Jump to content

User talk:T. Anthony

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by T. Anthony (talk | contribs) at 06:06, 9 January 2007 (→Articles I created in 2007). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Articles I created in 2007

Question for T. Anthony

Hi, how do I add someone onto this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Buddha_claimants

I would like to add Tathagata, Sam Han Lee.

He attained enlightenment at the age of 44 in Korea.

He calls himeself "Tathagata". He travels the world endlessly - to teach what he can see. He sells nothing and does not ask for money - he teaches as his duty. His main teachings are based on conscience, justice and love, he teaches about karma and cause and effect. He is the only person who has the third eye, a small lump which grew on his forehead, its also known as the eye of wisdom. He has many followers in South Korea and pockets of followers in many other countries.

His website is www.tathagata.co.uk

You put this in the wrong place and I'm wondering if this is just promotion for a new religious movement. Still it does lead to the question about how to add things to tables. In general it depends on the kind of table. In the case of the Buddha claimants table it seems to work like this
|-bgcolor="edf3fe" (This alternates with "|-")
| "Your person here"
|[[Image:|right|70px]]
| style="font-size: 85%;"| "Dates the person lived are placed here"
| "Biographical information."

If you or anyone else need more help check the talk page for said article. Now I really must be doing family stuff for Christmas.--T. Anthony 18:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youth culture killed my Dog

On the age bias thing most of what I find would indicate to me that the majority of Wikipedians are in the 15-35 range. People in the 35-65 range are a good deal rarer than I'd expect. People over 65 are generally rare online as when they use the Internet they tend to avoid interaction so prefer things like shopping or reading the news. (This is based on the experiences of an ISP provider I know and I think maybe a study I read) Still in many forums and places I go Baby boomers are much more common. I'm not certain what would be turning them off from here and maybe I'm offbase even. Still it's one phenomenon I've noticed and find curious.--T. Anthony 05:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Red

Various red-linked names I might work on later. Some are because I'm interested in the topic, others are due to an interest in countering any systemic bias. If anyone else wants to work on these be my guest.

Spingarn Medalist

Notable songs of the 1930s and 1940s

Pre-1960 Pulitzer winners


Award-winning SF/F/AH authors

Various women who won awards

Jazz and Jazz/World fusion musicians

American jazz musicians with articles in both the French and German Wikipedias

On jazz after New Year's I'm planning on focussing on international and "World Jazz." Also using foreign language Wikipedias. Although I still might do some with "early jazz" like Dixieland and Swing.--T. Anthony 05:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aargh I'm still here

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

AfD and DRV

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

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

Conflict

Regarding [2] standard practice in such circumstances is to simply note how one was involved in the AfD. JoshuaZ 05:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space Opera

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

I might. I had intended to lie low for the holidays, but that's not working so far. The idea you propose is interesting, but I'm wondering if it will work. I hope this doesn't offend you, but I actually do not care for Scientology at all I just am willing to credit their own statements about their own religion.--T. Anthony 01:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neither pro-Scn nor anti-Scn. I just think many of these Scn articles are unfair as currently written. I don't see how the title Space opera and L. Ron Hubbard couldn't work, since we DON'T know for a fact that it's core doctrine, but we DO know for a fact that Hubbard did discuss these things in his lectures (which often had nothing to do with Scientology or Dianetics). The problem seems to be a mindset that anything that ever came out of Hubbard's mouth is "Scientology doctrine" when that just isn't so. Highfructosecornsyrup 01:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Difficulty I have with your rename is that the article really isn't about him and Space Opera. If it was it would just be about varying aspects of his writing career more than any lectures he gave. It's more about what he said about Space Opera to Scientologists. Whether he was using Space opera as a metaphor, a form of fiction of interest to Scientologists, a kind of satire, or something else entirely isn't really clear to me. Still I think it is about Scientology even if "in Scientology doctrine" is likely overstating the matter to a bizarre degree.--T. Anthony 03:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article would have to be rewritten somewhat, of course, to show that although Hubbard frequently talked about these subjects in lectures, that doesn't mean it's "Scientology doctrine". And by the way, most of the lectures he gave in the 50's and 60's (where most of this stuff comes from) weren't just given to Scientologists, they were attended mostly by general-public curiosity-seekers who wanted to check out a lecture by "that eccentric Dianetics guy". The Congresses are the lectures that were strictly for Scientologists, and those represent less than one percent of the thousands of lecture Hubbard gave. Highfructosecornsyrup 04:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Critics of Islam

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

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

Jay Grdina in Category:Roman Catholic entertainers

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

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

Neil deGrasse Tyson

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

You're welcome. I believe I created that category, but I wanted it to be fairly strictly used. I want every name placed in one of the subcategories of Category:Scientists by religion to be well justified. (I hope that sentence didn't sound confusing) I took out a couple names and thought I'd need to take out his too. Then I looked up his name+atheist and found it was justified.--T. Anthony 12:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
makes sense to me Tvoz 05:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erased segment

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

For those into lists and deleting lists

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

List of dictators

I'm really annoyed.

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

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

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

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

What can we do?

juicifer 13:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your last edit in Ambedkar

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

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

Apostates

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

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

Pastorwayne

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

Category:Wikipedians who trust Jimbo

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

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

Placement of stub tags

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

It was a screw-up, although I'll admit I'm not real consistent with how I do it, thanks for fixing it. You've done a good job with articles I think and I appreciate that.--T. Anthony 17:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment, and same to you! BNutzer 18:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome and thanks. It's a bit of an education for me too. Most of the time I'd never heard of the musician whose article I'm creating, but I'll see them on a requested deal or in one of the lists in Category:Lists of jazz musicians. Sometimes I worry I'm totally off, but more often I'm learning something interesting and others can fix my errors.--T. Anthony 18:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Catholic scientists

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

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

Ben Jackson AfD Relist

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


Paper Doll Speedy Deletion

Hello, I just want to let you know that I agree with you regarding the notability of the song "Paper Doll". Therefore, as a editor I removed the speedy deletion tag. I told the editor who made the request that if she has any concerns to why I did it that she can contact me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mystify85JEC (talk • contribs) 22:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. It's not actually a song I'm familiar with, but I saw it in several articles and a notice board so decided to start the article. Well that and I'm on a kick of trying to increase articles involving culture of the 1930s and 1940s. The only article on God Bless the Child being about the Shania Twain song, before I made the article on the Billie Holiday song, partly inspired that.--T. Anthony 23:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:T._Anthony&oldid=99505613"