User talk:GeorgeStepanek/Archive1
Please read the Body for Life talk page for my objection to the blanket statement that the routine is based on sound principles. I am a professional martial artist, and I have many reasons for not agreeing that the principles of bodybuilding, while remarkably popular, are actually "sound" compared to the way my colleagues and I train. We can report the principles of Body for Life without adding a value judgment, a judgment which would support the "advertising" charge made on the article's recent VfD posting. Regards, Fire Star 02:29, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think images have to go through images for deletion. Is there a reason you just didn't reupload the file? -Frazzydee|✍ 02:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, it is? Somehow it looked a bit different to me...I'll delete it for you. -Frazzydee|✍ 02:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
great Body for Life article
[edit]I see that you are the primary author for this article. I added my kudos to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Body for Life. I especially appreciate personal growth information such as what you are contributing. You are adding useful information to the media commons and I thank you. WpZurp 17:11, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"The Seed of McCoy"
[edit]I like the Saint-Exupery quotation on your user page...
Speaking of the Bounty mutineers, you may or may not be interested in the (wholly fictional) Jack London story, [http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/London/Writings/SouthSea/mccoy.html The Seed of McCoy). Dpbsmith (talk) 23:13, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No prob -- 'twas truly an interesting read! I can't stomach hanging out on VFD for long, but I do try to drop my two cents in there at least once a week -- there's always something I disagree with deleting! Anyway, I ran across Thursday because of his listing on the WP:FAC page, because a page I have been working on was recently listed there, much to my surprise. If you have a moment, could you check out Duran Duran and let me know how it could be improved?
Nice to see someone else who likes Body For Life -- haven't managed to stick with the program for very long at a time, but it's made an impact on the way I buy and eat food, at least.
And as for borrowing the signature -- I borrowed it with permission from User:Solitude first. Enjoy! Catherine\talk 00:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
VfD
[edit]Would you mind letting at least letting me put something up for VfDing before you vote? :-) --fvw* 22:55, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)
My suggestion is to read the following article: weasel words. Also, it might not be such a good idea to have so many bullet points in the article. Otherwise, good on you for having a go at editing that article! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:56, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Rubrication
[edit]Thanks for the image addition at rubrication. It looks great! --David Iberri | Talk 19:30, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
Collaboration of the Week
[edit]League of Nations is the new Collaboration of the Week. Please join in helping make it a feature article.
re Weight training
[edit]My machine is slow today, so I haven't read "WT" for several days, but I thought with the recent addition of "live" photos it became FAC ready. There are enough shots now of specific lifts that the list of exercises shouldn't be such a mystery anymore to neophytes. You will likely take heat for what appears to be a "commercial link" in the history section. I'd prehaps let that slide and still vote "support", as the rest of it is now so good. If my computer speeds up I was going to try to insert the ancient "what is used develops, what is not used wastes away" quotation in some clever fashion atop the history section. Sfahey 20:54, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Unfortunately your first reviewer was one of the toughest critics on the wiki, and subsequent reviewers often fall meekly in line. His comments are, as is so this time, generally fair. I just now added some referenced material, and rephrased the 1st line so that it no longer is disputable enough to demand a reference. I also answered the request that "medicine balls" and such be mentioned. These, interestingly, lead to "plyometrics", which I thought initially to be beyond "weight training" per se. I certainly don't mind if you want to revert to the original "lead" sentence, but I think the "jury" will insist that it be qualified or referenced, as who's to say that weights are better than other forms of resistance training. btw, I (surprise!) like the way I reworded the "misconceptions" section, per "Taxman"'s request. Misconceptions are often as such by quotes, and this technique allows them to still be bolded without being subject to being called "POV", a mortal sin in wiki-dom. I will eventually get around to voting "support", but want to see if anyone else demands reasonable alterations first. Sfahey 01:47, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Don't throw out the footnotes idea. That's what they are looking for regarding what appear to be unfounded opinions like "... is the most efficient ...". I guess you could say "according to ___" and then include ___ in the references. Regarding which, I think you DO have to include the broader term "resistance training" in the sentence before you can say it is THE most efficient means, AND "Taxman questioned "efficient"; effective is easier to sell. This WILL make "feature" eventually, if maybe not this time around. Sfahey 00:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Unfortunately your first reviewer was one of the toughest critics on the wiki, and subsequent reviewers often fall meekly in line. His comments are, as is so this time, generally fair. I just now added some referenced material, and rephrased the 1st line so that it no longer is disputable enough to demand a reference. I also answered the request that "medicine balls" and such be mentioned. These, interestingly, lead to "plyometrics", which I thought initially to be beyond "weight training" per se. I certainly don't mind if you want to revert to the original "lead" sentence, but I think the "jury" will insist that it be qualified or referenced, as who's to say that weights are better than other forms of resistance training. btw, I (surprise!) like the way I reworded the "misconceptions" section, per "Taxman"'s request. Misconceptions are often as such by quotes, and this technique allows them to still be bolded without being subject to being called "POV", a mortal sin in wiki-dom. I will eventually get around to voting "support", but want to see if anyone else demands reasonable alterations first. Sfahey 01:47, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations ...
[edit]... on "Weight training". and btw, what's with the picture? Sfahey 20:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- No, no. The one on your home page. Are you brandishing a sword? If so, that's a good way to intimidate critics of your FAC's, even from 5000 miles away. Sfahey 22:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
re: how votes get counted
[edit]You asked if you could keep and wikify the answer I put on BM's Talk page. It's a wiki. Be bold. Thank you for the compliment, though. Have a good afternoon. Rossami (talk) 20:57, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Poll on portal page replacement
[edit]Hi! I added a new design proposal to the vote on Catherine's design of Wikipedia's portal page. You are the one that added it to Template:Fil de l'information so I'd like to ask if it would be ok if I updated the template indicating that new vote item was added. I have no experience at it so I don't know if it is considered proper. The discussion on my design took place here if that's requirement. Thanks in advance -- Forseti 01:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the feed back - I have moved the score card as suggested; if you would now support the FAC as suggested, I would be grateful!
Brookie 08:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Dear George, thanks for your note. I was indeed out of line with the female nudity comment. I meant it as a joke, but femininists are not known for sense of humour and tend to be offended with these things. After seeing kaldari's complaint i visited FAC to see what was going on there and when i saw that nomination i burst laughing and i couldnt resist. That was very stupid of me. Nevertheless, femininists do make me nervous. Main page is male dominated?? Whats the next thing? A rule that 50% of sysops must be girls? Anyway you were very right in calling my attention for my silliness. Cheers, muriel@pt 11:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sorry!
[edit]I completely misread the diff at Book of Kells -- you have my sincere apologies! I've left a note at the FAC nomination also to apologize for my goof -- I assure you, I didn't intend it as slander even when I thought it was the truth! I did think it odd that a deletion would be described as a "fix".....obviously I should have had the brains to stop myself and look more closely, since what you did was a fix, and wasn't a deletion at all. Sorry once again for my confusion, Jwrosenzweig 22:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I don't feel as confident with the subject matter, but if I get a chance in the next couple of days, I'll give it a go. Thanks for the encouragement, and for being so understanding! Jwrosenzweig 22:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Portal
[edit]I will have a go tomorrow at mocking up the page -- I don't know css very well, so I can't do all the magic that Forseti and Alan are doing with it, but I'll at least give a visual idea to go on. Frankly, I rather like Forseti's idea; I wouldn't be averse to having that one on the portal, either. Still like my own too; they're just different solutions to the same problem. I'm just glad this prompted some more work on the portal.... — Catherine\talk 03:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but I am fairly confused about this issue. There are valid statements being made by both sides and I don't think that I know enough about the subject to vote fairly. So I will have to keep my abstain. Best regards. --Sn0wflake 00:16, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Changed to keep. --Sn0wflake 01:05, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Body esencialism
[edit]Regarding Weight training. I still dont agree. I don't like to see POV statments in headers even if they are qualified in main text. But I am not bothered enough to arguee about it. It was only really to keep us lazy but beautyfull people happy.--JK the unwise 11:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Man, your picture is making me hungry! I officially request that you upload more meal pics. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 23:58, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
- I must confess to sincerity. And I caught the Richard Feynman reference – his book is very enjoyable, although he comes across as too arrogant for words. (As they say, the only intellectual smarter than Feynman is the intellectual he thinks he is.) – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 00:11, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
Whoops
[edit]I've been wondering for the last 24 hrs or so why you've been talking about "merging in Dan100's edits" when your edit summaries on the page history said 'revert'. Until I pressed F5. OK, I should have refreshed the page history (which I'd had open for a hour or two) before restoring my edits, but on the other hand why did you 'rv' before proceeding to let most of my edits stand?! (That's rhetorical, btw).
But you must also know of being bold. No-one ever has to seek consensus before editing an article. The onus is on you to engage in discussion before 'reverting', which is basically a no-no for anything other than vandalism or blatant PoV pushing. Dan100 21:14, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
N.B. "why did you 'rv' before proceeding to let most of my edits stand?!" is exactly what he did to me, too. He'll have to tell us what it means, but I think everyone can guess. Blair P. Houghton 17:23, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip
[edit]Thank you for the suggestion. You were right about the article at hand. I didn't want to name names on the Village Pump because I didn't want to create the feeling that I was in it to get others to take on my problems. But if you want to take a look into it, it doesn't really require any greater knowledge of tennis. The issue there is more about someone who believes that anything written by others always has to be improved. In my case, he felt even more comfortable to do so, since I admit for all practical purposes on my user page that I'm not from an English speaking country (where he also took the opportunity to make witty remarks, even in another article's talk page – and I messed up when I responded angrily, instead of keeping my cool). The discussion also turned to an almost ludicrous detail: I listed in the article some match results from the athlete's more important accomplishments. The anon decided to oppose, focusing on the argument that nobody would care about match scores from early rounds of a tournament, even a very important one (He used some pseudotechnical reasons, but I found that particular coming from someone who had contributed heavily for another article dedicated exclusively to another athlete's game style, that is to say, an entire article about how this other guy holds a tennis racket and moves his feet. In my view, this anon has bestowed upon himself the intelectual authority to decide what is acceptable in tennis-related articles and what isn't – and, of course, he thinks that my work is just "silly"). He also seems to be confused about what we mean when we say that Wikipedia is an "open encyclopedia", since his take on controversies seems to be "just go ahead and do whatever you want to do, all is allowed, and in any case we can always revert things back". I've tried to explain, but I don't think I will be able to get to him (although in this particar case I've been able to get him to discuss on the talk page before continuing to alter the article). There may not be a need for mediation though. It's been my experience (as I said, these people just keep finding me) that anons and even newbies, although they might engage in discussions about frivolous details and even revert wars, they also tend to get bored and just move on without any explanation (they even keep working on the article, but they let go of whatever (pseudo)technicality they were clinging to). Thanks again for the interest, Redux 01:08, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) P.S.: Sorry for the long post. :)
- Thanks for your answer. I'm already on a break, although I haven't abandoned the website. I haven't edited an article for a few days though (a personal record!), only talk pages where my input might have been requested. Well, I have admited that it was wrong of me to respond angrily to the provocations. I'm uncertain if I should retract though, for I believe this would only fuel the guy's superiority complex, and in essence just incentive him to keep going. I will however refrain from posting other "inflamed" remarks, and I still hope that the situation will just defuse itself, as it normally happens. Redux 14:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Weight Training
[edit]Cut it out, George. Your atavistic fealty to compromise is compromising only the integrity of the facts. And you don't "give" me anything. You've totally admitted that you're trying to own that article. Stop editing it for a while, you're clearly too tied up in it egotistically to be doing it any good. Blair P. Houghton 15:22, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And again you abuse the privilege that is Wikipedia. I am not a newcomer, I've been doing this for some time. I also, clearly, know more about civility and the difference between constructive criticism and personal attacks than you'll ever imagine. Your sophistry will not stand up in the face of time and the truth. Realize that, stop trying to own the pages you edit, and you'll get along with people better (I saw how you abused Dan100 and I didn't like it any more than he did). Blair P. Houghton 17:21, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Whoops. My mistake. I was sketching the tally on a scrap of paper and got the column mixed up with the columns from a different vote. Thanks for catching it. I've fixed the deletion discussion. I don't think it changes the result though. Rossami (talk) 01:12, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Religious freedom
[edit]I wrote this: On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 04:43:42 +0000, Richard Weiss <[email protected]> wrote: > I have made clear you are not, in my opinion, using sockpuppets at > wikipedia. it appears you did at wikielite, but as you say, that is > something different. I hope you accused me of hacking to Jimbo too? Please > leave me alone, you are blocked from this account so I will not receive your > letters. Goodbye! > BTW I know my biblical prophecy, and it shows very clearly that His Imperial > Majesty Haile Selassie I is God incarnate. I shall live forever in this body > with him in Holy Mount Zion. I put my trust in H.I.M.. Whom shall I fear? > Jah Rastafari!
She replied:
From : Constance Cumbey <[email protected]> Reply-To : Constance Cumbey <[email protected]> Sent : 14 March 2005 12:05:05 To : Richard Weiss <[email protected]> Subject : Re:
Dear Richard,
In my humble opinion, you are using too much Rastafarian 'wisdom weed' a/k/a 'janja' and perhaps the local authorities need to investigate your increasingly clearly existing stash.
Constance [email protected].
It is at [1] I then wrote On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:05:10 +0000, Richard Weiss <[email protected]> wrote: > Cumbey, > That is exactly what your personal attacks against me online are-trolling. > Curps has removed 2 of them. I did not and could not hack into any data > base. I have no idea why wiki elite have gone offline, but it was definitely > Maisie who changed the database, as she has the ability to do. BTW, I do > not use cannabis, you don't have to use cannabis to be a Rastafarian, you to > have know who God is. Christ returned and you missed the event. Have a look > at Rev 5.5 and 19.8. In the old testament it clearly states the messiah will > return as a great king, and he was the greatest. Anyone who knows me knows I > don't use drugs and am incapable of hacking (limited technical skills). So > your threats are empty. Instead of attacking me, debate any changes you want > on the Solana talk page. The new contributors are like me; Europeans > interested in Solana the politician, not Solana the Beast. At least one of > them claims to have contributed to the article before, so be careful before > you start claiming any version of it belongs to you, > SqueakBox to which she replied
Your writing is so fascinating. And you had the nerve to ridicule Judeo-Christian beliefs! Want to talk about silly religious beliefs? Let's discuss yours!
That article was a stub and a 3 line one at that when I wrote the Solana article as it existed before Solana probably paid you to do the hatchet job (surely you don't expect me to believe that Ra Sta Fari came back from the dead to inspire you, do you? Who knows what personality you assume in what communication to any person? Three faces of Eve? Twelve Faces of Sybil? Heck, you've probably got fifty faces -- all plastic. Your dogs have more integrity than you.
If you told the truth about anything other than your confessions to me that you knew Alice Bailey's works, it was probably about the Rastafarianism and I still have your old communications where you denied even that before you so strongly professed it this morning, although it has occurred to me as a lawyer that you could be setting up an insanity plea -- ditto about your machete bump on the head. Don't know what to believe about you anymore, so I believe nothing other than you are a dangerous lying fool -- trolling the boards and then accusing others of precisely your own acts -- sock puppets, faking personalities, using false identities, vandalising/vandalizing the board.
But, in the event you really are a Rastafarian, I would hardly believe you didfn't participate in the best known sacrament of your religion -- the 'wisdom weed', ganja, marijuana, you name it! This is at [2]
If you can't get them I could send them as an email, or do it some way. I had wondered about the religious beliefs, and I clearly have not mentioned marijuana in the letter or any other email to her, or ever on wikipedia. I guard my reputation as a law abider jealously. I will post all this where you suggest. Cheers, --SqueakBox 05:21, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
WT Unblock
[edit]Hi George, I've responded to your comments on my Talk. -- Cheers, Cecropia | explains it all ® 09:32, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Weight Training
[edit]Why did you change the formatting on the talk page? Do you think I went to the trouble of formatting it by mistake? Do you know that altering others' talk sections is extremely insulting and reflects very badly on you? Blair P. Houghton 16:49, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I did think that you made a mistake. The formatting you have used is intended for code samples and other applications that require a fixed-width font, not for quoted text. GeorgeStepanek\talk 21:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Leave of absence
[edit]George, I just read your comments on the mailing list. I hope you'll reconsider. Chalk it up to experience and move on; we all have these disputes at one time or another. When I was learning to drive, my instructor told me no one could drive until they'd done 100,000 kms, and had at least one accident. It's the same sort of thing here. Now you've got your first big dispute behind you, you'll be on your way to being an even better editor. ;-) I hope you'll stay. SlimVirgin 19:53, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Same from me. I did the same sort of work you did on "Weight training" to get the "Christmas" article up to FA status. One of the co-editors wisely emailed me on 12/25 not to read the page for a few days, lest the barrage of edits spawned by the holiday arriving ruin my own Christmas. When I returned to the page the next week, it was no big deal to redo the junk that had appeared in the interim. You will indeed need more than a week, but c'mon back and don't let the turkeys get you down. Sfahey 23:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- George, it is good to see you haven't actually quit over this. I think I share your thin skin when it comes to stuff like this. Re the admins. "piling on" (Amer. football term which has come to mean jumping on someone when they're already down): the scope and pace of the edits was so furious that the late-comers could not possibly have had a grip on who did what when. i've found that a short break and new perspective works wonders when you come back ... you become more able to let things be when you can't change them. One reason I keep coming back to Wiki is that I learn and retain information much better through the (usually) fun exchanges of this unique medium. Sfahey 00:19, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hi George. I've done as you suggested to rename and tried to rewrite as best as I could. Now I'm asking for your help if you are interested. The VFD has transferred to Waking the Tiger.--Jondel 05:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)