User talk:El Sandifer

I archive rarely, and find sass dryly amusing

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

<s>:::: some text </s>

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

1. Racial, sexual, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor.
2. Political affiliation attacks (often, calling someone a Nazi)
3. Profanity directed against another contributor.
4. Threats of legal action
5. 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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 - Tεxτurε 15:15, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

List of major figures in the game industry

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

---

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)

"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)

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)