User talk:Deltabeignet/Archive02

Do you ever reply on these, your user pages?

Genuine question, not a wind-up, as I'd hate to attempt to begin a dialogue here if it was a waste of my time and your own....Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 23:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I reply on the other user's page, as replying here gives no automatic notice to the other user. Of course, I've always been known as a man of few words. Deltabeignet 23:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with that.

It's when you parachute into article's and delete the words of other's without prior discussion on the relevant article's discussion page that people may have cause to complain. Please remember that many contributors may feel that there is a presumption in favour of the form of an article that has not been substantially changed for many revisions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Major_changes). ...Gaimhreadhan

^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 08:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you did the same to my contributions. Do you some certificate that demonstrates no need to participate in discussion due to your obvious superiority?~~ Michael J Swassing 04:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're referring to this edit, in which I removed a suspicious-looking example of a "common conspiracy theory." Please, stay cool. I don't use talk pages very often. I have always believed that the burden lies on the author to provide reliable sources, rather than on the editor to justify removing content. I try to explain major changes, but cutting one sentence is but a small blip on my radar. Deltabeignet 04:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I try to explain major changes" my arse. On May 17, 2006 you zapped the whole article on Pill splitting, replacing it with a #REDIRECT, without any explanation except "subject may lack notability" (which is crap). 216.123.197.29 01:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chemophobia

I'm not sure I like your removal of the explanation I gave of why chemophobia is irrational... Would you like to elaborate?

Ewen 21:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS I'll put this page on my watchlist so I will be alerted when you reply here.

It's a question of NPOV and relevance. Your explanation is factually fine, but practically a little silly. Phobias are not meant to be rational. Imagine adding to triskaidekaphobia that "This is frustrating to mathematicians who know that all numbers are similar and that there is no difference between the number thirteen and any other small prime." Even if we view chemophobia as an informal phobia—akin to homophobia, let's say—it's hardly NPOV to debunk it in the lead. Deltabeignet 04:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good analogy with triskaidekaphobia! That makes good sense. Not sure about the NPOV though - would it be biased to say that thirteen was no different to other small primes? Just a statement of fact isn't it?

Thanks for the reply anyway. I appreciate your help. Ewen 05:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon was not French

Why did you remove my elaboration on Napoleon's non-French ancestry? I'm putting it back. I'm going to source Will Durant even though it is completely unnecessary. The prior two sentences already makes perfectly clear that Napoleon was not French. Pistolpierre 20:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically yes he was. The first two sentences actually make that clear. Corsica became part of France in 1768 Napoleon was born in 1769, making him French by birth.--Bryson 21:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User talk:Pistolpierre. Deltabeignet 22:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

flawed logic regarding Napoleon's ancestry

You seem to think that George Washington had "American blood". There is no such thing as American blood. America is a creation of a political revolution. Your statement makes no sense. Your logic leads you to believe that since Normans invaded and conquered Ireland and England all of the people that they conquered became Norman through virtue of the conqueror's blood. Did the Roman Catholics of Spain, who were of Celtic, Roman, Greek, and Carthaginian ancestry all of a sudden become Berber, Arab, and West African once the Muslims conquered Spain in 711? If a Palestinian joins the Israeli Defense Force does that mean he has Israeli blood? My logic makes no sense? LOL Pistolpierre 23:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user talk. Deltabeignet 23:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity is NOT nationality

"George Washington had not a single drop of American blood, was born on British soil, and fought for the British army, yet is paradoxically and universally—even amongst modern Americans—considered an American." Deltabeignet 22:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington was an American national by virtue of the Revolution. However he was ethnically British. How can this be denied? He had not a single drop of American blood is entirely accurate. Nationality is not ethnicity. Does a person in Tibet have Chinese blood? Does a Palestinian have Israeli blood? Does a Scotch-Irish citizen of Ulster have English blood? Pistolpierre 23:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user talk. Deltabeignet 23:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My edit is in regards to Napoleon's ETHNICITY not nationality

I thought nothing of the kind. I think you missed my point, which was: Blood has nothing to do with nationality. Citizenship does. Napoleon was French by birth (on French soil) and by patriotism ("France, the army, Josephine..."), either of which would have made him 100% French—just as George Washington's actions made him 100% American. Deltabeignet 23:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've thought it over; here's a better example.

"Queen Victoria was of entirely German heritage, yet is paradoxically and universally—even amongst modern Britons—considered to be British." Deltabeignet 23:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely wrong to think that the British people regarded the "English" Saxe-Gotha monarchs to be British. They were widely viewed as being German. It was a source of embarassment for the royals during WWI. That is besides the point. You do not understand that Napoleon's ethnicity is quite distinct from his nationality. For instance, Jewish and Mexican and Polish and Italian immigrants to America were not considered to be Anglo-Saxon or Celtic like the majority of "American" WASPS. I am undoing your edit because you obviously do not understand the difference between ethnicity and nationality. Perhaps you should study history regarding the British view of the Saxe-Gotha monarchs you referred to. Pistolpierre 23:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user talk. Deltabeignet 23:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make no sense regarding your revisions

I am going to make this as clear as I can. The word "French" is ambiguous, and could refer to language, nationality, or ethnicity. It is fine to say that Napoleon was not ethnically French—in fact, by way of giving his background, the article already makes that clear. It is not fine to say, without qualifiers, that there is a 60-million-man misconception that Napoleon was "French". Ethnicity no, nationality yes. Your point—that Napoleon was not ethnically French—is already made in much more neutral language. Deltabeignet 23:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you confused? The word FRENCH may be ambiguous to you. Is the word HEBREW ambiguous? If I move to Israel and get Israeli citizenship I would never be considered Hebrew by virtue of my FRENCH blood. STOP UNDOING MY EDITS YOU MAKE ZERO SENSE. There is nothing inflammatory about saying Napoleon was Corsican and not ethnically French. You are being unreasonable for some strange reason. Pistolpierre 23:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user talk. Deltabeignet 00:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you put words into my mouth?

"French" does not automatically mean ethnicity; on the contrary, it usually means nationality. ("Hebrew" is different; the word for nationality of Israel is "Israeli.") As I explicitly told you (when I said "It is fine to say that Napoleon was not ethnically French"), there is nothing inflammatory about saying he was of Corsican heritage. The inflammatory part is in saying, in effect, "All French people believe this, and it's wrong." No source, except maybe a Gallup poll, can reliably establish how widespread a belief is. I'm afraid that you seem to have a history of making factual tenable but inflammatory edits (to Adolf Hitler, for instance.) Also, when you said "STOP UNDOING MY EDITS," I had already stopped reverting. Deltabeignet 00:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that the word "French" automatically meant ethnicity. To say that French usually means nationality is your opinion, probably of someone who is either not ethnically French or not a French citizen. Your point about Hebrew being different is ridiculous. All of the Israelis were Hebrews. Modern Israelis on the other hand offer an abstract notion of "nationality" to foreign citizens of Israel. However the native peoples of all the Middle Eastern countries are all Hebrews. I never said, "60,000,000 French people believe this and it's wrong." My apologies if you didn't revert my last edit. I will defer to your judgment and simply add that Napoleon has not a single drop of French blood. Why? Because it is a fact. I said nothing inflammatory about Adolf Hitler. Everything I said was straight out of William Shirer's master work "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." Only the editors can explain why citing Shirer was inflammatory. Pistolpierre 00:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user talk. Deltabeignet 00:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truce on Napoleon

I've trimmed your last addition to simply "Napoleon was ethnically Corsican of ancient Italian heritage." (The "not a single drop" bit still seemed a little dramatic.) I find this to be an acceptable compromise. Truce? Deltabeignet 00:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, truce, now there is no ambiguity that he considered himself to be Corsican and not French. This article has been improved today. Congrats. Pistolpierre 03:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hogwarts

I approve of where the article ended up, but the AfD link is now gone. [1] Help? Claudia 19:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Les Paul/Mushroom Cloud Poster

I was wondering if you remember where you found the picture of the Gibson Les Paul being compared to the Mushroom Cloud. If you do, can you give me a link? Also, do you know where I could buy it as a poster, if it is a poster. I saw it on Harold and Kumar go to White Castle, but don't know if they got it special because it was a movie. Thanks. 19:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Fpcrunner/Aug 12, 2007/3:00 P.M./

Cultural difference of the term "fag"

Why did you delete the "cultural difference" section in the Cigarette addressing the very important and relevant issue that in Great Britain a cigarettes are known as fags? Canjth 01:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Very important and culturally relevant issue"? Try "trivia". Deltabeignet 13:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not trivia, dude. It would be trivia if "fag" was not such a loaded word in the United States. 76.88.219.79 04:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic

Why did you do this? That message needs to go, per WP:BEANS. --Boricuaeddie 02:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't apologize. I also noticed that it blanked the page, but I thought it was my browser. Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie 10:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]