User talk:CaveatLector/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on my main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

This archive page covers discussion between December 2005 and December 2006.

I noticed your edit to the De profundis page; excellent. Good to see you here. Drop me a line if you need help with anything. Antandrus (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction to Amor Vincit. Latin non habaemus I'm afraid. :). PiCo 09:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We have the list before then you come her and all the aders love it the list. Mycket vändligt hälsningar Swedenman (It swedish for very much mesages.) Swedenman 20:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This list has been deleted several times by many different people. It doesn't really matter if "All the adders" love it, it doesn't belong in this article, it is extremly POV and unverifiable. CaveatLector 20:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the most like it the list. Swedenman 12:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you don't find the idea of Jonathan Phelps been beaten up by a transexual even slightly funny?

Man you really are an Eagle. 132.241.245.49 08:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, I find the thought of any of the Phelps clan being taken to school by those they preach hate against as being incredibly funny. However, I don't think it belongs in the article. CaveatLector 10:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a friendly reminder that the words "they" and "their" are plural, not singular. You can not use those words to refer to a single person, nor can you use them with a singular pronoun such as "someone". Please keep this in mind in the future. Thank you. 4.89.240.235 16:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [[1]] for comments and references from a well-known and respected linguist on this issue. 'They' has been a form of gender neutral pronoun for a long time now. CaveatLector 20:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are so intrested in providing all of the information possible on Oscar Wilde, then why are you so opposed to allowing me to PROVIDE the INFORMATION on Uncyclopedia?

I know where you are coming from:

• Oscar Wilde had nothing to do with Uncyclopedia
• Uncyclopedia was made way later
• Uncyclopedia is a parody
• The references to Wilde are all fictional

But, why don't we come up with a title for a section where we could include the information on the misinformation that is provided by uncyclopedia on Wilde? It will help the page! Tingle

I don't believe that it will. If you wish to edit the Uncyclopedia page, do so; but that website has little relevance to Oscar Wilde and is not nerely popular enough to warrant a mention in an encylcopedia article about him. CaveatLector^Talk 03:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand from your userboxes you're interested in Ancient Greek. I've submitted a proposal to add an Ancient Greek Wikisource on Meta, and I'd be very grateful if you could assist me by either voting in Support of the proposal, or even adding your name as one of the contributors in the template. (NB: I'm posting this to a lot of people, so please reply to my talkpage or to Meta) --Nema Fakei 20:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I see you have tagged yourelf with a {{la-4}} template. Would you like to help us by translating into latin any of the official polices or help pages of Wikipedia? —Argentino (talk/cont.) 20:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I graduated last year from Temple BA Classics and it is good to see a fellow classicist. I am trying to rework sections on rhetoric giving Latin examples and would appreciate a critical critique of my translations. Suggestions in the name of accuracy are always welcome. I just got done with chiasmus and will be going to zeugma next. Let me know!

--Ben Trent 21:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the University of Pennsylvania, the College of Arts and Sciences offers the A.B. [2] (Bachelor of Arts) degree. Although you can use the B.A. abbreviation, it is not entirely correct. The only Ivy League university that offers the B.A. degree would be Yale University.

Penn has always used the B.A. abbrieviation in its communications wtih me and my classmates. Thank you for the nit pick, however. CaveatLector^Talk 06:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the source. I don't know what your future plans are for the article, but it has been my experience that simply adding a reference to the end of the article does little to curb argument. Much better is to use the <ref></ref> tags to tack a reference onto a specific claim. -Smahoney 13:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just broke this category out of Category:Pederasty this morning, having come to the conclusion that there are more than enough articles to populate a specific category just for the Greeks (probably close to one hundred by the time we are done), making work a lot easier for anyone interested in studying just this topic. It also relieves the load on the LGBT cat which was becoming top-heavy with pederasty articles. Finally, Category:Pederasty is so full that it is hard to navigate and find what you need. It has been progressively subdivided ever since its creation about a year and a half ago, and I expect that it will continue to generate offshoots for some time to come. Haiduc 17:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem in breaking out the homosexuality article and placing it in the LGBT history category. I think that it would be even more valuable to keep both categories, but that may be against the category hierarchy rule, so you option is fine. Regards, Haiduc 04:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disproven!?!? Noone offered to disprove them. Do you know why? Because they can't be disproven. They are the primary sources. Why can't you accept that the Ancient Greeks did not accept homosexuality? Does it bother you that much?Cretanpride 01:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not the primary sources. It's your sophmoric interpretation of them that's wrong. Period. You've lost. Get over it. CaveatLector^Talk 01:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you have lost. All of you. All of you have debated against me and lost. I just posted the proof. End of story. It is common sense that homosexuality will always be a minority. Oh, and by the way, I gave sources from qualified scholars. You cannot just revert my edits now.Cretanpride 01:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I initiated this request for investigation a couple of days ago, but no action has yet been taken. I think you're allowed to add your own comment if you wish. In addition to being a jerk, our sockpuppeteer is violating a clear consensus of editors in his edits, so admin action is definitely warranted. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you're following the requests for checkuser page, so I wanted to let you know that CheckUser has confirmed that User:Ellinas is a sockpuppet of User:Cretanpride. If another "friend" of Cretanpride shows up we'll be more than justified in treating him as a sockpuppet. Honestly, I cannot understand why this troll hasn't been banned. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, CaveatLector. Let me start by saying that by and large you've been doing a valiant job facing up to Cretanpride's onslaught. I know that he's been pushing hard for his POV for a long time, and I don't blame you for having lost patience.

Unfortunately, it seems we're stuck with him for a bit longer. And even though everything you said on the talk page is true, there's no need to antagonize him further. WP:CIVIL doesn't just apply to amiable users who follow Wikipedia's rules and procedures; it applies even to vandals and trolls. This doesn't mean that you have to let him go unchallenged; just challenge him in a civil manner. Remember the Irish definition of diplomacy: "the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that he looks forward to the trip". That should be our goal in dealing with Cretanpride. If we try to match his biased rants with biased rants of our own, we sink to his level.

Your edits have shown that you're smarter than that. And while I completely understand why you've lost your patience, I've got to ask you to keep cool. Frankly, the more we keep our cool while dealing with Cretanpride, the worse he looks in comparison. If both sides are yelling at each other, it doesn't reflect well on either.

Of course, you know this; you wouldn't have been able to construct that lovely exposition of the Laws otherwise. This is just a friendly reminder. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Josiah, for your gracious compliments. As I said on the article's talkpage, I will refrain from getting into such contests with this user again. For the benefit of those reading my talk page in the future, this is in reference to Homosexuality in ancient Greece and it's talk page. CaveatLector^Talk 04:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been following all this ALL that closely, but I did notice that an anon (I think) changed all the Greeks from category "Pederast" to category "Greek pederasty." I am truly uncertain whether one is better than the other, or whether it matters all that much. To be really precise they should be in both categories, but the whole thing becomes tedious if it is done in a heavy-handed way. Anyway, if you notice any mischief please be sure to let me know, the system works very well and I am sure that we can keep politics out of the articles if we pay attention. Cheeres, Haiduc 23:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well; turns out that he was operating another sockpuppet while I was arguing for humane treatment. I've blocked him for a month now; so much for rehabilitation. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up about Apro; I'll put the checkuser request in, but we probably won't get a result till after the Labor Day weekend. I'll be gone over the weekend too, so you may have to do some heavy reverting. Sorry! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from the Stanford Law Review. I wondered what it was about that it would be discussing this topic and if it was available on-line Thanks CyntWorkStuff 21:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you were right. The system immediately started fussing at me about "Unauthorized use of HeinOnline". But thank you for trying anyway, (& your defense of Bisexual erasure). CyntWorkStuff 22:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your points on this AfD, which I have found well-articulated and helpful. best, bikeable (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't Chris Kattan in the homosexual category? Many people that he worked with on Saturday Night Live have said that he is gay, but he has never said he was gay. Why is there is a different standard for Chris Kattan than Mychal Judge? 75.3.23.157 21:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have already been given that indicate that Father Mychal F. Judge was, indeed, a celibate homosexual and supported gay rights. Your assertion that he is somehow being 'attacked' by the LGBT community by saying he is gay reveals your bad faith. Please stop pushing your homophobic POV in this article before admins have to get involved. That's always a pain for all parties. CaveatLector^Talk 21:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No source has said he was an activist. Do you know what an activist is? There is no information about him that says he revealed gay rights, he never said he did ever publicly. He was a priest, which would mean he opposed gay marriage and other things along those lines. How was he a gay activist if he opposed gay marriage?

I understand though to you an activist doesn't come out publicly and announce it, you guys just hide under your white hoods. 75.3.23.157 21:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User has been reported to WP:PAIN for personal attacks, and risks breaking WP:3RR on several articles. Anon, please do not attack me personally on this page (I'm too downright shocked by your insinuation that I am somehow a KKK member because I'm an LGBT activist...). Perhaps you should look at the article for DignityUSA, as well as their website. I will personally consider any more attacks made on me here as vandalism and will delete them accordingly. CaveatLector^Talk 21:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gay marriage is not a position on Dignity's website. Are you a gay activist that opposes gay marriage? 75.3.23.157 21:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.dignityusa.org/archives/2003marriage.html The position page on marriage from DignityUSA's website, which clearly says that they support the rights of LGBT people to have civil marriage. CaveatLector^Talk 22:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So are you opposed to Dignity since they support gay marriage and you are a gay activist that opposes gay marriage? 75.3.23.157 22:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...please stop vandalising my page. I will consider any such nonsense edits as continued vandalism. CaveatLector^Talk 22:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't exactly being civil by claiming my edit was vandalism, when it was cleary not. Yonmei is using original research to promote his agenda, and original research is against wikipedia's policy. He has not any sources that make the claim that Mychal Judge was a LGBT rights activist, he only makes the connections himself. Both you and Yonmei are trying hard it seems to be unreasonable and ignore wikipedia's policies on content. 75.3.23.157 00:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those curious can just look at the User's history (including such harassment of other wikipedians), I think it speaks for itself. CaveatLector^Talk 05:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped 75 a note on his talk page, and will try to keep an eye on the situation. I've also commented at Talk:Mychal F. Judge, which seems to be where this all started; I think that a little expansion of Fr. Mychal's pre-9/11 life and work might remove the supposed justification for removal of the category. If 75 can remain civil, perhaps mediation might help; but if he continues to be confrontational and abusive, I won't hesitate to block him. I let him know that the ball's in his court. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've turned off your email contact. I'd like to discuss the Cretanpride situation with you off-wiki; please email me through my user page. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supplying the Snodgrass reference, that was an enjoyable read. A sample chapter from Wilkens' book is available at [3], if you want to see what the argument's about. It's not exactly the most scholarly thing I've ever seen. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(From Odyssey/talk): I can, however, pick up the book from my library at my next convienence and page through it. CaveatLectorTalk 19:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, why not. Make sure you get the 2005 edition. Wilkens did his homework. (For instance the mentioning of thousands bronze items, mainly weaponry, excavated in the Fenland region (see East Cambridgeshire and Where Troy Once Stood). How's that for proof, compared to two-and-a-half spear-heads in Hissarlik?) Snodgrass's argument is not fair. This remark about the weather is not Wilkens "piece de resistance" to prove the theory. He has lots of arguments. He never claimed this to be "the evidence". This is cheap and too easy for Snodgrass. Well respected as he may be. Antiphus 23:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Antiphus 07:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you manage to get a copy? Antiphus 07:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, unfortunately, did not find the time. However, it seems the despute was resolved. I'm afraid I might have to list Wilkens' book on AFD CaveatLector^Talk 18:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my revert of your edit. I guess I never scroll down far enough to make sure that article isn't just been vandalised again. Won't happen again. — Mütze 10:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the fact that Haku has some sort of deep feelings for Zabuza is shown. That's not original. The fact the we are twisting those to what we want them to be is original. We don't know if that Haku showing his love, just him unconsciously protecting his only purpose in life, or showing his messed up reactions for a father figure. See, I easily came up with two other reasons. What are the based off of? Original research. There are probably many more possible reasons for his actions. Until Kishimoto or an other official source says it, we shouldn't try to speculate. Nemu 13:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you should have said he was going in the category for cross-dressing in the first place rather than being gay as I was thinking. Even then, is wearing a kimono really dressing like a girl? I believe it's not specific to either gender. Second, we're drawing conclusions from evidence that we may just be looking way to far into. Those kind of conclusions don't belong on the site. Nemu 15:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just an example as to why OR is bad: We may as well add a sexuality section to Orochimaru about how he's a pedofile. It has the same kind of proof that Haku has. You may think that I'm looking too far into it(if you don't agree with it). I say the same about the section in Haku. Nemu 18:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about the previous category disscusion, I didn't bother because the first thing I saw was some guy that kept going on about Haku being a girl, so I assumed that it was the base of the disscussion. That along with the fact that you didn't correct me at all, lead me to believe that you put him there as a gay person. And why exactly do we believe he was cross-dressing anyways? Just the kimono? I don't recall any lipstick or female specific footwear. Just because he's extremely effeminate, it doesn't mean he was exactly cross dressing. I mean, the kimono obviously doesn't help show he's a guy, but it's not something only a girl would wear.

And by mentioning their relationship, we're leading people to believe there's something that may or may not actually exist. Unless something is actually published, any form of OR should be removed. Nemu 23:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caveat, could you turn on your Wiki email, or drop me a line through mine? There's a matter I'd like to discuss privately. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I might be even more irritated than you are, and I don't think I'm going to help anyone calm down. I see what's going on, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had the idea to ask Mackensen to look into the situation, since he had familiarity with Cretanpride's previous IPs. He confirmed that Takidis is Cretanpride, and blocked him, χαρις τω θεω. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, CaveatLector. Since you were a recipient of Cretanpride's lovely little email back in September, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new proposed policy under discussion at Wikipedia:Death threats. I've put in my two quadrantes, but I thought you'd like to know as well. Hope everything is going well with you. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Caveat. I have a minor suggestion to your user page which I think (hope?) you will appreciate.

In the clause,

If you in any way refer to being 'pro homosexual' or 'pro homosexuality' as a POV

I believe it becomes much less ambiguous if you were to bring the "being" inside the single quotes, especially in the second case. E.g,

If you in any way refer to 'being pro homosexual' or 'being pro homosexuality' as a POV

'pro homosexual(ity)' starts with 'pro'; by definition is a POV which can be held, or not, by whomever. But 'being pro [anything]' is an assertion which would be verifiable if true and falsifiable if false; thus a statement of purported fact (indeed, about someone's POV). (More info on the distinction, if you care for it.)

Now normally I do not care to point out such small things. But given the contentious context you might have to bring your statement to bear to, unambiguity is your friend; indeed everyone's friend. And if you note the subtleties on that page, you may come to appreciate that without full absence of ambiguity, one may very well do what you've described, yet without any bad faith whatsoever.

Baccyak4H 16:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caveat i doubt the issue of the sexuality section in haku's artical is going to be resolved without some kind of a extreme measure i myself have given up trying to talk for now but i am still watching it if you have any idea how to resolve it easily please help any way you can NekrosKoma 02:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But, yeah, if you're going to discuss it, discuss it already. Just remember that you're up against three policies, and I don't think you'll be changing them any time soon. Reply on the Haku talk page, and not mine. Nemu 02:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because some people who edit Wikipedia actually have lives and cannot spend hours upon hours making posts on here, so I'll get to it in due time. CaveatLector^Talk 02:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a two minute devotion to typing at max. Even then, you've had weeks to respond. Stop trying to put it off. Nemu 02:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free, but actually do something for once. It doesn't take that much time. You also took my comment out of context. From a quick glance it looks fine, but it's hardly neutral at all due to your bias. It was also due to the fact that I doubt PL(DB) actually read it. He just likes to keep things no matter how useless they are.

Really, read the policies I pointed out, and at least try to refute them. You've done nothing so far, so hurry up at do it. Nemu 01:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really now, how can I discuss it when you just randomly stop replying for two weeks? Then all you do is come back every once and a while to revert it without doing a thing. And once again, you took the damn comment out of context. PL (DB) is (no offence meant to him) pretty damn oblivious when it comes to things like this. At most he would take a quick glance at it, and not see a thing. There is a bias pointing out that he's gay, you don't see it because you're too involved in it. Nemu 01:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let that comment stand on its own as evidence enough of TTN's bad faith and juvenile attitude. CaveatLector^Talk 01:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And once again, you completely avoid my questions and comments. That's not bad faith. You are biased in the area of homosexuality. You took random facts that could mean anything, and bent them to your point of view. Do you really see yourself as neutral? Nemu 02:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith. Nemu is not acting juvenile or in bad faith. He's raised valid concerns as to the OR nature of section you keep readding. Also, as Nemu's pointed out, you haven't been very helpful in discussing the matter. As far as things currently stand, Nemu's got the weight of policy on his side. Interpreting the scenes to highlight a specific point of view is OR, no matter how obvious some of it may be. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, from a third perspective (mine) it doesn't really seem like RBJ is attacking you at this article. Can you be more specific as to what statement you're actually talking about? CaveatLector^Talk 01:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this and felt exhausted at the thought of providing you with every damn example of where RBJ is trying to turn this into a personal attack on me rather than discussing the issue, but RBJ just did it for me - and still seems to think that none of this constitutes a personal attack. Yonmei 18:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, regarding the dispute I see you're involved in over on House, MD, Stacy is referred to as House's "ex" on various occasions but never specifically as his ex-wife. That said I don't think it's stated they were unmarried. As they never mention a divorce I got the impression they hadn't married, but it's certainly ambiguous. Sockatume 22:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter! Issue I - December 4, 2006

Project News This is the first newsletter of the LGBT studies Wikiproject! Come and discuss your thoughts on it at the Wikiproject talk page. An LGBT Barnstar has been created for editors who have contributed significantly to LGBT-related articles. The LGBT Portal has been revamped and tidied. It's various sections could do with updating on a weekly basis. Please pitch in if you have the time. The main page of the Wikiproject has also undergone a bit of a rewrite. Your participation is welcome. James Robert Baker became the first known LGBT biography to become a Featured Article on November 22. It was written and nominated by Jeffpw. Well done Jeff! A discussion has been started on the WikiProject talk page about how to get the WikiProject going. Your thoughts would be welcome. Finally, five new users have joined the Wikiproject: Jeffpw, Ikasawak, Dev920, AliceJMarkham, and WereWolf. Please make them feel welcome!

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please drop me a line. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know.

Caveat, are you interested in continuing with the Haku mediation? If so, I would be interested in your thoughts about what you think the dispute is and where the mediation can go from here. Thanks, and thanks for your earlier comments, TheronJ 14:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]