User talk:Purples

go 'head and talk to me here....

Please read WP:TROLL, WP:POINT, and WP:SOCK and make sure that you don't fit into any of those. Cbrown1023 talk 00:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not breaking any rules or guidelines. Purples 02:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

idealism, naturalism, empiricism, and realism

P., I reply with a philosophical answer, which you may take as you please.

There is a beautiful street in my neighborhood, a quiet one, nicely proportioned, of just the right width and length, with mature trees, nice-looking houses, children who play on its lawns, and neighbors. Once, when driving slowly along it (so as not to alarm the children) I saw a couple speaking to each other. The woman, whom I believe to be the wife, was standing on a large rock, that she might tower over the man, and she appeared to be gesturing in a power-demanding way to the man. This disturbed me, as I have the illusion that those who live on that street have wonderful lives. Clearly, I have an ideal, about that street and life, which rests in my heart.

Although I have these ideals, the love of Nature and all its power lies in my heart as well, so that I understand that the mystery and beauty inherent in N. sometimes has no room for the demands of Man. Thus there are beings in Nature who deceive simply to survive, and their lives are testament to a Nature who lets them be. They exist and survive.

I was trained to respect empiricism because that is at the root of the power of our civilization, but realism probably enjoys a better-founded set of concepts. So I believe that your principled outrage at a being who has deceived, survived, and who has even found a better gig in his existence, may be a stage in the process of

Coping with Grief and Loss -- Common reactions. -- Elizabeth Kubler-Ross

1. Denial/shock It can't be
2. Anger toward the person, situation or self
3. Guilt - If only ...
4. Depression, Loneliness, Facing death, etc.
5. Relief
6. Hope
7. Return

So the outing of _ has me personally at #4. But I expect my feelings will transmute. I admit to reacting with #1. I do not feel a need to forgive, because I never felt #2. --Ancheta Wis 18:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

And the street to which I referred above might be taken as a metaphor for Wikipedia. My references to Nature and Reality stand on their own.

The psychosociality of the Wikipedia Persona

I did this thing, user:Geogre/People People, a while back to try to decry what I call the "Friendster side" of Wikipedia. However, the primary thing is that there is a psychological wound that people carry with them. "Everyone is just as God made them, and sometimes a great deal worse." Well, I think everyone is a good deal worse, but mainly because each person's negotiations with others is unsatisfactory. So, we're all frustrated at not being the acknowledged Emporer of Earth or Czarina of all the Russias, and so we all are attracted to where "nobody knows you're a dog." That's average. What's not average is when people have not a wound, but a disability, because their negotiations with the world have been unfair in some way. Those bullied, belittled, stereotyped, and savaged by the world of physical people are often malformed from their experiences. The fault goes to something big, and unindictable, like Society, but the consequence is that some people are particularly needful of the world of personae rather than persons. I worry about that a little, and I mourn it. What I worry about more is when a group of needy people agree with each other to ask no questions (like George and Martha with their "son" in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf) of their fictions and to act like the other fellow's personae is his person so that the other person will not look into the mouth of his own personae. That is trouble. Disaster is just one step down the line from that: when people agree to treat the persona as a person among persons. It's a small step. Geogre 12:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The same thing in fewer words: "On the Internet, no one knows that you're not Hans Kung, but when you try to cash his check at the bank, there might be trouble." Geogre 03:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

A reply....

thanks very much for your fine food for thought - rather like a good meal, I may need a small nap to properly digest it all! I'm beginning to think that the issues that people who cannot seperate from their avatars face are not solely their responsibilities. There may be a systemic cause behind it all. I think that's what i was getting at when saying wiki-love was an unhelpful concept - perhaps I should add that to some people its been undoubtedly dangerous - constantly encouraging them to invest more and more in their personae (and if you look at the contributions, withrawing very worringly from that nasty real world). But what can we do about it beyond sharing this understanding? not sure.....

On a side note - the point you made that nobody knows anyone is particularly self-evident at the mo. in the volumes of comment about essjay - and here's an interesting person / personae question - if he just retired that username and came back as someone else, making no mention, would that be unethical? I'm going to go for a swim and ponder that one....... nice to talk with you, by the way! Purples 04:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay

Ok, I went through your contribs (only 500 in two years? :) ) and I found that you started no less than three threads on Essjay's talkpage repeatedly asking him to confirm his current identity. You also got into arguments with several people who watch his page. Seriously, if you didn't get an answer the first time, why did you ask twice more? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

hi again...

well, you're certainly correct that i started three threads trying to get to the bottom of something - and you're right that some of the editors who watch essjays page took umbrage. I actually felt they were quite aggressive towards me. When i got no response, i tried to continue raising things calmly because i felt that this was a serious issue that wasn't going to go away. I hope essjay is going to move forward from here, and have wished him luck - best, Purples 22:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks for your note, and for the conciliatory tone, which is much appreciated. The problem I have with using sockpuppet accounts in policy discussions is that it's important for people to see where certain arguments are coming from. You could be someone who regularly posts to one of these sites, for example, or even one of the founders, and people need to know that so they can evaluate your input. If the proposed policy is something you have strong feelings about, I hope you'll consider posting about it from your regular account. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

it's a little conspicuous......

....you know - the absence here of people talking about me here

...anyways, please do wander over and pull up a chair... - Purples 08:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

arbitration requested - you are named

User:Mangoe has filed for arbitration about Wikipedia:Attack sites at this address. We are named parties. - Denny ^(talk) 21:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

i can't actually find it any more - maybe it's just gone for now? - hmmmm.... Purples 09:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Open House......

that's what this is! - I'm happy to engage anyone - pull up a chair! - Purples 04:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Too much sugar

You write such sweet messages, but then I see edit summaries such as "i won't revert if someone really feels it should be in" followed by more reverting when someone who "really feels it should be in" does indeed restore it. When one of my nephews was a kid, he used to race up to visitors and punch them in the stomach, followed by a sweet smile and an apology before he promptly did it again. I am reminded of him now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I take your point on the second reversion - i suppose in my defense i should point out that i wasn't the next person to revert, and that i stopped at two - but i actually did feel a bit unsettled about that decision - should probably have left it at 1 revert - maybe it wouldn't have escalated to require protection if i hadn't done that, and if that's so, then i'm sorry - 1RR is probably a good rule to live by.

As for the sweetness... er... thanks, and I promise not to punch you in the tummy! (or to put it another way, I look forward to engaging with you productively on these issues...) - best - Purples 05:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Purples, you've been given a good character reference by an editor I respect a lot, so I'm writing to apologize for not assuming good faith, and to signal my willingness to work with you from now on, if you'll still have me. Thank for your patience and politeness in the face of my acerbic onslaught. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no worries Slim - you seem to have to deal with a lot of kooks, so it's understandable that sometimes you can't tell the wood from the trees - we may be coming from different places on some issues, but it's great to build bridges (and not lurk under them!) - thanks for the note, and best wishes - Purples 04:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The Country Wife

Thanks for your input and defense, Purp. Did you see my sour post on Wikipedia talk:Featured article review? I moved the CW review from FAR to FARC, but you'd have had to not blink, it had been archived the next minute. I wish my move had been let stand—of course I didn't exactly expect it to—but I've been disenchanted with both FAC and FAR even before this latest choice experience. I like to write content, but I'm damned—I mean fucked—if I'll willingly feed any more of it into the Fearsome Footnote Factory. [Starts to go green]. WHERE TOKYO? STOMP! Bishonen | talk 19:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC).

No problem - it was just my opinion!.... i'd missed your comment, and hadn't really checked out the whole Featured Article thing before, but it's a strange one.... and possibly a lot more serious than any of us are realising at the mo. - being that foolish in assessing the quality of our articles can only drive the encylcopedia in one direction. It's great that some of our best contributors (you, Geogre, Giano etc.) are able to see the featured process for what it's becoming, and let it go - but it's also a shame, and I think it's increasingly likely that a new-ish expert contributor could be run off by such behaviour.

Perhaps some of the problem is that wikipedia has such a draw to engage people, that folk who aren't able to contribute content (virtually every topic a layman may be aware of is extensively covered now) get excited by processes like the featured review - they certainly seem to wear their hats and badges with pride, I guess that's why attempts to explain problems they may be causing come across as personal affronts in many cases.

there's food for thought here for more than one sitting - so perhaps more anon?! - best, Purples 02:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

wowsers.....

Hi Purples! I would be the last person to qualify you as a little crazy based on those edits. In short, I like them :-) Avb 14:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

PS Interesting company here on your talk page! Avb 14:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

... i think it just gets more and more interesting. Purples 14:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

<grin> Avb 15:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi, Purples, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, Giggy _U^CP 04:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

no worries Giggy - i'll take a look when the link turns blue - In general, you sure do alot of work, and you seem to want to be admin - i think the best advice would be just to occasionally take a deep breath and make sure to really listen and consider the perspective of people you disagree with - cheers, Purples 05:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments mate, I'll take it on board, when/if I return. See you soon :) Giggy _U^CP 05:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Link is now blue :) Giggy _U^CP 22:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan King

I'm not SqueakBox, but I've been checking in for a reply from him. If you need another POV on a subject maybe I can help look over it. SqueakBox is a lot more experienced than I am so I would take his advice over mine, but maybe I can still help. Jmm6f488 02:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

that would be cool - you know, no-one really knows any more than anyone else here, so of course your thoughts would be great! - thanks, Purples 04:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Jamie Durie

Looks like his Mum and Gran were both Sri Lankan [1]! --Stephen ^1-800-STEVE 10:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

well whooda thunk it.... ! - Purples 01:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oopsie poopsie.....

Hi Mark - i thought i'd let you know that User:Oopsie poopsie has moved over to User:Oopsie Poopsie - I've copied the talk page over to the new spot, but perhaps this was hasty because the user and I are clearly in conflict (and I'm unsure as to the policy recommendations in this case) - would you mind taking a look? - thanks...... Purples 01:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

doh! - i'm thinking now that I should have used the Page move to preserve the history etc. - i'll leave well alone to avoid making things worse, but any help you could offer would be great.... Purples 01:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to why I should get involved, other than to say that interfering with another's userspace is often not a good idea. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 08:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess i'm asking for advice about a) whether or not the talk page copy is the right thing to do - I was thinking that other editors should be able to see the talk history... and b) if I've done it correctly / how to do it correctly if it is the right thing to do.... thanks..... Purples 08:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This is something you should have been discussing with the user concerned beforehand. Or perhaps with a sufficiently neutral third party who happens to be available at that time of night/early morning (BST). That's all I have to say on the matter. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 08:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Working together

Thank you for your thoughful responses to my posts on the talk page of the Jonathan King article. File:Dainsyng.gif It's been a pleasure working with you and the other editors there. Take care, FloNight 13:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Anna Svidersky

Please see WP:LEAD regarding your edit.[2] The lead is meant to be a summary of the main article, so this important information should be in it. You might like to revert the edit. Tyrenius 07:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi tyrenius - i'll reply on the talk page - thanks.... Purples 07:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

STOP changing my text in Discussion Areas

ummm.. well i don't want to upset you, but i'm really not changing your text at all - i did remove your somewhat idiosyncratic formatting once (the blue box around your comments) but never any of the text, and never repeatedly - this wasn't meant to upset you at all, just an attempt to make your comments, and the thread that they're in, more clear.

I'll leave your formatting in place here for a while as a sign of good faith, but it's probably best not to care too much about formatting like the blue box - other editors may reformat without intending any insult or hurt.... best, - Purples 12:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Gothic Chess talk-page archives?

You moved some messages from Talk:Gothic Chess into an archive here but forgot to add a link to the archive in question. So where exactly are those messages archived now? —ZeroOne (talk / @) 21:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion - i'm not really an experienced archivist! - all the message are here - in 'Archive 2' - which is linked to at the top of the talk page. My cursory glance shows that they're all there, but huge apologies if i've stuffed up at all..... hope this helps, best - Purples 00:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Oli Filth just explained and fixed the case here. I don't think you have made any mistakes, sorry for disturbing you. :) —ZeroOne (talk / @) 11:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI Neoliminal is John Lewis

John Lewis added his own self-published paper to the table of values again. I asked several imporant questions about him in the bottom of the Gothic Chess talk page. Namely, why does he call himself a "game theorist" when clearly this is not his profession, and what is required to label one's self as a "game theorist"? Clearly he is self-proclaiming this title, and clearly he is using the Gothic Chess page to just promote his own values to a wider circle.

I claim as he is the author of this unpublished work, that it is a conflict of interest to allow himself to edit this subset of the page.

GothicChessInventor 02:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ed - thanks for your note, I'll respond on the talk page... - Purples 02:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites opened

Hello, Purples. The arbitration case in which you commented to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)