Dealing with an issue on [[Talk:Perfect crime]]:
Me: "...which is of course not to say that the concept of "perfect crime" is meaningless, just that it only has meaning outside of a religious view and within very narrow contexts like colloquial usage and crime novels. A paragraph on the religious point of view doesn't hurt the encyclopedia and in fact gives the article greater depth and illumination."
-SV
2009/5/4 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Dealing with an issue on [[Talk:Perfect crime]]:
Me: "...which is of course not to say that the concept of "perfect crime" is meaningless, just that it only has meaning outside of a religious view and within very narrow contexts like colloquial usage and crime novels. A paragraph on the religious point of view doesn't hurt the encyclopedia and in fact gives the article greater depth and illumination."
I'm sorry, what is your point? This isn't a good place to discuss individual articles, keep that on the talk pages. Did you have a general point you wanted to discuss?
I didn't want to seem rude my asking what the point was, but I agree - I don't understand the point you were trying to make. If I had to make a guess, I assume you are in some sort of disagreement on that talk page - I haven't visited it - about what is and isn't encyclopedic and came here attempting to recruit support for your point of view?
Angela
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/5/4 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Dealing with an issue on [[Talk:Perfect crime]]:
Me: "...which is of course not to say that the concept of "perfect crime"
is
meaningless, just that it only has meaning outside of a religious view
and
within very narrow contexts like colloquial usage and crime novels. A paragraph on the religious point of view doesn't hurt the encyclopedia
and
in fact gives the article greater depth and illumination."
I'm sorry, what is your point? This isn't a good place to discuss individual articles, keep that on the talk pages. Did you have a general point you wanted to discuss?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/5/4 Angela Anuszewski angela.anuszewski@gmail.com:
I didn't want to seem rude
I never let that concern me! ;)
"Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote in message news:a4359dff0905041400s344e381bl8129696714d09af5@mail.gmail.com...
2009/5/4 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Dealing with an issue on [[Talk:Perfect crime]]:
Me: "...which is of course not to say that the concept of "perfect crime" is meaningless, just that it only has meaning outside of a religious view and within very narrow contexts like colloquial usage and crime novels. A paragraph on the religious point of view doesn't hurt the encyclopedia and in fact gives the article greater depth and illumination."
I'm sorry, what is your point? This isn't a good place to discuss individual articles, keep that on the talk pages. Did you have a general point you wanted to discuss?
That rule excludes me, so I do not like it. The name of the group is not "External Affairs".
2009/5/21 Jay Litwyn brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca:
"Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote in message news:a4359dff0905041400s344e381bl8129696714d09af5@mail.gmail.com...
2009/5/4 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Dealing with an issue on [[Talk:Perfect crime]]:
Me: "...which is of course not to say that the concept of "perfect crime" is meaningless, just that it only has meaning outside of a religious view and within very narrow contexts like colloquial usage and crime novels. A paragraph on the religious point of view doesn't hurt the encyclopedia and in fact gives the article greater depth and illumination."
I'm sorry, what is your point? This isn't a good place to discuss individual articles, keep that on the talk pages. Did you have a general point you wanted to discuss?
That rule excludes me, so I do not like it. The name of the group is not "External Affairs".
It excludes you because you have been blocked. That means the community does not want your contributions, not that it wants them somewhere else.
"Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote in message news:a4359dff0905210715y374984dfgdc50e68a30de04e1@mail.gmail.com...
2009/5/21 Jay Litwyn brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca:
"Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote in message news:a4359dff0905041400s344e381bl8129696714d09af5@mail.gmail.com...
2009/5/4 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Dealing with an issue on [[Talk:Perfect crime]]:
Me: "...which is of course not to say that the concept of "perfect crime" is meaningless, just that it only has meaning outside of a religious view and within very narrow contexts like colloquial usage and crime novels. A paragraph on the religious point of view doesn't hurt the encyclopedia and in fact gives the article greater depth and illumination."
I'm sorry, what is your point? This isn't a good place to discuss individual articles, keep that on the talk pages. Did you have a general point you wanted to discuss?
That rule excludes me, so I do not like it. The name of the group is not "External Affairs".
It excludes you because you have been blocked. That means the community does not want your contributions, not that it wants them somewhere else.
I hav been placed on moderation for feeding a troll. Speak for yourself, Mister Dalton. You must realize by now that you can only imagine what other people think, and in the moment you wrote "community", you were speaking for other blocked users who might want to know that they can contribute, here, regarding things that are ON wikipedia, rather than having everybody concentrate on what is not. The name of the group is not "External Affairs".
The first element of jenius is knowing what can be borrowed or bought without being taken or caught, so perfection is not getting caught. When you are talking about an oxymoron like "perfect crime", there is a limited context. Professor Moriarty is as big as Holmes in some circles. Where would the stories be without a villain like that? If you're talking about Star Trek, well, it's interesting that Data brought a semblance of interactive life to the professor, while Holmes only lives in books, unless you count Data as superior to Holmes.
Oops. It was Jeordi, not Data, who brought the professor to life with an order to the computer demanding that the villain could beat Data.
I must have been away too long, but seriously, guys, what's up with this style of posting? "Here's my totally cryptic comment, see if you can figure out what the hell I mean!"
Do everyone a favour and give people a bit of context. This goes equally for the "slog rank" post which inspired 10 replies and still no one knows what the hell you were talking about or where that 8.5% came from.
Steve
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 5:42 AM, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Dealing with an issue on [[Talk:Perfect crime]]:
Me: "...which is of course not to say that the concept of "perfect crime" is meaningless, just that it only has meaning outside of a religious view and within very narrow contexts like colloquial usage and crime novels. A paragraph on the religious point of view doesn't hurt the encyclopedia and in fact gives the article greater depth and illumination."
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 4:03 AM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I must have been away too long, but seriously, guys, what's up with this style of posting? "Here's my totally cryptic comment, see if you can figure out what the hell I mean!"
Do everyone a favour and give people a bit of context. This goes equally for the "slog rank" post which inspired 10 replies and still no one knows what the hell you were talking about or where that 8.5% came from.
Steve
Hear! Hear!
--Oskar
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 3:19 AM, Oskar Sigvardsson < oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 4:03 AM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I must have been away too long, but seriously, guys, what's up with this style of posting? "Here's my totally cryptic comment, see if you can figure out what the hell I mean!"
Do everyone a favour and give people a bit of context. This goes equally for the "slog rank" post which inspired 10 replies and still no one knows what the hell you were talking about or where that 8.5% came from.
Steve
Hear! Hear!
Context "slog" - the mathies are still upset apparently. But IIRC I dealt with it though, and quite thoroughly I might add, in that "lack of progress bars" post earlier in this thread.
That out of the way I don't understand Steve how a couple late offhand comments apparently inspired you to comment on the original post, which you appear to suggest lacked context. It had a link to a talk page discussion - an involved description I did not give here because, well..
Anyway that debate at [[Talk:Perfect crime]] is on the back burner. I've said all I have to say on that there, namely that: 1) a literary superlative+concept does not a special well-defined article make: 1a) such that it be considered a formal well-defined concept 1b) such that it exclude relevant, linkable concepts. 2) a conceptual_negation+concept(~aspects) opens the door for ~negated_aspect: 2a) to be at least mentioned. 2b) to be defined in relative context.
Fanciful anti-theistic inconsequentialism apparently has its defenders though.
-Steven