User talk:Beaker342

Welcome!

Hello, Beaker342, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Stifle (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Smart

I am considering filing an RFC against User:Supreme_Cmdr due to conduct and persistently ignoring consensus. Would you certify the basis for the complaint if I filed such an RFC? Stifle (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does the process entail?--Beaker342 00:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would just need to read and sign that you agree that you have tried and failed to resolve the dispute. I will let you know when it is ready. Stifle (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Supreme Cmdr is now ready. Please review, and sign if you agree. Stifle (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OR

Look, if there's a source provided, then pretty much by definition it's not original research. If the external website is now dead, archive.org can be consulted, for instance. DS 00:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the Santos page falls into OR under "new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, that would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation'." The page collects materials from the web to string together a theory that Santos and MLB are lying about his age and that his real birthdate is 1972, with no source whatsoever other than speculative extrapolation from said materials - i.e he went to college but no official records say he did, therefore he is four years older than he says he is. If this is a coverup, why hasn't there been a story about it anywhere else on the web, let alone from a reliable source? I really don't care if he was born in 1972 or 1976. I think that the inconsistencies are facinating, and I think the page should report them. I just think the page as it is now engages in speculation that qualifies as OR.--Beaker342 01:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Mor

[1] What is FU? Free use? How do you know? Don ^MEGĂ|60645 01:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said [Y]ou'll find that we cannot use a copyrighted image merely to illustrate what someone looks like. Please enlighten me as to what the purpose of a picture is. Thanks in advance. Don ^MEGĂ|60645 16:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I shall cease and desist until I go to Israel, find the woman, and snap her picture myself. <:^( *sigh* Don ^MEGĂ|60645 13:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Locke

Thanks for correcting my mistake. Have a nice day --Rettetast 20:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AdamC387

Beaker342, thanks for your explanation on my talk page... I've made some comments and suggestions to you there, not sure if I'm supposed to respond there or here. AdamC387 16:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I'm fine with many of your edits, but I have some strong concerns about a couple. Please take the time to read my response on my talk page (not sure if I'm supposed to put it here or not). I don't know why I'm not allowed to edit the Kristol page and use my judgment about what I think is important for the world to know. Isn't that what Wikipedia is about? Just because you don't think the quote is relevant -- why should that trump my view that it is? AdamC387 23:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at my edits to Kristol. I think these are consistent with the policies you have brought to my attention. I really don't think that just because I made a mistake by citing blogs that my substantive contributions should be questioned, especially since I have agreed to correct my mistake re: blogs. AdamC387 23:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your last edits on Kristol. I'm happy with the changes you just made. I'm about to go on vacation for a week, but when I get back I'll do more research to find specific discussion of the implications of this quote. The quote is significant for many reasons not the least of which Al Franken has talked about it a lot and I know there were op-edds that discuss it and what it says a pre-war tone of extreme confidence that today is compared to a common mantra from many neocons (including Kristol) that the war would have gone great had Bush done things differently. I'll try to make it more clear when I edit it later. BTW, the original offsetting was not something I added -- someone else did that originally after I added the quote. I'm not sure why it shows up as my edit. I'm fine with removing it. AdamC387 02:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 23:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia

I am sick of seeing people trying to be politically correct just not to offend someone (not you - I am commenting about others). The information on the topic should be its judge, jury and executioner. If you want to start editing pages then how about going and looking at the fools who continually list wikipedia as a cult. Ill happily leave off the comments if we can get rid of the self appointed do-gooders.

I'm not privy to the editing controversy you cite. There are clearly unproductive editors out there, though in my experience they tend to lose the battles more often than not. If someone kept adding Wikipedia as a cult to an article, you are well within your rights to revert their edits. However, calling them a "fuckwit" is not productive. As you said yourself, let the contributions of unproductive editors speak for themselves. --Beaker342 05:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that some people will continue to add things back in even if they aren't correct. I think those sorts of people are fuckwits. That is my opinion and I can state it on my page. However I have removed it in the interest of calm and rational thought. You know that when Weird Al has a little comical stab at wikipedia and its editors, that something isn't right.--Dem 13:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart

An arbitration case in which you were involved, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart, has closed. For a period of six months, no single-purpose account may revert any edit made to the Derek Smart article. This article is referred to the Wikipedia editing community for clean-up, evaluation of sources, and adherence to NPOV. Any user may fully apply the principles of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to this article. Supreme Cmdr is banned from Wikipedia for one year. Supreme Cmdr and other surrogates of Derek Smart are also banned from editing Derek Smart, but may edit the talkpage. This is a summary of the remedy provisions of the decision, and editors should review the complete text of the decision before taking any action. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protection

We've had a lot of problems on the Philosophy page with silly vandalism (Ashley Cole sucking d--k in the Chelsea locker room, that sort of thing). It was much better when they semi-protected it. I'm starting a page here which you can add your name to, and the page you would like to see protected. I see you asked about the page on John Locke. edward (buckner) 09:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Mansfield

Where does he use the term "Straussian" affectionately in the article? I missed it. Critics do not own the term Straussian, but they use the term pejoritively, and to promote the idea that there is a secret society of Straussians who control the American government. Why is it necessary to promote the term if Mansfield does not self identify that way? I skimmed the interview x2 and couldn't find it. I would also point out that using the term Straussian and self identifying as a Straussian are not the same thing. If the article makes the claim that he self identifies as a Straussian, then the cited source must back up the claim. Regards, MoodyGroove 20:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

I agree with you that Mansfield probably wouldn't object to the label. He's willing to write a book about manliness, after all! :) But I don't think I'm being oversensitive. I've seen a concerted effort by numerous editors on the Wikipedia to stigmatize various Bush administration officials, and it often involves linking together Leo Strauss, neoconservatism, and the War in Iraq. At one time, I thought the Wikipedia guideline on biographies of living persons required that the subject of articles "publicly identify with the belief in question" (at least I thought it did although I can't find the relevant passage now) and I assumed that's why the comment in the article said "Mansfield has self identified as a Straussian." So when I downloaded the interview and it turned out that it did not substantiate the claim, I changed the language without changing the substance. There are so many conspiracy theories out there about Leo Strauss and the War in Iraq (see G-hits for the search terms ["Leo Strauss" War Iraq]) that I tend to be vigilant with notable students of Leo Strauss, since the word "Straussian" has been highjacked by critics and used pejoritively. Is there a reason you feel strongly about using the word "Straussian"? I don't think being a Straussian is anything to be ashamed of, but I don't like to see the Wikipedia being used for POV pushing by people who misunderstand Strauss. Thank you for the civil reply. Best, MoodyGroove 21:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

It sounds a little sensationalist to me, but I wouldn't object if the comment was attributed to the Washington Post and placed in the body of the article instead of the lead. I'm going to search for the article right now and read it. I would actually like to see this article be expanded to cover HCM's political thought more detail. Best, MoodyGroove 21:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

It's an interesting article. I think it fits better with the executive power section, particularly where the author says that Mansfield's defense of executive power constitutes an "argument for suspending civil liberties not just in the sense of martial law, but pretty much any time a strong, impetuous leader -- stoked to the gills with thumos -- deems it efficient and, more frightening, conducive to enlarging his historical reputation." That's a lot more intelligently stated than the simplistic suggestion that Mansfield advocates tyranny. The article is generally critical, so should probably not be used to identify Mansfield as the "dean among Straussians" (unless more evidence is needed to show that the term is used pejoritively). Best, MoodyGroove 21:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

No, there is no substantive difference, except that the terms "Platonist", "Kantian", "Marxist", and "Straussian" are all limiting in that they imply a set of ideas the person identifies with. Karl Marx may have influenced a thinker, but is that thinker a Marxist? What does it mean to be a Marxist? What percent of agreement with Marx is required? Is it necessary to label someone a Marxist when that person has a mind of his own? Here's another difficulty. Was Marx a Rousseauian? Was Aristotle a Platonist? At what point does a thinker become distinct and have his own identity that transcends the master? Unlike the other examples, Strauss was alive in our lifetime (assuming you were born prior to 1973). So it's amazing that we even think of Straussians at all. But I think the term is prone to misunderstanding and misuse, and that's my main concern. Best, MoodyGroove 2:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

I added Kennicott's Washington Post article to the executive power section. MoodyGroove 22:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

I found this to be somewhat ironic. From the Marxism article: "The term "Classical Marxism" is often used to distinguish between "Marxism" as it is broadly understood and "what Marx believed", which is not necessarily the same thing." So apparently Karl Marx may not have been, strictly speaking, a Marxist! Or maybe, Marxism (as generally understood) is not really Marxism (as understood by Marx). This is a good example of why I'm not crazy about the term "Straussian." MoodyGroove 02:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

Kristol and Strauss

I'm familiar with that NPR broadcast. In fact I transcribed the discussion pertaining to whether or not Kristol is a "Straussian" on the Bill Kristol talk page. He says that Mansfield is considered a "quote" Straussian, and hence, he is considered a Straussian, "and we're all cheerful parts of the Straussian cabal now, I suppose." So clearly he's not self identifying as a Straussian, but rather, explaining why others regard him that way. Best, MoodyGroove 19:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

No, I don't think he would, because it's very similar to McCarthyism. He did go on to say that he finds many aspects of the discussion distasteful, and he remarked that he has never said that his political views derived from Strauss. That's close enough to a denial for me. Do you suppose he owes anyone a denial? Or that he wants to validate the accusations by putting himself in the position of someone who is on trial? Kristol even goes on to say that if there's one good thing about the controversy, it's that it might get people to actually read Strauss, and determine for themselves whether or not he's a compelling interpretor of text. To me, that sounds like Kristol is someone who is quite disapproving toward a simplistic witch hunt undertaken by people who have never read Strauss. It also tells me that Kristol believes Strauss was a great thinker and reading him is not something anyone needs to be ashamed of. Regardless, his failure to deny Strauss is not equivalent to self identification as a Straussian, whatever that means, and with whatever baggage that entails. MoodyGroove 20:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

Ryan Braun

Hi. I differ as to what is appropriate, relative to your deletion of material that I had added. I've explained as much on the Ryan Braun discussion page, in the event that you would like to look at it there. Tx.--Epeefleche 18:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Collins

Hey, I saw your reversions of our "friend" on this article. It's probably time someone go to the admin boards and get him banned. Do you want to do it or should I? Davidpdx (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By all means--Beaker342 (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that, because of your recent warring over this article with other parties, the page has consequently been locked from editing for a period of 96 hours. Please take this time to discuss the problem and come to a consensus. Regards, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to infinity for great mis-interpretation, following a kind of misguided RFPP report. There was no warring, of course. My sincerest apologies - the IP is now blocked for vandalism. Regards, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletions

Hello, Beaker342. Sorry but I do not have time to track down your deletions to my additions. I have left you a note on the talk page of the Star Tribune and not on the talk page of the New York Times. You're welcome for this note, but I do not expect to revisit this topic. Thank you and best wishes. -Susanlesch (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]