User talk:Blurpeace

Welcome to Meta!

Hello Blurpeace, and welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). If you would like, feel free to ask me questions on my talk page. Happy editing! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia Travel Guide: Naming poll open

Hi there,

You are receiving this message because you voiced your opinion at the Request for Comment on the Wikimedia Travel Guide.

The proposed naming poll opened a few days ago and you can vote for as many of the proposed names as you wish, if you are eligible. Please see Travel Guide/Naming Process for full details on voting eligibility and how the final name will be selected. Voting will last for 14 days, and will terminate on 16 October at 06:59:59 UTC.

Thanks, Thehelpfulone 21:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Cascadia

--Another Believer (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

We'd like permission to use ticket #2012012810003054

Can you advise? Thank you!

Hi Kc255, I'm not sure I follow. I'm neither the owner of that ticket nor in a position to grant you "permission" to it. Can you please clarify what your intentions are so that I can direct you to someone more suitable? Thanks, Blurpeace 05:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikisource User Group

Hi! Thanks for your interest in the Wikisource User Group, to get things moving, Aubrey and me we were thinking of doing these tasks and hopefully you can give us a hand too :)

• Translate this WsUG invitation (thanks to Aarti for writing it!) into the languages you know
• The invitation is meant to be delivered to this list of wikisourcerors, check if we should add someone else!
• Read the new version of the WsUG page, and, if you feel like, add your thoughts about what should we do as a group on the talk page.

What do you think it's the first priority as a group of wikisource users, and what would you like to see accomplished? We'd very much like to understand what wikisourcerors want :-) --Micru (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikisource User Group and Community Poll

Hi Blurpeace. You receive this message because you signed the Wikisource User Group page: the User Group, as you probably know, is being evaluated by the AffCom, and they asked some questions that involve all interested users (as you are :-). Could you please take a moment to read these questions and answers for yourself? It is very important. Moreover, make sure you read and review the Wikisource community poll: we would like it to be filled in by as many users as possible, and we need really your help for that. If you want and can translate it, please write it here. Please contact us if you want to help: Wikisource is an amazing project, and it can be much more amazing if we all work together :-) Thanks! --Aubrey (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Men suck

(conversation moved from Grants:IdeaLab/Bring_positive_discrimination_to_Wikipedia)

"Men suck"? is this a serious argument? Ekips39 (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This is part of the reason that excellent women in society, who exceeed men, are not taken seriously. Quips like these harm their image--"women suck" would obviously be unacceptable. Sexism is never okay. If you want to promote gender-equality, it's not good to attack, without any reason, the other sex. "There are too many women," or "there are too many black people," "so, let's make it fewer of them" would also be entirely unacceptable, not to mention hilariously politically incorrect. Zaixionito (talk)

Glad I got some snappers. If you guys have any sincere interest in discussing this further ("arguing;" mind you, this is an "[e]ndorsements" and not an "arguments for this idea" section), I welcome you to settle your intellectual differences at my talk page. However, it seems highly inappropriate to carry on about whether my endorsement is legitimately grounded or not by good "argument". Blurpeace 10:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

What a foolish statement to request intellectual discussion after stating "men suck". Killiondude (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

One non-argument cannot paint all women with the same brush unless it is interpreted by someone who thinks women are a homogeneous mass rather than individuals with different abilities -- a highly flawed interpretation, and one that does not even make sense in this context unless we can be sure whether Blurpeace is a woman (they don't seem to have disclosed that info anywhere). Ekips39 (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

On a re-reading I see that w:User:Blurpeace refers to him as a "guy", so saying that he makes women look bad is definitely strange. Ekips39 (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You all seem rather committed to seeing this through? The combativeness of the comments here are a little astonishing. I forget how forceful some people at the projects are toward disagreement. I suppose it's also "foolish" of me to think I'll receive anything other than the sort of response I have. I am unfortunately only one person, and I couldn't hope to take on an army in good faith. I probably won't be accepting further engagement on the subject since I've already committed my time to one person at the English Wikipedia. You all can take a look at my talk page over there if you'd like. However, I cannot promise that I will respond, even if you decide to write. Yours, Blurpeace 22:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You are terrible at being a compassionate, honest and good human being if you hate an entire gender. It is quite sickening to hear people say this. If you truly think that it is reasonable to hate an entire gender, then what you are doing is 100% absolutely identical to that old anti-African American attitude that was held by (and, to my chagrin, seems to still be held by) many individuals in the past.

If you truly believe what you have just said, then you are, by the very definition, sexist. In case you don't realise that what you said was sexist, let me paste these definitions of sexism here: 1. The belief that people of one sex or gender are inherently superior to people of the other sex or gender. 2. Different treatment or discrimination based on a difference of sex or gender.

Therefore, what you just posted is 100% bona fide sexism, by definition. There is absolutely no way that it could be argued that it isn't, because the definition of the word clearly states that it is. So unless you are also going to claim that saying that you hate African Americans doesn't make you racist, and that eating meat doesn't stop you from being a vegetarian, don't even bother trying to claim that your blatant sexism wasn't sexist. Tharthan (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Just so you know, if your aim is to simultaneously convince me that I lack compassion, honesty, and am all all-around poor human being with respect to my difference of understanding, and are also trying to change the offending understanding, your aims are in conflict. I won't be honoring this comment. Blurpeace 22:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)