User talk:Piewalker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Noticed you're new here (I noticed you on the list of reecently updated pages)! Welcome to the Wikipedia! If you have any problems trying to figure things out, feel free to ask me (or anyone else here; we help each other as we can) -Litefantastic 01:47, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi, Matt.

Thanks for your email. What a pleasant surprise! Really cheered me up.

Thanks again.

chocolateboy 17:04, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi. Saw you made an edit to the LDS Church article and checked out your profile. Your picture scared me...you look so serious!. —B|Talk 03:45, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Contents 1 Your user images 2 Homeworld 3 >_> 4 Alexander, Bettelheim, etc. 5 Orual and the Beast 6 Animals in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 7 On War 8 Animals and Judaism 9 Till We Have Faces 10 Merging Discussion 11 Egyptian Names in the Book of Mormon 12 Book on Wikipedia? 13 Wikipedia Book 14 And my father dwelt in a tent 15 Till We Have Faces is a Great Classic 16 Please help with Illustrations 17 Help with Timeline 18 Your remarks on User talk: Das Baz 19 Poor Wedding Guests

[edit] Your user images

Hi, for the sake of dealing with images could you please tag your user images so that they will be sorted as however you want them released. Thanks. gren 17:51, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please, deal with them as soon as possible. If you own the copyright, you can license them under the GFDL by putting {{GFDL}} on the image page. If you need help, post on my talk page. For now they are unverified, which could result in them getting deleted eventually if you don't change the tag to a better one. Superm401 | Talk June 30, 2005 23:18 (UTC)

Great selection of quotes, by the way. Superm401 | Talk June 30, 2005 23:15 (UTC)

[edit] Homeworld

One day, when I know what map we're playing on, I'll win. For now, I'll complain and fight vandalism. :P _-M ^o P-_ 19:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, just a notice; I'm starting a detailed list of ships from both races in Homeworld 2 at User:Master of Puppets/Ships in Homeworld 2. If you want, contact me at my talk page and we can work something out (I'm doing the info, but I'm looking for someone to do screenshots). Cheers! _-M ^o P-_ 22:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] >_>

Homeworld? :P Mopper ^Speak! 19:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Piewalker: Thank you very much for your kind and positive message. It is great to know that there is at least one other person with interests common to mine. We must certainly keep in touch. I shall look for a print reference to the connection between Cupid and the Beast, Psyche and the Beauty. I have not found one yet. It seems to me apodictical, self-evident. Yet I hope somebody else has pointed it out before I did, since too many Wikipedians have this neurotic phobia against "original research." Egregious nonsense may be quoted if it has been printed, common sense is eschewed with horror if not printed somewhere. Notorious example: Khirbet Beit Lei. Thanks again; more later. Das Baz 15:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC) I also like Herman Hesse. I've read all or most of his novels, all of his short stories. I've seen two movies based on Siddhartha. Other of my interests include Alexander the Great, Ancient Israelite History, Animal Rights, Anime, the Future, Jesus, Manga, Nonviolent Resistance, Veganism, and Vegetarianism. Not one Encyclopaedia in my local library mentions the connection between Eros and Psyche and Beauty and the Beast - except, of course, Wikipedia. I shall check Bettelheim next. I think that's where I read about the connection, if I'm not the first one ever to notice it. Das Baz 15:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I really need to check out those Siddhartha films. I haven't been able to stop watching Alexander either. I don't like the bisexual inferences, but I think it's Stone's and Farrell's best. I looked up the promotional stuff Kilmer did for Alexander and he's too modest. Thanks for looking into the Eros/Psyche Beauty/Beast connection. What's your location? Are you in the US? Utah? I think you're right about the common sense thing. I'm certainly for backing up and validating common sense. Maybe I'll help in your search if I can get these papers written this week. What's Bettelheim? --Piewalker 18:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander, Bettelheim, etc.

The best movie based on Hesse's Siddhartha is Zachariah, starring John Rubinstein and Don Johnson. Best darned movie that nobody's heard of. I was a bit disappointed by Stone's Alexander movie. Mary Renault's books are a million times better. Bettelheim is Bruno Bettelheim, a flawed and tragic man who nonetheless made some important contributions, including The Uses of Enchantment - which may be where I read about the connection between Eros and Psyche and Beauty and the Beast, if I did not think it up myself. I think the Alexander movie would be a lot better if you took out the Ptolemy frame (big waste of time!) and ended the movie with the big battle in India, and Alexander dying in that battle. Yes, I know, that would not be historically accurate - but it would make for a darn good movie! Das Baz 20:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

A flawed man indeed. Like the rest of us. Yes, Alexander dying in battle may have offered the dramatic illusion that he was his own martyr and the unwitting victim of his own neuroses/vision. I think that would indeed be a satisfying end to it, but it's too Braveheart-esque. I think Stone intended the film to unravel as it did, perhaps not so cleanly, or perhaps cleanly, like the Gordian Knot Alexander himself solved. Ptolemy didn't get enough screen time, older or younger. I was influenced by both Ptolemys. I think it's no accident that Alexander, arguably history's most influential conquerer of the world, emerged within ~300 years of the one who overcame the world. Enter comparisons/contrasts now. --Piewalker 16:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Was finally able to get hold of the Bettelheim book and enter the reference, including the ISBN, in the Till We Have Faces article. Bettelheim emphasizes a connection I had totally forgotten about: The Oedipal love of Aphrodite for Eros, and of Beauty for her Dad. I dare say it says something about my psyche that I repressed that memory. Meanwhile, I shall enter some comments on the Alexander movie in the discussion page for the article on it.Das Baz 15:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Change of Plans: I made some of my points about Alexander (2004) in the article itself, not only in the discussion page. And I had to make a comment I had not planned to make. By the way, William Braveheart Wallace did not die in battle. He was cruelly tortured to death by Edward I Longshanks, the most evil king who ever ruled in blood and horror on the Earth. Das Baz 15:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My point was that Wallace was a freedom-fighter and martyr. I knew he was executed. Alexander was a brilliant, magnanimous, yet brutal conquerer and war-mongerer, not a freedom-fighter. Great comments. --Piewalker 16:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Alexander in his day was notorious for being far more magnanimous and far less brutal than anybody else. He astonished people by refusing to rape or sexually abuse slaves and POW's, male or female, at a time when such a practice was widely accepted and even expected. He treated those who opposed him with more compassion than Genghis Khan used on those who surrendered to him. Today, however, all sorts of slanders against him are spread around. He is even blamed for the massacre at Mali, which happened while he was unconscious and near death. But at least, no one casts doubt on his existence. Jesus on the other hand - in ancient times, no one doubted his existence either, but slanders against him were spread - that he was a sorcerer, that he drank too much. Today, no one impugns his goodness, but many doubt his existence. Alexander did not invent war, but he perfected it. He both designed the grand strategy and fought valiantly on the front lines (no one else has ever done both, or at least not so successfully- he never lost a battle. No retreat, no surrender.) Jesus may well have invented Nonviolent Resistance, at least that is how Mahatma Gandhi interpreted his philosophy of "Turning the other cheek." Benjamin Urrutia, following up on Gandhi, proposed that Jesus may have been the leader of the Jewish nonviolent resistance against Pilate at Caesarea, described by Josephus. This theory must be right, as there is no way it can be wrong, and not a single firm argument has been advanced against it. Das Baz 17:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating argument, Das Baz. Of course Alexander didn't "invent war." While we're on the subject, who did? The devil? God? Humanity? I suppose if any single individual has come close to "perfect[ing] it [war]," I agree, Alexander has...that is, if war was a human act that could be perfected. Ideally, I would think, war's perfection is peace, the antithesis of conflict. The art of war...of killing...an art or science? And is the U.S. the most advanced? Most efficient? I recall hearing in the media (can't remember exactly where) that Gulf War II was the biggest ground offensive of all time (second only to the Battle of Hoth, of course), perhaps measured by the sheer scope of hell-fury released from U.S. cannons, bombs, cruise missiles, or the number of ground troops mobilized to invade Baghdad. Certainly, D-Day was also a massive offensive. And Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an offensive of how many? The cost of war transcends casualties or numbers. The courage of a few are enough to exalt men into legends. Herbert Kaufman penned a haunting poem-book, "The Song of Guns," in which the classic poem "The Hell-Gate at Soissons" described a World War I sacrifice of 12 Englishman fighting roadside with the French:

"My leg, malheureusement, I left it, behind on the banks of the Aisne. Regret? I would pay with the other to witness their valour again. A trifle, indeed, I assure you, to give for the honour to tell How that handful of British, undaunted, went into the Gateway of Hell." Herbert Kaufman, The Hell-Gate at Soissons, second stanza, p. 18, The Song of Guns, 1914

And on the necessity of war:

"There was no other way, O Lord, Except the sword. The fight we fight is not our will, Yet we must die and we must kill"... Herbert Kaufman, We Draw the Sword, lines 1-4, p. 16, The Song of Guns, 1914

--Piewalker 01:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orual and the Beast

Your connection between Orual and the Beast was also proposed by Gracia Fay Ellwood. Great minds think alike. Das Baz 17:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Flattered. Regards.--Piewalker 00:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animals in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

FYI - I am not proposing the deletion - I opposed it by removing the Speedy notice. However, someone has placed a "prod" notice which allows deletion in 7 days if no one opposes. Since I already opposed the Speedy I think it is bad form to also remove the prod. To oppose the prod just remove the line

{{prod}}

when you edit the article - generally it is also thought that if you oppose you will help edit the article. --Trödel 16:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On War

I quite agree that the best war is that which is won with no violence. Alexander did that, taking Egypt with no casualties on either side. He won the allegiance of the Jewish people of Jerusalem just as easily. When he began his campaign, at Troy, he prayed to the gods that he could win the allegiance of the peoples without having to kill them.

Who invented war? Not Man. The Ants were fighting wars long before humanity was created. The candidates are God, the Devil, and the Ant. Das Baz 16:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animals and Judaism

"On a related note, the reason I came to this page was to ask Crzrussian a question: What is the Jewish theological perspective of animals in the grand scheme of things? In relation to humanity?"

Animals were created by God for the sake of man. To eat an animal, use its hide for clothing, sacrifice it in the Temple, or to make decorations out of ivory is entirely appropriate as that's what God made it for. Animals have no souls, we absolutely do not venerate any animal, unlike, say, the Hindus. Animals are used frequently in the Bible etc. to make metaphorical references to people or events. Some mammals, some birds and most fish may be eaten. Most animals may not, see Kashrut. That's a jumble of sentences.

Any specific question you have? - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

OIC, re: the LDS article, hunting animals for sport is absolutely forbidden, for two reasons: wanton pain to a creature (always forbidden even short of death) and wanton waste of a resource (forbidden even with inanimate resources). Hunting for food is inapplicable for mammals, because it renders them unkosher (need to be ritually slaughtered) but you may hunt fish (no sluaghter required). As for eating, you may absolutely do so at will, to need for moderation (other than for your own sake, which is an unrelated concept). - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Till We Have Faces

I see you worked a little bit with the quotes today. =) Nice to see this one particular article worked on. I'm planning on rereading TWHF soon (in my sparetime) to rewrite part of the plot section and organize it a little better. I was wondering if you could continue to help rewriting the article, more specifically the explanation of the title and the retelling's conception sections. Since it appears that you provided the quotes originally--correct me if i'm wrong-- I figured it would be easier for you to help in this part, since you would have easier access to the sources. To make it more like an encyclopedia article I think the sections with the quotes need a little more wikified. I'm not against the use of quotes, I merely think it would be more effective if these particular sections were rewritten; which would mean certain citations being paraphrased (though not necessarily all of them), and new conjoining sentences being written instead of leaving it in bulleted format. b_cubed 02:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome. I see you have an interest in making this article move into higher rating status. A noble pursuit, indeed. It'll be a good thing. Mark my words, I'm going to bring the images back. All three are beautiful works of art and may bring individual memories to our readers. We need to bring those three images back sometime. That mask image is very, very neat. I want it to get up there sometime. I have some ideas on how to present the three covers. As far the Lewis quotes. Sometimes, it's best to allow the words of the person you're quoting to let them speak for themeselves instead of potentially convoluting their original intent with a paraphrased, many of which are error. Frankly, these quotes are very impactful. True, we could have some explanatory paragraphs for each quote or group of quotes, but I think they speak for themselves, or in this case, rightfully our praised author does the talking. Piewalker 03:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Like I said before, I don't have a problem with the other cover art. However, due to the current length of the article I thought it was a little overkill to put all three on. I definitely want to see the one with the mask on at some point. In regards to the quotes, from my experience as a writer, simply leaving bulleted quotes in any article won't do it any good. Since you are a little more familiar with the quotes than I, that is why I suggested that you could work on them. I believe the quotes will be much more impactful out of bulleted form and into more of a reading form--that's what reader's expect, and quite frankly I don't see this article reaching a higher quality level until that is done and the plot is rewritten (which i plan on contributing to very soon). "Easy reading is damn hard writing," as Nathaniel Hawthorne once put it. I don't expect it to be that easy to rewrite the quote section--if you need help or suggestions let me know--but i don't expect the article to reach a higher quality leverl until it is. (by the way, this is more or less what i meant, write a paragraph and throw in a c.s. lewis quote where it is appropriate and helpful.)

I buckled down and wrote it. I'm very, very pleased with how it turned out because it sheds light on everything about the novel and even makes some other observations I don't think anyone has thought about yet. I look to you, Das Baz, and others for more critical insight. I just needed to be prodded a little. I won't be bringing the cover art back until we bring the article up a few notches/ranks. It's getting there. Then, and only then, will I bring them back, potentially combining all in one horizontal image so we can see them side by side. Remind me to do that next month or so. Piewalker 17:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging Discussion

As you requested, I added a couple of my thoughts to the Discussion on Animals in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The article itself looks pretty good to me right now. Das Baz 15:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Yeppers. Piewalker 18:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Egyptian Names in the Book of Mormon

I have just begun an article on Egyptian Names in the Book of Mormon. Was forced to do this by the bigoted and ignorant claim somebody made that there are "meaningless" names in the Book of Mormon. It will take me a while to get it all done.Das Baz 16:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It is all done now, but now there is a tag requesting the article be "wikified." Would you could you please help me with that? Thank you very much. Das Baz 16:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. I'm sure over time other users will come across the page and wikify. Actually, I think there are bots that do that. I'll have to check. Piewalker 18:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Right now the tag is still there, and there are no other changes from the article as I wrote it. Please keep me posted. Das Baz 17:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book on Wikipedia?

There should be a book called "Wikipedia for Dummies" or the like. A guide to the history, philosophy, techniques, controversies, problems, rules, debates, format, etc. of Wikipedia. Maybe a group of us should collaborate on such a book. What do you think? Das Baz 16:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A book...wow, you're ambitious. I wouldn't mind doing that, but that's a huge project. We'd have to look at how previous "'x' for Dummies"-type books have addressed copyright issues, contracts, sales, content development, editing, etc. Work would need to be split up between a dedicated team. Interviews would need to be conducted with key Wikipedia principals, not to mention a sampling of admins and users. A print piece would be especially challenging because of the print medium; it is essentially one medium trying to describe another source of rapidly-updated content. Challenging, but possible. One would need to be devoted to it for the long-haul for it to be successful. Piewalker 22:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Book

Yes, it would take a lot of people over quite a stretch of time. Let's see how many people we can find who are willing to participate. Das Baz 15:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty. Piewalker 21:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The points you make are excellent ones. But I think that right now, and for the foreseeable future, finding enough people will be a more difficult task than capping recruitment.Das Baz 17:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Bejnar seems interested. Has some good ideas too. Das Baz 00:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC) Do you have an agent?Das Baz 00:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I am agentless. Piewalker 00:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And my father dwelt in a tent

Yes, Dr. Nibley expands a bit on that. Das Baz 15:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Guess what, my dad went to Deseret Book at Jordan Landing while I was getting a cavity filled and they don't carry it, which I thought was weird because they've been advertising a bunch of new Nibley stuff. The BYU Bookstore doesn't have it either (I'm at Campus Education Week until tomorrow); apparently it's been out of print since 1988, said the 20 year-old know-it-all book information specialist. I'll have to look for it online, or, unless you're feeling generous, you could scan that chapter's pages and e-mail it to me. : ) Piewalker 20:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just found it at the Bookstore.

Calloo and callay, I rejoice you have the book. There is much in it that needs to be put in Wikipedia. Das Baz 17:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Till We Have Faces is a Great Classic

But somebody dares to say at the bottom of the article that it is "B-Class" and "of middle importance"! Please correct that nonsense! Das Baz 15:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's an attempt to get this article through various Wiki processes to make it a "good article." To reach that, it has to go through a nomination process. You're right, the book itself is a great classic, Lewis' best, in fact (he thought that, and I think that, too). The Wiki article on it is not nearly as good as the book...but it is getting better. B_Cubed is helping some with good points here or there, but is also resisting, too. Thus the beauracracy of the Wiki. The only way to correct it is to help make the article better. Ultimately, this process should result in the article getting a little higher visibility, especially if it some day makes it onto Wikipedia's front page! See also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Assessment#Quality_scale. Piewalker 16:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please help with Illustrations

I do not have the know-how or technology to insert illustrations into Wikipedia. Can you please help me with that? In particular, the map on page 2 of Lehi in the Desert needs to be added to the article Egyptian Names in the Book of Mormon. And the article on Father Christmas needs a better picture, perhaps one of Father Chris from the Narnia movie. Das Baz 16:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, I'd love to help. I'll look into scanning it tonight...the book is sitting on my coffee table. And I'll look into an open-source image of Father Christmas, unless you've taken your own picture of Santa. Piewalker 18:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've scanned the map and it looks great, but it's copyrighted. I can't upload it without to the article without it having a good chance of deletion by the Wiki community. And I promise you, it would be. I could adapt it by changing colors, fonts, paths, etc, but that would take a ton of time, and those measures may still not immunize the image in the sheltered canopy of fair use in the United States (which is where the Wikipedia servers are hosted). Specifically, "...examples of uses that would almost certainly not be acceptable as fair use: ...A detailed map, scanned from a copyrighted atlas, used in an article about the region depicted. The only context in which this might be fair use is if the map itself was a topic of a passage in the article: for example, a controversial map of a disputed territory might be fair use, if this controversy is discussed in the article." See the Wikipedia Fair use guideline here: Wikipedia:Fair_use. I could e-mail you the scanned map. I couldn't find any free license Father Christmas images from a preliminary search. Piewalker 03:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks anyway. Das Baz 15:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help with Timeline

I need and ask for your help on a far more important matter. My article Timeline of fictional historical events prior to the 20th century has been twice deleted - for no good reason, just somebody's sadistic vandalism. Could you please help me expand it and to protect it from vandalistic gratuituous deletion? Thanks a million. Das Baz 15:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I read the previous AfD discussions linked from its discussion page and found it to be an entertaining discussion. It is indeed a bold idea, one appealing to the close follower of fictional works, albeit a passing novelty for non-fiction readers. I'm in the latter camp. If I would have voted, I'm afraid my opinion would be very dissappointing to you. I would've agreed with the consensus opinion to delete because I favor the utility of organizing fictional timelines attached to their own Universe. Mixing Star Trek timelines when they go back to the past, Back to the Future, Somewhere in Time, Ducktales, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, or any other time travelers visiting from timeframes after the 20th Century sets the stage for a pretty confusing but interesting page. Even Star Wars happened "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away," and that expanded Universe is jam-packed with stuff. I don't think you'll get enough support on this to keep it around. I would hate to see damage done to your reputation by fighting too much against the grain. One needs to choose their battles. In fact, something like this could potentially be a mark against you from gaining administrator status in the future. Sorry I couldn't be more help. Piewalker 16:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Piewalker: Thank you very much for your kind words, here and elsewhere, and for your good advice, which I shall certainly follow. Das Baz 18:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your remarks on User talk: Das Baz

It is hard to tell, since Das Baz deleted some of the comments, but were your remarks directed toward me or toward IZAK? Mapetite526 18:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted one comment because it was condescending and didn't belong on Das Baz's talk page, much less anywhere else on Wikipedia. My remarks are directed to any who accept them: they are a call to our better nature. Piewalker 16:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poor Wedding Guests

My latest big controversy concerns an article I wrote (but was quickly deleted) concerning the commandment of Jesus in Luke 14:13 that when you throw a big party you should invite poor homeless people. Christians do not follow this, but Orthodox Jewish people do. The reason given for deletion was that this was an "attack" on Christians. That certainly was not my intention. It seems to me that Christians, instead of taking offense, declaring themselves under "attack" and trying to squelch any discussion of the matter, should engage in some honest introspection and ask themselves if they are following the teachings of Jesus as well as they should. Das Baz 16:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Religious discussions will forever be polarized. It's a shame differences separate all people so widely; all of us share so much in common. Piewalker 16:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Right you are. What I wanted to point out was the strong commonality between the teaching of Jesus and Jewish practice (not to criticize or attack anyone). Some people are too quick to take offense. Das Baz 17:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)