User talk:Someone else/1

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

Actually, Mav, I've been keeping track and had agreed two paragraphs above where you asked <G> -- Someone else 02:16 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

OK - cool then. --mav

Congratulations, you are now a sysop! Please see Wikipedia:Administrators for our sysop guidelines before using your new and amazing powers. --Eloquence 03:02 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

Likewise, Ferguson certainly acted somewhat "insanely" and it is reasonable to conclude that his lawyers wanted to argue that he had been driven insane by his black rage.

There's no need to have the parenthetical phrase there: it's in the innovative defense article, and I find the phrase awkward. It's a VERY busy paragraph. Black rage was explicitly NOT an allegation of insanity, and did not allege provocation. But I ought not be arguing with a banned user. Please do not place me in that position. -- Someone else 00:59 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

Well spotted on Anna Anderson. I hept forgetting the name of that hospital. Arno 04:35 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Im not banned. I am just editing an article once edited by a banned user. You are correct, it is not necessary to restate test from innovative defense. Do you see how easy it is to state why you removed something and thus avoid an edit war? How is black rage explicitly NOT an allegation of insanity, if that is true, seeing as how a reader could easily conclude that Ferguson was insane, it should be clearly stated in the article that black rage is not insanity. 172.141.178.53

Ask Ron Kuby. He explicitly denied that the black rage defense was an insanity defence. Not every defence based on an internal mental state involves insanity. -- As to the banning: You're a user who was ask to leave, told to leave, announced you were leaving, and then left (in your best known forms). For a bit. You'd be less likely to be discovered if you edited different articles.-- Someone else 06:36 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

re: Prime Minister of the United States -- well, you and I agree, but maybe we just need to debate it on the talk page right now. I am frankly shocked that JTDIRL thought it was a "superb" article -- given his opposition to anyone defining "communist state" in a way contrary to political science usage, I thought he would make the same objection about "prime minister." At some point (not now) I do think there needs to be a discussion on either Metawiki or on the list-serve about the nature of an encyclopedia article. Even if the article were to stay, we need to have clear criteria about what a good article should look like (for example, the "might be" and "could be" stuff really pisses me off -- doesn't anyone else see the problem I see?).

Anyway, I am not going to put it on votes for deletion yet, but I will press my points on the talk page for a while; I want to see if a consensus emerges. Slrubenstein

I just undeleted and redirected Francis I of france - generally, our policy is not to delete pages that could be made into a valid redirect. Martin 21:11 16 May 2003 (UTC)

I'm well aware of our general policy. -- Someone else 21:13 16 May 2003 (UTC)
Fair enough. May I ask why you made an exception?
You can if you intend to make an issue of it. -- Someone else 23:48 16 May 2003 (UTC)
What if I'm just curious?
Then you could ask and I'd actually answer<G> -- Someone else 01:06 17 May 2003 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping for another expression of curiousity, but as it's lacking, I'll just assume your curiousity is unabated. I noted several vandalizations of "Francis I of France", consisting of the word PENIS inserted in inappropriate places, being reverted by two different people. The page "Francis I of france", consisting of the word "PENIS!" was then created by the same vandal. I mulled over the relative value of deleting an essentially worthless page, and therefore having one less page as the focus of said vandal, vs. the value of making that page a redirect, and having to "defend" two pages against that vandal. Since the odds of ever actually needing a "Francis I of france" page is vanishingly small, I opted to delete it. Your calculus, apparently, would have been different. As it worked out, the vandal went away after that and no further "defending" was needed. -- Someone else 18:48 17 May 2003 (UTC)

I was still curious - but I missed the change on my watchlist :) Thanks for the info, and sorry for assuming that you'd not read the page. Anyway, sounds like my undeletion was OK, which was all I really wanted to know. :) Martin


I didn't revert it, I just blanked it. I couldn't figure out how someone else managed to revert it at the same time without creating an edit conflict.

More importantly, the "little gentleman in black velvet" was a mole. According to the wiki article, moles are not rodents. Deb 22:50 17 May 2003 (UTC)

Hey, someone else, congrats for becoming a sysop. :-) May I ask you for a favor? Please delete the Hermann Göring redirect (which points to Hermann Goering) and move Hermann Goering to Hermann Göring. This should result in an effective swap of the two pages, with the move creating the reverse redirect. If you wonder why I am asking, I have been told to ask admins to do this since it is impossible to swap pages otherwise presently. Refer to my talk page for a record of a previous screwup on my part. Thanks. :-) Djmutex 18:30 17 May 2003 (UTC)

Gee, that was quick. :-) Thanks.

When i try to rollback, i get a message saying "Can't revert edit; last contributor is only author of this article." Is this because the article is new, and there is nothing to revert back to? Maybe rollbacks don't work for moving pages back to their previous name. Kingturtle 23:24 17 May 2003 (UTC)

I did a little copyediting on the Argyll and Fairbanks articles, but they looked pretty good as they were. Love the picture at the top of your User page, BTW. -- Zoe


Thanks. -- Zoe

Nice edit of the Folke Bernadotte article!
-- Ruhrjung 23:06 20 May 2003 (UTC)


Just letting you know that I have a current copy of the OED if you need a second-check on your older version. --Dante Alighieri 00:47 22 May 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, it was teenager. Already checked it out and posted to the Talk:Teenager page. --Dante Alighieri 00:57 22 May 2003 (UTC)

No, I just saw you had W1 when you used to have more. And I had too much, but not many ideas for offers. Koyaanis Qatsi

Not only do I not know Le Papillon well enough to say whether George Leybourne pilfered a bit of it, I've not even heard of it! As you say though, interesting if true - I'll see if I can dig out a recording of the Offenbach from somewhere and check it. --Camembert

Kewl<G>! Believe me, there was a better chance going in that you'd know it than there was that I would!!!! -- Someone else 19:06 22 May 2003 (UTC)

LOL, "PediaPedia"... I love it! -- John Owens 20:13 23 May 2003 (UTC)

No, that would be "PediaPodiaPedia". Or "PodiaPediaPedia"? -- John Owens 20:42 23 May 2003 (UTC)
Don't you mean young unwanted plants?... -- John Owens 20:52 23 May 2003 (UTC)
Hee, hee! -- Someone else 21:00 23 May 2003 (UTC)

OK, it's been plaguing me, and I just can't figure it out... what is the derivation of AcediaPedia?? -- John Owens 01:24 28 May 2003 (UTC)

That's been plaguing you?!?!? You must lead an exceedingly untroubled life<G>. Acedia is an archaic term for one of the Seven deadly sins...specifically, sloth. Thus the AcediaPedia will probably never be written, if only because of sheer laziness. -- Someone else 02:01 28 May 2003 (UTC)
Ah, I knew I didn't find it in my Latin dictionary, in that case I'd guess it's of Greek origin, probably. Thanks for the answer. I think I'll go archive some talk now. ;) -- John Owens 02:03 28 May 2003 (UTC)
Good, I'd hate to be accused of being subtle. (P.S. I hope you won't mind if I steal some of your bright ideas from MostWanted. I'm SQL-clueless!) -- Someone else 02:06 28 May 2003 (UTC)
Be my guest. It's nice if you share, of course. ;) (I just wish it could take real netmasks for arguments.) -- John Owens 02:13 28 May 2003 (UTC)
OK, now you're just showing off. I don't know nothin' 'bout no netmasks, Miss Scarlet. But I did like your "click here to find the moving vandal" query. -- Someone else 02:16 28 May 2003 (UTC)
Thanks, I'd been wondering what to replace the words "test query" with once the worst of the kinks were worked out. -- John Owens 02:31 28 May 2003 (UTC)

Oh - the English etymology of kur/küren!
Didn't even think of that. ;-/
(Well - that isn't anything I know anything about, either!)
Nice that someone else has the brain switched on!
-- Ruhrjung 09:27 24 May 2003 (UTC)


Re: jerseys: I might change those northerns and southerns back when I have developed an article for each. The terms are used frequently, (South, I suspect, more than North - there was a minor move for South Jersey 'secession' in the 1970s), and I think this cultural identity phenomenon needs to be described. For those it will be harder to keep a npov, though, so stay tuned for your role as objectifier!  :-) ArloBee 14:06 24 May 2003 (UTC)

You wrote: "South Jersey... isn't that anything below Newark?<G>. ..."...

Now that's one I haven't heard yet. My external site has a page devoted to this particular question. I didn't take the northern extreme as far as Newark, but I did take the southern that way, because on the western of the two bridges that go over the Cape May Canal there is a sign in the dead center of the southbound side which shows a dividing line: the word "Jersey" in the middle, the word "South on the left side and the word "North" on the right. Very cute. That makes South Jersey about 12 square miles. ArloBee 00:21 25 May 2003 (UTC)

Well, there are many ways of service!!!  :-) THANKS!!!! ArloBee 02:34 27 May 2003 (UTC)

HA! I just finished putting stuff on the carteret talk page about whether someone could connect George to the scads of other Carteret's in the wiki. Then I saw your note. No - I don't know his parents, but someone (perhaps the 157th lord earl of snark) will notice and make a connection. ArloBee 02:53 27 May 2003 (UTC)

While I am not an adherent of Pataphysics, I have yet to see any reputable source claim that it is merely a "joke". Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 15:25 27 May 2003 (UTC) Alfred Jarry may have used parody in illustrating the deficiencies of the scientism his pataphysics would supplant, but that in no way invalidates pataphysics or even affixes parody on pataphysics. The parody is squarely of scientism; not the pataphysical interpretation of reality itself. Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 15:38 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I HATE YOUR NICKNAME!!! (*grin*). Every time I am on wiki I cannot say 'someone else should do . . .' or 'someone else said . . . ' without thinking that I better change it in case they think I mean you, not . . . well . . . someone else! I've just been writing a newspaper article and suddenly noticed I was avoiding the words "someone else". It took me a minute to work out why, 'it is because of that guy's name on wiki!' So you nickname is now impacting on a religion column in an Irish national newspaper!!! AAAAGH! :-) lol FearÉIREANN 04:14 28 May 2003 (UTC)

You have not experienced Shakespeare, until you've read it in the original Klingon. --Dante Alighieri 21:33 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Some people, oddly enough just before WWII, seriously maintained that Shakespeare was in fact a German author falsely appropriated by the English. Nothing is so odd that there is no one who will maintain it<G>! -- Someone else 21:38 30 May 2003 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm familiar with that one. Propaganda has always fascinated me. Sometimes I think I would have made a good evil overlord... or at least a Mediævel pope. --Dante Alighieri 01:26 31 May 2003 (UTC)
P.S. Remember Exodus 22:18? Good times... ;)


Re: Miss Kitty Fantastico as a tribute to Miss Kitty from Gunsmoke - Has this been indicated in the show or elsewhere? I don't think there's any relation (they've never implied that Willow or Tara were fans of Gunsmoke). -- Wapcaplet 02:07 31 May 2003 (UTC)

G'day, someone else, I have another candidate that wants to get moved, but not by me: Tuebingen -> Tübingen. Target page is not empty, so I can't do it. Thanks! djmutex 12:23 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! djmutex 21:08 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the Royal Marriages Act of 1772 - I realised, after saving it that I'd missed out the rather important clause for the over 25s. Zannah 21:02 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I've never seen Harvey the character. Not due to trying, though. I also have never heard the song "Don't Worry, Be Happy", although over the last ten years it required serious effort on my part. ;-) -- llywrch 04:56 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've worked up a bit more on the Shakespeare authorship page, but... it's such a tough page, because reading to do research on it just convinces me further of how absolutely ridiculous the Oxfordian and other revisionist views are, to such an extent that I feel like the whole mess is a waste of time. The Shakespeare authorship site linked on the page is just utterly devastating. These kind of topics are just really hard to do right. This one, in particular, seems guaranteed either to give unfair leverage to Oxfordians (as I fear that, despite our best efforts, it still does) or to go too far in insulting them, and lead to edit wars with passing Oxfordians. In any event, I think there's still a lot of stuff that could be said against the anti-Stratfordians, but I fear it would incline towards polemic. john 00:07 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose the article's not so bad as it is. I seem to be all over the articles on wacko topics of late. I just wrote a page on Anna Anderson last night, in which I strove to maintain that precious balance. It was easier for that, I think, because Anna Anderson, whoever she was, was an interesting person whose life is worth discussing in some detail, even though she wasn't Anastasia, while the anti-Shakespeare theories are just ridiculous speculation. john 01:10 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

And there's some question as to whether she was self-deluded or actively deceptive, which is a nice contrast. The capacity of people to believe the...unusual...is a most amazing thing. -- Someone else 01:15 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ah, W.E.N. DuBois, that fine poet. I figured that was a typo, but since I wasn't sure that W.E.B. DuBois wrote poetry, I decided not to change it. john 05:40 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks (smith03)

Fine by me. I doubt it will have much effect though. -- Tim Starling 05:14 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Heh, actually, I didn't so much copy that boilerplate stuff over to experiment with it as to have one with the ones I use most right up at the top, so I don't have to go down two or three pages to get to the copyright boilerplate, for instance.

So of course, your additions are going right to the top.... ;) -- John Owens 19:49 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Oh yes, Jerry Falwell--calm, rational, centrist.... LOL. Koyaanis Qatsi

And loyal. Don't forget loyal. -- John Owens 21:57 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)
And his imperturbable absolute certainty about whom America should blame for terrorist acts (and hurricanes) - the ACLU, witches, feminists, and ho-mo-sexuals. -- Someone else 22:02 5 Jun 2003 (UTC) (at least I think that's the list)
A model citizen. Koyaanis Qatsi

Thanks for letting me know about Florentin Smarandache. I finally found time to do some research on him and NPOV'ed his page a bit. I'll get to the neutrosophy pages later. AxelBoldt 22:52 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hello... Your filmography of Amy Stiller seems to contain some films that the IMDb doesn't know she was in. Do you have access to sources of greater completeness? I'm particularly flummoxed by Amy Stiller's Breast... I'd accuse you of making it up, but I've just done a Google search, and it gets about 24 matches, most of which do seem to be talking about cinema rather than anatomy. Strange... -- Oliver P. 02:08 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Oh, I see... Thanks for explaining that! Yes, I missed it on the IMDb page... probably because it was nearly 03:00 in the morning, and I was effectively asleep at the time... -- Oliver P. 02:24 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think it belongs, but I'm not a big Doors fan either (though I've had almost all of their albums at one point or another). See talk:Jim Morrison and talk:The Doors for how the conversation has been going. user:Xio seems reasonable, at least, and willing to discuss changes to the articles. Koyaanis Qatsi 18:05 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Differs in D.A. Pennebaker, at least. I'd say his left hand is missing 3 1/2 bones, probably as a result of an industrial accident.  ;-) Koyaanis Qatsi 08:51 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

well, yes, there's that of course, and it's an unassailable argument, but I was thinking more of inborn differences. Still if I stay vewy kwiet, they'll just accept it and move on and we won't need any tiresome talk about whether a sesimoid bone is a bone...... <G> --Someone else 08:54 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Don't mind me, I was just being a wag.  :-) It's a tendency of mine. Koyaanis Qatsi 08:57 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I could hardly mind, you make me think of your "finger-framing user-page picture" and it makes me smile. (Please don't disabuse me of the notion that it's a self-portrait!). And I'm occasionally waggish myself thought thinking about it I wouldn't expect Wikipedia folk to be able to guess that from my behaviour here :( -- Someone else 09:00 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi, actually I've only seen the film once--in a theater, with Philip Glass and his crew on stage, playing the soundtrack live. It was part of a series they had, starting with Koyaanisqatsi and including Powaqqatsi, Dracula, and various short films. The first was probably best, though Beauty and the Beast was good, and I remember being impressed by--of all things--the makeup effects. Koyaanis Qatsi 09:48 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Mkrose

lol! Ok, thanks again! *grin*

Hey! What's up. You just created a redirect to a page that does not exist; Ed Koch? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 10:24 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I walked away for a few minutes. I guess we can try it and see how it goes :) (we can always reprotect it...) -- Notheruser 19:36 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I believe the show will be rerun quite a few times :(. -- Notheruser 19:45 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi, SE - a question. Why did you change the dating in the Terence Cardinal Cooke article? I thought we were supposed to leave them as added in by users. It would be ideal if US articles and US dating, and non US articles non US dating. But that hasn't been happening, with US dating being left untouched in non-US articles if used by original authors. So as far as I understood, which ever dating system used should be left untouched, just as whichever spelling system etc. Just curious. :-) FearÉIREANN 21:05 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

N.P. :-) BTW some of the articles you worked on have a '?' where you intended an '. Might be worth checking back on them. FearÉIREANN 21:32 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I went into O'Connor (ironic use of language that, given his homophobia!) and got caught in an edit conflict. I cancelled to leave and found someone had been in making changes, changing ?s to 's so it must not have been my browser, as another person had also had the problem and gone in to change them. FearÉIREANN 22:32 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think you pressed the 'e' key once too many ;-). -- Notheruser 23:57 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I deleted Impeccability b/c it was a dictionary definition (plus some non-sense) and it didn't belong here. MB 22:10 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It appears that the source of the Einstein Buddhism quotation was a speech, which doesn't seem to have been published in an academic journal. That's probably why it's not cited. "On May 19th, 1939, Albert Einstein, the great scientist of the atomic age, delivered a remarkable speech on "Science and Religion" in Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A." (Buddhism Today) -- prat

Thank you. I kept glaring at that sentence but my mind fuzzed at a way of making it sane. The linked page should probably be moved to something similar to that name--"Releases of books prior to release date" or something. But you just made my day brighter. :) Phil Bordelon 03:52 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You're welcome<G>. Though I really just hid the problem, I'll let you think of a GOOD ultimate title for the page! -- Someone else 03:56 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hiya,

You just gave me a moment of puzzlement there. I went in to Prince John of the UK and found that message from the girl, so I cut and pasted it to our royal expert John's page - maybe he might send her an email at some stage, as it sounds like some little kid, not a vandal that put the info on. Then I emailed it to a friend in Buckingham Palace to see if he might reply. (The girl might be chuffed at receiving an email from the Queen's private office. Or freaked out, wondering 'how do they know about my message?') Anyway, I went to edit look at the edit history of the article, and could only find mention of our article - well spotted about Ireland BTW. And for a moment I found myself staring at he screen thinking . . . "what the . . . ?" The it finally dawned on me. We both had the screen open together and you had changed it while I had been emailing John and BP you had been editing. So now I know, it is 5.58am, I am tired and I can't think straight. I am going to bed. :-) FearÉIREANN 04:58 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I won't chide you for having a 47K talk page<G>, since you're having slowness problems with Wiki, and archiving is probably not a priority, but I will answer here-- with my antique 32K-max-browser. I'm sure that a BP response would be very appreciated...I just stuck in what I had on file... I tend to keep pages open so I don't do 50 minor changes a minute, but then there's that edit-conflict thing. Meanwhile, I'm drooling over the new Mac G5 models and conspiring to get one when it's available<G>

I'm afraid you'll have to blame slow wiki for my 47K talk page (is that how big it is now?) It is sooooo slow that the only browser I can get to enter it with timing out or committing suicide in boredom is the godawful, hateful, piss-artisty Internet Explorer, the one that castrates any page longer than 32K. So forget about you not being able to access my page, I cannot friggin' do it either and won't be able to do so until wiki speeds up to faster than a speeding dinosaur speed! :-( FearÉIREANN 06:49 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)


I'm thinking that the Wiki-techno-elves are straightening it all out in their hollow tree, and they'll hopefully be quick little gnomes<G>! --Someone else 07:06 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Bad time to ask that, my computer ought to be disconnected at some semi-random time soon, as I'm just about to start moving into a new place. I've been keeping a bit of an eye on Martin Luther though, in a disinterested kind of way. I agree the way the list of quotes was chopped up was rather unsightly, but didn't go into the detail stuff above that point. I'll check on it when I'm reconnected at the new place. -- John Owens 23:50 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. All of the options on the Preferences page have me confused.  :) RickK 01:33 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the negationism paragraph on Queen Elizabeth II. When I first read that article there was a very deceitful paragraph that claimed that the Queen was a slavery fan. I put the paragraph in much more context but didn't dare remove "the critics say..." line as I found that it had been put there by a user that has interesting non-mainstream opinions that I have had small battles with in the past. I didn't want another battle so left the line in for the time being. Thank you for improving the article by being brave enough to remove it! Pete 07:59 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Just in case you're interested, I seem to have somehow turned Jordan (model) into a catalogue of medical disorders, which I've probably described wrongly, so you might want to check it... -- Oliver P. 02:37 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I hasten to add that I am not a fan of the woman; I have almost complete ignorance of her, too. You're probably better off that way. :) I only edited her article because I saw that we didn't have much about the people in the "100 Worst Britons" list, so I started going through that, and adding stuff I found in news articles... Hmm. Now it looks like I'm protesting too much, doesn't it? ;) -- Oliver P. 01:44 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Well, maybe a --bit-- too much protestation. I was hoping to see a nice page-3 photo of her added to her article<G> -- just for documentation of her claims to fame, of course... very clinical... -- Someone else 01:56 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It's quite something, isn't it? RCA released her recordings on CD, you know - you can probably get it from... well, maybe not Amazon, but somewhere online, I'm sure. Every home should have one... --Camembert

It does indeed - good luck tracking it down! --Camembert

Concerning Washington and Franklin, the material is NOT reasonable. It's out-of-place, not noteworthy enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article, stigmatizing and written by somebody with an axe to grind. So if you're looking for an edit war, I'm game.

Dear 217.127.141.173: The material you deleted without comment is not self-evidently unreasonable. It would certainly not be asking too much of you to explain why you deleted it in the comment section of your edits. No, I am not looking for "an edit war". I believe they are generally unproductive, and I would prefer you discuss your changes. -- Someone else 03:10 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Well I've mentioned my reasons now, haven't I? Am I to understand you won't mind me removing the parts if I just put those reasons in the summary line?
That would be where they belong. There or on the articles' talk pages, preferably with the deleted material repeated there along with a rationale for your deletion. -- Someone else 03:23 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Shoot, I was hoping the MoS sects were stable. Guess it's time to invest in a new edition! Stan 02:13 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

With regards to the Seven Pillars tooling (from the village pump): do you know which letter to Kennington this was? I can't find it in my "Letters of T. E. Lawrence of Arabia".

It's incorrect to say that Pole was the last Ab of Cant recognized by Rome. Many recent Abps of Cant have met with the Pope and been called the "Archbishop of Cantebury". Michael Ramsey, famously, and all since him, at the very least. So I'm reverting your change. The true story is much more complex, and isn't a matter of just one sentence as you put it. Feel free, of course, to add to the page a more complete description of the story, which would be an improvement! --Tb 18:12 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hello

btw, I answered to your comment on the catholicism talk page. I think I understand now one of your point. Putting the two contents at the same time is something I did on the fr wiki, as it totally avoid taking sides. The page being over 32 kb is normally a non issue, since the protected page is supposed to be non editable (that is that nobody has the right to edit it, until we consider the issue is over). When the agreement is reached, the page is unprotected, and only then can the editors (be they sysops or non sysops) edit it. For some reasons I cannot explain, the catholicism page was unprotected after I put the edit war header. And Rmherm edited it then. Or, he edited the page while it was protected. I don't know. But I understood the rules were "no edition by anybody" while a page is protected. It seems the rule is perhaps not so true then. So, if people have the right to edit it even when protected, then I agree a page should always be under 32 kb. I think that the guidelines should make that clearer. User:anthere


I would not either edit this article. I have enough with the topics I am engrossed with :-))) Curiously, there was a big edit war on the french wiki about 2/3 weeks ago, on the "sect" article. A sect does not hold the same meaning in french than in english. This is...sort of derogatory. One of the issue of the war was the establishment of a list of sects. We had several factions, a pro-sect (a raelien), two anti-sects, a set of people trying to accomodate the content, and another set of people trying to accomodate the people themselves. The highest contention point was no less than to include or not to include the catholic church in the list. For most french people (majority of catholics), calling the catholic church a sect is ... *very* contencious. Curiously, though we extensively talked about very free sexual practices in some sectsch (among which the raelien), no one talked about pedophily issues. Ah, would it be so simple :-)

I understand quite well the 32 kb issue. I had pb for 1 year and a half on so many pages I could not edit. I usually left comments on user pages (to Erik dispair). I very recently updated my browser, and have no more the pb. Your talk page is over 30 btw.

As for Neuilly, the only one worth talking about really is Neuilly sur Seine, which we usually call simply Neuilly. I'll look whether we have something on it.

My dictionnary is not saying what is the exact translation for the Stargazer lily. So, I am not sure. Let me offer you the best pictures I took from a lily (it was about a month ago). Përhaps is it the right type of lily ?

and
Wikipedia:WikiLove flowers (Lys) for User:Someone else


I am extremely pleased then :-) Thank you for the wish. Ditto :-) User:anthere

I'm glad it made you laugh. But will PP? (I've just remembered, a friend of mine's son when small used to call his penis 'pp'. He once got out of bed and went into his parents' dining room where they were hosting a dinner party, dropped his pants and announced to the assembled multitude, "look at my pp." His mother dropped the cooked lamb on the carpet in shock. :-) FearÉIREANN 04:56 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

So Liza, oops, sorry Lie-za (as she insists everyone call her) Minelli is separating again. Is it that time of the week again? If it is Saturday then Liza is separating from another husband! So no more David (I've got so much plastic on my face you can call me Barbi!) Gest. They were the most unlikely couple since Charles and Diana, except in this couple's case it wasn't a case of who wore the trousers but who wore the more make-up!!! And the irony was they were on Ruby Wax's TV show where she accompanied them everywhere only two days ago. Granted, compared to those two prima donnas Ruby looked like a make-up-less Mother Theresa.

But he tried, poor lamb. Boy did he try to pretend to be straight. French-kissed Lieza so hard at their wedding he could taste her metal-plated hip. But its a bit pathetic when you have to brag about the fact that when they first dated they shagged senselessly for five days. Puh-lease! What was Doris David trying to prove? That he was a real man, or wanted a real man? And as for all the botox? Why? Did he think no-one would notice that his face is stiffer than Quasay Hussein? And then on Ruby Wax's programme, they showed "darling David" but a £200,000 necklace. And the deer-in-front-of-the-headlights-faced Lieza got all weepy and emotional - sorta forgetting it was her money he was spending! Of the big question now that they have broken up is, just who gets custody of the make-up box?

Oh. I guess I am being rather bitchy. Well I am high . . . (on legal tablets. I've torn ligaments in my ankle thanks to an accident, tripping due to a hole in the street. Oh boy am I going to sue the bejaysus out of Dublin City Council, the incompetent . . . ) But then any woman who stars in Cabaret and then marries a living plastic manakin deserves to be bitched about. lol FearÉIREANN 06:36 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Someone_else/1&oldid=573645151"