User talk:Lapaz

talk, whisper, shout - sing if you can!

re: Among the Thugs

Well, here's the thing. I don't have a copy of the book. But, seeing as I should probably source that anyway, and the library a couple of towns over has a copy, I'll see what I can do. No promises, though. I'll let you know if I find it (I don't have the time to read the whole book again just for that, interesting though it was). Do you have at least access to a copy? It'd be easier for me to just give you a page number rather than having to type the whole godamn thing out. I'll e-mail you: if you don't want to publicise your e-mail just set it in your preferences and it'll be anonymous. (Note: When you have time, you really should read the book, it's very interesting.) Snoutwood (tóg) 00:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: I'm sorry, I'm finding that I just don't have the time. If you really need the info and can't read the book, an alternative would be to try your public librarian or a research forum such as Google Answers. Cheers, Snoutwood (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

O.K., I will. Take care, Snoutwood (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Classification by ethnicity

Thanks for your comments. In general, I don't see any point in flagging biographies of individuals (dead or alive) by whatever race or ethnic group or Volk or what have you the editors believe they deserve to be included in. If somebody's view of the right bag in which to put Mr. X had a very significant effect on X's life, then that will generally already be mentioned in the article. It does seem to me, however, that the absurdity of some such categories is clearer than that of others. I suppose one may start at the weakest point in the chain and then see what comes out of the discussion.

For what it is worth, I have submitted the page to Categories_for_deletion. Your opinions will be appreciated. Hasdrubal 22:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Responding to your comments on my talk page on this subject, my main issues with such cats are 1) they are very subjective 2) they can be neologistic. I don't think it is possible to eliminate them from WP as American usage is dominant here (IMO) and few Americans see that describing someone as (for example) Italian-American may be problematic. As this whole area is very much one of opinion rather than of fact (you appear to be setting "nation" and "ethnicity" as wholly seperate whereas it is never quite that simple - again IMO), my guide to what is acceptable is whether usage can be demonstrated as commonplace (so with regard to my own country, I have not listed all British "ethnic" cats for deletion as some of them are in regular use in discourse within the UK). Similarly, on this basis I can't support the blanket deletion of all cats that refer to France. French people may be French on account of their citizenship, but they do not cease to have "ethnicity" as a result of this. Such cats would need to be decided on a case by case basis. Valiantis 13:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

CNE

hey Lapaz, regarding the "reversed burden of proof" (i.e. employees fired under CNE have to carry the burden of proof) on the CNE, do you have any specific source or reference about it, even in French? I can't find any mention of that issue anywhere!Sarreau 19:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Ego-mania

I think you're right on with the ego redirect. I decided to be bold—see Talk: Ego, super-ego, and id for details. —johndburger 01:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Haiti

Hello,

I have, for the time being, reverted your move of Haiti to Haïti. In general, we use English spellings for place names and other article titles and text. If you disagree with the application of this policy to the article on Haiti, you should go through Wikipedia:Requested moves, rather than move a highly important page like a country page by yourself.

Regards, Montréalais 17:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

edit to refugee

Hi Lapaz, I have a question at Talk:Refugee about your text removal. Regards, BanyanTree 19:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Howdy

Quoting Lapaz: re: Scramble for Africa

"My English may not be perfect, however, I do believe that it is fundamental speaking of the Fashoda Incident & others crisis in the intro. Brevity mustn't means simplification, and it is quite impossible to understand how in hell could the Scramble for Africa be related to World War I if you don't pass by these historical crisis"

well, sure, but isn't naming specific incidents a bit much for the introduction? do we prefer global context or high-resolution detail here? i thought it simpler to cut rather than modify for that reason.

also, that sentence, like many, was a run-on. and it weirdly talked about an 1898 event as if it had been caused by a 1902 event. it's not grammar, just logic.

"I just want to add that the intro must be as concise as possible but, more importantly, should provide the global context need for the understanding of the article. In other words, it shouldn't repeat what the article says itself, but link it to worldwide event. This means linking it to the First World War, and thus speaking of these important international crisis. I leave the issue of the Russo-Japanese War up to you, although it could be included as, although I may have awkardly put it, it is the first war won against Europeans, and thus lead to a radical shift in mentalities (the Yellow Peril, etc.): White Man could be beaten."

right, well, what you just said makes the case for exclusion of the Russo-Japanese War from this intro better than i could make it. do we have a source for the idea that the Japanese are non-white? check out Yellow Peril and tell me about its relation to the Russo-Japanese war, or the Japanese at all.

apart from questions of fact, isn't there a POV question here? the construction of a universal "White Man" is as non-neutral as the construction of a universal "Colored," or even a "Yellow," wouldn't you say?

and "the first war won against Europeans" is contestable -- imperial Japan versus imperial Russia does not sound like the kind of conflict one would include in a survey of "Righteous Colored Rebellion"...

which brings everybody back to the topic, What is this Article About? shifting allegiances and incipient crises _between European powers_, or something else?

and an addiction to brevity more generally wouldn't hurt in other sections -- see Causes of the Scramble -- do we need to know, in this article, that Hobson influenced Lenin and Arendt?

humbly submittedDavidstaniunas 19:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A Kind Invitation

Could you please comment on the remarks I parked at theHenri, Comte de Boulainvilliers discussion page ? Much obliged, (Lunarian 14:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC))

Peace Talk

Hello Lapaz, welcome to my talkpage. You were right about the point I wanted to make. Sorry to steal your time. I'll let you know about a short counternote. Meanwhile thanks for a very civil and interesting reply. Poigné de main. (Lunarian 18:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

Over and Out?

I gave my final (?) counterargument on User:Lunarian before the editory onslaught. There will be nothing nobel in that, we can asure you (-: pun intended :-) (Lunarian 11:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC))

I Am Learning

When the Boulainviller article improves, your efforts will most certainly have counted for much. Think of the added satisfaction this little debate gives to a summernight in a garden among friends. It's already an asset to know you. Keep well.

P.S. May I believe the way I concluded on my talk page does you credit?

Sincerely, (Lunarian 08:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC))

Anténor Firmin text in anthropology

I don't have a particular problem with this text, except that it clearly does not belong under a section about anthropology in the United States. Seeing as the article is over the recommended length I think it would be better in History of anthropology.

The other text I removed is mostly present in History of anthropology. It is also unverified, but I can live with the insertion of some citation needed tags.--Birdmessenger 16:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I edited with a heavy hand. I think it's important to discuss colonialism and race in an article about anthropology. I am, however, a little leery of making statements like Thus studying the language, culture, physiology, and artifacts of European colonies was more or less equivalent to studying the flora and fauna of those places. It was for this reason, for instance, that Lewis Henry Morgan could write monographs on both The League of the Iroquois and The American Beaver and His Works. That seems to be a jump to conclusions that ignores the fact that Morgan was an autodidact who likely had an interest in a number of fields of study (not uncommon in pre-20th century societies). Unless a historian or scholar has made this claim and can demonstrate a link, I think it should be deleted. What do you think?

The passage about how artifacts and culture were displayed is stronger, but I'd still feel more comfortable if we could cite someone who has discussed this. I probably have a text that does so, so I'll try to address this.

As for Firmin, maybe one of us can place the passage about him in History of anthropology.--Birdmessenger 16:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll probably try to make some changes this week to these passages that we can both live with.--Birdmessenger 18:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

German (?) philosophers

Greetings, I see that you have added to the category German philosophers in the recent past. I have called for a renaming of the category, and want to invite you to join discussion. The more rational voices, the better. (My suggestion is to rename to "German-language philosophers," so that the category becomes one of language rather than ethnicity.) Thanks in advance for any thoughts you might have. Universitytruth 13:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings: it seems someone has called for a deletion of the category. If you support the change, you might want to cast your vote at this page: [1]. Thanks! Universitytruth 13:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Totalitarianism

Great work! - Jmabel | Talk 20:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin?

Do you have any interest in being an administrator? If so, I'll nominate you. If not, I certainly understand. - Jmabel | Talk 20:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the proposal. Actually, I'm not sure, what does it implies exactly? I guess it's a time-consuming responsibility, so I'd like to know what exactly an admin is supposed to deal with... Lapaz 20:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Totalitarianism

If you don't mind, may I deal with Ed Poor's concerns first, then work on restoring your edits? Ed Poor is a particularly difficult editor to deal with on this subject, and it becomes way too confusing if both of you are making massive changes at the same time. Once Ed Poor's concerns are out of the way and the article is stabilized, then I'll look into your edits. Thanks for your patience, 172 | Talk 03:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

172, I'm actually quite easy to deal with, when it comes to making neutral article which incorporate multiple points of view. I don't like unexplained mass reverts.

Lapaz, not every point of view needs to go into a Wikipedia article on a controversial topic. For one thing, only published views qualify. Wikipedia is not a blog. You and me and 172 are not permitted to add our own POV; we must summarize and quote sources; we are not sources. --Uncle Ed 16:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Lapaz, if you are so inclined, please assist in maintaining the article in line with consensus and dealing with 172's arbitrary reversions. Obey 14:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Tours congress

(Hums to tune of the Internationale). Good edits, appreciated. Itsmejudith 08:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Mumble Of Consent

Thanks for taking the load of my back. It would be great to find a source for his (mis)interpretation of Spinoza's conatus in the way you describe.

Anyway, this does not marr the joy with which I always receive notice of your persistent industry. Keep well (and let's hum together for a while) Salud y ... (Lunarian 09:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC))

Policy violation

Please make yourself familiar with our Wikipedia:NPOV policy. You are introducing massively POV content to the article on the Herero Uprising. POV content is not accepted at Wikipedia, and will be removed on sight. Maria Stella 13:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse-me, but I have no tolerance whatsoever for negationism. Your unilateral move of Herero and Namaka Genocide to "Herero & Namaka Uprising" is not at all appreciated, as the massive deletion which accompanied it. ([2]) I would also advise you not to delete vandalism template on your talk page. And once your negationist POV has been challenged, I would ask you to respect proper NPOV dispute and not [(move the page again). Lapaz 16:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no tolerance for your POV pushing and historical revisionism. The next time you vandalize my talk page you will be blocked from editing. Maria Stella 16:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Last warning

In regard to this edit of yours:

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Maria Stella 17:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This is called restauring text that was vandalized... by you. Nice to meet you, by the way. Lapaz 22:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Franco y Hitler.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Franco y Hitler.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. User:Angr 08:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Opinion

Re: TAZ etc. You either have an opinion or you have not. A humble opinion is best kept to one's self. Do not use my talkpage for bullsh%£*t. Lunarian 10:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC))

Chill! I was just underscoring someone fairly famous for using the expression, you do whatever you want with it. If you don't like this nonsense, delete it. Lapaz 15:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

straw poll

Hi Lapaz, I've added a straw poll to the talk page at Herero and Namaqua Uprising regarding the title of the article. Perhaps you could comment. Thanks!--Birdmessenger 15:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Courbet

Cdib 17:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)I work at a US museum that's mounting an exhibition of 19th century French paintings, and am trying to get a high-res image of the Courbet caricature that I think you put up on the Courbet page. (Impossible to find the Père Duchêne illustré here.) Could you contact me via email? Thanks much in advance. Hello! The Père Duchesnes caricature is from Commons. It was first uploaded on the French wiki, by ArnoLagrange it seems. I'm sure he could help you. Cheers! Lapaz 16:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Naturalization in Japan

Oh, dear. I'm afraid I know little about the subject in general, but was aware of that one fact and mentioned it only because it was said that non-Japanese could not become Japanese citizens. I might have one or two sources I can dig up at home, but RL has been troublesome lately and I've had little time for contributions requiring much research. Still, I'll put the article on my watchlist, and will add something when I can. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia appears to have an article on the subject: Foreign-born Japanese. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Lothar von Trotha

Hi Lapaz. Thanks for your help in keeping the Herero War/Genocide/Uprising article intact. You may also want to watch the article on Lothar von Trotha as Maria is also actively rewriting history there. Greenman 11:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Your cut-and-paste move from positivism to positivism (disambiguation)

Please don't cut the contents from an article and paste it at one with another title if you can't move it automatically (see Help:Moving a page#Page histories). Instead, place a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves and wait for an administrator that's willing to make the proper move for you. If it's a potentially contestable request, it's likely the admin would like to see that there is a consensus for doing so. -- Dissident (Talk) 03:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! That seems really old (February or so), I don't remember exactly the context. I guess there just wasn't much in the "positivism" page, and really different stuff, so I created a disambiguation page. I probably decided not to move the page in order to keep a positivism page (moving to a "disambiguation" page sounds a bit strange, as it would delete the original page, wouldn't it?) Cheers! Lapaz 14:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Colonialism

Ah! Okay, then. Good job! The Ogre 17:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Colonialism

You do NOT own this article. You reverted a large number of my edits (note they were EDITS not REVERTS) back to your version - this constitutes vandalism. You can't take a one month break from an article and then revert it back to how YOU like it. Things move on. Gsd2000 14:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Herero and Namaqua Genocide

I've unprotected and moved the page as per the talk page discussion. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Compulsory sterilization

If there are any articles or documents in particular that you'd be interested in, please feel free to let me know. I have access to many of them and have a large overstuffed filing cabinet about the history of forced sterilization (I have not been working on it lately, but I spent a number of years researching it), as well as many articles, photocopies from books, etc. that it would be almost trivial for me to digitize and send to you as a PDF. Unfortunately, as I mentioned on the talk page, most of the literature on the topic does not answer what I consider to be very basic questions (why and when did it stop? being the most basic of them); one of my long-term goals is to actually answer those sorts of questions in my own work (I have some answers in limited cases, such as California, but as it is not yet published it would be OR to put it on Wikipedia of course), but I won't be turning back to those things for some time now (I am currently engaged in very different research and will be for a number of years). But again, if you are interested in anything in particular or can't get access to something please let me know and I might be able to get a copy of it to you without too much hassle (they have high-speed scanners at my university which I use very frequently in my work; it is not hard to add another document or book to the stack). --Fastfission 16:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Herero and Namaqua Genocide.

Hello, Lapaz, and thank you for the information on the status of the above. Thank you also for your advice on the Aftermath of World War I talk page, which I have now followed. I am a relative newcomer to this, but I have quickly become aware that some people have what I can only describe as perverse political agendas, with little bearing on encyclopedic truth. I will do my best to provide additional citations for the Herero and Namaqua Genocide.

Can I ask for your advice to a different, but not completely unrelated matter? The user Maria Stella you mentioned has created an odd page entitled Anti-Germanism. I am not quite sure what the purpose is, but I think it relates to debates she has had with you, and others, on matters touching on German subjects. This whole page, in my view anyway, is not a genuine encyclopedia entry, but a form of political sourness. (Do the 'Germans' in question also include the Swiss?). It would be possible to put 'Anti' in front of any nation, race, people or community in the world and produce a similar 'article'. I would like to put it up for deletion, but I am not sure how to go about this. I would be grateful for your help. White Guard 02:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! White Guard 02:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Your reverts of my edit to Colonialism

For the third time you simply reverted my edits. Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Gsd2000 22:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting very fed up with your misrepresentations on the various talk pages. You claim I am "deleting" information when I am in fact making it more concise, and you are reverting to "your" last edit and thereby throwing away a lot of edits I have made - this is frankly vandalistic, not to mention inconsiderate. Gsd2000 02:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't mix a disagreement with vandalism. This will not help any further discussion, although I'll do my best to understand that you might just not understand that we have a disagreement. Report yourself to the Wiki page about vandalism (i'll not link to it, you find) and please remain civil. Thank you very much. Lapaz 23:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I fully understand that we have a disagreement. The right thing for you to do in the case of disagreement is not to simply revert to "your" version of the article, when another editor has made constructive edits in the meantime. Thankyou. Gsd2000 23:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You refer to a prior post on my talk page, and say "I also see on your talk page that you are quite quick in calling others vandals when you disagree." Well, if you actually take a look at the person I called a vandal, User:IIIV, you will see they are a sockpuppet account - see WP:SOCK - that I spent a great deal of time investigating and now they are all permanently banned from Wikipedia. Gsd2000 14:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And in a bout of more delicious irony, I see that you yourself are not afraid of being quick to call others vandals [3]. Note that I was labelling your actions vandalistic (simply reverting and throwing away others' legitimate edits in the process) yet here you are labelling the contributions vandalistic, which they blatantly are not. Oh, and, this is yet another example of you getting into an edit war. Gsd2000 14:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Calm down. User:Maria Stella had been doing negationist edits. I'm not sure you want to take her side. But, just, simply: calm down. Lapaz 00:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I find it difficult to calm down, especially when you are eliciting help from your buddies with comments like this [4]. I am not censoring anything, I am editing. There is a difference. Gsd2000 00:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)