the stub category is the least important of the article's categories, some Wikipedians prefer to place the template after the category tags, so that the stub category will appear last.". If you would like to join "The Some Club", welcome ;) No offense meant ... Cheers, congrats on your tremendous work for WP, and best wishes for the new year, BNutzer 17:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It was a screw-up, although I'll admit I'm not real consistent with how I do it, thanks for fixing it. You've done a good job with articles I think and I appreciate that.--T. Anthony 17:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, and same to you! BNutzer 18:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks. It's a bit of an education for me too. Most of the time I'd never heard of the musician whose article I'm creating, but I'll see them on a requested deal or in one of the lists in Category:Lists of jazz musicians. Sometimes I worry I'm totally off, but more often I'm learning something interesting and others can fix my errors.--T. Anthony 18:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholic scientists

Working on saving it and using it as strictly as historically plausible. When I saw it on CfD I was surprised because about 90%, I've checked, of the names were already members of Catholic religious orders. Still I tried to take out some and only add theologians or priests. I'm skeptical it'll help. Despite my efforts to save it there's a part of me that wonders if separating out Catholics from other Christians is useful. If there had been votes for, or any interest in, merging to Category:Christians in science maybe I'd have gone that way. Although seeing as Christians in science already has a 150 names, and the Catholic deal was listed as a subcat of the Christian one, maybe it's best not merged. Well if it survives at all. Anyway that's the news of the moment.--T. Anthony 07:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

One exception, I did add Laura Bassi. I don't think there'd been any women and she was selected by a Pope to be on a committee. It seemed okay to me, but I'm not entirely clear on what standard is wanted. I could limit it to those who were beatified or canonized, this would reduce it to the single digits, but I don't know if anyone wants it that strict.--T. Anthony 07:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A disappointing, but not unexpected, result. Ahh well, Wikipedia isn't really about things like history of science/religion. Stuff like that's for mainstream encyclopedias. Once I realized Wikipedia's best for writing about elements at or in the fringes of pop-culture, as well as some trivia, I enjoyed it much more. I might see if I can do more with Homicide: Life on the Street and its actors. I've been wondering if Ralph Tabakin is notable enough for his own article.--T. Anthony 02:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ben Jackson AfD Relist

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Jackson (electronic sports player) (2nd nomination) please take a look 151.204.193.104 07:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)