User talk:Stevertigo

This thing all things devours...

please refrain from calling other users names. you are being sucked into an argument that you cannot win because Marcusvox's goal is simply to get a rise out of you. please review Wikipedia:Wikiquette. thank you, Kingturtle 03:18, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I love what you did at Karl Rove. I tried something similar at Karl Rove myself. I warn you that those on the payroll of Dubya will editwar you. I just popped back to Karl Rove after regrouping. I shall back you up. I shall examine your changes before adding my own. You are very brave to mention the telemarketers in South Carolina -- I heard about this but decided to choose my editwars. If you wish to discuss this via email, my emailaddress is: Walabio @t MacOSX Dot Com ?alabio 03:09, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but you just copied the material wholesale, without editing it... I dont claim to know everything, I simply ask the right questions. And theres no bravery required to report the facts, unless one is a liar to begin with. The battle between truth and lie, good and evil, continues. -SV(talk) 05:44, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I did not copy the prose, just the timeline. One cannot copyright facts -- yet. If facts become copyrightable, WikiPedia.Org is doomed -- we could not write articles without purchasing the facts from their owners. Time lines, like phonebooks, have only one logical layout. Factually, I rearrange the words so the timeline was not exactly the same and corrected when entering the data in the new timeline (2000-03-12 does not come after 2001-06-??). You yourself used the same basic chronology. If one could copyright chronologies, the world would be in deep trouble.

Many people do not like Rotten.Com because it has pictures of people eating babies. In one area, it excels -- it is not afraid to tell it like it is. Rotten.Com took the official data about Karl Rove and fleshed it out with hundreds of hours of googling the Web, UseNet, and NewsSites -- Google.Com is useful ([[1]], [[2]], and [[3]] respectively). Basically, I trust the man admitting he frequents prostitutes more than the man denying that he frequents prostitutes because the man denying that he visits prostitutes might lie. Rotten.Com airs its dirty laundry; so, it has nothing to hide. Since I visit prostitutes, you can trust me. --?alabio 07:54, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Soon, copyright will last forever, facts will be copyrighted, and fair use will be a memory. Rich corporations will own all knowledge."

Now, that is just plain fucked up. Is this your perm nick, by the way? -SV(talk) 22:06, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC) PS - dont talk as if such injustices are destined, after all, why would we bother to speak up if they were? ;) -SV(talk)

I hope that we can turn the tide. I fear that we cannot. This is my outline of a perfect world:

Copyright would only last fourteen years. Fair use would allow sampling up to paragraphs as long as one credits the creators. Facts and ideas could not be copyrightable. While we are at it, one could only patent working gizmos -- not businessmethods and software.

?alabio 04:20, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

fire department alert

We're having trouble tonight with a vandal, see Wikipedia:Block log. Some suspect it is the same user as User:Bird....if you have any way to help us stop this individual, it would be much appreciated. We are in IRC. Kingturtle 08:28, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Stevertigo, I have kicked up quite a stink about something you did not do. My apologies. I wrongly thought that you had edited the protected Terrorism page. You did change it, but only added one line. I thought you had done more than that. So I made quite a few complaints on Wiki until I became aware of my error. Believe me, my face is now as red as your politics (only joking!) Sorry. --Marcusvox 12:14, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

BioBox

Nice! now I need to run back over my edits and insert. Wetman 18:29, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

msg:religiousfigure

Are you planning to create that page, i.e. with info such as "This dude is a religious figure and this page may be NPOV, etc." ?

LDS and Protestantism

Mormonism is traditionally considered to be a branch off from Protestantism

Painting all Christian churches created (or restored, depending on who you ask) after the Reformation with the Protestant brush is inaccurate. Protestantism states:

Protestantism in the strict sense of the word is the group of princes and imperial cities who, at the diet of Speyer in 1529, signed a protestation against the Edict of Worms which forbade the Lutheran teachings within the Holy Roman Empire. From there, the word Protestant in German speaking areas still refers to Lutheran churches in contrast to Reformed churches, while the common designation for all churches originating from the Reformation is Evangelical.

In a broader sense of the word, Protestantism is any of the Christian religious groups, of Western European origin, that broke with the Roman Catholic Church as a result of the influence of Martin Luther, founder of the Lutheran churches, and John Calvin, founder of the Calvinist movement.

The LDS Church did not break with the RCC as a result of Martin Luther or John Calvin. Thus, it is not a Protestant church.

its development happened after the PR, and in the environment created by Protestantism (and American colonialism).

This is a POV statement, many people disagree in good faith. See _Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition_ by Jan Shipps, ISBN 0252014170. --Xiaopo's Talk 02:08, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

Almost no one considers UU a Christian organization anymore, neither they nor (almost?) any self-proclaimed Christians. Mormonism, on the other hand, is more controversial (and I'm not a Mormon, incidentally). It just shows that any categorization that attempts to be this short is going to be POV.

In any case, the issue is moot since the consensus seems to be that the list is unfeasable (see VFD). --Xiaopo's Talk 08:05, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Accuracy

Nested messages don't work out too well. That page should either be deleted or it should replace the other one. Do you know if there was any discussion on which one was preferred? Dori | Talk 18:11, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

Not remebering what the message was called, I entered {{msg:accuracy}} and I got:

instead of any actual text, or something signifying that the message didn't exist. Dori | Talk 18:25, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

Al Gore/Views

Discussion at Talk:Al Gore's views.

Main Page

Please see the NOTE at the top of Talk:Main Page and MediaWiki talk:Itn. It looks like you copied directly from the Current events page. We also don't really need or want the outside source links on the Main Page. --Michael Snow 23:32, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Updating the In the news section is always a challenge. Putin was featured pretty recently, too, when he dismissed his cabinet. I'm happy to see things move along, and I appreciate your efforts, they just weren't following the guidelines (which is okay, I learned this rule the same way you did). --Michael Snow 06:49, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

VV comment removed to Talk:Americanism -SV

waouuu, I just click on going-on, and I just didnot know my pict was a featured one ! I am impressed :-) FirmLittleFluffyThing

Hi. Quick question: are you still involved in the mediation committee? Regards -- sannse (talk) 18:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've been making some changes to the mediation bulletin board including a poll. I feel we should get some voting done on policies and so on. I wasn't sure if you were involved, you are listed as a maybe on Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, so I haven't set you to be able to vote yet. Shall I change the Mediation Committee list and set you to be able to vote on the board? -- sannse (talk) 19:48, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

On the other hand, you could just be a freakin troll.

-SV(talk) 23:29, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not hiding under the bridges :O) On the first hand I could be just me, a human being talking about people like you and me and seeing the First Amendment quote censored and cut as "stupid quote". You also need to be elsewhere - in all your minds :O) With enemies such as these, who needs help ? :O) - Happy editing :O) - irismeister 08:46, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)

Thanks. Although I think it reflected badly more on TDC than on me. At this point I don't even know how to deal with it and if you have ideas you're welcome to suggest or do something, Slrubenstein

Hi Steve. Yes, I agree, but I am at a loss as to what to do about it. Danny 02:08, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Lie-to-children

Is a specific term that is found in a number of books that try to explain modern philosophy of science to the layman. I started the page and intend to maintain it and make it clearer. See the references. Kim Bruning 08:31, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Is it a common tactic to yell "VFD" to see if anyone will scramble to fix an article? ;-) Well anyway, I improved it. Kim Bruning 08:51, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, you had me looking at deletionism and inclusionism and so again. Hmmm! I guess I'm quite partial to [Eventualism]. Perhaps you'd care to defect?

Thank you for replying after all this while! Would you still VFD the extended article? ;-) Kim Bruning 20:18, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nazism and Socialism

Glad I'm operating in the 12th grade - although that's rather sad, as I was grading undergraduate papers on the Third Reich last semester. Ah well, this is what edit disputes on wikipedia does to one. You'll notice that the original article I wrote to replace the hopelessly horrible one did not really discuss left and right at all. It was mostly Andy Lehrer who brought that in. I would say, however, that "left" and "right" had pretty clear meanings in post-WWI Germany, and that the Nazis were pretty clearly on the right. Of course, "left" and "right" have no eternal meanings, and only mean anything in context, and perhaps my point against Sam was rather weak - I was only trying to say that his definitions of left and right are utterly idiosyncratic, while the ones used in the article (mostly put in there by AL - you can see in the archives that I was trying for a while to argue against too much argument about why the Nazis were really on the right, before I gave it up as a waste of time to argue against someone I mostly agreed with, when Sam Spade was there waiting in the wings) are fairly standard, at least in discussions of European politics and history. I would agree, however, that the article is probably pretty ridiculous, in general. Of course it's a worthless enterprise. Discussion of the Nazis' quasi-socialistic ideas ought to go in Nazism, and that should be the end of it. But we're stuck with this article - see the VFD vote on it, in which a sizeable majority voted to keep it. Uncritical use of "left" and "right" is, indeed, problematic, but far less problematic than leaving out any notion that the Nazis were on the right. In a contextual definition of "left" and "right", that is to say, in the way that people saw it at the time, there was little doubt that the Nazis were on the right, whatever that means (foreign policy revisionism, anti-semitism, anti-liberalism, anti-socialism, extreme nationalism, primarily, I'd say). Ah well... john 04:33, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

wikiquette

I reccomend you behave better in talk. I chose to respond with a bit of humor and insight to your hokey ad hominem, but that doesn't make it less silly. Try to be respectable enough to deserve a thoughful reply next time, if you want to speak to grown folks, you'll need to come correct. Sam Spade 19:08, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

An example of point-by-point response

I reccomend you behave better in talk. - You misspelled 'recommend.'
I chose to respond with a bit of humor and insight to your hokey ad hominem, but that doesn't make it less silly. -"Hokey" - no. "Ad hominem" - not at all. I finally get the humour, but it wasnt really funny. Continued on N&S talk page.
Try to be respectable enough to deserve a thoughful reply... -Now, I understand that there are situations where you might not want to give a "thoughtful reply," but you just might consider that the case in point was not one of them.
...if you want to speak to grown folks, you'll need to come correct. - Well, I'sa just learnin' bouts talkin ta gro-nups and setch... mebbe, inna cupa-a yee-arz (when I'm sixty-fo) I'sa gonna be able for accomodatin' ya. Re-gards,-Stevertigo 00:53, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Updating ru.wikipedia/main_page: WHO can do that?

Ramir 04:57, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC):

Hello again, Stevertigo. Thank you for responding, but we all know why the Main page is protected. The problem is: nobody is updating it! We have a draft page, and it is supposed to be regularly revised and used to replace the main page. BUT NOBODY DOES THAT.

Do you know how it would be possible to ask someone to updated OR give me(and several other guys in ru.wikipedia) some privileges to edit protected pages? I am a regular contributor to the Russian Wikipedia. I know HTML and CSS, and it was actually me who redesigned and re-made the draft.

But I don't know anyone in English Wikipedia who has privileges of Administrators or even Developers.

Thank you. (Ramir finished)