User talk:Snowspinner~enwiki/Archive 3

RfA

I made a comment at RfA [1] and I figured you might want to respond. --"DICK" CHENEY 02:53, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that. My support for you stands, so much that I would be willing to renominate you at the end of July if it doesn't work out this time around (though you may want a less controversial user than myself to nominate you). --"DICK" CHENEY 03:15, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

I greatly appreciate your apology. I hope we can work together and have a great time while making Wikipedia great! Again, thanks for your apology and I respect you standing by your decesion. ChrisDJackson

Plato

Plato is a troll and has been from day one. I know that and have no expectations about him except negative ones. RickK 06:12, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

BTW, 219.88.160.45 turns out to be posting from New Zealand -- 219-88-160-45.jetstream.xtra.co.nz RickK 06:15, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

decency

if so, I resent you being indecent ;) Sam [Spade] 04:49, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

VFD: Simpson v. Savoie

Please note that your deletion of this was inappropriate. I assert that the article should be removed regardless of whether the case existed, in other words, whatever the outcome of the records search. I could remove the one point that is dependent on the case's existence, and trim down another point that is partially dependent on its existence, and the entire text of my comment is entirely independent of the veracity of the case.

Also, far from a consensus by which the previous VfD "survived", the count of votes in the previous discussion is clearly in favor of deleting, and even moreso when one-word votes with no justification are removed. In addition with the contention that it is a tabled discussion that will go on, it is not putting it "back so soon" after it having been already decided.

Also, please note that this is by no means much of 'first case' or an "early cyberlaw case". 1992 is pretty late in the game for the Internet. The Internet, Usenet, and bulletin board systems go back to the 60's and 70's. I have found 2 other cases, both earlier than this one, that are directly transferrable for this one as a "first case", and warrant inclusion much more than this case as they are by courts that actually have some jurisdiction. There are many more that are direct rulings on so-called "cyberlaw" and the Internet, and there are multitudes more that relate to cyberlaw less in the details of the case than in their use as a precedent in later cases, and serve as a grounding for what is called cyberlaw today. These are all significantly more important than this case. - Centrx 22:29, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Your nomination for Adminship

I have now closed and removed your request for adminship at Requests for adminship since after the voting period, I could find no consenus to sysop you. I am certain that you will not take this too hard, for in two months keeping up the good work, I would be certain that you get a striking consensus to be sysopped. Best of luck, and send a message over if you need someone to nominate you when the time is in. ✏ Sverdrup 22:34, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So that is CONSENSUS

In case you are unaware, I would likely give you my vote given a proper amount of time and a less contentious nominator. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 05:24, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hello, Snowspinner! Thank you for your notification. Unfortunately I didn't have the time to write some arguments in favor of your nomination right now, but I agree with the way you tried to sanction and stop Avala's behavior through Wikipedia processes. If you decide to nominate sometime in the (say, few months) future, I will support you and I will remember your actions today. Best regards, --Romanm 16:54, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WP:RFROAA

(cross-posted to several user talk: pages)

I noticed that you participated in the discussion regarding reorganization of this page. I have written a proposal for a new format and would like any comments, criticisms, or feedback you may have to offer. Thanks, —No-One Jones 14:27, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Re: Talk: Anarchism

FYI, Rand was explicitly not an anarchist. The U.S. Libertarian Party is explicitly neutral, with strong non-anarchist tendencies (they are, after all, trying to get elected to the government). Pretty damn close by most people's standards, but a significant difference WRT an article specifically about anarchism. - Nat Krause 06:51, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, I mean, Rand was very specifically in favor of a monopoly democratic state, although she was unclear about how she thought it should be funded. That doesn't meet most definitions of anarchism. - Nat Krause 07:00, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for being a good user

I appreciate that while we have not consistantly agreed, you have consistantly strived for NPOV on all sides of the fence. I find this to be quite commendable, in some ways even more commendable than sharing my POV's for example (which I suspect we shave very, very few of ;). I felt I should let you know about this: [2]/[3]. Bear in mind that we are in no way conspiring (nor do I accuse them of such), rather I am providing you with evidence of a concern. I have decided it is in the articles best interest to let them know I am aware of their ideas (as it may cause them to tone things down slightly), and so I will be doing so shortly. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 22:25, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sam is doing his best to sway you on these issues Snow. All the stuff he is "bringing to your attention" is publicly available, and I would have been happy to post those links to your page myself if I thought you would be interested. Sam has LONG been pushing blatant POV statements into dozens of articles all over wikipedia. Don't take my word for it, or the word of any number of other people, please look at his history yourself. Further, he asked for evidence on the anarchism page that he tends to cluster with VV in attempts to discredit certain users or push their particular POV and I responded with a great deal of such evidence. His only comment then was "wikipedia is not the place for such POV rants." Which I find strange, if he didn't want me to spend my time documenting my claims, why did he ask me too?

I'm a little disappointed that you have called my removal of a link to a highly controversial article "vandalism". Contrary to Sam's claims I am not imposing a policy of deletionism, that link already exists on the anarcho-capitalism page, I have never put the article itself up for VfD or attempted to blank it, and it is frankly irrelevant as part of an introduction to anarcho-capitalism (unless we are going to claim that one of anarcho-capitalisms most defining qualities is its opposition to liberatarian socialism, which would be false given that not all acs oppose libertarian socialism, we even have a wikipedia ac who believes he is a leftist). Putting every possible link to support ac all over wikipedia is only going to ruin articles, it would be like putting the many such links in support of libertarian socialism throughout the anarchism page, and I would delete those too as A) redundant to links already on libertarian socialism page and B) propaganda. Please rethink your take on these matters. I know you routinely involve yourself in disputes with an eye towards resolution, normally such a tendency would be very problematic on wikipedia, but in general your handling of such disputes has been superb. This is precisely why it is so important for you to see your own admitted personal bias and review just how that might be skewing your perspective on these matters. Kev 21:00, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

I responded to your comment regarding the definition of a "personal attack" on WP:RFA. FWIW, you can also check out the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines pages, including Wikipedia:no personal attacks, and the defintions of personal attack a.k.a. ad hominem attack. Kevin Baas 16:48, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)

172 and VeryVerily

I have decided to withdraw my request for arbitration regarding these two users. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Withdrawal of request for my explanation. Since you supported my initial request, I would ask you to also support this withdrawal if you feel it is appropriate. Thank you for your assistance throughout this process, and in general for your efforts to resolve disputes on Wikipedia. --Michael Snow 03:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Nat is making specious analogies in the form of jabs at Spleeman and myself based mainly on his lack of knowledge of the subject matter. I pointed this out to him. Does that qualify as a personal attack? Kev 05:26, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well I'm so very glad to have someone monitoring my behavior and informing me of whenever they think it is "borderline". Kev 10:37, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cat

I put it in the most logical category that came to mind. I saw it hadn't been created, but I had just tried my second choice on another page, but it hadn't been created either (Sexuality). Then I took a walk. Hyacinth 05:47, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

rv

Hey, careful w them reverts, look at this [4]. Sam [Spade] 12:38, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

haha... I wonder who that was anyhow, he clearly knew who I was. Sam [Spade] 14:38, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

re: Category:Literary theorists

By my understanding, literary criticism and theory are not the same thing. There's probably a lot of overlap between literary critics and literary theorists, but I'm sure some fit more easily into one category than the other. Even so, you seem to be the specialist here so I'll accept your decision.--[[User:HamYoyo|Bendž |Ť]] 22:33, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration

Regarding your comments on IRC, would you be interested in participating in Mediation? If you have problems with me, I'd rather work to solve them than fighting you in front of the arbitration committee. anthony (see warning)

RfA

Snowspinner, sorry I didn't vote for you on RfA, but I was away from my computer for a month or so at the time. Had I gotten the message in time, you would have had my full support. — Adam Conover † 01:19, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Books that start with B

The category and its sister categories are supposed to list all books alphabetically. Categories are supposed to function as the list articles were orginally meant to, and these categories are supposed to do the function of the lists linked in them. Thus, we will be able to keep a list of all books by name through the category scheme. -- LGagnon 07:17, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Requests for adminship: boilerplate questions

What a good idea, where can we go to ask all sysops the saem question? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 03:22, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) (yes I know I am one)

All due respect: Your RFA questions are indeed useful, but you might consider not posing them to obvious trolls whose nominations are futile. It only serves to litter the page. Cribcage 18:35, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bickering?

Someone calls for people to be banned because of the way they have voted. I pull them up on it and you accuse me of bickering. I'm hurt :-(   (well not hurt exactly, but a little miffed) theresa knott 00:13, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What is a troll

Snowspinner,

I fear I really do object to your reverting my addition to that page on the grounds that a vote is underway.

The page has only existed for two days when I made my edit. It is longstanding policy that time for discussion is required before a vote is taken. I was almost so bold as to delete the vote, but I felt that would have done a disservice to the many people who had voted.

Please note that I made earlier, extensive changes to the page which you did not revert. You may wish to revert those as well, if you consider the page to be locked from editing due to the poll being underway.

The addition you did revert, in my view, was important because polluting the record is such a widespread behavior among troublemakers. Often it is not simple vandalism, and there are many past cases involving all the usual suspects where they have, in the course of adding a comment, seen fit to remove one they made previously. This means that people end up having to go through every edit to figure out what happened. And it's not vandalism, per se, particularly when it is a contributor's own statement being edited. Someone says something provoking, the expected response comes, and the original provocation is removed.

Best regards

UninvitedCompany 03:48, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

2004 Tour de France

He is back! And now you can take over the Tour. Stage 17 plz ;)

TwoOneTwo 17:48, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've bonked in the Alps. All down to you! Also if your not too busy... I've just noticed the 2002 Tour is only half complete. TwoOneTwo 17:58, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

DWDAE

Gedday Snowspinner, do you think you can support the policy as it stands? Erich 02:26, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

genuiinely sorry to hear that. You don't even think it's a step in the right direction? Erich 11:36, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Would you mind detailing some of your criticisms of this as it stands? I understand you're fairly busy, but we seem to have fairly similar ideas about this, and if you can give me some suggestions, I'll try and follow them up. Ambivalenthysteria 11:47, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Holocaust (disambig)

Hi Snowspinner. I reverted the deletion of Dresden/Hiroshima from the Holocaust (disambiguation) article. "Holocaust" translates literally as "complete destruction by fire", and I find it a stretch to argue that Dresden and Hiroshima were not exactly that. While others have co-opted 'holocaust' (the Black Holocaust, for instance, found most of its victims through disease and starvation), that does not render its original meaning invalid. Hope this works for you. Denni☯ 01:46, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

Nice rework on your user page. I'll be back soon to rape and pillage your code.

But on to matters at hand. I think Dresden and Hiroshima should remain, not necessarily because they may or may not be commonly referred to as holocausts, but because they were holocausts. One job of an encyclopedia is to help us remember things we've forgotten, but another, equally important one, is to tell us things we didn't know before. This does not constitute original research; the Sudra holocaust will pull you few Google refs, and a search for Native American (or Aboriginal) holocaust will bring you a few tens. As I have consistently upheld, Google is only an indicator, not an arbitor. Denni☯ 01:56, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

I appreciate the points you raise, and while I would like to see Dresden in particular maintained here, if only because it is an archetypal holocaust, I will not re-re-revert if you re-revert. And patience be with you, grasshopper, for a Mass deaths and atrocities of the twentieth century article is in the works now. Since Dresden had only a few puny tens of thousands of deaths, it will not be on the list, but many other names will be familiar... Denni☯ 02:43, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

On rereading your posts, I've changed my mind - I think you are right that this is a disambig page, and neither Dresden or Hiroshima need disambiguating in this case. So I've re-removed the references. Good to work with you, Snowspinner. Denni☯ 20:48, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

User talk:Snowspinner/arbcom

'ave a look. Sam [Spade] 03:42, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good answers. I don't agree about declining mediation (I do think it should be a black eye, to encourage mediation if nothing else) but thats not exactly a deal breaker. I may have to vote for you, esp. if its similar to the vote for the wikimedia board representitives, where we vote for all good candidates (so I can vote for me too! 8P Sam [Spade] 17:12, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

illdefined and illconceived

Geez mate, that's a bit harsh isn't it? I am sorry I wasn't able to support the troll banning on site proposal but I'm really trying to come up with a compromise to satisfy the divergent views expressed in the troll polls. Is there any chance you can be a bit more specific than illdefined and illconceived? maybe even suggest some modifications to make it more palatable? Erich 10:24, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)