| Revision as of 22:47, 28 September 2008 editErik the Red 2 (talk | contribs)Rollbackers4,180 editsm Reverted edits by 32.156.195.236 (talk) to last version by NancyHeise← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:28, 29 September 2008 edit undoCollect (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers47,160 edits →Sarah Palin stuff again: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
| ==]== | ==]== | ||
| Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here . Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA. ] <sup> ]</sup> 00:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC) | Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here . Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA. ] <sup> ]</sup> 00:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == Sarah Palin stuff again == | |||
| Hi! I do not wish to disturb your rest, but the usual gang has been trying to insert stuff into the Palin article, or to prevent removal of irrelevant stuff. I think your input would be invaluable. Thanks! Dave ] (]) 21:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:28, 29 September 2008
.jpg)
 Archives |
|---|
The Usual Faces
re User_talk:Catherineyronwode#Drop_it_already and 'the usual faces' comment you made there (tangentally).
Kelly, is there any way to tell which personae are the same as others, like a flurry of sock-puppets appearing to be people, or is it a convention to just assume that tight-knit groups of "the usual faces" are part of clubs, cabals, or gangs making what, for all intents and purposes, appear to be 'drive-bys'?-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- None of us are real. We are all just figments of my imagination.
- No really, it's not unusual for birds of a feather to flock together here. The wiki software makes it easy to keep in touch with others with the watchlist mechanism. I have an embarrassing amount of user talk pages on my watchlist, including this one. Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Thomas Muthee
I've been working on it quite a bit and would appreciate it if you would take another look. :) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 03:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Palin children, etc.
If the McCain camp has said anything about this subject that suggests they believe Palin's first child was conceived out of wedlock, then they've kind of opened the door to this. McCain's critics say that he or his team don't know when to shut up, and this might be one of those cases. Baseball Bugs 21:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- The citation is just a sneaky way of slipping the rumors into the article. The one who wrote it says the McCain camp "acknowledged" it, which is a weaselly way of saying, "Hey, they didn't deny it!" but the citation only says they refused to elaborate. It's gotta go, ASAP. Baseball Bugs 22:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- You beat me to it. Meanwhile, this is yet another Palin page to watch. You've heard of underwear with days of the week? Misplaced Pages ought to send her a set with links to the different wikipedia articles about her. Meanwhile, do you begin to see why I wanted the Obama line that the family is off limits? It might send a hint to wikipedia editors to follow the same standard. Baseball Bugs 23:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I just now read your note. I learned a long time ago to stay away from articles that are battlegrounds. The one exception I had made was the Apollo hoax article, the concept of which I, as a child of that era, found so apalling that I felt the need to jump in, while also trying to keep the article clear of POV-pushers from both sides. I only came to this one because I wanted to learn more about this Palin character. Again, I was dismayed at all the tabloid stuff going on here, as if wikipedia were the blog version of "Crossfire". This race ought to be about the Presidency, and the Palin phenomenon seems to have overshadowed it. One thing is certain: McCain can't use the "celebrity" line against Obama any more, because Palin has been hyped like there's no tomorrow. It's also a convenient distraction from the 700 billion dollar invoice that the mortgage companies are trying to send to the American public with the help of Mr. Bush. That's another story. Baseball Bugs 23:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Another note crossed in the mail. Politics has always been vicious, but the internet, and the attendant lack of civility (and lack of anything resembling perspective or thoughtfulness) has accelerated it. Watergate had a lot to do with starting the modern take-no-prisoners approach, as Nixon drove a huge wedge between the press and the White House. It's too bad that we no longer have candidates with the graciousness of guys like JFK and Ronald Reagan, who were quick on their feet and had ways of disarming or deflecting negativity. The family issues of Carter, Reagan, etc., were treated with a degree of humor that's lacking now, except maybe on Leno or Letterman. I also blame the parties for trying to find robots for the job and end up with mediocrities. I wonder how much more credibility Bush might have had if he had owned up to all his youthful indiscretions instead of allowing his handlers to hide it. I have to say, if I haven't already, that I don't much care for either of these candidates, nor do I envy the winner for the crises that he will end up having to deal with. The "winner" might turn out to be the "loser". Ironically, I was ready to vote for McCain in 2000 if he had been nominated, and I seldom vote Republican. My fear now is that he's too old for the job, while Obama is too young. Maybe I'm the one that's too old? :) Baseball Bugs
- I'm happy to hear whatever you have to say. :) When you say a "veteran", I take it you are literally a military veteran? If so, my Cubs cap is off to you. I have nothing but admiration for the members of our courageous military, who are willing to take a bullet for the rest of us. I call myself a liberal and generally vote Democratic. I voted Republican once, for Nixon, and he cured me of that. :) I might actually be more of a libertarian than a liberal, but I try not to get too stuck on labels anyway. The right-wingers who were calling McCain a "liberal" (which he ain't) seem to have changed their tune (as you knew they would) once he got nominated. I was raised a Protestant and I'm interested in the various ways people look for God or faith or whatever - including atheists, who simply have a different kind of faith. I might think Palin has feet of clay as regards the out-of-wedlock issue. But I believe in prevention, not abortion (unless a doctor recommends it to save the mother's life) and as a liberal or libertarian, my quarrel with her has to do not with pregnancy as such, but with both her and her daughter presumably not taking proper precautions. But once there is a pregnancy, to my mind it becomes a question of which is the "greater sin". That's kind of a Jewish thing, kind of theological "situation ethics", but it works. Yes, conception out of wedlock is a "sin", presumably (although I'm hard pressed to say where the Bible actually says that). But killing that child is a far greater sin. The moral choice is a no-brainer. I can hear some of my fellow liberals shrieking over that one, although I know many people who would qualify as "liberals" who don't believe in abortion-on-demand. But if the Palin supporters would just take the time to point out the "greater sin" aspect of it instead of making statements that make it sound like it's OK because she's a Republican, I think they would gain broader credibility. FYI, I had not thought about Spitzer, but I stayed away from Edwards, and I have a very low opinion of the both of them. And that's all I have to say about that. :) Baseball Bugs 23:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and you mentioned Cronkite. We could do with a few more Cronkites out there. I wonder if you're old enough to have seen live, or maybe you've seen the kinescope, of when he announced the confirmation of JFK's death. I don't think there's ever been a more "human" moment on TV. Yet Walter choked back the tears and continued the mission. The reporter in him took over when it had to. And you might remember the other end of the spectrum, when the boys of Apollo 11 reported, "Tranquility base here - the Eagle has landed", which still brings a lump to my throat, and of course Walter forgot he was a reporter and just went, "Boy oh boy!" or some such (which he later put down as being unprofessional, but it was Walter). Baseball Bugs 00:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Aha, another note. Well, I gonna tell ya something - I was hoping Hillary would get the nomination. I think she did, in fact, get derailed by the Obama celebrity phenomenon, and I wasn't too happy about that. They tried to liken him to RFK, but RFK had already served in a White House and was in a much better position to be a good President. I'm not saying Obama wouldn't make a good President - someday. I just don't think that day is here yet. Meanwhile, keep in mind that Bill Clinton was helped to victory by that entertaining looney named Ross Perot, who siphoned a lot of the disenchanted votes, especially in 1992. I thought Bob Dole was a pretty good candidate in 1996, but they tried to turn him into a cardboard cutout, as you say, and it just didn't work. He had a terrific persona when he was relatively unfettered, but it was like they wanted him to lose or something. (I did vote for Clinton both times, though). Things are never as simple as "Crossfire" tried to make them seem. Baseball Bugs 00:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- I want to make one thing perfectly clear (pardon the Nixonism) and that is that in 2000 I would have supported McCain, not in 2008 necessarily. McCain got derailed by the fanatics in the right wing, who wanted their cardboard cutout and got him. If Gore had had half the charisma of Bill Clinton, he probably would have won, but I would say about him what someone once said about Dave Kingman, that he has "the personality of a tree stump". The one thing I wonder is how Gore would have handled 9/11... or how McCain would have handled it, for that matter. To my somewhat more peacenik friends, I said, "We have to do something. We can't let someone attack us and get away with it." Sadly, I think we did the wrong thing. But maybe it's still too early to tell. Baseball Bugs 00:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if I had known how tough it would be to be a Cubs fan, I suppose I should have picked another team. Like... the White Sox?? The Cardinals??? Nay. Nay, I say... In the afternoon of 9/11/01, when everyone else was singing "God Bless America", a different tune was running through my head: Paul Simon's "American Tune", written during the Vietnam War, but the sentiments still fit, to my mind. It's a mixture of sadness and some degree of hope or optimism. The one thing we've always had going for us in the USA is the feeling that we can meet any challenge. That's the one thing we can't afford to lose in this country. OK, that's probably enough sermonizing. :) Baseball Bugs 00:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Kelly. I need all the blessings I can get. :) The "Barracuda" tempest in a teapot vaguely reminds me of when the Beach Boys were on the schedule at a July 4th capitol wing-ding, or something like that, and dim-bulb Secretary of the Interior James "Just One" Watt tried to have them cancelled on the grounds they had been drug users. Then President Reagan said, "Well, I like the Beach Boys," and dat was dat. The Reagans invited them back next year, and in the interim they sent Watt packing. I've always thought James G. Watt looked like a cartoon character, "the little man from the draft board", that tormented "Draftee Daffy". Baseball Bugs 00:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- That could have been 1984, after Watt had been dismissed for his stupid remark about his employees (see the article for details). In fact, for a guy who looked like an egghead, he was remarkably ignorant, or at least was obviously out of his element ever making a public statement. If you cast a vote for a redlink, that's obviously not a good sign. :) I stick with the mainstream parties, one way or another. To someone of your age, who may wonder what it felt like when JFK was killed, in particular, I'll just say this, as I've said to others: What you felt on 9/11/01 was the closest thing to it - a feeling of incredible anxiety and vulnerability, wondering what was going to happen next. The difference is that on 11/22/63, there was no footage of the event available (thankfully), just people talking about it, which was probably better than running the crashing of the towers over and over and over again on CNN and FoxNews. My folks lived through Pearl Harbor, another shocking event, and they were even more insulated from it, as the newsreel footage of the Arizona billowing smoke didn't show up in theaters until the next weekend. The stills in the newspapers were startling enough, though. Regarding FDR, you may not recall this, but although Reagan became a Republican, he was a Democrat in his youth, and whenever I heard him talk about FDR it was with a degree of awe or deference. FDR gave the people hope when there was none. He had a list of flaws a mile long, but he was what was needed then. We've had a knack for often (not always) electing the right guy at the right time. I just hope, whoever wins this one, that it's the right guy for the job. Baseball Bugs 01:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Kelly. I need all the blessings I can get. :) The "Barracuda" tempest in a teapot vaguely reminds me of when the Beach Boys were on the schedule at a July 4th capitol wing-ding, or something like that, and dim-bulb Secretary of the Interior James "Just One" Watt tried to have them cancelled on the grounds they had been drug users. Then President Reagan said, "Well, I like the Beach Boys," and dat was dat. The Reagans invited them back next year, and in the interim they sent Watt packing. I've always thought James G. Watt looked like a cartoon character, "the little man from the draft board", that tormented "Draftee Daffy". Baseball Bugs 00:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if I had known how tough it would be to be a Cubs fan, I suppose I should have picked another team. Like... the White Sox?? The Cardinals??? Nay. Nay, I say... In the afternoon of 9/11/01, when everyone else was singing "God Bless America", a different tune was running through my head: Paul Simon's "American Tune", written during the Vietnam War, but the sentiments still fit, to my mind. It's a mixture of sadness and some degree of hope or optimism. The one thing we've always had going for us in the USA is the feeling that we can meet any challenge. That's the one thing we can't afford to lose in this country. OK, that's probably enough sermonizing. :) Baseball Bugs 00:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- I want to make one thing perfectly clear (pardon the Nixonism) and that is that in 2000 I would have supported McCain, not in 2008 necessarily. McCain got derailed by the fanatics in the right wing, who wanted their cardboard cutout and got him. If Gore had had half the charisma of Bill Clinton, he probably would have won, but I would say about him what someone once said about Dave Kingman, that he has "the personality of a tree stump". The one thing I wonder is how Gore would have handled 9/11... or how McCain would have handled it, for that matter. To my somewhat more peacenik friends, I said, "We have to do something. We can't let someone attack us and get away with it." Sadly, I think we did the wrong thing. But maybe it's still too early to tell. Baseball Bugs 00:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Aha, another note. Well, I gonna tell ya something - I was hoping Hillary would get the nomination. I think she did, in fact, get derailed by the Obama celebrity phenomenon, and I wasn't too happy about that. They tried to liken him to RFK, but RFK had already served in a White House and was in a much better position to be a good President. I'm not saying Obama wouldn't make a good President - someday. I just don't think that day is here yet. Meanwhile, keep in mind that Bill Clinton was helped to victory by that entertaining looney named Ross Perot, who siphoned a lot of the disenchanted votes, especially in 1992. I thought Bob Dole was a pretty good candidate in 1996, but they tried to turn him into a cardboard cutout, as you say, and it just didn't work. He had a terrific persona when he was relatively unfettered, but it was like they wanted him to lose or something. (I did vote for Clinton both times, though). Things are never as simple as "Crossfire" tried to make them seem. Baseball Bugs 00:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and you mentioned Cronkite. We could do with a few more Cronkites out there. I wonder if you're old enough to have seen live, or maybe you've seen the kinescope, of when he announced the confirmation of JFK's death. I don't think there's ever been a more "human" moment on TV. Yet Walter choked back the tears and continued the mission. The reporter in him took over when it had to. And you might remember the other end of the spectrum, when the boys of Apollo 11 reported, "Tranquility base here - the Eagle has landed", which still brings a lump to my throat, and of course Walter forgot he was a reporter and just went, "Boy oh boy!" or some such (which he later put down as being unprofessional, but it was Walter). Baseball Bugs 00:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm happy to hear whatever you have to say. :) When you say a "veteran", I take it you are literally a military veteran? If so, my Cubs cap is off to you. I have nothing but admiration for the members of our courageous military, who are willing to take a bullet for the rest of us. I call myself a liberal and generally vote Democratic. I voted Republican once, for Nixon, and he cured me of that. :) I might actually be more of a libertarian than a liberal, but I try not to get too stuck on labels anyway. The right-wingers who were calling McCain a "liberal" (which he ain't) seem to have changed their tune (as you knew they would) once he got nominated. I was raised a Protestant and I'm interested in the various ways people look for God or faith or whatever - including atheists, who simply have a different kind of faith. I might think Palin has feet of clay as regards the out-of-wedlock issue. But I believe in prevention, not abortion (unless a doctor recommends it to save the mother's life) and as a liberal or libertarian, my quarrel with her has to do not with pregnancy as such, but with both her and her daughter presumably not taking proper precautions. But once there is a pregnancy, to my mind it becomes a question of which is the "greater sin". That's kind of a Jewish thing, kind of theological "situation ethics", but it works. Yes, conception out of wedlock is a "sin", presumably (although I'm hard pressed to say where the Bible actually says that). But killing that child is a far greater sin. The moral choice is a no-brainer. I can hear some of my fellow liberals shrieking over that one, although I know many people who would qualify as "liberals" who don't believe in abortion-on-demand. But if the Palin supporters would just take the time to point out the "greater sin" aspect of it instead of making statements that make it sound like it's OK because she's a Republican, I think they would gain broader credibility. FYI, I had not thought about Spitzer, but I stayed away from Edwards, and I have a very low opinion of the both of them. And that's all I have to say about that. :) Baseball Bugs 23:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Another note crossed in the mail. Politics has always been vicious, but the internet, and the attendant lack of civility (and lack of anything resembling perspective or thoughtfulness) has accelerated it. Watergate had a lot to do with starting the modern take-no-prisoners approach, as Nixon drove a huge wedge between the press and the White House. It's too bad that we no longer have candidates with the graciousness of guys like JFK and Ronald Reagan, who were quick on their feet and had ways of disarming or deflecting negativity. The family issues of Carter, Reagan, etc., were treated with a degree of humor that's lacking now, except maybe on Leno or Letterman. I also blame the parties for trying to find robots for the job and end up with mediocrities. I wonder how much more credibility Bush might have had if he had owned up to all his youthful indiscretions instead of allowing his handlers to hide it. I have to say, if I haven't already, that I don't much care for either of these candidates, nor do I envy the winner for the crises that he will end up having to deal with. The "winner" might turn out to be the "loser". Ironically, I was ready to vote for McCain in 2000 if he had been nominated, and I seldom vote Republican. My fear now is that he's too old for the job, while Obama is too young. Maybe I'm the one that's too old? :) Baseball Bugs
- I just now read your note. I learned a long time ago to stay away from articles that are battlegrounds. The one exception I had made was the Apollo hoax article, the concept of which I, as a child of that era, found so apalling that I felt the need to jump in, while also trying to keep the article clear of POV-pushers from both sides. I only came to this one because I wanted to learn more about this Palin character. Again, I was dismayed at all the tabloid stuff going on here, as if wikipedia were the blog version of "Crossfire". This race ought to be about the Presidency, and the Palin phenomenon seems to have overshadowed it. One thing is certain: McCain can't use the "celebrity" line against Obama any more, because Palin has been hyped like there's no tomorrow. It's also a convenient distraction from the 700 billion dollar invoice that the mortgage companies are trying to send to the American public with the help of Mr. Bush. That's another story. Baseball Bugs 23:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- You beat me to it. Meanwhile, this is yet another Palin page to watch. You've heard of underwear with days of the week? Misplaced Pages ought to send her a set with links to the different wikipedia articles about her. Meanwhile, do you begin to see why I wanted the Obama line that the family is off limits? It might send a hint to wikipedia editors to follow the same standard. Baseball Bugs 23:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Is Misplaced Pages dominated by liberals?
And more of a social game or chat room than a collaboration?TCO (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- The short answer to all of the above is "yes". But if you're persistent you can help this project to achieve its goal of neutrality and fairness. Kelly 01:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- I am a liberal, and I dominate wikipedia. Everyone bends to my will. When they blocked me last year for awhile, that was just a practical joke. :) I hope. :( Baseball Bugs 01:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's easy. If a user is a good editor, one should not be able to tell from their contribs their political leanings. If one is a bad editor, it should be simple. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- The important thing to realize is that, if you're getting too emotionally invested in a topic, you need to disengage. There are plenty of others to pick up the slack. Kelly 01:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Or work on a safe topic, like sports or cartoons. No controversies ever erupt there. Oh, and if you believe that, I've got a slightly used bridge to sell you. Some assembly required. :) Baseball Bugs 02:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- The gymnastics projects RULEZ. We will napalm all your babiez. Oh...and Shawn is better than Nastia.TCO (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Or work on a safe topic, like sports or cartoons. No controversies ever erupt there. Oh, and if you believe that, I've got a slightly used bridge to sell you. Some assembly required. :) Baseball Bugs 02:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- The important thing to realize is that, if you're getting too emotionally invested in a topic, you need to disengage. There are plenty of others to pick up the slack. Kelly 01:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's easy. If a user is a good editor, one should not be able to tell from their contribs their political leanings. If one is a bad editor, it should be simple. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- I am a liberal, and I dominate wikipedia. Everyone bends to my will. When they blocked me last year for awhile, that was just a practical joke. :) I hope. :( Baseball Bugs 01:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a general statement...
...apropos of nothing, that I will be vigorously supporting Giano for ArbCom in a few months. Anyway, goodnight, and TANSTAAFL, everyone. Kelly 05:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Roman Catholic Church
Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here . Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA. NancyHeise 00:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Sarah Palin stuff again
Hi! I do not wish to disturb your rest, but the usual gang has been trying to insert stuff into the Palin article, or to prevent removal of irrelevant stuff. I think your input would be invaluable. Thanks! Dave Collect (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)