User talk:Jerzy/Archive 04

whiskers

P Tk
Thanks for your comments, actually I have read all the things you suggested previously and made a concious decision to edit in the manner I did. I found that the two pages, Whiskers (mammals) and Vibrassa, described the exact same thing. As in this context they are used as synonyms, obviously we only need one article describing the actual structure of a whisker/vibrassa so I merged them. I believe that no one but a very specialized biologist would ever search on the term vibrissa (which has a redirect, just in case), whereas much cat and dog and other general mammal literature uses the term vibrissae often. In this case the singular form is much more obscure than the plural. Vibrissae are almost by definition a set. Also, vibrissae is not that technical of a term. I am a cat breeder and have worked at veterinary clinics, so I'm not just making up random facts to support my position.

While whisker is the colloquial form, that is clearly explained in the first sentence of the vibrissae article to avoid any confusion. Actually whisker is bordering on inaccurate since it implies a much more general long hair around the face. "True whisker" is a term closer to the correct meaning but i feel inserting that would be too mucky.

That said, I did my darndest to follow all the procedures correctly for moving/renaming etc. that i had previously read in the articles about the procedures, if i missed a few tags I apologize. Note that originally, vibrassa only had 3 links to it and that whisker(sing) and whiskers (plu) redirected to different pages, both not being the disambig page. While I concede my format may not be perfect, I contend that the basic structure of my edits is appropriate.

Should my arguments for the plural fail to impress, I think the only thing that would need to be done is to change the title of the vibrissae article to vibrissa. Other than that the edits were thoughtful and logical.Pschemp 21:46, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wanted to reply some more, but for some reason i can't see your last comments on my user talk page, just in the diff, even with reloading. It may be my browser (Why Mozilla, why?).

Sorry about the mutiple edit version saves, WP became unreachable in the middle of saving and then my computer crashed.

First, let me tell you that I misspell things because I only have 9 fingers and so these things happen when I try to type quickly. I am not angry, just passionate. When I attempted the merge, I pulled the relevent info from whisker (mammals) into the main article but there wasn't much, actually about one sentence that could contribute or didn't restate things. I won't fight about (wikicorrectsness) which of the four (whisker, whiskers, vibrissa, vibrissae) titles the main article goes under as long as the redirects point correctly and it is explained that whatever we call it, vibrissae are what we are talking about. Just because the public is ignorant, doesn't mean they should remain so. Consequently, the actual article titled "whisker (mammals)" would be a candidate for deletion since that is REALLY unlikely to be searched for and is now an orphan, other than the redirect. And last, although to me cat is the obvious example, vibrissae are even more important to marine mammals, which I intend to write about when the article is in its final resting place.

Oh heck, lets blame the Romans, without their Latin plurals, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Pschemp 02:39, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Partisan

Please take a look at Talk:Partisan and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CVA. Halibutt 09:32, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

I simply thought you might be interested since you participated in the discussion some time ago. [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 12:47, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

I am fully aware of how protecting works. I'd rather intended to point out that this dispute is well behind three-reverts rule, and does not point to anything useful. Besides, I believe that while protecting, admins are not allowed to revert article to pre-controversion version since often initial version was controversional to some party. In this case omittal of Polish forces can even be in protected version, since it is not so much material as in Home Army. Przepla 09:20, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jerzy, I don't why why you are so kind to CVA while being so harsh to e.g. me. You wrote that "clearly offended no one but a small and explicitly recruited cadre of apparent nationalists)." when CVA said that

"Unfortunately we can?t find anyone with the time to provide you with an education. All your exaggerated claims quote Polish sources which is to be expected and is quite typical for Poles. The Polish sources are typically exaggerated, selective, and, predictably, exceptionally bias in favour of Poland. i.e. everything they ever did had to be the best or the greatest and/or the world owes them a great debt?"

You;ve wrote that his position is well-reasoned when he ducked any discussion, he simply stated his opinion and retreated. Note that his behaviour was earlier than remarks of Halibutt and mine which resulted from irritation. Second, let me add that, contrary to CVA, we are ready to talk, discuss, and ready to change our mind, that we are NOT changing CVA user page, and that it was CVA he accused US about vandalising his talk page earlier, only because we posted there simple polite question for discussion.

Therefore, i feel offended. You treated CVA lightly and dismissed all things he did, while treated us as childish etc for things MUCH less offending that CVA's actions. I am curious why? Have you not been following the discussion and read the diffs provided by Halibutt? I feel that you have judged me too hard and I would be happy to hear from you either explanation why you think CVA behaviour is OK while mine is not, or admission that you were too fast in judgement. I am ready to accept that I am wrong but I wonder how you will be able to prove it? Szopen 11:21, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have indeed denied myself the cheap thrills of following that discussion in detail. I don't think either CVA or their critics warrant my full attention, so i am unlikely to satisfy your expectations.
I wouldn't make the same kind of generalization ("typical of Poles") that you attribute to CVA, nor do i think that one is particularly valuable to the discussion even if true. But i do think that
- relying on one country's self-reporting, where it is clear national vanity is at stake, is inherantly unsound,
- saying so (even if some hasty generalization is involved) is not denigration of a culture,
- nothing said about a culture (as opposed to supposed genetic limitations of the corresponding population) is racism, and
- anyone's focus on what someone else thinks of them or their group suggests their insecurities are more significant than anything about them that might be more interesting.
Therefore the broad "forest" i see, largely disregarding the many insignificant "trees" ("who started it" is the last thing i'm interested in!) that show lapses and limitations such as insensitivity on each side, is of one basically sound approach and one desperately compromised one.
I'm not interested in proving anything to you. Verbum sap, and if what i'm saying isn't persuasive, why are you wasting your time on me? While i haven't actually decided not to respond further to you, please
- don't assume we are in a continuing dialogue, and
- don't construe it as an insult if and when i stop responding.

--Jerzy (t) 15:15, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

Jerzy, i don't want You to think that i am not respecting You or Your contributions to wikipedia. The only reason i've reacted on Your talk page is that i felt that Your comment on CVA contra us dispute was totally unjustified. I felt that You are judging CVA and us differently and couldn't understand why. Maybe it's because of cultural differences: In Poland, when you talk to sometone, ask him for defining what's his problem is and his answer is "I won't discuss with You because you will be wrong anyway and I know better" is not considered a sign of maturity, rather of arrogancy. And that was reaction of CVA: he was politely asked to define what he considered major partisan movement, and his reactions was, in short, that he won't, because we will be wrong anyway.

Saying that, i understand that You are not interested in cheap chat, and i just wanted to say that i feel you shouldn't take part in discussion and judge before You will get familiar with it;

I hope i haven't wasted too much of Your valuable time. I consider this discussion to be ended, but - though i don't think it really disturbs you - i think you are simply unable to admit that you made error in judgement. Szopen 09:38, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)