User talk:Snowspinner~enwiki/Archive 2

Hey, Snowspinner. I'm a new Wikipedian and I'm looking for someone to take me under their wing. I noticed all the work you did on Anarchism, which is a subject that interests me greatly, so I thought you might be someone to get ahold of. My email address micahbales@yahoo.com. I hope to hear from you. -micahbales 17 May, 2004.

Thanks for your invitiation to contribute. I'm afraid I may not be much use because I am only dimly familiar with critical theory. I am much more at ease with the philosophy of science and the social sciences - particularly Marxist philosophy of science, and the new continental approach to science studies like Bloor and Latour. I'm afraid my Marx is a touch more on the sociological side than Adorno's. Diderot 20:22, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we'd be happy to have some focus on philosophy of science and on Latour. Critical theory is such an umbrella term that a variety of perspectives would be helpful. And I'm so totally hateful of Latour that someone who can actually talk about him with sympathy would be really nice. :) Snowspinner 21:44, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll give it a shot. Latour is pretty distainful of critical theory, so it should be interesting. I should note that I am not. I am hostile towards Sokal, Bricmont and Weinberg because on first reading them I had already read some Latour and I knew that they had misunderstood - or more likely carefully misread - Latour's discussion of relativity. I didn't entirely agree with Latour, but I can recognise a snow job when I see one. But I don't have any substantial opinion - or even knowledge - of critical theory. I am sympathetic towards Latour primarily because I've seen him dumped on undeservingly, but my epistemology of knowledge tends somewhat further towards the unreconstructed, dialectically materialist Marx than Latour. Diderot 11:51, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article is always going to be an exception in terms of what it links to, but usually Wikipedia namespace links are considered harmful. Anyway, the rule is not absolute. There are few absolute rules on Wikipedia beyond the core principles of GFDL, NPOV and wikiquette, and even those don't have 100% support. Angela . 04:18, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

I'm still not sure why you need {{msg:CriticalTheory}} in a box. If it was just text links to those pages, I expect there would be far less objection. Anyway, as long as it no longer links to the Wikipedia namespace, I don't intend to be involved in the arguments about it. I don't have any strong feelings either way. It was only the namespace issue that bothered me. Angela . 15:14, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

not prefered?

what is that supposed to mean "not prefered on the wikipedia"??? Sam Spade 04:50, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight. Your saying that the clinical term "homosexual" is not acceptable on the wiki, but "straight" is an acceptable way to refer to heterosexuals? The reason why I like encyclopedias is that they are a bastion of truth, one of several weapons against political correctness and other forms of factual relativism. I don't believe the wiki has surrendered to using trendy terms in place of ones which have a more precise meaning. And since when is Heterosexuality a gay-related article? Thats really very sad. Sam Spade 05:29, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

In case you havn't noticed I oppose political correctness with every fiber of my being. It is synonymous w newspeak in my view. That being said, I assure you I don't intend to hunt about on gay related pages for debates over what they'd like to call themselves. I have learned my lesson on heteronormativity, its better to allow innaccuracy than to have to discuss such distressing topics w people who are more motivated, and more concentrated in their POV's on those subjects. I'm an unpaid volunteer after all! :) Sam Spade 05:46, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

strikethroughs

I understand what you are trying to do on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paul Vogel and it's fine, but the way you were doing some of the strikethroughs was making the entire rest of the document struck through (at least on my browser). For example:

doesn't work because it results in invalid html which results in it displaying incorrectly (as described above). I'll continue to try to fix it so your stuff is correctly struck through. Nohat 20:45, 2004 May 4 (UTC)

response

I appreciate your intervention perhaps you can bookmark my talk page and make sure he does not vandalize it? thanks all the same. GrazingshipIV 00:20, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Re: The Local Church

My apologies for not explaining myself and also for any terse comment in the "Edit Summary" for Local Church controversy. I mean well. Your comments on spinoffs are apt:

Fine. I'm just very opposed to spinoff articles. I'd rather see the stuff get edited for POV and kept in the right article. I think moving it to spinoff articles is too often a cover, in that it allows POV junk to fester. I'd rather have this all stay on Local churches and get worked on than fragmented. Since the content is currently redundant, that's not a big deal - just make the edits to Local churches and let this be a redirect. Snowspinner 04:54, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I reply:

You are completely right. I feel the same way. I think there should be just one article. But that article keeps getting censored to fit the POV of the Local Church alone. Sorry, I couldn't explain sooner — I was in the middle of editing the page and had forgotten to log in. Have a look at Scientology and Jehovah's Witnesses; nothing NPOV sticks. For that matter, look at the history of Yahweh and Talk:Yahweh: the Jehovah's Witnesses kept reverting it because they believe that "Jehovah" is the only name for God and all else must go.--Administer 05:29, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any other way to keep NPOV discussion of such controversial groups along with NPOV discussion of criticism?--Administer 05:29, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style Re:Sexuality

Snowspinner - just to let you know, the manual of style is, almost more than anything else, supposed to represent what all/most wiki contributors think should be our style. There should be near unanimity before anything is written there. If there is an objection (and to me, it appears there is), you should hammer it out on talk before you put it in the manual. I thought rather than revert you I'd give you a chance to withdraw it. →Raul654 21:56, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

(While I think we should note Raul's comment above) I'm amazed by your assertiveness in editing, specifically on the manual of style in response to Sam Spade's reverts. I would have attempted to enter a long discussion, however, considering I have already invited him to the Sexuality Terminology project (which he kindly copy edited) without results. Anyways, you're tough. Hyacinth 22:19, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to Raul on his page - essentially, I think that, since it was already an element of the style guide, an objection needs to be founded on something less subjective and more verifiable than Spade's personal experience - until a substantive objection is offered, I don't think there is a lack of consensus.

As for being tough... I prefer bold. :) Snowspinner 22:22, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

[Smile] You are bold in the land of the passive and aggresive. Hyacinth 22:42, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

You are neither when you are wrong, arbitrary, and autocratic. I'm getting a bit tired of your excesses of ego. Sam Spade 22:31, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly see how I'm autocratic. I'm not even an admin, making autocracy difficult, nor have I even violated three reverts. I also don't see how consultation with reputable sources amounts to arbitrariness. Or how careful documentation of accepted style guides qualifies as "wrong." You have not provided an objection that amounts to anything beyond your personal experience. Weighing against your personal experience are several widely accepted style guides. You've gotta make that gap up a bit before your objection is credible. Snowspinner 22:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

according to you. You have designated yourself the judge, on a policy page no less. These matters are ment to be discussed until concensus is reached. Raul (an actual admin) advised you of such, and you chose to ignore him. Again, autocratic. You are one person, not the editor. I understand your distaste for democracy, but I don't agree with your style in attempts to seize power. Sam Spade 22:41, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

If by "my distaste for democracy" you mean the fact that I'm an anarchist... I mean, I could really care less about seizing power. If anything, my interest is in demonstrating that trolls, vandalism, and ignorance can be effectively dealt with on a project of this nature. As for Raul's administrative status... if he wishes to revert the edit, he may be my guest. If you wish to revert the edit, be my guest. I will respond with what I consider to be the appropriate action in each of those cases.

That said, I fail to see how I'm being autocratic. You're the one exercising a single-person veto power over something that was already in the style guide, based on no sources whatsoever, and ignoring four sources that blatantly contradict your assertion. I'm the one defending the style guide from your antics. If autocracy is an insistence on documentation, professional style, and reason, then I suppose I'm an autocrat, but I must confess, I don't think that's the standard usage of the term. Snowspinner 22:45, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts on the matter: First, (speaking as an administrator) - Sam, you've been here a while so I shouldn't have to remind you about Wiketiquette. Your comments above have been borderline personal attacks, and I think you should refrain from them. (Ok, I'm done speaking as an admin) To the matter at hand, I will say that the manual of style is *not* the place for an edit war. However, given that (A) the policy was already in place and (B) (as Snowspinner has indicated) several other style guides seem to say the same thing, my personal opinion is that if someone wants it removed, the burden of proof should be on them to get it removed. →Raul654 22:59, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Um... yeah. Take a look at Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and you'll see I am nowhere near qualifying w anything I have said to snowspin. Just to refresh, personal attacks are considered to be:

Racial, sexual, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor.

Political affiliation attacks (often, calling someone a Nazi)

Profanity directed against another contributor.

Threats of legal action

Death threats

The closest I came was the autocrat thing, which I agree was a bit over the top. I used it for just that reason, because I knew snowspin wasn't a facist politically (ok, I assumed...;) and I felt that might sink in. That being said, I obviously have to surrender the point about what style guides reccomend, due to the preponderance of evidence. I clearly don't agree that gay is NPOV, but I will definitely have to compromise, w the evidence being what it is. My primary complaint was in regards to both the quality of how it was done (before the matter could be thoroughly discussed and consensus reached) and the quantity (snowspin and I apparently share much the same watchlist, and he has been reverting quite a bit of what I have done as of late, generally in the same brisk fasion as here, and rarely w as much evidence). That was what had me admitedly a bit steamed, and I do appologise if feelings were hurt, but personal attacks? I think not. Sam Spade 23:27, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Social software

On VfD, you asked why [[Anti-Social software was not nominated as a speedy deletion candidate. I didn't because it did not seem to clearly meet any of the listed criteria. I'd also say that I've never been completely comfortable with having two separately managed deletion nomination pages. It seems to make the process much more difficult for the community to oversee. On the other hand, I certainly won't object if you convert this article over to a speedy delete. Rossami 23:06, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. I don't like trying to end deletion debates. It seems, well, autocratic. Snowspinner 23:08, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Highlighting

Hello. You neglected the highlighting convention in private sphere and Dasein. Generally, the title word or title phrase is highlighted at its first appearance, like this. Also, articles should begin with a complete sentence, not a dictionary-style definition. Michael Hardy 23:24, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix. I confess, both of those are things that I forget about once every two days, along with conventions on capitalizing titles. :) Snowspinner 23:37, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Slimming, Refactoring, et al.

Ahh, a semiotician! Lovely. Please highlight which bits of refactoring on ViP you don't like, and I'll try to unrefactor them. The page is 144k(!) and needs refactoring more than direct archiving (since it's useful to go back and check old IPs, but not always necessary to see the full comments about why they showed up there in the first place). +sj + 07:22, 2004 May 7 (UTC)

It should be archived. It is never appropriate to change someone's words like that - especially on a matter like ViP, where what people say is likely to come back up in mediation/arbitration/VfD/votes for adminship. Do a straight archive if anything. (Really, you don't need to edit it, because it's broken into sections, which means that if you're editing it, you never have to edit the whole thing.) If you absolutely must slim, then do something like slim complaints that are over three months old only. Slim by copying to an archive page, and then leaving the headers only on this page under a section called "Archived alerts". So it would be "Archived alerts", and then just a list of IPs/Usernames, and a clear link to the archive page where the full debates are kept. This preserves the quick-referencing of checking old IPs, while also allowing the comments to be preserved rather than junked. Snowspinner 14:45, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Icebreaker Lenin

Hi. Why do you have the Icebreaker Lenin tagged for speedy deletion? It does not seem to qualify as a candidate for speedy deletion and it is documented as the first nuclear surface ship. Thanks - Tεx τ urε 15:15, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Largely because I found the entry so unintelligible that I couldn't figure out that's what it's claiming. It looked like a total junk entry to me, as I did not know what the Icebreaker Lenin was. I've de-tagged it. Snowspinner 15:41, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

By endorsing graz's response, you are endorsing his statements on that page. Is that your intent? Because you statement does not appear to relect that. I find the suggestion that I be assualted physically to be abusive and personally insulting BTW, and would strongly caution you to rerain from such statements. Sam Spade 17:55, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

You have made yourself clear Sam Spade 18:30, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

List of major figures in the game industry

Wise choice. I applaud thee. Fredrik 19:42, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your comments on the Pump -- very thoughtful -- just wanted to say I appreciate your effort to be clear and explain things neutrally and thoroughly. BCorr|Брайен 23:07, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

I will be watching the pages User:ChrisO listed on WP:VIP. UninvitedCompany 03:06, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not open to having them made without a consensus first"

Comments like this are anti-wiki. Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages Sam [Spade] 20:18, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I find your tone unnacceptable, and your insinuations worse. I am not pleased because you agreed with me a time or two on one issue or another. There are editors I respect who have never agreed w me on article content. I find you to be a rude, insulting, condescending, disingenuous POV pusher, and am generally dissatisfied with the quality and substance of your dialogue. I will strive to avoid articles where you have taken an interest. Good day to you sir. Sam [Spade] 21:38, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is true, but I have only known you to portray the inverse. If you feel we can work together, thats a good sign I suppose. I will give the matter more thought, but I definitely require 2 things from you to earn that respect. #1 avoiding the harsh slap of reversion. Usually there is room for a compromise edit, and always there is time for a thorough discussion (and often concensus) before reversion. #2, and far more important, is politeness. The first impression you made on me was very bad (suggesting that I was unqualified to edit heteronormativity due to lack of expertise on the subject, for example) and while I likewise share your awareness of the benefit your presence here has had for the wiki (your edits are generally good, and you appear to approve of NPOV at least in theory) you have made a number of statements which have offended me deeply. Actually, I have found you to be quite consistantly disrespectful, and have made mention of this periodically. Regardless, if I find some progress in these areas, it can do nothing other than increase my respect for you as a person, and as an editor. Respect is earned, and not given, but I will allow that you have earned some dispite my clear and unadressed complaints. The matter in question is if I can find enough civility in our encounters to make them worthwhile to me. I am a volunteer here, and feel that status earns each of us (excluding trolls and vandals) a minimum of respect towards one another. Sam [Spade] 22:16, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Well you've certainly managed to make me alot less pissed off, I'll give you that. I'm a little dubious about what you think our respective underrepresented POV's are, but I like the general spirit of NPOV thru presenting all POV's (and the facts too? ;) as evenly as possible. I appreciate your awareness of the importance of civility, and regardles of our goals (I am decidedly curious as to what you think mine might be) I'm sure you appreciate the benefit civility provides us in the pursuit of said aims (like maybe creating a top notch verifiable encyclopedia perhaps?). In any case, you've successfully brought what was obviously a decidedly negative impression up to neutral. Where we go from here God only knows, but if nothing else I salute your natural ability. Sam [Spade] 09:34, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Sig on article page

Snowspinner -- Looks like you accidentally included your sig on the Kant article page. I removed it for you, and NPOVed the racism comment a little bit more. (Perhaps too much, in fact? I'd appreciate your further input.) Apart from that, I just noticed the Critical Theory spinoff project -- it looks great! Good for you for starting it up. — Adam Conover † 18:59, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

(In reply to your reply on my talk page) No problem, glad I could be of help. Thanks for double-checking my NPOV, as well. As an analytic kind of guy, I've always been wary of the critical theory folks, having met a few accomplished irrational bullshitters, but if all CT-inclined wikipedians are as reasonable and helpful as you, I think the two factions should get along fine here. ;) — Adam Conover † 19:06, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

Xena mess

Hi. I noticed that Pcb21 seems to have delegated the Xena mess to you (he moved the old vfd discussion to [User talk:Snowspinner/Mess of Xena articles]].) I think he assumed you're an admin. Although you aren't, you're the best person I know of to sort the mess out. The VfD consensus seems to give a carte blanche on deleting these things. Anyway, I know absolutely nothing about Xena, but I'll volunteer to do the actual deletions if you point me to list of Xena articles that you think should be deleted. Isomorphic 10:25, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

OK. All deleted except Valeria, which had acquired some non-Xena content. You might want to leave the list in place, just to periodically check that the articles aren't recreated. I think I remember people saying that their creator is rather persistent. Isomorphic 15:16, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, Snowspinner isn't an admin? Hmm. First credited edit April 18, 2004. That's a little soon to nominate for many people's taste, including mine. Darn. Snowspinner, at least you'll have the satisfaction of seeing "wait, I thought he was an admin" when you get nominated for adminship. -- Cyrius|&#9998 19:13, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

Review of admin actions

I'm trying not to get involved in that RickK and 172 mess, but if any admins deserved to get called names, it was those two. -- Cyrius|&#9998 19:13, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

Liberia

Liberia has remained a protectorate of the United States since 1823 [1]? --"DICK" CHENEY 20:06, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Snowspinner. I must admit, yesterday was a bit of a trying day, and I probably reacted a little more emotionally, lets say, than I would have done normally. I can see where you're coming from, in many ways I sympathise with what you're saying, and I certainly respect your opinions. But, like I say, I don't think it's an issue for arbitration, at least not yet. I think we just have to cross our fingers, hope that the involved parties realise there are other, better, ways to try and sort this out, and see where it all leads.

All the best with the thesis, by the way :) --Camembert

Requests for Review of Admin Actions

It shouldn't be there. It should be at Requests for Comment subpages. john 19:33, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

66.185.84.80

I wasn't sure if it was the same vandal or not. Rick K 04:18, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

sfry-scg

tell me just how do you explain that box of dissolved country is more important than box of current existing country? I made s&m box on sfry box base. And you are talking that sm box is useful and stupid while sfry is great and very important. see Estonia-no ex-soviet state box. if you can explain your behaivor ok if you can`t -please stop deleting s&m box Avala 14:09, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

what would you like me to put in s&m box?????????????????? i am sorry but s&m is not big as US and it is only 2 states country not 50!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111 Avala 14:46, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Pretentious?

Self-identifying? :) Rick K 19:47, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Mikula and VfUndeletion

You pulled it just when I was starting to have fun too :).

Probably the smart thing to do though. It had been established that he wasn't willing and/or able to license the material under the GFDL, so there was no point to continuing. Aside from the opportunity to make perfectly justified snarky comments. -- Cyrius|&#9998 00:48, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

Just a little clarrification. The Mikula threads are actually discussing two seperate issues. The first is Mikula spamming his name across some articles he contributed as a means of making himself appear notable. That has been resolved by Mikula claiming ownership of the material, Texture has submitted it for copyright problems and the pages will be deleted. The second issue, the issue he is still bebating, is that of a biography page about himself not his work. He is contending that because it was deleted as a vanity page he should be allowed to resubmit a smaller stub. Essentially he is exausting every possible means to have his vanity page reinstated. Just thought I'd clear that up in case you didn't know. --Starx 01:45, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, I see what your saying. I think the misunderstanding is that when he states the work is copyrighted he is referring to the reaserch he has done on the topic of baseline conciousness, consiousness singularity etc. Because those articles were based on original research by Mikula (and consequently listed on vfd because of that). I don't think he's asserting any type of copyright over and article written about himself. --Starx 01:57, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, while I should first say that I understand you thinking the Mikula debate is a waste of time, it's certainly not going to get undeleted. I don't think you should have deleted the debate. The policy says 10 days, I think in the intrest of fairness Mikula should get his 10 days before we send him packing (and believe me, I'm all in favor of sending him packing). I just think that the outcome will be the same reguardless of whether you bend the rules or not so might as well stick to the protocol and keep things running fairly. Anyway, I'm not going to revert your deletion of the debate, I just thought I should say something. The most important time you can ever inforce a policy is when you don't agree with it, because those are generally the situations that the policy is in place to control. --Starx 03:15, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The Undeletion policy does state ten days and he did agree to abide by the GFDL (I don't trust him either, but I tend to give the benifit of the doubt as much as I can), but that is a very good point about the blocking. I was unaware that he was blocked. I did find it strange that he didn't bother to use a username. --Starx 03:31, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

True, another good point. I wasn't pleased with the decision to summarily delete his other articles cause he changed his mind. My thoughts are hitting the submit button is an immidiate legal agreement and cannot be "taken back". But you are correct in that the precident was just set. I suppose it's for the best. --Starx 03:42, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for reverting my page, I guess Mikula didn't take his defeat very gracefully. --Starx 18:51, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be making slanderous statements you can't back up, DJ Dumbass. 193.255.207.252 18:54, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hey, no problem - if you have any more trouble I'll ban the user. See you around, Mark Richards 05:04, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust (disambiguation)

You do know that your prof's email is still available in the article history? Should I list the MediaWiki article for deletion on that basis (and on the basis that we seem to have arrived at a consensus to keep?) john k 05:50, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

revert

what did you do to warrant such affection? Your not even an admin, and your already earning trolls? And here I thought I was special... Nice to know somebody cares, eh? ;) Sam [Spade] 13:19, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx

thank you. Avala 13:49, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

btw I am male, Avala is a mountain near Belgrade. Avala 13:50, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

VeryVerily and 172

I would be willing to certify the RfC page you've started for VeryVerily, but only if we add 172 and certify it for both users. As far as their personal dispute goes, they are both out of control, and frankly I have little hope that anything short of arbitration can have much effect here. --Michael Snow 23:46, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I hadn't gotten so far as to see that. I know he was using rollback, but that seems like a relatively small issue to gripe about in this fracas. The real problem is the revert wars all over Wikipedia, and I think it's absolutely necessary that their cases be joined together. In one of their quickpolls (that may be before you were around?), there was some dissatisfaction with the fact that VeryVerily got temp-banned and 172 didn't. I'm not committing myself to saying they both deserve identical discipline, but I think the only way to understand the case is to look at both users simultaneously. --Michael Snow 00:01, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove both pages-- VeryVerily's and mine. This will just add fodder to the fire. JohnKenney said it right on another page: the problem was that other admins failed to protect the pages in a sufficiently prompt manner. I had no idea that the edit wars would go on so long, as I was anticipating quick admin action while this was going on.

If you take a look at my user history, you'd see that prior to the revert wars and immediately afterwards, I resumed editing and contributing to articles that bore no relationship to conflicts with VeryVerily. And this is how I want to spend my time on Wikipedia. Yet, having to watch over a couple of additional user conduct dispute pages of your making will breed more distractions, more personal attacks, more animosity.

These user conduct dispute pages are at best a self-defeating strategy. Instead, I'd appreciate it if other admins intervene act to ensure that VeryVerily and I are in contact less often as opposed to more often. VeryVerily is committed to driving me off the site (and I certainly would like to see him leave Wikipedia as well). So this conflict cannot be mediated or arbitrated, but rather diffused (entailing measures to prevent us from crossing paths often, i.e. staying focused on the substance of our disagreements and protecting pages).

Now, if you disagree with the concrete changes that I make to articles, I will respond. But I've been an admin for more than a year, and there's no doubt in my mind that creating new user conduct dispute pages will merely serve to intensify the personality feuds, which is exactly what we need to avoid. 172 00:13, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I have now certified both pages. --Michael Snow 00:14, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to accomplish? Do you want more revert wars or less? If the answer is the latter, then use the admin powers you are charged with, as opposed to acting like a schoolyard tattletale. 172 01:40, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Snowspinner, it's possible that 172 may have been directing that comment at me, since I am an admin. Given other statements he has made, I think it's fair to say that he considers my intrusion into the dispute inappropriate, and believes that I should instead use admin privileges to protect the pages on which he revert wars. --Michael Snow 02:01, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Snowspinner, I understand your concerns about the three-revert rule, but you may not know my history with it. I did stick to the rule for a while in my dealings with 172, and he never did. The quickpoll system in force, I tried to use that to bring up one of 172's more egregious revert attacks (five in ~one hour against two users, trying to erase a week's worth of edits) - and the community shrugged it off. 172 does not consider himself bound by this rule - or any rule - and my edits and efforts will simply be destroyed if I do not do battle. I hope you realize I really have tried everything I can think of - RfC pages, 3rd party interventions, long, long, long attempts to talk to him on Talk and User talk pages - and nothing but reverting back has worked. 172 lacks basic respect for others and the Wiki process, and the community lacks the will and coherence to control him. V V 06:17, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Holocaust

I have no idea, Snowspinner, what -your- issue is here. Why is it so hard for you to let go of this? I have a search for "Aboriginal holocaust" right in front of me. Ten separate sources cite Australian aboriginals, and I can only count four referring to Canada if BBS postings are permitted (and the aforesaid primary source is counted). (I thought I had five, but it was an American Aboriginal Holocaust book being referred to)

The page at this moment (and it appears you are prepared to accept =no= compromise) reads The terms Canadian Holocaust and Aboriginal Holocaust, though rarer terms, are occasionally used to describe the comparable treatment of indiginous people in Canada and Australia. I dispute the use of the term 'Canadian Holocaust' as a term so infrequently employed that to use the term "occasionally used" to describe its frequency of use is to shatter all principles of lexicography. You will note from my discussion on the article's talk page that I do not dispute the existence of bad behavior by Canadians toward Native Canadians. However, that does not mean we can go around calling anything what we please. "Native genocide" is a well-recognised term in Canada, and while there is considerable debate over the facts, there is general acknowledgement of its existence. What you are doing, in my estimation, is not unlike those who present original research done by someone else. One possibly legitimate (in this case, probably legitimate) source document, one BnaiBrith article, one please-send-money website, and one fairly well-written, well-cited paper which uses the term once in the second-last paragraph of the 34th page. I would suggest this barely suggests any use of the term, never mind occasional.

I seek dialog, not confrontation - if you want to discuss reasonably, I'm prepared. Hell, I even like a good table-thumping argument, but this venue does not permit that. Dispute my points. Make me eat my words. Double-dare ya. Denni 07:46, 2004 May 23 (UTC)

I'm about to go back to the internet and do a source count on the holocausts you've listed. This is in no way an attempt to discredit them - except for the one neither of us is really comfortable with yet (well, let me speak for myself anyway), they are in my estimation all genuine and well-documented occurrences. My goal is to attempt to determine, by actual statistics if I can, or by number of different sources (very difficult with Google - any suggestions on how one can count sources rather than straight hits?) so that these can be listed in some kind of logical sequence. Denni 20:23, 2004 May 23 (UTC)

I give up on the holocaust thing - searching for data with that as a search criterion generates a huge pile of false positives. I've found a very interesting site, however, http://users.erols.com/mwhite29/warstats.html which may be very useful in shining some light onto how ready we are to inflict pain and suffering on one another. I'll just add the few other events described as holocausts to your page (see? 24 hours isn't up yet.) and take this new information as the potential for a separate article. Denni 00:10, 2004 May 24 (UTC)

AAAAAAGH! Snowspinner, I could choke you! I HATE getting sucked into an article. I should have been in bed hours ago but I couldn't stop with the Holocaust article. Thanks to YOU, bud. Well, on the other hand I learned a lot (including some stuff I could live without knowing), and have had a fresh reminder that we are a murderous and bloody lot, us humans. I've already tagged the page as NPOV, knowing full well if I didn't it would be done for me. It's a real lightning rod, Snowspinner - will be very interesting to watch its talk page. Denni 07:26, 2004 May 24 (UTC)

Mikula

Terminal stupidity reached. This section has been moved to User talk:Snowspinner/Stupidity

172

My inclination is to vote against you whenever or if ever you're nominated for admin status, simply because your instances of not minding your own business are enough of concern to seriously call into question your own suitability for admin status, in my opinion. It's better to judge others by what they contribute to articles, not by glimpsing a snapshot of a situation you might not understand, and then proceeding to make character and personality judgments. 172 21:57, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at all sure what prompted this. Snowspinner 22:01, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's good enough for me. If 172 is going to vote against somebody, they sure have my vote! Rick K 22:05, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

If only I'd known adminship was as easy as making 172 dislike me. Snowspinner 22:07, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say that I dislike you? No. Read beyond the first sentence. 172 22:11, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I did. And then noted that I have no idea what prompted this. Snowspinner 22:12, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This prompted it. 172 22:17, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so puzzled that you think that there's any context that's relevent to this. You reverted two articles 50 times in half an hour. Unless the edit you were reverting was flagrant vandalism, which it obviously was not, there is no situation where that is appropriate behavior. So, really, the history of the edit conflict doesn't interest me one way or another. Simply because it was totally inappropriate to violate Wikipedia policy like that, and I think that it's inappropriate to have an admin who openly disregards Wikipedia policy. I have no opinion whatsoever on the matter of whether your edit or VV's edit was better. Indeed, I've deliberately avoided looking at them closely beyond noticing that VV was not blanking the page or anything. Because I don't want this to turn into a referendum on a particular pair of edits. I want it to be a discussion over whether the method of editing that you and VVe employed is permissable. And that's a question that should be answered regardless of context and content. Snowspinner 22:26, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

In the time you spend preaching, perhaps contemplate whether the measures you are taking are exasperating the problem. 172 22:36, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, the problem is a lack of consensus on the status of Wikipedia policy as something that is binding. Since the arbitration committee is leaning towards hearing this exact question, by the looks of it, I'd say that the measures are working nicely. Snowspinner 22:44, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't understand 172's objection. I'd even nominate Snowspinner myself in a couple months if all goes well; he seems to have handled this situation quite reasonably. My only gripe is the curtness of the note he left on my Talk page. V V 02:12, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.... Thanks for the note. As you can see from my previous comment, I don't consider it a big deal. V V 02:34, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Why Removing Comments?

Why are you removing my comment and contribution to Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/The Shawn Mikula Files? Is there something you're trying to hide or otherwise censure? Some insecurity, Snowspimmer? Jensu

I object to the addition of spurious legal threats to Wikipedia. Snowspinner 14:50, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix that Jensu

That is so lame Snowspinner. You continue to remove my comment even though it's very appropriate for a page unjustifiably defaming someone. Sorry pal, but you are such a loser if you feel the need to censure people with contrary opinions to you. Jensu

It's not appropriate for the page. It's appropriate for the talk section. Snowspinner 15:06, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

there is clear defamation of character on that page and I have the right to express a contrary opinion. You keep removing my comment just because it conflicts with your opinion. This is bad karma. You willingly spit in the wind so don't blame the wind when it comes back at you from unexpected directions. Jensu

Sorry, but the page isn't a talk page. Discussion goes on talk pages. Snowspinner 15:12, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It's a defamation of character page and does not belong at wikipedia. I would've thought that you would be above that sort of childish nonsense. Jensu

List it on VfD then. Snowspinner 15:44, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule

I consider your edits on Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/The Shawn Mikula Files to be in violation of the 3 revert rule. Please do not continue to edit this page, as it could lead to you being blocked. -- Jim Regan 15:26, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation of the rule, though I'm open to having my mind changed on the matter. Jensu changed the edit he was making, leaving it at least open for debate whether the revert count resets. In either case, I won't edit the page again, and I was editing with the three revert rule in mind when I made my edits, so any errors I made should be taken as failures of interpretation, not as failures to try to follow the rules. Snowspinner 15:42, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Slight wording changes don't apply; unless they significantly change the meaning in the edit. AFAIC, Jensu broke the guideline; therefore you also broke it. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner is completely unnecessary; you've done nothing to merit comment. If you want advice on how to behave in future; it's simple: don't get into silly edit wars, and don't feed the trolls. Take care -- Jim Regan 16:04, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Moving it here: if someone else agrees, they can recreate the page.

Requests for comment

Bucking the conventional format here, because, well, I'm stating an RfC about myself, and I'm not at all sure how to certify that I've tried to resolve the dispute with myself. But since I've been active in calling for comment and censure over other people's edit warring actions, and since it's been noted that my actions may have violated the same rule, transperancy demands I put this up.

Short form - over in Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/The Shawn Mikula Files User:Jensu put up a header to the effect that the user in question is not Shawn Mikula, etc, etc, etc. I deleted it, as Jensu is the user who's been involved in all of this, and it was just another spurious legal threat/attack over the fact that he's been kicked around since having his page deleted through VfD and and acting horribly immature in the past.

After two of my reversions, Jensu changed the text of his edit slightly, however the comment was still, to my view, unacceptable, and I continued removing. I reverted this new comment three times.

I was trying to be mindful of the three revert rule, and my personal count had me at two reverts of one edit, then three reverts of a separate edit. However, this counting is disputed by some, and it may be that I simply reverted five times.

The page history is here: [2]

I'd like comment on what I did, so I can avoid screwing up. Thanks. Snowspinner 15:55, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind 180 degrees and decided to nominate you for adminship. I took a look at your user page and saw all the good work you'd done on the Foucault and Critical Theory articles. BTW, once you're an admin you'll finally see that protecting pages makes more sense than long, drawn out inquiries going nowhere on RCF pages and on arbitration (and asking for draconian intervention by above by "committees" completely detached from what's going on). However, even so, my decision largely rested on your work that I'd gone through today. 172 15:33, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (although it turns out that I should've waited a few more weeks—although I firmly disagree with the rationale of the people voting on that basis). Anyway, by any chance, have you stumbled across the user page of User:Jjshapiro, a colleague of Jürgen Habermas and his English language translator? My impression was that he was disappointed about being the only user a year ago paying attention to the pages on which you'd been working recently. So perhaps he'll consider returning now that this isn't the case. 172 03:11, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]