User talk:Lunarian

Thank you for noting my efforts at Les Neuf Soeurs. Have you sampled Lucian of Samosata in your travels? You may already be aware that he offered the first literary trip to the moon, under the heading A True Story. I read him in English, I hasten to say.... --Wetman 21:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I'm impressed by your additions--thanks for adding to my knowledge! Wikipedia is really great for this sort of thing... I'll edit a bit for style and so on, hoping that's OK. Mark Sedgwick 08:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jossot

You asked: "Are you working on a Jossot wiki? If not it would be no trouble for me to look him up in a painter's index... "

Well, I wasn't. But he needs an entry. I think he's mentioned on the islamic anarchism page, which I haven't really looked at, and is interesting anyhow (cf Agueli and Eberhardt, and also von Sebottendorff and another French painter-Sufi whose name escapes me--something about the terasses de Sidi Bou Said). There's already a page on Jossot I glanced at in the French Wikipedia, and that might be a good start. If you feel like putting together a Jossot entry, I'll then happily edit it. Mark Sedgwick 16:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic anarchism, artificial flower, smoking ice...whatever next. See also Humor/oxymoron. I would also like to state very clearly that the interest that has me investigate so called sufism stems from a concern to understand the humanity of comparative studies, not the probability of derived enlightenment/obscurantism of any celebrated individual. It is a matter of taste. (see: Talk:von Sebottendorf) Lunarian

Well, I did Jossot. And your mention of Sebottendorff led me to do a lot of work on that entry. And now I must ge back to my real job for a while! Mark Sedgwick 10:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! If you're surprised by the provocative "Islamic anarchism", I urge you to have a look on the famous, underground Temporary Autonomous Zone (TAZ) and others texts by Hakim Bey. Actually, I think his move, which highlighted sufism & "liberals" aspects of Islam, was well thought. Others prefer to claim that "l'Islam n'est pas soluble dans la démocratie", which is probably as erroneous (in my humble opinion) than claiming that Christianism isn't compatible with democracy. You might be surprised by TAZ and strongly disagree with this author, but it's worth giving it a quick look! Lapaz 17:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, it's a matter of taste. I'm not surprised at all. A quick look is not enough as the issue is highly controversial. Moreover I belong to a school that values freedom above any "policed" urge. I really mean any. Let's keep it at that.(and...remark)

(Lunarian 09:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Boulainvilliers

Hello! I am not sure exactly what you are trying to point out, apart that in your eyes Boulainvilliers seems to have little to do with "race theories". I don't have much time available right now, but to respond to your comments, I'll just point out that: first of all, "be bold" & feel free to improve the article; Wikipedia is what we make it, we have to stop thinking in terms of "Wikipedia seems to" (Wikipedia is not a subject, we are the subjects writing on Wikipedia). But to adress your point that Boulainvilliers was not the "inventor of nordic race theory" and closer to Hobbes than to "racialism", & the 1920's source you've cited, well, I just have to say that the cases where we can find "one inventor" of a discourse or any other thing are quite rare, but Boulainvilliers is evidently a really important landmark on this discourse, used as a reference for centuries. You do seem to lift factual points, correct what you think needs correcting, but don't take the article as an "attack" on Boulainvilliers which you should defend him from — this is quite besides the point. Now, to give you my (main) reference, it is of course Michel Foucault, « Il faut défendre la société », Cours au collège de France (1975 - 1976), (IDS), Hautes études / Gallimard / Seuil, 1997, who points out how the racial discourse used in the Middle Ages by Boulainvilliers & others was transformed in the 19th century according to two diverging lines, "scientific racism" or "biological racism" and class struggle. Class struggle? Of course class struggle is not a racist discourse just because Foucault traces its genealogy in the "race struggle" discourse of the Middle Ages: if you've understood in the article on Boulainvilliers that his racial theory (of that there can't be any doubt!) is like modern racism, that's an obvious anachronism to be corrected! On the other hand, there is no reason (and I don't see the stakes in it either) to "whitewash" Boulainvilliers & clean him of his theory of native enslaved Gauls and foreign, superior Germans which constitutes the French aristocracy (which is, correct me if I'm wrong, his main point after all). I look forward for your contributions which can only improve Wikipedia, regards Lapaz 14:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My stance about wikipedia is that we,the subjects, tend to make heaps of information without to much attention to sources and label them as spectacular "firsts" to make the sirup pass...

My stance on Boulainviller in particular is that to him, the object, injustice is done by such treatment. I think to little is known of him to a general public to justify the generalisation.

I am well aware of his brutal "feudal" voice, but in this he is a "vestige" not a precursor. My awareness of his "racialism" is as follows:

Some quotes:"Nobility is a natural privilege, incommunicable in any other manner than by way of birth." -"The favours of the monarchs may communicate titles and privileges but they can not make any blood flow through the veines other than is there by nature." etc. But also: "It is certain that in common law all men are equal; violence has established a distinction between liberty and slavery, nobility and "roture"; but while the origin is vicious, the usage has been established in the world for such a long time that it has acquired the force of a natural law" (in "Essais sur la Noblesse de France"; all quotes from Renée Simon "Henry de Boulainviller",Boivin ed. s.d.)

In 1730 , when following his death in 1722 de B.'s work began to circulate, a comment was made in Journal des Savants on "Dissertation sur la Noblesse" :"...one saw that the purpose of the author was to relevate unto excess the state and glory of 3.or 4.000 persons of this nation, and to vilifie the rest in servitude and baseness" This I think is the correct assessment of Boulainviller's discourse. Observe however that no "discourse on Nordic races" was read into it. It was understood that he had spoken on the lineage of French nobility. The critics in Journal des Savants were quite disappointed with the contrast this "outburst" of de B. presented to his other philosophical works (in R.Simon op.cit. pp68-69) (Lunarian 11:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hello! I left a (too big) response on Boulainvilliers' talk page. Cheers! ps: concerning exclusively the "nordic race" point, I am quite surprised to find out both that I apparently added that, and that I don't remember where I got that. It would therefore be a good idea to remove it... Lapaz 14:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Lapaz. Your response on Boulainvilliers is an important and vital one to this small debate. I hope many of our guests will refer to it.

(Lunarian 10:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your appreciations! I'm also pleased to see someone knowledgeable on these issues. I've proposed a merge between both articles, your structure of the article seems a good base to merge them. Lapaz 14:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. but let me save this for reference:

Henry de Boulainviller

(Lunarian 13:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hello Lunarian! I've finally got around the merge, and moved the article to Henri de Boulainvilliers, I thought it was the most common name under which he is known. I haven't changed much of your text (probably the only real — and minor — change was moving Spinoza's "geometric manner" to "geometric method"). Have a look at it, I'm sure we can still improve it but all in all, you've done great work in highlighting others aspects of his work. Have a nice summer! Lapaz 17:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category specificity

Lunarian, because scientific societies is a subcategory of history of science (scientific societies->scientific organizations->history of science), the broader category is not necessary. General practice is to try to keep such broad categories as trim as possible by using the most specific subcategories that are appropriate for each article.--ragesoss 21:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, almost :-)

Cheers ! (Lunarian 12:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Shah Waliullah

Why not? he is one of the most important "not so new", "not so old" sufis/scholars of indian subcontinent. He had & still have great influence on scholars/sufis in south asia , & even beyond. Cheers! F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال} ^{^/c} 20:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Why classified as medieval ?" was the question.

But then of course why not, indeed.

(Lunarian 11:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Well my friend, no need to sory . Actually if you see the names in "modern sufis", it only includes people who are either alive, or used to live in 20th century . I know he doesent look good in medieval category , but he will look like "old man among kids" in modern sufis . Cheers! F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال} ^{^/c} 02:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite O.K. I used to live in the 20th century myself.

;-)

(Lunarian 10:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hanif

Info added basically means I've gotten more specific on why some accept the accounts and to what level, rather than just a generic some do some don't. I said need it needs some more on those who don't agree, and reworked the paragraph to make it flow. Hope that helps, any particular concerns?--Tigeroo 19:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am sort of concerned about my wooden leg. I am afraid a plaster won't help.

a limping,

(Lunarian 11:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

P.S: All this about a minor detail ?: see also the negotiation !

I don't understand at all. The only part removed is the Margaret Smith, that is because I could not understand how it was even revelant or even addressed the section header. Just how was it relevant? What "view" was it supposed to be representing? Nufayl and the four friends are mentioned in the article, in both a much more significant and relevant manner elsewhere. "companions of the Prophet who were conspicuous for their ascetism and quietism -Zayd b.'Amr b. Nufayl, for example, who died before the Prophet's mission" did not even equate the concept with Hanif or with a for or against sense. Feel free to reinsert Margaret Smith or the book quoted in a more meaningful or appropriate sense. I removed a similar style of citation before as well for (lane), because well I prefer the one with the ISBN and much fuller book/ source details but have desisted since realising form the MoS that it is an acceptable version, though I beleive an inferior way of citing a work properly. Beyond that I have no idea what was being said before, nor do I have any feeling on the authors either that was removed so I just tossed the junk out the window while decorating.

The first paragraph is still there, except now you have the rationale behind the acceptance. I clearly marked that my edit was itself deficient and that it requires expansion on the rationale for those who don't beleive in the hanif as having existed prior and left in the special pleading part with citation needed tag so that someone can take a go at that. I really don't understand "what I have obliterated". My description "Non-Muslim views - added info on those who accept, needs additional information on those who reject". All material is concise and well-sourced and to the point in comparison to the earlier version.

I am sorry that you are still using a wooden leg, there are much better quality prostethics now available, better yet maybe you should just let those with two good legs run this race. With all respect, the special olympics is where you should really be participating with that wooden leg of yours.--Tigeroo 13:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: [1]

:D, (Lunarian 14:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Your note and the Pep talk I found

but men of the loftiest intellect, of a learning all their own, generous and great-hearted, whose only labor is to enrich with deathless works the commonwealth of letters.

was a breath of spring time in an as of yet winter-bound world. While making no claim to live up to all those qualities, none-the-less, it was what I needed to hear, To read. To anything. As far a original resaerch goes, I see that you got to me via Core shamanism and more to the point, I'd like to direct you to the discussion at Talk:Phallus. I added a section there (and I am about to add another cemetery marker photograph) about Phallic architecture and it was removed and pasted on the discussion page. Check it out, and perhaps keep this question in mind. Does it take an expert (in what?) to tell us that a structure looks like a penis? Feel free to add an opinion there, or not. I moved recently (June) and just , because of you, discovered that I can find neither my Devil's Dictionary, in which my personal favorites are "gentleman" and "historian" nor my "Sculpture of Modern Belgium" booklet. Hmmmmmmmm? There was more, but thatnks for the note. Carptrash 23:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm staying away from lingam right now, those folks, the serious ones anyway, are trying to do religion. No, I want phallus - or first Talk:Phallus, and the folks there to recognize that there is phallic architecture and that one does not need a PH.D. to recognize it. I've got my Jung out too, but I'll take your word that there's not anything there. Perhaps an Indian temple book might have something. By the way, I did find my The Devil's Dictionary, sandwitched between the Cambridge Biographical Dictionary and Vilhjalmur Stefansson,s My Life With The Eskimo, which included a note to my grandfather - so I posted that in Stefansson's article. I'm sure there is more - but that's for later. Carptrash 04:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That should have them thinking - or whatever. Meanwhile I add that SIZE COUNTS English building to the gallery on the discussion page. Here is another interesting one (opinion). This was on the sacrifice page for perhaps 2 years - then was moved to a "Pages to be deleted" (which I can't find) where a healthy debate ensued, that was running maybe 6 to 4 in favor of deleting it. in any case, certainly no concensus was reached . Now the link to the discussion - which was on the picture page, has been removed. Think I'll ask the chap who did it where it went. I found the picture at [here] whre it is Image 162. If you are bored, or just looking for a few monents elsewhere, like in northern New Mexico, check it out. Carptrash 16:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have the picture here, where it can stay as far as I'm concerned. It's interesting, puzzling...very striking as an image. In fact it could be used to illustrate striking images. Of sacrifice I'm less sure as it lacks specification and may have been put in scene, and then again it also can not be used to illustrate images put in scene: something very real happened there. Let it at least illustrate:

The Unknown Dog

In the 21st century an observer conserved a striking image of a dead dog. The carcass was layed out after a fashion that accentuated the importance of the individual (dog): in a circle of stones implying a practice with echoes of animism unsetling to what was deemed civilisation at the time.

But...the stones were not big enough to compare with real stone circles, the dog had stopped to wag in a usefull manner, the image looked unfocused in places or simply fell to the judgement of agents of civilisation looking with a veiled gaze... The observer shared in the dog's uselessness until it dawned on Man that many were the human beings (see also Black Elk) whose use had been arrested in such a striking, nay, deadly manner in the Great Rush Forwards when Comfort had guided the Notion of Honour to put in place Monuments to the simple fact of being Unknown: if so for Man why not for the Dog, Yudhisthira's Soulmate (in Sister Nivedita's telling of the story).

A bit squeamish at first (because overcivilised ?) the Consensus was arrived at to Commemorate, yes, but with a striking image. Only then came Rufus back in focus (image cf. supra).

Tara!

Something like that? (Lunarian 23:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

P.S. I must make a clear mind about the put in scene angle. That is my weak point. Is not a sacrifice a special case of putting something in scene. If so would one not be better off with an illustration of the active theater. That is what I mean with specifics. For the moment I'm to much in thought about Antonin Artaud and psychoanalysis of sacrifice for my comments to be palatable. (Lunarian 11:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

:Yes, something like that. Say, were you a philosophy major? Anyway, painted on a nearby rock, overlooking where I found the dog was this fellow. Now keep in mind that this is on the side of a mountain, no roads or even paths nearby and I just discovered it because (opinion) I was drawn by the vibrations . Or something. Yes, come to Dixon and I'll show you, only not now. We just had 4 inchces of snow last night making travelling cross country not really worth the effort. The picture of Dixon was taken on the same trip. Carptrash 16:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never a major, not even a corporal. I spent some time as a bartender, so maybe... Helps to sway the elbow in unison with good companions. Like I said...see you in Dixon, in the best of all possible worlds...

(The Watcher...fabulous picture, thanks)

Take care,

(Lunarian 23:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I think that you might be on to somethng. We need to get the ball rolling in the Things that we Don't know area of wikipedia. There are more of those watcher types up there too, though this fellow is my favorite. My latest is the Battle of Cieneguilla where I created a stub to use to frame some questions to the candidates in a Military History group election and what I got was info on what a crummy article it was and how to improve it. The battle site is one of those "out int the middle of nowhere" deals (there is a lot of that around here) and nearby thre are some what really look like graves, but are they the graves of the 22 soldiers killed there or . . . .......... something else? But I'm not going there ths time. My wife thinks that I'm a troublemaker and I don't want to prove right too many times. Carptrash 16:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Must have been romantic when she asked you to admit...that you realy are a troublemaker, Carp :D

But...

Du choc des idées jallit la lumière !

(Light streams forth from ideas in conflict.)

Glad to know you,

Lunarian

And I you. Togethter we might well be greater than the sum of our parts. Carptrash 15:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are becoming a known dog

Okay, so I'm going to check my mail here, to do otherwise would be rude. But I'm laying off edits for a bit. What anarchists all through out time and space have discovered is that if you get in front of the bureaucratic steamroller it will run you over. I think that the most active site on my watchlist is "Request for Administratorship" . Most of the edits I see now are someone telling other folks what to do with an article. Yes, I need a vacation. However, I am going to Phoenix in two day where I have family and A friend Walt (also an independent wikipedian) has got us an appointment to interview John Henry Waddell - one of my better articles, so that migh perk me up a bit, though I am currently not inclined to share. Still not found that Belgium book either. Carptrash 14:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the beauty of Waddell may well cure you. But the steamroller you describe is puny to the Xtreme. Lots of space on either side for the Homo Ludens. Look how this one did it.

Have a nice trip

Lunarian

You have earned the

seldom coveted Thumbs Up Award. Your anarchist was lucky not to get shot in Paris. I like the Homo Ludens link too, though it sounds like theory to me. I have long seen playing and creating art as being integral, parts of my daily life, woven with a very tight weave with all the other threads that make up me. Part of my issue is that I can't separate the various components of my life from each other and really, to be honest (and why not?) I really don't wish to do so. I am a feeling type and NOT and thinking type. Oh yes, do you mind checking out the deletion vote at Esther Hicks. It's the classic, "I don't like this philosophy so let's remove all reference to it." sort of thing. Happened a lot in Egypt and Rome where names were chiseled off of the monuments to Akhenaten and Septimius Severus - -or maybe they did the chiseling? ? Anyway. "Life is supposed to be fun." (Esther Hicks said that) . Carptrash 17:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seldom coveted, but ever treasured

Lunarian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.193.164.157 (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

(It's O.K. dummy, I signed it myself Lunarian 10:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Please Check: Va te faire foutre

Dear Lunarian, It is not the fault of anyone else if:

you are unfamiliar with the difference between writing good English and performing bad translations
you have no manners. That makes you a troll.

I suggest that you leave off insulting other users long enough to stroll down to the public library and pick up a grammar book. Your unprovoked insults are not wanted on Wikipedia; it's a community that encourages the sharing of learning, not unwarranted (or incorrect) and seemingly unfounded (in your case) elitism.

unsigned comment

This unsigned comment was posted by User:Ponyboy in reply to a comment on his talkpage, see:[2] following:[3]

(Lunarian 11:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

P.S. I added this: [4] for good measure

:D ! (Lunarian 11:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I went where (in his archaic french) he told me to go, it was dull as hell in winter.

If you are valiant, do not follow.

:D ! (Lunarian 11:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Dear Troll,

Perhaps my invitation is archaic in Belgian French, but I think you get my gist. Mais je vous signale, avec un certain plaisir, que "foutre" n'est pas un endroit auquel on peut aller. De toute évidence, votre compréhension de la syntaxe française n'est pas plus approfondie de votre 'maîtrise' de la syntaxe anglaise. Furthermore, no one needs an understanding of French (and certainly not Flemish, which is not even in the same language family as French) in order to clean up bad syntax on an entry on a French author. And technically, in order to write an article on en.wikipedia.org, it simply helps to have some mastery of the English language. But not even that is necessary, because Wikipedia is a community in which people contribute and help. What you seem unable to understand is that when I cleaned up the syntax on that article, I did so not in order to attack you personally, but to help make the article legible. Please note that Wikipedia does not exist solely to showcase your skills. --ponyboy 00:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can imagine the pleasure you get out of foutre but that is not what this is about.

The following is french:

Son père, craignant d'être compromis,le fit passer pour fou et le fit interner. Grâce aux interventions de son ami Arthur Arnould, Vallès fut libéré au bout de deux mois...

(1978,Bernard Noël in Dictionnaire de la Commune)

How does this become:

Thanks to the help from his father and his friend (...) he managed to escape. ?

Can you, also, please cite your reference for "l'Argent" being adapted for stage...

Some more french:

1853- Son père ayant été nommé professeur à Rouen en septembre, Vallès passe quelque temps auprès de lui; puis de retour à Paris, il vit dans la misère.

(1975, Marie-Claire Bancquart's Chronologie in L'insurgé -Folio Gallimard)

Hence...in 1851 Vallès père was still pion in Nantes

et cetera...

"J'ai toujours été l'avocat des pauvres, je deviens le candidat du travail, je serai le député de la misère."

Jules Vallés on the 1869 elections (in B. Noël, 1978)

permettez que je vous f... mon p... sur la g...,

sauf le respect que je vous dois

Lunarian 09:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where The Game Starts

Thank you for your comments at User_talk:Jeffmcneill#Where_The_Game_Starts regarding Homo Ludens (Book)and sorry for the delay in my reply. I have gone ahead and changed the reference to Dutch from the error I made in using German. Aloha and Mahalo Jeffmcneill ^{talk contribs} 21:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verlaine

Il me paraît tout à fait abusif de dire que Mathilde Mauté fut une disciple de Louise Michel, sous prétexte que celle-ci fut son institutrice et qu'elles restèrent amies. Et sans aucune indication de source. Peux-tu me dire où tu as trouvé cette information ? Merci. Kgroussos 12:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Et vous, pourquoi vous me le demandez ? Je n'ai rien à voir dans votre bordel.

Au risque de vous déplaire, Lunarian 10:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excusez-moi, il m'avait semblé que l'ajout venait de vous. Désolé. Merci quand même de m'avoir répondu Kgroussos 16:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quant au tutoiement, c'est la fréquentation du wkp que je fréquente habituellement, où il est de règle, qui m'a fait commettre cette incorrection. Cela ne se reproduira plus. Kgroussos 08:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for showing up as

a knight in shining armour and rescuing this . . ....... damsel in distress? While I have you here, how would you like to be the first visitor to my blog? I need someone to say something just to break the ice. i am tryng to figure out how to get the earliest post to show first and have the othrs line up behind itm like a book, but no dice yet. Know anything about that sort of thing? Life is good, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[5] Lunarian (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well here is my new, short blog - http://pioneerwomen.blogspot.com/

but my real work/play is here. - http://www.archsculptbooks.com/home.htm

So who needs Wikipedia, you ugly monicker !

Lunarian (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well i suspect that we both feel that wikipedia's a good idea in many respects. However to the pushiest goes the spoils - that often (opinion) being a spoiled wikipedia. Carptrash (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again (and again, and again and again) for your copyright insight. Yes, I know about the Fair Use stuff, but have reached the point where I am content with a Carpless wikipedia, at least as far as sculpture images go. The Copyright Crusade (I think also known as the IXX Crusade) has won this round. The War has a long way to go, but will not be fought be me, here. I have tried, just as sort of an experiment, to track down copyright holders of sculpture and the best i can get is, "We are not saying that we do and we are not saying that we don't." Thanks. That helps a lot. However the Puritans, the Robespierre's, the Upholders of the Only Right Way care more than I do. Life is good. Better some places than others. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Masonic ritual and symbolism

What did your edits actually mean? I've tried to format them so that they make a bit more sense, but I'm still stumped. JASpencer (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been removed by that other editor any way. JASpencer (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, good luck with your bickering.

Lunarian (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you're not leaving the article alone, I think it's more than fair to ask you to explain what you are trying to say, why it's relevant, and then support it with evidence before you add it to the article. What you provided shows nothing of substance. MSJapan (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MSJ, the topic does not belong to you. It is perfectly acceptable to ask for citations rather than shout at people who disagree with you. JASpencer (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll explain for the sake of Spencer on discussion page.

Lunarian (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother?: Since the start of this discussion [6] some of my articles have been vandalised by MSJapan, allegedly a freemason, under the usual cover of good Wiki policy. I hope sincere students have the wisdom to compare with prior versions. I am not going to ammend what he undoes.

In sincere friendship,

Lunarian (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lunarian, I hope you simply mispoke in your last comment, but in case you didn't... you need to know that there is no such thing as "my articles" on Wikipedia... they are all our articles. Anyone can edit any article... and anyone can challenge the edits of others. Such edits and challenges are not considered vandalism.

(unsigned comment)

Indeed, they do not belong to me. I am responsible for what I put in. My edits, perhaps ?

If you are refering to MSJapan's challenge. It's no chalenge but a ridiculous invitation to an edit war.

I invite readers of the aricles to look up prior edits in edit history and eventually discuss them unfiltered by MSJapan.

I will not reply to MSJapan on my talkpage, nor to any other challenge unsupported by solid reference; chapter and verse. I will choose to delete. Unless they are from admins.

In the most extreme case I will put each and every of my edits up for deletion.

I do have a life without Wikipedia.

Lunarian (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also cross editors who I much respect.

For their sake I will give an example of what the argument is about. Spelled out, to avoid need to look up edit history.

One of my edits in Andrew Michael Ramsay read:

Ramsay travelled to Rijnsburg to meet Pierre Poiret, a warm admirer of Fénelon and (...) Mme Guyon; from there he travelled on...

InMSJapan's version this becomes:

Ramsay travelled to Rijnsburg to meet Pierre Poiret and Mme Guyon; from there he travelled on...

When told Mme Guyon was not in Rijnsburg, he agrees to fix it. It now becomes:

Ramsay travelled to Rijnsburg to meet Pierre Poiret and later met (...) Mme Guyon; from there he travelled on...

I call this ridiculous.

To comment in the same vein on each of his edits would take a lifetime were it not that he sticks to simple deletion, this he calls a chalenge...

In the discussion on Les Neuf Soeurs a chalenge following a delete reads: Why would a widow( in casu Mme Helvétius )help to start a Masonic lodge that was apparantly for men only ?

He calls himself a Freemason (per Userpage) but apparantly he is unaware of the lady freemason Mrs Aldworth, a patroness of the craft, initiated in 1710. A fact related in the most accessible source Pick and Knight's Pocket History Of Freemasonry - Revised by Frederick Smyth Muller ed 1991 ISBN 0-09-174708-2 pg 152.. Not to mention the Princesse de Lamballe who ... but here the reference is French. Verboten !

Like I said, it would take a lifetime...

Lunarian (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recapitulons: " MSJapan can do as he please...let him not expect a serious counter, as with so much else on Wikipedia his interventions are a loss...to all of us ". Lunarian (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post Scriptum: Meanwhile the article Masonic ritual and symbolism has been...deleted. :D! Lunarian (talk) 10:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MSJapan has not deleted that page. He can't, he's not an administrator. What he has done is to redirect it despite the decision to keep due to no concensus. You are perfectly free to undo the edit, but please avoid an edit war if you do this. Read WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL. JASpencer (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I merely stated it was deleted. The redirect goes to Freemasonry of which Masonic ritual and symbolism is an incomplete subsection. There is no longer any page: Masonic ritual and symbolism.

Please restate your point. Need I understand you are about to 3RR or to become uncivil ?

You are welcome,

Lunarian (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Yani

Since you mention her and link off wikipedia on your user page, maybe you would take a look at the page Wang Yani and see if you have anything to add? Felisse (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you liked it and happy to have brightened someone's day. Hope today is bright for you too! Felisse (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Idries Shah and James "the hatchet" Moore

Hi Lunarian, I've left a reply to your comment on the Idries Shah discussion page. It's no big deal: the subject of your complaint to me was simply me taking 5 minutes out and shooting the breeze with User:Jayen466. I'm no fan of James Moore and hate to have to use him, but sometimes he's the only guy who presents neutral facts about things in Shah family articles. Someone's just created an article for Oriental Magic with very bare references with no detail. If that's nominated for deletion, it may be that Moore has to be drafted in with a notable reference to the book :-(

If you have any complaints about the pages I've created, see User:Esowteric where the pages are listed. Many thanks, Esowteric (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Eric, for seeing trough my somewhat inflated language.

But: "he is the only guy who presents neutral facts about things in Shah family aricles." ...Does this not all the more call for factual evaluation ? If the sources were multiple one could at least begin to verify. It is no good either to refer to other sources whose "factual" relation is the off-hand acception of Moore as a reliable source.

So, can you state for a fact that Idries Shah was his father's secretary on the halal meat mission ? What if anything was this mission exactly ? With the accent on "exactly", as in "factually reliable". Did any of the foreign office notes actually accuse Idries' father to cause any failure or even state exactly what he was supposed to haven been doing in the first place, while at the same time refering to Idries as his secretary ?

I am sorry you feel yourself doomed to remain fixated upon "the hatchet"...

Lunarian (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 July 2009: Idries Shah edits

Lunarian, I'm concerned at your recent edits to Idries Shah which added a mass of quotations and also removed a lot of sourced material. Esowteric | Talk 10:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, would not the quotations more likely reflect the point of view of Idries Shah himself ?

They are from three different books thus more or less refering to a broader view than the one commonly voiced under the aegeis of Moore.

There has been no reaction to my rather lengthy preliminary to my hatchet job on the discussion page.

Perhaps now is a good time to take the discussion the lenght it needs to conform the content of the article with the intention of the subject Idries Shah to introduce the preliminaries of Sufi studie.

Some knowledge of that intention, often if not always, stressed by the author is necessary to counter the absurd allegations of such experts as Moore or the contemporary reviewers -unaware of the content of Shah's (29 ?) books- perpetuating a form of debunking that is unacceptable among serious people.

Lunarian (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lunarian, the following is not a reliable source we could use in Wikipedia, but you might find it of personal interest. I think this must be one of the sources that I had the thing with the wine stuck in my head from (there are several references to it throughout the page). Regards, JN 466 14:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for resolving these issues, Lunarian. Esowteric | Talk 11:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Awarded to you for a civil disagreement over Idries Shah, sorted out with a happy and amicable outcome. Thanks, Esowteric \| Talk 11:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sirdar Ikbal Ali Shah: 24 July 2009

Hi Lunarian, there's no need to delete your edits; they just need a little work on them, that's all. Unfortunately, I no longer have the books, so the best I could do was to copyedit and add a couple of fact tags and a clarification tag. Thanks for your useful ideas and efforts, Esowteric+Talk 12:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]