User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Paine Ellsworth. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Stewart Graeme Guthrie

Hi Paine Ellsworth, I replied to your comment on my talk page, please refer Talk:Aramoana massacre#Number_of_deaths_edit. XLerate (talk) 07:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Jodie Foster 2

Hi. I appreciate your comments and attempts to help at this page. This has been going on with various articles since last October and at one point involved the use of more than one user account, although those seem to have been dropped after it was confronted (see first Jodie Foster section above and User:XxTaylor15). I'm not sure how helpful it will be, others have tried to resolve things on articles without success. One of the more salient things that have been a problem has been on Natalie Wood, where that editor said on the article talk page "She did not try to board that dingy....why on earth would she? It is ridiculous lies told by Wagner, the murderer himself." It's quite hard to have reasonable discussion regarding anything that comes from a viewpoint like that. In any case, thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Planet controversy

I didn't want to discuss this on the Solar System talk page, because it would mean going way off topic, but I still don't understand why you have a problem with the Solar System article reflecting the current official terminology while the controversies are kept at Definition of planet. If the definitions change, then all the related articles will change. Serendi ^pod ous 05:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not have the "problem" you seem to think I have. Remember I said that I support the lead as it is. My reservations were voiced only because they are real, live controversies, NOT because I think they should be included in the Solar System article. ^.`^) Paine ^diss`cuss (^^`. 07:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Please remove LINK SPAM

Please remove the LINK SPAM of the redirect Usenet Personalities / Archimedes Plutonium. DMacks, a wikipedia editor, inserted David D Amato instead of doing the right thing of inserting Archimedes Plutonium. DMacks needs to be fired from Wikipedia. 216.16.55.44 (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC) committee to remove DMacks

I'm new here. Please explain. ^.`^) Paine ^diss`cuss (^^`. 03:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

User WongLee

Message to Dominic:

Was wondering why this user was blocked? S/he has only two contributions, and they did not appear to be vandalisms. Just curious.

"06:21, 11 June 2009 Dominic (talk | contribs) blocked WongLee (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Vandalism (User:Lock Your Back Door Tonight sockpuppet))"

Were all those listed in the Block Log believed to be sockpuppets of User:Lock Your Back Door Tonight?

^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 06:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Jodie Foster 3

fyi: „Seit den Dreharbeiten an "Flightplan" habe sie sich in die Stadt verliebt und bedauert es, nicht besser deutsch sprechen zu können, weil sie sich gerne mit den Fans unterhalten wollen würde.“ [1] --88.73.43.102 (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, 88, but I don't read nor understand that language. Nor have I been able to find a reliable source that Foster knows the language. So you "got" me so far. Now I'm tired and must hit the sack. Thank you for the challenge! ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 09:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

PS. I just translated that Moviereporter.net article from 2007. In it Foster says she wishes she knew the German language BETTER, so she must know some German. I have used your above source on the Foster page, but I will continue to search for a better source. Thank you again! ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 15:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

„Ich habe mein Deutsch jedenfalls intensiv trainiert. Ein paar Brocken waren noch aus meiner Kindheit übrig, denn meine Mutter hat mich damals oft mit in deutsche Filme genommen.“ [2] --88.73.35.35 (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, 88, my anonymous benefactor! I have added this as a supportive source to the German claim... see Jodie_Foster#Early_life. ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 18:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

PS. I would dearly love to know who you are. Are you an avid Jodie Foster fan? Or could you be the megatalented star herself? In any case, you will hopefully enjoy my deep respect for your help to improve this encyclopedia!

European honey bee ;-) --88.73.157.125 (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

hey

First of all, sorry about modifying stuff like i did. and sorry if i gave you extra work. i didn't want to. at first i didn't know i should write a summary about the changes i did. and i'm not sure yet where should these discussions you are talking about take place.

but i think it's wrong to give false information. it's just like you would give the population of a city wrong. you will correct it. i think wikipedia it's about providing right information. and as long as you don't correct the main page, people can't see the reality. because most of them won't search the discussions behind an article. sooner or later the internet will have better laws. and if it's a way of media it should be submitted to the same laws, rules that the other multi media ways have to follow. i know that now, these rules don't exist for internet, but i really think they are right. and if in television you can't twist things so should be on internet. and if you "sell" or "give" something then you have to say the truth. you can't say you're giving water instead of fruits. i understand that it's not easy to check so much information and make sure that it's correct, but when you can, please don't let unfounded information on a site that so many people trust.

I want to explain you why i did the last changes. The last paragraphs in the Christianity part (from "The Biblical equation of God..." until the end of the part) are a prejudice to the Bible and to St. Augustine. First of all the Bible does not provide any proof to support Pantheism. If there is something you or who wrote the article should provide the exact quotations (but there isn't something like that). I didn't read St. Augustine, but from my common sense I can be pretty sure that he did not write something like that. There is also no direct quotation to one of his works where this quote could be found. The reference leads to another site that I think it pretends that St. Augustine said that. Moreover it is supposed to contain his view against pantheism, but it says "nothing at all remains which is not a part of God", "these offenders(people) are parts of Himself"...i think this is pure pro-pantheism so label it like that, don't put it like is something against pantheism.

Please consider what I said. And once again sorry for the inconveniences i may have caused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Da eu (talk • contribs) 22:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

First, Da eu, let me congratulate you on your getting your Wikipedia User ID! You will notice that a robot called "Sinebot" had to add your signature to your discussion above. In the future, it would be better if, when you are done writing, you add four "tildes" at the end of your writing. They look like this: ~~~~. This will add your signature to your writing. The tilde symbol is usually found at the upper left on your keyboard next to the number one (1). Thank you for doing this in the future!

Next, the edits you made to the Pantheism article... It is good, it is okay to make edits like this, so I'm not saying you are right or wrong. All I am saying is that you should first talk about such edits on the article's Talk/Discussion page. You can get to that page by clicking the Discussion link at the top or top left of the article page. And before deleting any material like that, it is also good to place a {{Fact}} template or {{cn}} template immediately after the claim you do not believe is true. This gives other editors some time to verify the claim. If after a respectable amount of time has passed, and nobody has found a third-party reference source that verifies the claim, then, at that time the claim should be removed. If you decide to add writing to an article, then it is always better for you to cite a third-party reference source at the same time you add your writing.

And finally, it is good that there are people like you in the world who are interested in helping others find what is right and what is wrong. So welcome to Wikipedia, and may you have many years of happy editing here! ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 01:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

re: Excuses, excuses

I KNOOooowww. I finally reached my limit when the person tipped his hand and accidentally used the wrong account to change the signature on a talk page post and filed the sock case. I spent at least 4 hours the other night assembling evidence and had found solid evidence on 5 identities and the IP. I couldn't remember the other 2-3 I suspected, but thought we were on the right track. I was really shocked when I realized there were actually nine others in total. It's a relief to put it away for now, although from past experience, such a prolific sock master will be back. From this point on, hopefully, it will be more a matter of citing WP:DUCK. What a relief! Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A P-O-S like that sokpoopet, with an ego the size of a small planet, will be easy to spot in the future. Ya did good! ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 02:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Arhat/Tathagata

Thanks for your message. You're quite correct, I should have left an explanation. I have now left one on the article's discussion page. If it's not satisfactory do let me know. Regards.81.109.10.218 (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That is much better, Thank you, 81! For the future, you might as well know that someone might still come behind you and add the claim back in. The reason is because you still did not write an edit summary. In cases like this, if you don't want your edit reverted (undone), then write a brief edit summary. If it takes more than a few words to explain, then be sure to put "see talk page" in the edit summary.

Another tip: When you want to discuss a new topic on a Talk page, find the "New Section" link, usually upper left, and click on that. This way your words will be much easier to find. You'll notice above that your words were just added to an older discussion. I fixed it by starting this new section. Please don't concern yourself too much with all this. When I first began editing Wikipedia there was a lot to learn, and I still have a lot to learn myself. It is great that you have decided to help improve this encyclopedia. Thank you very much! ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 15:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Every time I go to the 'Arhat' article there is still the message box telling me that I have new messages even though I have already read them (from yourself). Do you by chance know why this message is continuing to pop up. Many thanks. 81.109.10.218 (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC) the unknown soldier

Yes, when you see the new message box, it means that you have new messages on your own Talk page. So to get your new messages, just click on your own "Discussion" link. You will find that link near the top or top-left of every page. It's usually called either "Discussion" page or "My talk" page. Your discussion page is User talk:81.109.10.218, so if you click on that link, it will take you to your Talk page. And that is where you will find your new messages. Hope this helps you! ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 06:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Image perceptual challenge

I downloaded, reversed, and uploaded an image to be used on the Benjamin Franklin page. I felt that the existing image at the top of the page should be oriented into the page for reader focus. This edit has since been reverted, and the existing image once again has ol' Ben's body facing away from the page. It's as if Ben has "turned his back" on the words of the article, as if he would not agree with them. The image I uploaded is now being considered for deletion on this project page, and a discussion is still ongoing here at the Wikipedia Help desk. ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 04:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

PS. I'm truly not so sure that reversing an image is the solution to the perceptual challenge. However I do feel that Wikipedia will be improved by resolving this conflict. ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`.

No confusion

Just so there isn't any confusion, this is my IP address that I sometimes (rarely) use to edit when I am too lazy to log in with my User ID. A quick check of the contributions will show that I never use this IP for anything but lazy editing. <g> 173.169.210.96 (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Note

Why, thank you! [3] Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome! ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 15:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

PS. And a note of congratulations!

Thanks, it's a relief for it to be over. Although I knew I did nothing wrong, still... Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

After reading all that fun stuff, it stimulated me to add notes to my User pages, both here on my Talk page and on my IP User page, which I infrequently use when I'm too lazy to log in. <g> ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 07:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Documenting comment

This is just to document that I recently made the following comment on Shaheenjim's Talk page in this section:

Comment I would like to say a word on behalf of Shaheenjim. There is no doubt that this editor has often been at odds with Wikipedia administrators. And there is no doubt that this editor has sometimes belittled those same administrators. So it is easy to see why some administrators are "at their wits end" as regards Shaheenjim. This editor, however, has oftened raised interesting thoughts and has participated in lively discussions with myself and others that have served to open the minds of others. Some of you may not like nor appreciate Shaheenjim's brand of youthful enthusiasm in editing this encyclopedia; however, from the perspective of an editor who is non-admin, this all appears to me to be a bit of overkill. Just a little question: If Shaheenjim were to show remorse for his negative statements about the general adminship, could this be a way that leads to unblocking this editor? ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 18:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I also put a steering comment on this page. ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 20:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanx

Thank you for your quick response on Newton. It looks like a very good source.J8079s (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome! ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 03:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Allies of WW2

Re: Allies of World War II Hi, any friend of Tom Paine is a friend of mine :-)

I'm not claiming ownership or anything, but the content of the intro to Allies of WW2 has been debated at length before on the talk page.

A consensus was reached that listing states other than major Allies in the intro is a bad idea: after all, the purpose of the article is to list the Allies and we simply can't have all of them in the intro, as increasingly minor players will continue to be added.

For instance, Harry Truman and others paid tribute to the contribution of my homeland (Australia), above and beyond its population, but I still don't think it should be mentioned in the intro.

By the way, France and Poland are only sometimes regarded as major Allies and "British Empire" was replaced by "British Commonwealth" before WW2. Regards, Grant | Talk 07:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Grant. I looked on the Talk page for a discussion about removing the Allies from the lead, but I didn't find any. Must have missed that. Could you point me to one? perhaps in an archive? I believe I would have contested this idea vehemently. In any other article about WW2, the Allies could be left out of the lead; however, in an article that's expressly about the Allies, they should be mentioned in the lead.

And I personally do not "sometimes" consider France and Poland as major and critical Allies of the war. If others do so, then they need to either have "been there", or they need to do more research! If "sometimes" is added, then I will add a ^{[according to whom?]} template. It seems a bit weasel wordly to me.

In regards to the British Empire vs. Commonwealth issue, I was wondering why both were mentioned. Mentioning both seems to make the lead confusing to readers. Also, there is no need to mention any nation of the Commonwealth separately in the lead, such as has been done with Canada. Has this been discussed, also? ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 15:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

conscientious attitude

Hallo Paine, Please let me offer you this, that I much admire your conscientious attitude and willingness to consider whether you might have let down another user (which I'm pretty sure you didn't do) -- matters arising from discussion elsewhere relating to a now-blocked user. I totally agree that 'wikilove' and attempts to rehabilitate are important. But I fear it's true, though sad, that sometimes they don't bring an appropriate response. Didn't I read you somewhere as saying something like this, that sockpuppeteers often have egos the size of a small planet? I'm beginning to see how that looks like a true and deep perception. Best wishes, Terry0051 (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind sentiments, Terry. My first real discussions were with Shaheenjim, and I found him to be mentally stimulating. While he often disagreed with me, there was never a time that he was lacking in civility toward me nor my arguments. Shaheenjim even took one idea and placed it in the Moon article. So perhaps you can understand why I feel a certain accountability for Shaheenjim's later editing attempts and discussions that lead to being blocked. I can truly understand why editors and admins are "fed up" with Shaheenjim. And I can only hope that I am forgiven by that editor for perhaps helping to cause the current block. And I am still a bit leery about the appearance of tyranny that such blocks generate. Another editor has told me that blocks are supposed to be "protective" and not "punitive". I'm not so sure that both don't apply in this case. To me, there seems to be a definite and serious possibility that the block of Shaheenjim has a punitive side that is thinly veiled by the protective nature of a block.

I realize that this is a serious charge. So I sincerely hope that if I'm wrong, offended editors and admins will come to forgive me. ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 21:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

PS. I liken Shaheenjim to Thomas Paine. Shaheenjim is more like him than any of the rest of us.

Buddhism

In response to your whom tag, may I suggest you go to Talk:Buddhism#Buddhism as religion (yet again) to find the exact wording of the sources. Peter jackson (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Age of Enlightenment

Dear Paine - I've been keeping a loose eye on the "Age of Enlightenment" template... as of earlier this year there were a *ton* of people on the list, which made it much less useful and was leading to a snowball effect ("Since all the Enlightenment figures from Hungary are on the template, I want to add all the Enlightenment figures from Romania...") You can see the discussion of this (mostly just me!) on the talk page. I tried to limit the list with three principles: that the person's "floruit" dates line up with the core Enlightenment dates, that the person be known mostly for intellectual contributions (so it doesn't become an endless list of mathematicians, politicians, and composers), and that the person be more important than some of the 12 French Enlightenment figures. SO, this is all to get around to saying that Vico and Averani are interesting figures, but there are dozens of other people who could just as easily be "Enlightenment figures". For example, I cut Swift (whom I love!), Locke, and others off the template because they are too early. I also cut off a number of central players in the Scottish and French Enlightenments because, well, you can't expand the template forever; Vico is less notable than those guys, and Averani is way less notable. Thus! I'll check back here for your thoughts but I intend to re-prune both of them. Hope all is well, [cc'ed to the template discussion] 134.174.140.216 (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the deletions. If I recall, I only added them because they were mentioned in their articles as part of the AoE. A suggestion might be to note prominently at the top of the talk page, or even on the main Template page if appropriate, for editors to check the Discussions before adding more names. Otherwise, over time, there will be future loading of the template, perhaps even edit wars. Prominent notice of the deletions with links to the discussions where the deletions were talked about might help to alleviate future editorial problems. ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 11:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Please consider creating an account for yourself, as you appear to have this encyclopedia's best interests at heart.

Navbars and . . .

(I added this section to the Template Talk page)

Now that the template has been purged, Cesare Beccaria once again looks quite alone in the Italian list. So I'm wondering about the possible inclusion of Bernardo Tanucci, who seems to be a notable figure of the Italian enlightenment. If no one objects to his inclusion, I shall add him in a few days.

Also, I'm wondering if thought has been given to the removal of this navbar from the articles that were deleted from it? If the navbars are not removed, this might confuse future readers and editors, and the navbar will start filling up again with the removed articles?

Another suggestion might be to note prominently at the top of this talk page, or even on the main Template page if appropriate, for editors to check the Discussions before adding more names. Otherwise, over time, there will be future loading of the template, perhaps even edit wars. Prominent notice of the deletions with links to the discussions where the deletions were talked about might help to alleviate future editorial problems. ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 04:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding See Also sections...

See WP:SEEALSO from the Manual of Style... "This section should generally not contain links that appear in the body text or in navigation boxes" In general, the "See Also" section is reserved for related topics that are not otherwise Wikilinked in the text. All of the ones I removed are clearly Wikilinked in the main text, in some cases several times. I will be presently removing them again unless you would care to work to have the manual of style changed so that this is not part of it. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 17:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for coming and discussing this, Jayron. Here's the thing: At some point in time a past editor thought it was important and appropriate to include those links in the See also section, perhaps so readers would not have to "hunt" for them. Since the words "generally" and "in general" are used in the MoS, it seems that WP:Preserve prevails and the links ought to remain in the See also section. So I would like to take this discussion to the Talk:Benjamin Franklin page to see if there is a consensus to remove the links. I will await your response to make sure you're in agreement to move the discussion.

— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 18:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

PS. I just checked and saw that you've already removed the links again, and you included a link to my Talk page. Since it is more appropriate to discuss this sort of thing on the article's Talk page, I shall go ahead and move this discussion to the BF Talk page to see how other editors feel about this struggle between WP:SEEALSO and WP:Preserve.

Text removal at Stonehenge

Not at all. It was my mistake not noticing the image was already included in a better place in the article. I moved the text to that section as well.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, noted. All is well.

— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 18:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)