Jump to content

User talk:Espresso-con-pana

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction and check the Teahouse to contact Wikipedians who are available for assistance, or even for a chat.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Good luck, and have fun. FWIW,FWiW (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Season's tidings!

[edit]

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]





Thanks for the greetings. Really nice card-image! (I filled in the blank with "Christ-Mass") →And now...

"I'm back—" (ala Schwarzenegger) --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dr. No (film). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made a carefully reasoned complete response to this on SchroCat's talk page, which he instantly reverted.
—I really did not expect such a strong reaction! Please pray for him.
For reference please read my revision of the Dr. No (film) article.
Thanks. I wish you well. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Bond screen appearances

[edit]

This is a chronological listing of the screen appearances of the character of the fictional British MI6 agent James Bond. Wikipedia articles do not list the Climax! television film and the non-Eon films together with the Eon Productions films. Attempts to enter Preceded by (film name) and Followed by (film name) in any form in the articles are always reverted.

  1. 1954 Oct 21 — Casino Royale
  2. 1962 Oct 05 — Dr. No
  3. 1963 Oct 10 — From Russia with Love
  4. 1964 Sep 17 — Goldfinger
  5. 1965 Dec 09 — Thunderball
  6. 1967 Apr 13 — Casino Royale
  7. 1967 Jun 12 — You Only Live Twice
  8. 1969 Dec 18 — On Her Majesty's Secret Service
  9. 1971 Dec 14 — Diamonds Are Forever
  10. 1973 Jun 27 — Live and Let Die
  11. 1974 Dec 19 — The Man with the Golden Gun
  12. 1977 July 07 — The Spy Who Loved Me
  13. 1979 Jun 26 — Moonraker
  14. 1981 Jun 24 — For Your Eyes Only
  15. 1983 Jun 06 — Octopussy
  16. 1983 Oct 07 — Never Say Never Again
  17. 1985 May 22 — A View to a Kill
  18. 1987 Jun 29 — The Living Daylights
  19. 1989 Jun 13 — Licence to Kill
  20. 1995 Nov 13 — GoldenEye
  21. 1997 Dec 06 — Tomorrow Never Dies
  22. 1999 Nov 08 — The World Is Not Enough
  23. 2002 Nov 20 — Die Another Day
  24. 2006 Nov 14 — Casino Royale
  25. 2008 Oct 29 — Quantum of Solace
  26. 2012 Oct 23 — Skyfall

--Espresso-con-pana (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

inquiry: help me determine suitability new list-type article

[edit]

Please see first (single) response that was made, and my reply, end of this section. I would like to hear a few more informed opinions for consensus.

Would the numbered sequential list of James Bond screen appearances above this section be a reasonably helpful addition to Wikipedia? see James Bond screen appearances. If not, please explain. I don't think it's redundant.

Wikipedia does not have a simple listing of all James Bond screen appearances by release-date anywhere: the titles are currently separated by catagories, and listing them as appearances by date sets aside any debate over TV movie/programme inclusion as a film, film vs movie, and non-Eon productions vs Eon productions, and their separation into separate, unconnected lists. The WP James Bond article comes close, but is still disjointed by section and date (e.g. 2012 theatrical release date is followed by 1967 and 1983). A "time-line" is perceptively more immediate. Wikipedia has an abundance of helpful "List of..." articles and stubs. This one would not be unusual.

I had originally thought any casual new James Bond film fan would appreciate some kind of sequential linkage through all the articles listed, with dates, but I had no success. For one thing, the Infobox feature for films no longer lists Preceded by... and Followed by..., a feature I myself would have enjoyed using; and then an editor explained, with links to discussion re the infobox, that consensus had been reached on removing that feature from Infobox film.

I know how to use the Sandbox feature to submit a new article or stub.

Thanks for your help. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 04:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm borderline on this one. List of James Bond films lists both Eon and non-Eon films together so the only thing it's missing is the one television series. Furthermore, a full chronological list doesn't seem all that much more helpful than the two lists at List of James Bond films. The main reason is because the lists are a manageable size and having a third list doesn't really do much that readers couldn't already do while on the List of James Bond films. Mkdwtalk 05:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. However, they are not actually listed "together". I looked at List of James Bond films (again) at your request, and again the primary list there omits Casino Royale (Climax!), Casino Royale (1967 film), and Never Say Never Again as if they don't count, ignoring the first one entirely and separating the other two completely out of sequence. It would be refreshing to have them included in order together in one list. That's what I think is so immediately helpful and different in the James Bond screen appearances. I'm still open to more POV, but from a different perspective than this one by Mkdw. Again—Thank you. Your answer is appreciated. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, those films are listed at List of James Bond films#Non-Eon films and only the television adaptation is not listed. I wouldn't describe one list as being primary, but two lists one of Eon films and one not. Have you thought about a category? Mkdwtalk 06:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article listing all the screen adaptations of James Bond at James Bond in film. The 1954 Climax episode is covered by the first section. The scope of the List of James Bond films is to tabulate all the box office data and reception anaylsis of the theatrical films, which doesn't exist for the Climax adpatation because it was an episode of a TV series. Betty Logan (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is also already a James Bond films category which lists all the films (and the TV programme), as well as a Bond film navigation box, present on all the relevant pages, which lists all the films with their dates. - SchroCat (talk) 08:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heart-felt thanks to Mkdw, to Betty Logan, and to SchroCat for your representative responses. Appreciated! Here are my observations:
Mkdw: the films are listed, as you pointed out, but not together. I said "primary list" only because the Eon films list looms large on the List of James Bond films page and is longer than the visually "appended/orphan/back of the bus" non-Eon films list.WP:UNDUE
Betty: this same general "defect" is on the James Bond in film page which includes Casino Royale (Climax!) but is increased, like entropy, to the point of obliterating any kind of visual chronological order.
SchroCat: the James Bond film navigation box is visually very close! to the kind of feature I proposed, above—it has almost the perceptive immediacy of the James Bond screen appearances list. But again, it omits Barry Nelson's 1954 screen role as the first James Bond. It's adequate—but it isn't complete. The chronology is not quite presented at a glance, but requires some brief mental sifting, like rearranging a freshly-dealt hand of cards—unlike the James Bond screen appearances list. If the Navigation box had been featured more visibly [not hidden] on the Dr. No (film) page I might not have felt a need to become involved. —Please accept my apology for any unintended stress I caused.
Thank you, WP community editors, for your consensus and specific resources references. Please consider the issue most satisfactorily closed. I wish you well. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indulgence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Temporal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your response. I was hoping to link the term temporal in the intro lead more immediately to an article specifically discussing temporal as related to time, in apposite opposition to eternal/eternity. There is, to date, no specific WP article re "temporal punishment", hence I settled for a link to the disambiguation page with its section "Domain".
WP "Eschatology" wasn't directly pertinent. (Maybe "Purgatory"?—but that discussion is confined to the afterlife and doesn't deal with fact of remaining temporal punishment during life even after the eternal punishment is removed—see 2 Samuel 12:13–14)
I'm considering three options: either inserting a parenthetical "(see below)" type notation—or a link to footnote [1]—or authoring a stub with source/s in the sandbox here and submitting it for possible inclusion—
"Temporal punishment and eternal punishment".
I would welcome your opinion. What do you suggest? --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think a discussion of the difference between temporal and eternal punishment is an excellent idea, but I'm not sure it should have its own article. It would probably be better to incorporate it as a section in an existing article, then make temporal punishment a redirect to that section. But which article? Offhand, I'm not sure. Have you tried bringing it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism? --JaGatalk 01:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't occur to me—thanks for the suggestion! I'll follow through on it. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC) See "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#"Temporal": article?" for follow up query and discussion. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To date I have not received any kind of response from explicitly identified members of WikiProject Catholicism. This is disappointing. But that's been my normal experience when dealing with Catholic resources in the media. I can see by this one example among many why some people have formed a poor opinion of Catholics, even though I'm a convert to Catholicism myself and I have found the doctrine and theology to be both the most perfectly complete world view and unquestionably thoroughly Biblical religion. No problem: in the continuing absence of any kind of helpful advice explicitly from that source I went ahead and developed an article "Temporal (Duration)" with some useful guidance from experienced WP editors, which has been created. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 06:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article Temporal (duration) original version

[edit]

When I was looking at the article Indulgence I thought it would be a good idea to link "temporal" (punishment) to an article discussing the overall meaning of temporal (see above). There wasn't one, so I thought it would be useful to have an article treating that subject, one that was not quite as limited in meaning as Temporality. It's gratifying to have contributed an article, but I'll tell you honestly that I've discovered that 12 sleepless nights takes its toll on an old man of 66, and I don't think I'll be doing anything like this again—at least not for a very long time. To all Wikipedians: I appreciate your work, and I wish you well! --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have since gone over the "original" version submitted to AFC—several times—and it still needed some additional work to make it complete. Today I finished—and I'm finally completely satisfied with it:

Temporal (duration) original completed version.

With respect to all of you, be assured that if this article is created, I won't OWN it. Please feel free to make whatever additional constructive improvements you think necessary to bring it in line with Wikipedia quality. I won't interfere. I wish you well. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

[edit]
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Hasteur (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Teahouse logo
Hello! Espresso-con-pana, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
I appreciate the honest evaluation of the article.
This is my subsequent final revision: Temporal (duration)—full version.
Here is the actual official version I submitted for creation: [Temporal (duration)
--Espresso-con-pana (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Espresso-con-pana. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Temporal (Duration).
Message added 21:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I took a second look at the article and gave additional feedback. Thank you for taking the initial feedback seriously. Hasteur (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Editor's Barnstar
Thank you for both your initial effort and the revision you made with respect to the Temporal(duration) AfC submission Hasteur (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two alternates "Temporal (duration)"

[edit]

Thank you, Hasteur, for the suggestions, and for the Barnstar!

I have herewith finished two versions of article "Temporal (duration)" for submission to AFC:

Temporal (duration)—with quotes

Temporal (duration)—without quotes (I like this one more.)

I wish you well. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

[edit]
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! AppleJack7Dear Princess Celestia... 21:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Espresso-con-pana. You have new messages at AppleJack-7's talk page.
Message added 13:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

AppleJack7Dear Princess Celestia... 13:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

[edit]
Temporal (Duration), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

AppleJack7Dear Princess Celestia... 02:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emptying the sandbox

[edit]

Now that the article I developed in my sandbox with the wonderful aid of other WP editors has been created, how do I clear the space there if I need to use it again? Thanks for your help. Really appreciated! --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 05:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have cleared your sandbox. See [1]. You just remove all the content in the sandbox and that's it. Now you can use your sandbox for other purposes too. Cheers! --Glaisher (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KITTEH!

[edit]

AppleJack7Dear Princess Celestia... haz givn u Lolcat! Lolcatz promot teh WikiLovez and hoapfully thiz one tuk away ur sadz. Spredd teh WikiLovez by givin sumone else Lolcat, or if tey hav one, give a cheezburgr for teh Lolcat 2 snak on!


Spredd teh goudnez of Lolcats to all cheezburgr buddiez by addin {{subst:Lolcat}} to their talk paj wit frendli messuj to all!

Experimenting with improvements to an existing article

[edit]

If I see possibilities for several improvements to an existing article which cannot be done in a single edit at a single sitting (like 24 hours!)—and I don't want to be an annoyance for making more than a few edits (more than 10!)—what is the WP procedure to transfer copy of an existing article to my sandbox to make the multiple apparent necessary improvements over a period of several hours, or days, even weeks, without being blanked or removed from the article's own sandbox site as "leftover" from simply "playing around with new skills", until the resulting improved form of the article reads well and finally seems to be completely satisfactory, and then to move a copy of that new form entire as an "improvement edit" out of the sandbox into the existing article site as a single revision edit? (Seems to me that this is covered somewhere in Wikipedia tutorials, but I haven't been able to find it again.) Would really appreciate your help! Thanks. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think doing more than ten edits would be an annoyance. Using {{inuse}} during edit sessiosn, and {{underconstruction}} in between edit sessions might be useful, though. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 17:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Espresso-con-pana. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 21:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Espresso-con-pana. You have new messages at Qwertyus's talk page.
Message added 17:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Holy Order of Mans may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {{quotation|"4) The radiation of the Grail comes through Father Paul's chalice—and there it resides.<br>"5) It is to be declared every time Father Paul's cup is used: 'The Grail is with us'."

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message of appreciation and explanation: the unpaired brackets are verbatim from the source text http://www.holyorderofmans.org/holy_grail.htm . Thanks again, BracketBot. I wish you well. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something's seriously wrong: "Burning!"

[edit]

I just came across something that looks like it really needs the immediate attention of an administrator at Talk:Tahash#Merge with Tahash and at Talk:Badger skins. I don't understand the issue but I think something's seriously wrong here. I'm not sure what to do. Thanks. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were two separate issues there. The first was that a user suggested redirecting the "Tahash" article to "Badger Skins", and the another user suggested redirecting the "Tahash" article to "Tabernacle#Plan" instead and redirecting "Badger Skins" to "Badger#Commercial use", which is moot as "Badger Skins" has been deleted. No one was suggesting to redirect the "Tahash" article to "Badger#Commercial use". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have never seen a whole article deleted so fast as this one was just as soon as the two newer editors posted their comments. I didn't find anything wrong with it when I first read it. In any case, I had already made a hard-copy printout before that happened simply because I liked it, and now I was able consult it and to merge some of the information with the article Tahash as they suggested—specifically, the interpretations of tahash as a color. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. A hard-copy printout. Funny, since the article was hardly produced from such a document; rather, its very coding was copied and pasted from other versions, earlier deleted from Wikipedia, of those badger/unicorn articles. So don't be bashful: you've been carrying this around for years. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My printout copy of Badger skins reads 9/24/14 at the top of each page, and at the bottom in fine print it reads https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Badger_skins, which I just now copied here. On the last page near the bottom the copy reads
• This page was last modified on 24 September 2014 at 12:36.
When I did the printout, with the article on the screen I activated the Tools icon at the top right of my screen (looks like a cogwheel), selected Print preview from the menu, let the default setting remain at All (pages), and clicked the [Print] prompt. It produced 18 pages of printed material copy, in color. The printout from my Compaq 7550 computer and hp deskjet 5150 inkjet printer always includes in parentheses immediately after linked texts the URL addresses of every link. Those are the ones I consulted and copied by hand on the keyboard. It's timeconsuming and tedious. It's a reality and a fact that I still don't know how to "copy and paste" with a computer. I wouldn't know how to "move a page". I have always had to write it down by hand with a Sharpie pen and then enter it on a new site by laboriously keyboarding the text from my notes. I just normally enjoy reading online, and sometimes I do some contributing edits on Wikipedia to help out.
I didn't write the article, and I couldn't have produced it electronically from another document even if I wanted to, because I don't have the know-how. I only contributed a paragraph and a few bits and lines of data to the already existing article Tahash by manually keyboarding the data. I was only trying to help. I think your real contention is with Encyclopedic researcher who originally wrote and submitted the article Badger skins and continued to edit it these past few weeks, and contributed more material at Tahash which you obviously didn't like, but since he said he was not going to be doing any more edits for a while and we haven't heard from him I think you turned on me instead.
I have read the Archives at Talk:Tachash. It was about as entertaining as a broadcast network daytime drama program. I got a real negative impression of you from them, but not nearly as bad as the impression I got from In ictu oculi and his pal Mendelev's demand to "Burn it!" (Sound like Nazis with Molotov cocktails.) What you said here about me almost seems to indicate that you yourself have never done a print of an online article, and that it's outside your experience. If so, then I understand how you jumped to the conclusion that I must have been carrying it around for years. I haven't. But you have falsely accused me here of a kind of abusive, ongoing, long-term, lying-in-wait form of gaming the system online. Your introductory comment "Hmm." followed by "Funny,..." and concluding with "So don't be bashful..." smacks of an intimidating form of sarcasm, verbal bullying. There's no courtesy there. You have simply made my Wikipedia experience an unpleasant one, at least temporarily.
You are wrong about me, and there seems to be nothing I can do about it. I think right now it would be pointless to ask you for an apology. From what I've read, it's not your style. Please leave me alone. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again

[edit]

Espresso, thank you for contacting me, I was not aware of some of the concerns you had elaborated. As I have not been very active recently in the project, and have pared down my earlier amount of contributions, I have found I am not as much of a pain to others as I had been in the past. One of the unsavoury aspects of working in Wikipedia, is that it is, by its very being, a place that is inhabited by experts, most well-meaning but essentially, leaning to the "inner nerd" in all of us. I took my initial foray into the Wikiwacky world as one of a crusader who would set the world straight about a few topics of which I had an all-consuming (at the time) interest. As you can guess, that kind of attitude really brings out the adversarial folk that wanted to take on "the saviour of the world". If you haven't seen Guardians of the Galaxy yet, it was the kind of hubris that lead character Peter Quill exhibited when he declares he is "Star-Lord". Anyway, long story short, after enough skirmishes, I decided that it just wasn't worth it, and I would only make contributions sparingly on articles that had not been fully researched, in the very tiny niche of aviation films, and recently, even more specifically, Canadian aviation films and media productions. I don't sweat the big stuff anymore and find that the "water off a duck's back" credo works for me. I hope you will come to some resolution with your nemesis, but if it comes down to the nitty gritty, there are structural aides in the form of conflict resolution and administrator assistance that can go a long way to get to a satisfactory conclusion, and if nothing else, can provide you with a buffer from the pest or abuser. Keep your chin up. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bzuk: I see you've had a similar experience. My most sincere commiseration. After reading the Talk:Tachash page with its Archives detailing the contentious background of Drmies, et al, nitpicking I really don't intend to stoke the boiler. It's probably what they want. See Vexatious litigation. It's just some people's form of entertainment. (My own past professional background sees signs of personal and professional rejection, previous marital difficulty, probably a bitter divorce. People don't usually get over that, and when they're bitter about the outcome they look for other people to annoy, as a kind of hobby.) I read the article, liked it, and found nothing wrong with it. So I really don't think the content was the real issue; it could have been condensed. These guys have been with Wikipedia a long time. Posting a complaint will serve no useful purpose. "Never engage an aggressor on his own territory" Sun Tzu. I've not seen Guardians of the Galaxy—look forward to renting it! Appreciated. Thanks. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets of Hermitstudy/Michael Paul Heart

[edit]
Mystery of Tahash reverts solved!

I pulled an all-nighter going over the Talk:Tachash Archives again and the revision history, and I noticed that every time the sock-puppets of Hermitstudy, Michael Paul Heart, et al, put forth documentation from reliable secondary sources like

Encyclopaedia Judaica and John Grigg Hewlett, D.D, Rabbi Natan Slifkin (Masters Degree in Judaic Studies), several Bible dictionaries, commentaries by Gill and Clarke, and citations from Septuagint, Vulgate, Josephus, the Midrashim and the Talmud Bavli and Yerushalmi—

[1] showing that tahash originally was translated as the color blue, violet, indigo, several editors repeatedly reverted it. Pontificalibus was especially active in that. The sockpuppets persisted in putting it back, I suppose because it was documented verifiable information in established secondary reliable sources.
[2] The citations from documented rabbinical texts (in context) having explicit measurements of the unbelievably huge animal proposed by the rabbis of the Talmud were repeatedly removed: a finished skin 30 cubits by 4 cubits, 45 feet long and 6 feet wide, from an animal for which at present there is absolutely no scientific evidence.

These two documented facts seemed to be totally unacceptible to them since they kept reverting them. It's overwhelmingly obvious that they could not endure having them in Wikipedia. Instead of giving reasons for rejecting them, they responded by calling this documented data "garbage", "bloat", "nonsense", "Original Research", "vandalism" and "Crap!". When challenged to explain what they meant or why the information was "Unacceptible Crap" they gave no reasons other than that such views were "worthless" and did not belong in an encyclopedia. They cited no authorities or reliable sources which supported their position, which reverting editors are expected to do according to official Wikipedia policy. It's no good to say, "Because I said so"—substantive reasons are required. Nevertheless, they gave none and only repeated their opinions that it was "nonsense". It appears that at this point a sockpuppet was created.

When it seemed increasingly obvious on the face of SPI evidence that one editor was guilty of sockpuppetry, apparently desperate in his attempt to make the collected information available, that very fact then became the sole opportune pretext for excluding the assembled data: not that it was erroneous or taken from unreliable sources or that it was unverifiable (it isn't) but simply because an evidential sockpuppet had submitted/contributed it. It was an ingenious strategy. The relevancy of the documented sources was now deemed to be wholly irrelevant, and all reasonable consideration of it was completely swept aside, now that the contributor was an evident sockpuppet. All suggestions that the data be considered solely on its merit were dismissed as ploys by a sockpuppet in a futile attempt to validate his "vandalism".

The moment I participated with six or seven edits in merging the color interpretation sources obtained from "Badger skins" with the article "Tahash", solely because a recommendation had been made to merge the data of both "Badger skins" and "Tahash", then In ictu oculi and Drmies, seeing this, immediately assumed that I must be a sockpuppet of Michael Paul Heart/Hermitstudy/et al. Immediately Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations was activated on User:Encyclopedic researcher, but after the fact, since he said he had finished and was taking a break until January 2015. (I looked at his talk page. His last entry was Sep 24th. Three days later on the 27th Drmies posted "How timely. We'll wait to see what SPI turns up."). Encyclopedic researcher couldn't be directly accused and wouldn't be actively responding, so Drmies turned on me, and now I am a suspect. The only reason I can see for this is that Drmies thinks I was supporting the sockpuppets, so he might as well take me for one. I was only supporting the documented reliable secondary sources and attempting to maintain NPOV balance by including the color interpretations which Drmies' edits ipso facto omitted.

But now, all things considered, that seems to have been his intent. And that violates Wikipedia's policy of maintaining a Neutral Point of View. He didn't protect a brief balanced article from sockpuppet editing by Protection from disruptive editing, he deleted content by imposing "Creation protection" (What a euphemism). That's just a new form of Book burning. I just this morning found from his talk page that he's an Administrator! So far, he's been able to get away with it.

The one big satisfaction I derive from all this is:

you won't be able to remove the documented interpretations of תחש as a color from the reliable secondary sources cited, in particular Encyclopaedia Judaica 2nd ed. Vol 19, page 435, and you'll never be able to get rid of the measurement of the impossible size of the legendary animal tachash in the Talmud, larger than the largest land animal known, second only to the blue whale, a size which fairly invites incredulity and ridicule of Jewish traditions.

Here are sources that can't be touched or changed, containing verifiable reliable documented historical data that Drmies et al would not allow in Badger skins and Tahash, especially objecting to translations of תחש as a color, and as a legendary unicorn, and reverting them as "original research", "nonsense", and "crap":

Leviticus 11 unclean animals (some proposed as providing skins as covering for the Tabernacle—contradiction)
Rabbinical translation Septuagint Numbers 4
Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Shabbath 28ab
Encyclopedia Judaica (2007) Vol 19, SOM-TN, TAḤASH Judah the Prince interpreted tachash as purple.
Jerusalem Talmud: The Talmud of the Land of Israel, Volume 11: Shabbat, ed. by Jacob Neusner, page 98
Midrash Tanḥuma 6. Midrash Tanchuma—Yelammedenu: An English Translation of Genesis and Exodus by Samuel A. Berman, page 524. "6. This is the offering...and rams' skins dyed red, and sealskins (Exod. 25:3)"
Douay-Rheims translation of Latin Vulgate: Numbers 4:5-14
"Defects of the King James Version", Isaac H. Hall, LL.B; Ph.D., ed, et al
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible (1746-63) Exodus 25
Clarke's Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (1831) Exodus 25
John Grigg Hewlett, D.D. (1860) Bible difficulties explained, pp. 159–163
McClintock and Strong's Biblical Cyclopedia (1887) B. badger
Smith's Bible Dictionary (1893) Badger skins
Louis Ginzberg (1909) The Legends of the Jews Vol III Chapter III "The Altar"
Aryeh Kaplan (1981) The Living Torah Exodus 25:5 footnote
Holman Bible Dictionary (2003) badger skins
Natan Slifkin (2007) Sacred Monsters: Mysterious and Mythological Creatures of Scripture, Talmud and Midrash, pp. 41–79

In addition to this, the version of Tabernacle that Drmies supports states that the roof of the Tabernacle is "ramskins" (just as Josephus said it was), making the tachash skins ramskins, not "one-horned tachash" skins. Readers of the KJV will say they are badger skins, but that's a false translation. What will WP say to them? Drmies removed the answers explaining how and why.

In closing, I am reminded of what the NCIS character Dr. Mallard said to his assistant Jimmy Palmer: "I warned you about Wikipedia!" --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional thoughts

If Drmies removes this page, then he will have unequivocally proved I am right about his attempts to remove the documented evidence so Wikipedia readers can't see it, and we'll both know it. Permanently. If he insists without evidence that I am a sockpuppet and has me blocked indefinitely, that too will be incontrovertible proof that he and his partners In ictu oculi, et al, with all their accounts, will use every possible means at their disposal in Wikipedia to exclude any reliably documented historical evidence that tachash has been interpreted as a color, that the Talmudists changed the interpretation to an unknown one-horned animal, and that it strongly resembles a giant cloven-hoofed rhinoceros, but impossibly larger than is physically possible (its leg bones would shatter under its weight—see Megafauna). In reality that would only make me "collateral damage". (I am not by any stretch of the imagination an "indispensible man", and with what I know now from reading the evidence in this case, I could easily live with expulsion from Drmies' Wikipedia.)

Material corroboration: Look at the entries relative to the Tabernacle and to the Tachash. (I have.) Not one of them includes any mention of the historically documented fact that the word was interpreted as blue, purple, violet, azure, indigo before 200 CE. If they ever did, the revision history of those articles will show that it was reverted. That's what's "at stake" here. That is the core essence of the motive behind the charges of sockpuppetry. See Ministry of Truth. I don't think there is any behavioural evidence in my edit history to support a charge of sockpuppetry. I seriously doubt it.

I've had my say in the matter. I hate all forms of social rejection and prejudice. Drmies is prejudiced against me because of his POV and his subsequent circumstantial perception that I must therefore be a sockpuppet. If I continue with Wikipedia it will be solely to edit wholly innocuous articles having to do with films and avoid all controversial articles.

--Espresso-con-pana (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahecht: Please take a look at the above. Thanks. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Inquisitions

About 5 minutes ago I got a message that I had been mentioned on Sockpuppet Investigations. I clicked on the folder icon and found they had evidence that the sockpuppets had come from Des Moines with identical IP addresses. I was warned not too long ago that shared computers can get you in trouble with Wikipedia. I suppose no one will believe me, unless the lack of behavioural evidence weighs in my favor. Given Drmies vendetta against the sockpuppets, it's more than likely I'll be blocked indefinitely. It will also prove the point I made above about him. —C'est la vie. I suppose it can't be helped. There's nothing I can do about it. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that Drmies may be acting in Good Faith. In that case I will only be blocked from editing anything. In that case, I understand and apologize. Incidental readers will still have access here to the list of sources.

However, if he is certainly not acting in Good Faith, he will not only block me indefinitely, but will make this talk page totally inaccessible, permanently deleted, and blocked from view even by administrators, as if it never existed, utterly excluding the possibility that it might ever be read, because of the list of reliable documented sources listed above re the word תחש as a color and as a unicorn. I'll probably know before tomorrow evening, maybe even sooner, this evening. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked from editing
About 5 minutes ago (20:17, 1 October 2014 as I write this), I discovered that I have been Blocked from editing Wikipedia for an indefinite period. This means virtually forever. That's acceptible. At least I'm allowed some latitude for limited expression. Apparently, Drmies acted in Good Faith and I owe him and his associates an apology.
As I said above, "I can easily live with expulsion from Drmies' Wikipedia." Drmies, and In ictu oculi, and the others supporting their POV, finally got what they wanted: Encyclopedic researcher's compiled information on עור תחש translations as it pertains to KJV "badgers' skins" is not to be allowed. They finally got what they wanted. And I can go do other things.
It was therapeutic to read The Last Word and List of cabals (interminably long). I was struck by the similarity between the description of the behavior of the guy who won't quit and won't admit he's wrong and just has to have the last word and the behavior of the reverting group of editors/administrators in the Talk:Tachash Archives regarding all the compiled linguistic information on the words וצרות תחשים in the Hebrew Bible. (I can tell you: the Encyclopedic researcher article "Badger skins" was much better than the one written by Hermitstudy/Michael Paul Heart, blah-blah, blah-blah... and reverted and revised ad infinitum—it can be found online at "bing search: Tachash skins: Tachash—TheFullWiki)
I can leave Wikipedia and the stress it generated/generates. The Administrators, like Drmies, are unable to leave (I doubt that they do this without steady ample fiscal compensation from the Wikimedia Foundation—but I wonder, is it worth it?). They're stuck. I feel sorry for them.
I don't know what Encyclopedic will think when he checks back in January. I am going to leave him a note of commiseration. Hope it helps.
May God bless every reader of this page. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to leave a message at User Talk:Encyclopedic researcher but am blocked from doing so, in spite of the statement on the Block notification:
"Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user page and email other editors and administrators." Not today.
--Espresso-con-pana (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just tell Encyclopedic researcher in person the next time you are using the same computer as them. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've never met him, as far as I know. I'm not the only person who uses this computer.
Conclusion

Wikipedia has succeeded (or some Administrators have succeeded) in censuring and prohibiting from its pages all evidence of the documented history of all the varied translations of וערת תחשים from the Septuagint 100 BCE through the Talmud and through Jewish and Christian translations into the 21st century. Why? They must be afraid of what it reveals. Sooner or later this kind of censorship is going to come back and bite them. History has demonstrated this again and again. That's my last word on the subject. I wish you exposure and consequence. See Historical revisionism. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unexpected supporting evidence

[edit]

@Ahecht: Take a look at this [2]. I found it only a few hours ago, and made a copy. My experience was only one example of a standard Wikipedia practice. Encyclopedic researcher and I have not been the only ones banned for using reliable documented sources (I only copied them): other people have been falsely accused of "Original Research" and of being sockpuppets, in the same way, and for the same reasons. You gave me the benefit of a doubt—so I want you to have this info so you can check it out yourself. Good luck! --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 05:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, Conservapedia is an excellent and reliable internet source. Ahecht et al., you are free to look at the SPI, where you'll see that CU and behavioral evidence quickly put the lie to this supposed false accusations. PMH, I'm surprised you can keep all your socks straight, playing multiples at the same time. Beest thou well, Drmies (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Espresso-con-pana&oldid=1140223591"