User talk:MrDarcy/Dec 2005

Regarding User talk:208.62.252.66, please don't delete prior vandalism warnings when adding a new, higher-level warning. By leaving the complete history of warnings on the user's talk page, it's easier for admins to determine whether and for how long to block a user. Thanks. | MrDarcy Talk 18:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is silly to leave the messages. This seems to be a dynamic IP address, so an admin shouldn't take messages left months ago into account. However, I concede that deleting messages is uncommon, to say the least, so I won't do it again. Thanks for your note. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I see now that the messages were not left "months ago", but merely 5 days. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Using "unreliable narrator" gives the ending away. Do you really want to spoil it for others? Please note that I left all your other additions as they were. Didn't like them much, but left them in. This one should be taken out. Vincent 08:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying "can't" as in "the unreliable narrator can't be left out". You just want to make a selfish point. For the sake of argument, let's suppose that MAYBE I AM ALSO SELFISH. So far then we're even. The difference his that when you make your point you risk harming others by depriving them of one of the best endings ever. I don't do that.

Can't you see that even when warned, it's difficult to stop reading something you've started. The spoiler warning isn't enough. What I'm trying to say is, well consider these cases:

• In "The Sixth Sense" Bruce Willis realizes only at the end that he's already dead, that he's in fact a ghost. He didn't survive the shooting at the start of the film.

• In "No Way Out", Kevin Costner is really a Russian spy.

• In "The Crying Game" the gorgeous girl turns out to be a transvestite, and there was no hint of that at all.

• In "Unbreakable", Sam Jackson plays a comic book collector and turns out to be the archcriminal responsible for all the disasters Bruce Willis survives.

• In "The Others", Nicole Kidman moves into a house with her children which is rumoured to be haunted. She becomes aware that Others are living there. Well, the others are alive and well, and she realizes that she& her family are the ghosts.

• In "The Shawshank Redemption" Tim Robbins is digging an escape tunnel with his rock hammer behind his poster of Rita Hayworth.

Have I made my point?Vincent 02:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My point. It seems you haven't gotten my point. The point was to ruin a couple of endings for you so you'll have a little more sympathy. (In Sin City, the beautiful stripper is the same little girl Bruce Willis saves from a rapist.) Interesting that you went to check on the articles. If I had the time, I'd go and clean them up as well, but I won't.

Civil editing. When you made your initial edit, I left most of it in "as is" and limited myself to removing the identity of the murderer. That point had previously been achieved by compromise, but you right away reverted.

As for personal attacks, I made no such attack on you. I wrote in a normal tone you were selfish and EMPHASIZED that maybe I was too, drawing more attention to my possible personal failing. All writers (me as well) are on a bit of an ego trip. That's OK. But here you are harming people and saying "Too bad, if they read on, it's their fault, tough." Don't you think that's callous?

Lastly you wroteThe use of the unreliable narrator is the single distinguishing characteristic of this novel versus other Christie novels. The reason it's a distinguishing characteristic is because you can't use an ending like that twice. By it's very nature it's unique, easy to reveal, fiendishly difficult to guess, and impossible to forget. It should be enough to say that ant not give the ending away. Vincent 04:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, I have demonstrated that it is standard Wikipedia practice in articles on novels and films to disclose relevant plot details. The only thing you demonstrated is your own callousness and disregard of a compromise achieved before you entered the fray.

Just trying to give you a dose of your own medecine. My friends (Frank, Jack here in the cafe) thought it was clever. Endless arguing is tiresome and perhaps petty.

As I said, if I had the time, to systematically defend a whole class of pages, I would. But I give up, you win. That doesn't change the fact that you're an insconsiderate pedant who prefers holding up some abstract principle to being nice to people. Go ahead, ruin in for those idiots who won't heed the spoiler. TOUGH! right? Bask in your victory. Vincent 16:41, 10 December 2005 (JST)

.

No problem. Will do. Thanks for getting back to me and nice to meet you (and sorry if I sounded annoyed. It's the coffee.) Bruxism 19:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for your excellent editing of the article on Charles Yale Harrison. I'm just learning the ropes here and your suggestions were helpful. I'll add more material and try to fill out some of the links, so stay tuned. Cheers. Petewebb 22:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)PetewebbPetewebb 22:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio notices only need to remain as long as the content is a copyright violation. I wrote the content currently in the article. It is not copied from anywhere. The copyvio notice is no longer necessary. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-12 18:01

• There is no need to blindly follow a template that was written specifically to prevent reversions to copyrighted content. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-12 18:08
• People post copyvios all the time. RC Patrolling admins delete them on sight, or, if possible, replace them with their own writing (usually the former). — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-12 18:14
• The template is not a policy, it is just a guideline for people who don't know any better. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-12 18:15
• Also, if you're worried about breaking the 3 revert rule, you should realize that 3 reversions is the limit. 3 are allowed, and 4 breaks the rule. You may want to read up on guidelines/policies more... — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-12 18:17

• Hey :) I am as far from military as one can possibly get! :) but yes, no problem, I'll take care of it. Cheers - Introvert ^talk 22:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks to you! You are most welcome, I am very glad if I helped even a little :) You did a spectacular job! seriously, very well done! (not just because it is certainly way beyond my modest abilities, with my Runglish)

  One quick note though... which should probably go the guy who posted the original translation request rather, but I just wanted to let you know (that is, if you don't know yet :) So, if you check out the guidelines at the top of the WP:PNT page, you'll see that generally speaking, it is against the policy to copy the articles over from another language wiki and request translations on this PNT page, which serves more for urgent stuff, "aaaahhh!-what-do-we-do-with-it??", sort of. Those copies-over from another language wikies are supposed to be speedily removed, and a proper translation request should go onto the WP:TIE page (where they may remain seated in a line for awhile ;). That said, I by no means wanted to make you feel like I diminish your effort!! - nor to discourage you from translations in future. Because in the end, seems to me, it is all up to the person, and in fact, more often than not it happens that once people see the article is worth translating, they do the job anyway, without a standing on ceremony :) I guess I wanted to say, it's more like, if some other time you won't want to labor a translation and you find out that the article is a mere copy ;) - here's a formal excuse for you :)

  So again, congratulations! and it's truly nice to have had this amiable correspondence with you :) Kind wishes - Introvert ^talk 22:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you pick an article to bring over and you translate it yourself, thats a whole different ball game, that is something wikipedia only encourages (if I ever understand anything correctly here!) -- So the above PNT policy must have absolutely no bearing on such a case. The PNT policy is about copying an article from a foreign language wiki into the English wiki... plopping it into here and going to see a movie :) and leaving it to somebody else to labor at translating it within the 2 weeks deadline... so this is my understanding of the reasons for such a guideline. Cheers! More later  :) - Introvert ^talk 23:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While you seem cool enough, the guy that deleted the appleaddict entry is officialy not cool.

I feel violated that that page was deleted so quickly by like. A minor.

Anyway, thanks for your prompt info to the wiki noob. While I may not use this website much logged in, it's still interesting to browse.

Psychomonkey 03:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The maro what ever his name is is still really not cool.

If Alaska wasn't so far away I may go meet him. HA!

ok I have a question. How do I do stuff like put those little boxes on my "my talk" page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:User_html-N

Like that box. I don't understand.

Hi I had posted a bio of Paul Barnardo using work copyrighted by me that I have provided to many many web sites for free use. I don't understand why you deleted my bio. Onthost 21:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am new to this but I deleted your comments from my talk page after I responded to them, as the wiki help section states I can do (Others delete comments after they have responded to them). Onthost

I added Info though to the William Langer article and was wandering if you would wikify it? Lazylizards8 23:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on my talk page... Jamie 05:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No personal insult intended. The article does end with a statement about the attractions of absinthe and includes three other absinthe related links, none of which discuss risks. The third is a rather glowing narrative. In my judgment, adding one link that both covers slotted spoon preparation and also says here are the drawbacks is the responsible NPOV approach. If you have a better solution then by all means implement it. I don't agree that a better solution is nothing. Durova 06:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where were you for two days while this was a stub bound for deletion? I locate several references, expand a single sentence into something passable, and you seem to show up just to pick a fight. Please make productive contributions. Durova 17:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous IP blanked several sections from your user page. I wasn't entirely sure it was meant as vandalism, but rolled back to your last edit just in case. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 22:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete us. There are tons of Ghava™ collaborators listed on Wikipedia that discuss projects in which Ghava™ has been involved in creatively. We are in the process of adding more information discussing the art exhibitions GHava™ has been involved with domestically as well as internationally.

On a separate note, The Designers Republic are listed here. Why is GH avisualagency™ being marked for deletion. GHava™ is the same type of collective and have collaborated with many of the same people. This is not making any logical sense.--lerner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lerner (talk • contribs) 01:35, 15 December 2005

• Response is on Lerner's talk page. | MrDarcy ¡digame! 01:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain in detail why we do not meet the criteria in your opinion? From my research it seems that GHava™ is completely suitable for a listing here. Im not sure what you are talking about regarding vandalism. I have not edited anything but my own entries nor have any of my colleagues been involved in this discussion as of yet.

Hi, this is what I suggest. It is a practical rather than a systematic approach: getting people to write about what they are reading anyway rather than trying to complete, say, 1950 in literature or attempting to have articles on all the topics from The Literary Encyclopedia. All these "projects" could peacefully work side by side I think. I'll wait for some more reactions. All the best, <KF> 20:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I placed the following comment on user Coolcaesar's page. I am posting it on yours as well since it appears that you have become involved in this matter. Before you take a position in a dispute, you should have all of the facts first. The list of sources referred to here appears on Coolcaesar's page. Verify them for yourself. JPKJr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bapu (talk • contribs) 21:32, 16 December 2005

• Text of Bapu's letter to Coolcaesar can be found here. | MrDarcy ¡digame! 21:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Yes, that page is in Hindi. Its about Sardar Patel Vidyalaya, a school in Delhi. The corresponding page in English already exists, so I guess this new page doesn't really serve any purpose. All the Hindi one says is that, it is the best school in Delhi(which is def not NPOV), mentions what all classes or grades are taught there, and the address. I can give a word-by-word translation if you want me to. -Aabha (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome! Glad to be of help. -Aabha (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Do you want me to leave a message on the talk page of the user who created the page? -Aabha (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had to get my thoughts together about what I thought about the AfD, which is why I'm writing this to you know.

By scrolling through article history, I can see there was a bit of antagonism at the very beginning that led you to assume bad faith. An anonymous user blanked your IP page, and there was some dispute as the anon user kept on deleting your comment revealing this behavior and you kept on reverting.

The funny thing is, without Lerner/the original IP, this article probably would have been considered a clean delete. But not only did they stick around, the rewrote the article and called in meatpuppets. The first two are commendable, but the third is not. Bad faith based on the latter solely.

There's more edit warring, and the {{unsigned}} template keeps on getting deleted. I have the opinion (and this is just my opinion) that the anonymous users mistook the template as an attack against their credibility, rather than just a fact that the closing admin should weigh in. While the Ghava users did most of the deleting, a comment gets lost in the mix.

The edit war was quite silly, actually. Jackohare is the first to make actual accusations of sockpuppetry. More meatpuppets show up and start voting, and you decide that they are sockpuppets. One user User:207.237.118.48 posts a do not bite the newcomers link. They learn fast! Or they're old trolls. You wonder...

More developments. You and Lerner have a chat over the talk page. Lerner insists on posting the conversation on the page, you revert, claiming it's a duplicate. Eventually, Learner just posts a link to the talk page. Good faith?

At this point, Lerner adds a notice to the top of the page.

You are welcome to vote/comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes (~) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please vote "delete" or "keep". Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.

You eventually delete it, but where did it come from? Troll or fast learner? The plot thickens. Lerner adds {{vfdvoting}} and we find out the source. This header has stayed (exact same content though). Legitimacy boosted by being an actual template?

The edit warring pretty much ends here, and you can follow the discussion chronologically. More meatpuppets show up, some of them giving some reasons, but it is pretty clear they're meatpuppets. Some seasoned AfDers also show up and give some pretty good reasons for deletion. Article's creators, however stick around too.

I have to say, your conduct afterwards is pretty good. By reviewing the AfD discussion a bit more, it seems there are some points that I have missed, especially the comments by Chelman, jnothman, and Coolcaesar.

My conclusion? I don't think I am justified to give you any critique. Just keep your head, don't accuse anyone of being a sockpuppet, and encourage the meatpuppets to become good Wikipedia contributors. Try not to make any enemies as well as don't compromise a well-thought out opinion. Alas, I'm just a babbling fool. Make of it what you will. ;-) — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 00:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's too late now, but you could have {{tl:db-copyvio}} speedied Paco Ibáñez since you discovered the copyvio while the article had existed < 48h. (But you would have to have been quick; you found the copyvio only minutes before the 48hrs were over...). Also, when an aritcle is marked as {{copyvio}}, its contents are supposed to be blanked to remove the infringing content. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 00:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the content that was there. It has a clear copyright at the end without any indication that the copyright holder gave permission for posting it here. I do not know where the information came from. I believe that's enough to at least raise this as a possible copyvio, especially since the page doesn't show any sources either. Hirudo 03:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also... what's the preferred way for me to reply to your comment? Hirudo 03:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. "Curanto" still doesn't exist in Wikipedia in English, so I will erase the link from Wikipedia in Spanish. I hope you'll understand my decission and I propose that you restore the link when the article will be finished. (I'm sorry, my English is poor too). Bye. Lin linao 21:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that when I went to delete it. More discussion is always good, but WP:AFD100#Votes per article shows that this debate received a healthy particpation by comparison to others. Also, if the company should become notable in future, the redlink is always waiting for them! -Splash^talk 01:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm pretty firm at disallowing agenda-driven votes/comments to have more than a marginal impact on the debate's outcome. Most admins will do a decent job of filtering out the good from the less good. It's kind of important, since, if AfD is to be a notvote then it must be impossible to stuff the ballot, which that kind of meatpuppetry is an attempt at. Tagging them is probably fine — it save the closing admin some work (although I tend to double check the tagging to make sure there's not a counter-agenda!). (If the closing admin does get it wrong, there's always deletion review.) -Splash^talk 01:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• As the author of the article I want to ask for your tolerance if it did not meet the standards for a standalone article. I am still somewhat confused as to the standards based on other articles that are in existance and also being posted and edited. Obviously, one wants to screen out the totally bogus and every tiny retail store, etc. It seemed to me that the company met the standards. But of course there is also judgement involved and that's what editors/admins are for. I am also somewhat new to article creation as I have been a lurker for quite some time but wanted to start contributing more. Sorry if one of my first attempts misfired. Peace. ^{User Princeton} 09:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Way to give that Alaskian Kid a head's up on the appleaddict thing. Freakin hilarious. Psychomonkey 05:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hi, there is an organized campaign to save the above self-promotional vanity games-club page from deletion.... i'm wondering if you'd be willing to take a look and voice your opinion? normally i wouldnt care but (a) i hate organized campaigns from groups of users (especially when they have vested interests but dont declare them) and (b) when challenged about it, they suggested i try it myself! so here i am.... cheers! Zzzzz 20:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words. I'm glad you liked it, although I'm worried it may not flow very well. I went ahead and added the citations using Chicago style. Have a Merry Christmas.

Sincerely,

Primetime 00:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's new, but it's not totally translated :) Have you seen sv:carex? Crizz 07:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to the epilepsy article regarding canine epilepsy was deleted by User:Ikkyu2. I've created Epilepsy (Animals), linked from Epilepsy, and moved your text over to that. I've revised it a bit and added some more references but it is really just a stub. I wonder if you'd be interested in fleshing it out? --Colin 11:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Ikkyu2 here.

If you'll check the revert history for Epilepsy, you'll see that sections on animals have been removed from that article several times in the past year - by a number of different WP mods, as well as myself.

Epilepsy is already 31K with more to come, just for the human topics that it covers; I agree strongly that animal epilepsy is an important and fascinating topic but it needs to be in its own article.

Also, before you bite someone's head off on their user page for discourtesy in the future, you may wish to check for certain whether someone's revert was in fact a personal attack (mine wasn't). My skin is thick, but other valuable wikipedia contributors have thin skins and might be scared off by your sharp tone. -Ikkyu2 00:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias for the followup Tcsh response. I think that that user's continuous refusal to comprehend why the Chomsky link didn't belong there was finally getting on my last nerve. I tried the nice approach on Tcsh's Talk page with the suggestion that if he wished, he could include a statement about Chomsky's views on moral responsibiligty within the body of the article, but it didn't seem to make an impact. Oh well. I must learn not to feed the trolls ;) —LeFlyman 03:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I do not welcome your further input, but since you have not expressed other reservations I will remove the npov tag from Pederasty in the modern world. Let me know if you find other material problematic. Haiduc 11:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in a hurry about removing it. Let's get the article to where we are both happy with it. I was just concerned that it not stagnate like that. Haiduc 16:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I rescued it from CSD, but apparently it is destined for deletion. I wish you a Merry christmas and a happy new year too. --Pamri • Talk 16:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm flattered by your question. Yes, I coined it. Has it been used outside of the one poll? Durova 20:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • By all means make use of it, and thank you for the kind attention. Durova 00:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the manual of style:

Redlinks (links to articles not yet written) may be included only if you are confident that an encyclopedia article could be written on the subject. Don't include dictionary definitions (see below for how to include Wiktionary links). [emphasis mine]

Regards, Karada 04:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason you removed the link I added on the Joe Louis Collection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobHarding (talk • contribs) 00:07, 29 December 2005 RobHarding

• Note: That link was removed by another user. | MrDarcy ¡digame! 01:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Louis Edit

I do not know if I am sending this to the proper person. I am trying to email CryptoDerk.

I did not add a commercial link — or a link to my own private websites. The site I added was to a collection on Joe Louis in the Archives Center at the National Museum of American History. It contains 109 scrapbooks of newsclippings of all the fights and corresponding boxers that Louis fought. Were you able to look at the site? I believe it should be included in the boxing category. Robert S. Harding 04:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Robert S. Harding to CryptoDerk[reply]

RE: BOXING LINKS, I FIRST ADDED ORGANIZATIONS eg. IBO INTERNATIONAL BOXING ORGANIZATION. As I saw that these organizations (sanctioning bodies) were links on the 'World Sanctioning bodies' link they seem repetitive and unnecessary ???? I was trying to eliminate unnecessary links?? Good idea ? yes? NO?

also there is a main link 'The TOP 100 BOXING WEBSITES PAGE'

www.passion-4.net/boxing/ It has over 300 boxing links, Boxrec.com Boxing Recors, FightNews.com and all the other links that are listed. Whould it not simplify to just have this one link ??/YES? NO?

I hope this is the correct place to post a question.

How does one an editor. I also am an editor for BoxRec.com 'The most visted boxing website in the world.

Pleas let me know

Thank you PETE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.36.187.8 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 29 December 2005

Some of those have been plaguing me for weeks, it seems. Thanks so much for diving in! Excellent work! peace, Tedernst | talk 16:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Anderson is a trip. Smith is another one. I know this is talk somewhere about dab entries being other dab pages. That breaks things down a bit, but makes it harder for the reader because of more clicks. Or easier because less text to navigate on each page. I dunno. Tedernst | talk 21:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I need a citation. ITS A COMMON FACT that Rakim revolutionized Hip-HOp and moved it towards the direction it went. He single handedly changed the game along from that "nursery rhyme" style of rhyming when emcees had a type of melody and cadence in their voice, to spitting that street poetry and science with more complex rhymes. Man just listen to the Paid In Full Cold Cut Remix and u can see where all these rappers get there style from. In the first 30 seconds of the track u can see were Mobb Deep " Got It Twisted", 50 Cent's "Candy Shop", and others hits songs came from by jacking those beats and sounds clips. Rakim fathered Nas, Prodigy's and other MC's styles. He one most lyrical MC's that did it with virtually no cuss words in his rhymes. His impact on the game is legendary, he laid the foundation for LYRICISM cause before him everyone wanted to rap like Run DMC or LL he made step they game up. All of the greats from the '90's (Nas, Biggie, Jay, Big Pun, DMX, Mobb Deep, Raekwon, Tupac, etc.) have studied Rakim's music and named him as one of their influences.

He was one of the first to rhyme entire lines, word for word, a technique that Eminem uses a lot. He also used many different rhyme schemes and structures. For example, listen to his delivery on 'I Know You Got Soul', with the first two lines of each verse done in a completely different pattern than the last two.

"Write a rhyme in grafitti and, every show you see me in";

"I'm the intelligent wise on the mic I will rise, Right in front of your eyes, cause I'm a surprise"

"I can get iller than 'Nam, a killin' bomb, But no alarm - Rakim will remain calm

when I create 'em, I cremate 'em and complicate 'em, you can't save 'em...there's no ultamatum, mic's lay around full of ashes, with the victim's name in slashes, got a long list and I'm a get every one of ya... Beware of The Punisher!

Changing the rhyme pattern within a song was never done before Rakim, this is something Nas has used quite effectively, which is why so many call him Rakim's heir. Check out 'Mahogany', not many MCs could rhyme over that beat. Don't forget that Paid in Full and Follow the Leader are two of the greatest rap albums of all time. Paid in Full was a new beginning for rap, no one sounded like him, as I explained, but Follow the Leader just blew the roof off! It really paved the way for the new school of rap. Eric B & Rakim songs MUST be the most heavily sampled rap songs in the history of DJing. It's almost impossible to listen to rap without hearing a Rakim line scratched in somewhere.... Remember that MAARS song with the video in space that goes "pump up the volume, pump up the volume, dance, dance!" Who do you think is saying that?

Very Well, I'll cease adding external links...though I still think the article is understating Rakim's relevance in Hip Hip history. I mean, they don't call him GOD MC/Allah Rakim for nothing!

I used the following as sources:

• http://www.hrvatskicentar.at/english/zeittafel.htm
• Paris 1919 by Margaret McMillan
• http://www.magtudin.org/Trianon.htm

I would like to bring things back to an academic level, since I got the impression that your recent comments angled a bit close to personal comments rather than discussing the topic at hand, and I too would like to set aside any tendency to project my own trips on you. I think we can work out our differences if we treat each issue on its own merits, which I think has not happened yet. Regards, Haiduc 15:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your timely note (you caught me on my way out to dinner). The sticking point between us is that I would like to take a neutral view of pederasty, where it is seen as being inherently neither beneficial nor harmful, and then explore the topic in its various "incarnations". So while I am NOT opposed to content that depicts certain manifestations of pederasty as criminal or harmful (which it can certainly be) I have to resist any attempt to generalize that to all pederastic relationships since that is simply not an accepted view of things (and the legality issue speaks for itself). That is my view of neutrality. Am I off base? Haiduc 22:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]