User talk:BaronGrackle

Hello, BaronGrackle, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Kralizec! (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. There is a common misconception that the word "Catholic" only came about in 1054 with the schism between Greeks and Latins or in 1512 with Martin Luther's Protestant reformation. However, the word Catholic means "Universal" in Greek and has been used to describe the Christians (and they used it to describe it themselves) who followed the Nicaean Council sometime in 325 AD. Assyrians, Chaldeans, Oriental Orthodox Churches and even the Greek Orthodox Church calls itself Catholic. It was used to distinguish Gnostics and Aryans from Nicaean Christians. Therefore, Constantine was Catholic. Tourskin (talk) 06:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A simple misunderstanding! Look at my actual edit; I was just saying that "Constantine I" is not a term that only Catholics use. I think the parentheses may have been placed there by accident, instead of near "Constantine the Great". -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you didn't take my comments as a personal offense! Actually, having read your comments on the Burma/Myanmar debate, I have to say they come across as balanced and fair, unlike many of the comments in support of Myanmar, which seem to be of the; "...it's called Myanmar, because that's what The Hicksville Star calls it, and anyone who disagrees with me is a moron" type. You make many fair points about Myanmar being the name recognised by the UN, by the current regime, by many governments and a proportion of the Burmese people, but until that change is ratified by some kind of democratic vote, I'm sticking with the name "Burma." Sorry! Angstriddenyouth (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.210.163 (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, OK. Thanks for your clarifaction that my comments weren't deleted. I really wasn't happy with the (untrue) edit that "BBC World" was just an ex-pats service, however. Jesus Christ, what does that make CNN? (The spawn of Satan if you go by Bill Hicks) Angstriddenyouth (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Following my last message, I've just taken a look at the Bill Hicks page. Now if you want to see unsubstantiated, inaccurate content, there's a good place to start. Anyway, RIP Bill. Angstriddenyouth (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, it was worth a shot. At this point, we'll just have to see how long it lasts. I'm not particularly thrilled by the current name, but we'll just see how long it lasts, I guess. I'm not particularly interested in re-contesting this and going to a formal request for mediation, but some people may be. Somedumbyankee (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least I said more or less the same thing each time. Imagine if I'd argued opposite points in each response (I often find myself doing that in real life)!--Regents Park (Feed my swans) 16:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never a dull moment on wikipedia! --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 11:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		for supporting the core values of wikipedia even at the cost of your own preferences! Regents Park (Chase my ducks) 21:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant Jesus the Jew which is the only one I have read although the others got very good reviews too! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have created Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Burma. I have added you along with added 18 other users (including myself) to the list of involved parties. The ones I have listed are ones who have commented recently, or who commented on the Mediation Cabal case (except if they solely made a neutral comment). If you disagree with me listing you there, remove yourself from it if you wish. If you feel someone else should be involved, add/ask them. I hope those I have added are alright though. I also hope this step is what finally ends this dispute! Deamon138 (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol no problem! And thanks for agreeing to the request. Still, it looks like this party might be a bit of a damp squib, considering that we already have one user disagreeing to this proposal. Should I write a message asking him why? Deamon138 (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Husond made a good point, but I'm never one from shying away from a try at mediation. My curiosity forced myself to ask him why he disagreed and he came back with a good answer. Beam 13:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Burma. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 01:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a new page for structured mediation if you're interested. BigBlueFish (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting the link of Nichalp's move. What a backlash that caused! I can't say I examined all the comments after that, or all of the straw poll, but with a skim read of these, it seems if you take Wikipedia policy strictly on what it says for consensus, then in a vote, less weight is given to those comments that aren't objective (such as a users girlfriend hadn't heard of Myanmar!), so yes there was consensus. But I think it was wrong for Nichalp to make the move the way he did. I think if an independent admin who hasn't participated in these discussions did what he did, then that would be fair, but I think if someone involved is to move it, then they should say on the talk page that there is consensus, and move it if no-one can find a good reason why there isn't consensus, and not move then say. I also think a week was too a short a time to have that poll open. Still, it certainly put into perspective the comments of any user, supporting the name Burma, who says something about us just trying to keep the discussion open, and they try to close further discussion. Meh, I guess we're now stuck on this merry road as you put it for the time being! Deamon138 (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here [1]. Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA. NancyHeise ^talk 00:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That indeed is my understanding and directly pertinent abortion = murder. If the church cannot consistently define it as murder, then I frown at others who presume to do so.

As to your modern argument, 'tis a fine one. I do not deny it is life and it is homo sapien. This was why I eventually sided with pro-life editors in inserting "death" in the lead over "termination". It also happens to be a shorter word, which I like from an encyclopedic point of view.

The pro-choice stance occurs precisely because of equality. To allow the state or a 3rd party control over someone's procreation is a violation of an "empowered individuals" rights. As the fetus is not yet an autonomous individual, we logically do not grant it those hard won rights. The DNA argument is vacuous as every one of my 50 trillion cells contains DNA, but taken separately or even in sections they certainly do not constitute a human being... even though recent science has shown with the correct tweaking an "adult" cell can be used as the seed for cloning stem cells, and eventually individuals.

From a more nuanced understanding of rights, women have historically had their rights severely restricted in the past. Disallowing abortion is a hold over from that unenlightened era. Does this make abortion good, heck no. But to deny abortion is to deny equality in control of our bodies.

I welcome your reply. It amuses me in a small way, that liberty obsessed Americans will fight against socialism and for individual rights, but want to employ strict control(s) over individuals procreation; and even more broadly their sexuality. It's illogical and hypocritical. With ever improving technology we can make pre-term babies survive, a growing grey area that will eventually become artificial wombs. Then the abortion debate will largely become moot in the developed world. - RoyBoy 02:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the Jesus talk page, you wrote "I honestly wasn't trying to troll." which sounds like you are responding to someone who has accused you of trolling. But the only person who used the word "troll" was AndrewC. Dod you think he was accusing you of being a troll? I am confused, because he provided an edit dif to indicate who the troll is, and it does not point to you. Did you follow his link? Then you woulod know that he was not refering to you. But then, who do you think has accused you of being a troll? I haven't, I didn't think anyone else did, aNdrew uses the word ... I would hate to think someone reading your comment might think Andrew accused you of being a troll, it isn't fair to him. And to be fair to you, I really do not think anyone thinks you are a troll. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! No need to thank me, but you may wish to fix your Jesus talk page comment appropriate.y. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

.. Mr. Grackle. Saw you out on commons (same old, same old!) and thought I'd drop in and say hi. You should hang around in a bigger way - wikipedia needs your common sense ways! --RegentsPark (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that if Burma becomes Myanmar, your work will be done and you'll leave wikipedia for ever? Good enough reason to never support that move! --RegentsPark (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving your post with the attached soapboxing untouched at Talk:Burma. I think it's blatant soapboxing and letting off steam which is against policy, and this editor has done it before. It is not constructive in any way that I can see plus filled with sarcasm and lies meant only to stir up a hornets nest. That said, I now realize you have a completely different opinion about its addition, and what I thought was an easy call is obviously not. I try to be consistent, so my bad, and I'm cool with it staying. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he has now admitted to not wanting an answer to his post. Are you still adamant it was not soapboxing which would need to be removed? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]