User talk:Phyesalis/Archive 1

Welcome

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Please respct others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
• Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such unreasonable information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, and will result in your account being blocked.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. Again, welcome! --Andrew c 21:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR

You just violated the 3RR rule on Historicity of Jesus.Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Andrew c 21:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, thank you, I'm afraid this is a bit confusing. Can you explain why, in contrast with Wikipedia standards, when my evolving contribution has been summarily reverted at least four times, I am in violation of reverting my own contribution when it is those who reverted it in the first place without justifiable reason, without vandalism, who are in breach? I am not attempting to exclude other's contributions as others are trying to exclude mine. I introduced substantive change well within the acceptable bounds of Historiography. My argument is that the reversions constitute vandalism. Should I give warnings to those who recklessly reverted my whole contribution? I have addressed this on the page in question, but have gotten little in the way of satisfactory explanation for this vandalism. My contribution has been effectively censored with no legitimate explanation. I suspect the need for mediation or arbitration on this issue. But let's see what we can work out first on the pages, first. I will c&p this there, so as to direct further discussion to the relevant context. Thank you for any help you can offer. Phyesalis 22:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I do not believe you actually violated the 3RR rule (because the first edit wasn't a revert), but you were close. The WP:3RR page explains the rule in detail. I know this sounds a little backward, but basically, you, as a single editor, were removing the work of other editors by reverting to a previous version (your initial edit). And since 3 different editors were reverting you (to the version before your first edit), they were not in violation of the 3RR rule. While I agree that blanket reverts aren't helpful, and those who reverted you should have explained further on talk, and assumed good faith, I do not believe they were in direct violation of any enforcable policy (even if we both agree they weren't being helpful). Hope this helps.--Andrew c 22:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

As to the claims that the reverts against your version were vandalism, I do not believe those edits constitute Wikipedia:Vandalism. Unfortunately, longstanding content tends to have more weight than new content. Content that does not meet the main policy points of WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:RS in practice can generally be reverted (although, tagging content is better). Also drastic, controversial changes, and changes not discussed on talk before hand tend to also be reverted. Instead of 3 different editors attacking the integrity of the article (aka vandalism), 3 different editors were saying "hey, I do not agree with these edits at all". Of course it would have been more helpful to discuss things on talk, to only partially revert only the controversial content, or to tag disputed content, but once again, it is much more easier to simply revert everything. While I do believe 2 of the 3 were biting the newcomer, and were not assuming good faith, I'll say this again, I do not believe they were breaking any rules; just simply not working well with the community. All of this isn't necessarily fair, but hopefully the current discussion on the article's talk page may bring about some changes with which everyone can agree.--Andrew c 22:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

First, thank you for your previous qualification. I genuinely appreciate it. I have no wish to be in error, particularly out of ignorance. However, I disagree with your characterization of blanket reversion. It seems that Wikipedia has standards to the contrary. Help:reverting makes the case for blanket reversion quite clear:

When to revert

Do's

   See also Wikipedia policy should follow the spirit of ahimsa

   * Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.
   * Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
   * If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
   * If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.

Dont's

   * Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
   * Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith.
   * Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.
   * There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ
   * Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

I agruge that summary reversion is breaking the rules. The entry states rather unambiguously: "Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it." It might not be vandalism per se, but it is an absue. My question is, regardless of semantic issues, what do I do about it? If you disagree with my understanding of blanket reversion, I would greatly appreciate more information on the subject. I assure you that I will not be running off to cite posters without fully investigating the matter. Please consider the use of vandalism as a point of comparison to be more of a rhetorical device, and not an incendiary threat. Although if you see it differently, I am interested in your perspective. I'm not trying to be inflammatory. Again, thank you for your time and contribution on this matter. Phyesalis 23:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue is, even though we have the guidelines that say users should do blanket reverts, and even though we both personally agree the edits in question were not helpful, unfortunately I do not believe there is anything that can be done in regards to enforcement. The guidelines says "you shouldn't blanket revert", it doesn't say "if you do this you can be temporarily banned". They must violate 3RR or some other incursion before action can be taken. I could be wrong about this, so if you want more clarification, you could post something on the administrators' noticeboard, and request that an admin examine the incident, and explain why or why not the actions of other editors are punishable.--Andrew c 00:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you mean "users should do blanket reverts" or "should not"? I agree that it doesn't say one can be banned. Maybe I haven't been clear. I don't actually want to punish anyone. I understand that I'm not well-versed in all the details, I acknowledge that I made some mistakes, and I'm not trying to cover my mistakes with misplaced punitive emotions. I just want people to stop summarily reverting my contributions. My use of vandalism as a point of comparison was both a rhetorical device and (arguably) a clumsy intro into the discussion of how to stop people "biting" my contributions. It is preferable, to me, if this could happen without punitive measures on the part of the admin. I'm not trying to go over anyone's head or cry for the teacher my first day on the playground. I believe my concerns are legitimate. My understanding was that the warnings for vandalism had a range and were considered to be authored by users, not the admin, ranging from "please stop", "only a warning" all the way up to "last warning", and that the next step barring any informal remediation was to contact the admin. Again, thank you. I will spend more time on this matter. I have introduced a new discussion topic in Historicity of Jesus to clarify some issues regarding the intent of the article. I am hoping this might resolve some problems. I appreciate you taking the time to facilitate my understanding of the disagreements. Phyesalis 00:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Domestic Violence

I was looking over your interests and thought I'd point out an article that I recently ran across that I feel needs A LOT of help (which I do not have the time to do by myself). It's the domestic violence article. In my opinion, the article isn't very encyclopedic, has way too much argumentative and debate-style language, caters way too much to a minority POV (domestic violence against men), and needs a lot of sourcing and major rewritting. It is a pretty big task, and I understand you are new to wikipedia, but maybe you'd want to look over the page and the recent activity on talk and see if you can't improve it! Just a suggestion. --Andrew c 21:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I will look into it when I have the time. I admit, I'm much more interested in the debate surrounding the Historicity of Jesus page right now. I'm not sure I should move onto another topic before I get a better understanding of things. I've already entered into substantive dialogue regarding this topic. The article sounds like it needs a lot of work, I'm just not sure that I'm the person to do it right now. Please feel free to make future suggestions though. Actually, I just checked out the page. You're right, there are some obvious flaws. I'll see what I can do in the upcoming weeks. Phyesalis 00:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus

Phyesalis, welcome to the article. I walked away from the Jesus series because I tired of suffering fools like Homestarmy, and after a while banging one's head against a wall is rather painful.
In any case, you are correct about historicity -- I think though, that you are probably overloading the "intellects" of some of the staunch supporters of the status quo, and that's a good thing, a damned good thing. ;) Nobis lauros! •Jim62sch• 12:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Oh my, thank you so much! It was a pleasure starting off the wikiday with your note. I was starting to feel like I signed on for some Twilight Zone episode. I think the Historicity of Jesus page would be best categorized under ab abusu ad usum non valet consequentia violations. Just because some users have abused the intent of the page, doesn't mean that the page should continue to be abused! For the record, I don't actually know Latin, just familiar with a bunch of legal/common phrases. I'm sorry you walked away. Please consider coming back, I would greatly appreciate another voice in the mix. Maybe I should go back and contact all those who were muscled out? I just skimmed your user page and - where have I been? I'm particularly interested in your views on the serial comma. (And where do I find the code for all those neat extras?) I also noticed you liked Eliot. So, I will close with a favorite quote of mine from the The Wasteland (and not entirely inappropriate for the HoJ page):

"Thinking of the key, each confirms a prison." Phyesalis 18:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm back. :) Oh, nobis lauros means "we will succeed", (literally, "to us (will go) the laurels"). I love Eliot, and the stulti on the HoJ page remind me both of the quote you mention, and the beginning stanza of the Hollow Men:

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats’ feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar

Of course, some of them no doubt have codpieces full of straw as well. •Jim62sch• 23:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Codpieces? Try merkins. Just kidding. Thank you so much! I really appreciate your help in this endeavor. They seem a bit more accepting now. Of course, I see you've noticed the JM page issues. I also wanted to let you know, I'm not a he, but a she! A female geek and proud of it. I'm grateful for the support all the same. But we don't necessarily have to share that info with our esteemed colleagues. Let's allow them the pleasure of discovering that if and when they read this page. Phyesalis 04:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hell, I'd be happy to give them a bare bodkin so they might their quietus make.  ;)

I apologize for the gender screw-up -- for so long Wiki was very much like an old-boy's club that I tend to assume a masculine gender (rather foolish of me); I'm glad to see that women such as yourself, KillerChihuahua (KC), FloNight, Bishonen, SlimVirgin, have gotten more involved! KC has done much as you suggest, she figures that while she does identify her gender on her page, if no one bothers to read her page, screw 'em. In any case, I too look forward to working together. •Jim62sch• 14:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Just read your edit on the Jesus as myth page and wanted to welcome you too. Like Jim, I walked away from the Jesus articles as I hadn't got the time to qualify every word I wrote or fight over the real meaning of phrases like "the majority of scholars" etc (it used to say "vast majority" at one stage!). We sooo need a knowledgeable person in this area so please don't let the rejection of your edits put you off. The myth/historicty and historical pages all need a rework and if you get time the Josephus on Jesus 'aint good either. Well researched and verified information deserves inclusion - but at that point they will try to hit you with undue weight. That one is hard to deal with as there is so much written that shores up their position and it can become a case of "the facts however interesting are irrelevant". But changes can be made and as you seem to have the knowledge to do this I'll look forward to reading your posts. Sophia 19:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, rats, I forgot to mention Sophia -- in my defence, she did leave the project for a bit. Hopefully, she'll join us on the article, as well as on others. She's quite knowledgeable. •Jim62sch• 21:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

If going through my own head-banging will bring a more diverse perspective to the articles, then it's worth it, even if I'm still soaking my bruises! Thanks for mentioning all the others users, Jim. And thanks Sophia for taking the time to share your support. Some editors' view on "undue weight", with regard to these articles, is just ridiculous. I, too, hope you'll come back. Before Josephus, I'd like to get the relationship between the three contentious pages of HJ, HoJ, and JM straightened out. It would save people endless headaches. But I'll check it out. Thanks for the heads up, and the lovely compliment. It is most encouraging. Phyesalis 21:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Message from Copey 2

Hi Phyesalis, I just made a response to your commutation test comment on the List of oxymorons talk page. But it strikes me that we're filling up a lot of space there. I'm wondering whether we should continue there, or move out and discuss it in our own space—maybe put a note there in case anyone else wants to follow the argument. The question of whether unborn baby belongs on a list of oxymorons is peripheral to the question of what validity there is, if any, in the concept of the "correct meaning" of a word, which is what this is really about. There are issues of usage and linguistic history here which are pretty tangential to the topic of oxymorons

One interesting (to me) little side-issue. As a New Zealander, I normally follow British spellings rather than American ones, which means I don't reduce the old ae and oe digraphs to e. Up until this discussion I have always used the spelling foetus, which is the usual British spelling, and assumed that this was also the spelling of the Latin original. When I looked the word up in one of my old dictionaries, it gave both spellings, and made the comment that the spelling foetus originates in an old misspelling of the old Latin word fētus. Whether the misspelling was a later Latin one or an English one, it doesn't make clear...

Anyway, do you want to keep the discussion where it is, or move it into our own pages? I treat User Talk pages and online journals as personal space, and subject to the rules of being a good guest, if I'm in someone else's space, and a courteous host if I'm in my own. Let me know what you want to do, and we'll take it from there.

Cheers, Copey 2 02:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Copey. Thank you for the consideration. My understanding is that your old dictionary would be correct as it confirms what I've found in the etymology, that for some reason the British picked up the exception. I don't know how that happened. As for the rest, I'm not quite sure what we are discussing. Do you just want to chat about language, or do you want to dispute the word on the list? I'd be happy to discuss general language stuff here, but if we're disputing the word remaining on the list, I'd rather do that on the talk page. The way I see it, the discussion of "correct" meanings is central to whether or not "unborn baby" belongs on the list. Your thesis of "words mean whatever we want them to mean" is a major deconstruction of language, relying on an impossibly insular location of meaning in the self/speaker. Language is both subjective (self) and objective (social group as target and source of language acquisition). If you are correct, to the exclusion of my arguments, then there are no oxymorons at all, and the list itself is pointless. And to be fair, one of my professors studied with Barthe. I do not misunderstand the commutation test, but used it in an (admittedly) over-simplified argument to make my point. It isn't a straight up math/logic syllogism, it is a semiotic formula of discreteness and significant similarity. If you would like to discuss this further, allow me to make a request. Your counter does not disprove my point, merely questions one of the "proofs" I offer in support of it. If you want to dispute the word, would mind removing your response from the middle of my post on the talk page, and I shall respond to you there. If you do not want to dispute the word, and still want to debate the issues, would you mind copying our exchange (but not remove it) to this page - and extracting your response from mine? I find it to be rather difficult to sort through exchanges that are mixed in like that, other users probably have a harder time of it. Thank you, I am enjoying the discussion. Phyesalis 12:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess what I want to discuss is the broad issue, but with a focus on the particular phrase. I want to leave a response to your commutation test in the oxymoron Talk page, but I'll shift it, as its present position does break the flow. I'll redo it as well, for the benefit of anyone else following the argument - what happens if you substitute "2-week-old infant" for "fetus", etc. The history of the use of the word baby (and the older babe) is a major issue.

We could split the argument - would that be a pain? I can answer some of your points above without reference to the phrase. The accuracy of your representation of my position as "words mean whatever we want them to mean" depends on what you mean by "we", or rather, what you think I mean by "we". I don't locate meaning in the individual speaker; I do locate it in the speech community he or she belongs to, be it a small circle of people, or a worldwide community using a language. And I'm still trying to find out where you locate authority as to meaning.

I hope I haven't been too patronising in all this. I've been accustomed in the past to defining "patronising" as a word you use of someone else when they're being nice to you, and you still want to hate them. It now seems to me it can be a word to use of oneself, when you're trying to express respect to someone, and you keep undershooting the mark.

Cheers—Copey 2 23:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I like your observations on "patronising". I admit to having been put off by about the "minority politics" comment in your first post (on other page). But I appreciate your manner in our subsequent exchanges. Let me say that even outside of the particular debate of the word being on the list, you bring up points that I am honestly interested in discussing. Particularly your point about Maori biologists and ika/fish/ika/whales. It brings up excellent questions about language in general, but English (via imperialism) in particular, and cultural context. I'm interested in the etymological origins of ika. How does it translate as fish? Or does it mean water-dweller, or classify things that move through the water and fish is the closest comparable word? I actually don't know and am asking a sincere question - I know nothing about Maori specifically, other than what I just gleaned from the WP pages on it. But I'm a little more familiar with issues surrounding the transliteration of oral indigenous languages into English.

As for an approach to our debate, how about this - for now, we can keep the whole debate here as you originally suggested, post a link on the talk page in the meantime with the minor clean up and a note about ongoing discussion, and agree to c&p a brief summary in the near future? Please know, I am not pretending to any stage of semiotician or linguist. My studies are diversely interdisciplinary. But as a general note, I say this not out of snideness but honesty, I have no interest in having a semantic debate as a blind for political interpretations of meaning. Allow me to put my own cards on the table, I'm not aware of the specifics regarding anti-choice politics in New Zealand, but in the U.S. they are the distinct minority. The majority of Americans respect a woman's right to choose regardless of their personal views on abortion, which is why it is legal in all 50 states on the state level, regardless of the Supreme Court's repeated rulings that laws prohibiting abortion on the federal level were unconstitutional.

In reference to your question about what kind of common categorical distinctions American culture makes between "fetus" as and "baby", each word belongs to diametrically opposed categories. This is an issue of natality, of or relating to birth, wich is the defining difference between "fetus" and "baby". The word fetus (8 weeks to birth) is commonly used as an umbrella word for all gestational stages, while the word baby is an indeterminate and euphemistic word for infant. Even when abortion was illegal in some places (and in the overview of U.S. history these were brief anomalies) neither women nor doctors were charged with murder or homicide, as would be the case if they had killed baby. Insurance companies will not let one claim a fetus as a member of the family, they will insure a baby as such at birth. An insurance company will insure pre-natal services but these are associated with the mother, the insured client. Post-natal services are consequently associated with the now birthed and insured member, the baby.

The the distinctions of natality apply in common language. The common use of baby with respect to gestation is "I am having a baby." signifying that I am going to give birth to an infant, and that I do not yet have a baby because it hasn't been given birth to yet, and as such does not exist yet. When one says "I had a baby" it is commonly understood that the woman in question gave birth to a live infant. When an American woman says "I have a baby" she means that she has an infant (that has been born). Again, if we apply the word "fetus" in a commutation test, the sentences would mean something completely difference. First, the sentence "I'm having a fetus" is almost gibberish. "I had a fetus" does not signify birth and subsequent existence of offspring. Likwise, "I have a fetus" signifies a gestating or pre-natal lifeform in a specific stage of development, not a post-natal infant.

Statements B1, B2, and B3 all signify post-natal existence. F1, F2, and F3 all signify an antonymical state of pre-natal gestation. "Unborn baby" is an oxymoron that means "fetus".

Other examples of this would be the differences between statements like "I am a baby" and "I am a fetus" or "Claude's a happy baby" and "Claude's a happy fetus". I acknowledge your challenge of "crawl", but reassert that babyhood or infancy is determined with the first breath. "The baby cried" and "the fetus cried" are not the same thing. By categorical definition, a baby can cry and a fetus cannot(no air for vocalization). Once a fetus has taken it's first breath and then commonly given it's first cry, it has been born and is a baby. Additionally, the statement, "the baby is two years old", does not include any stage of gestation, the baby has only been a baby for two years, not two years and nine months.

That's my argument in a nutshell. Now I present to you the friendly challenge of countering it. And looking forward to your response about ika. Thank you for the discussion, and for leaving the phrase on the list while we discuss this. It has been noted and is appreciated. 74.70.206.92 11:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC) (added sig)Phyesalis 11:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My goodness, you forgot the biggest argument for calling a fetus a fetus: try claiming it on your 1040. ;) •Jim62sch• 21:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You're so right!

Unborn baby

Hi, Denni. I noticed your theory on deletionism. You reverted my contribution to the list of oxymorons, please see the on-going discussion about "unborn baby" on the talk page. Also, please note that the article is still asking for contributions. And when you delete someone's contribution, please give a reason for it. Most of us appreciate that. Thank you. Phyesalis 23:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Phyesalis -

Sorry about the long delay in getting back to you - seems your message immediately preceeded another, and I only saw the second one as I was archiving my talk page. I've been following your discussion with Copey2, and I must say it is really refreshing to follow such an intelligent and well-mannered debate. I reverted your addition to the list before I'd read the goings-on, but left it the second time you added it. I must say that I agree with Copey2 - I believe the proof of a language is more in its use than in its logic. Your argument is quite correct from a technical point of view, but I suspect that few English speakers would accept this as an oxymoron. Cheers, Denni ^talk 00:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)