User talk:Crazyeddie/archive1

Hello "Crazyeddie" and welcome to Wikipedia. A few tips for you:

Peruse Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers and associated pages, such as
You can experiment in the Wikipedia:Sandbox.
Sign talk page entries with ~~~~, which is automatically converted to a name and date.
If you have any questions, see Wikipedia:Help, or you can a question to the Wikipedia:village pump.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian -- Infrogmation 04:42, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hi eddie

thanks for all the good work you have done for wikipedia. regarding the liberal islam article. I think that section is fine, IF it is rewritten in a non-offenive way. It suggested the liberals might be LESS faithful the the orthodox. 12.2.239.15 03:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Me again.

Just noticed your note ot me. Sorry.

Anyay, I disagree with two asessemtns.

1: Their is such a thing as nonbias. Trust me, ti snto that hard ot learn, and Im nto a postmodernist.

2: Im not a POV Warrior. Sure I may seem like one, but look at the facts. Im not trign to say shes wrogn in ehr belifs. Im merley tryignto be accurate.

IE, I want critissm, ebcause its standard policy.

My main desire is to expaond the life section. (Which her followrs want to remove.)

Im barley intereste din the topic personally. ( As I said ealrier, I tend to be a Dinosaur fan, and thats what I concentrate on here.)

So, other htan beign adament on the article ( Which I created) I dotn think Im much a POV warrior.

That said, I cant seem to create new pages, and woudl lik to create two new articles if I may.

How can I? ( their kes socntraversial thanthis.And not religiosu in nature.)

I will tell you why Im so onvovled. Its because Ihappend to learn her follwoers where beign eld ot the pages by her. Acharya herselfdited the arilce iwht her usual vitorol. THen, got banned. Then wen tot he rlist. then got her ofllowers ot rag on evryone till they get her way.

You are also worng. I dotn want an article that says "Acharya is a Nut." I want own that gives facts andinformaiton abotu HER LIFE. Who she is, and what she does. I do think hergeneral claim to fame premise shoudl be (Brielfy) mntioned,and then allow the basic critismss to be (Equelly breinfly) Mentoend, but this is an encyclopedia. And the aritlc ei sbaotu her, nto her theory.

Such as it is. I also cant stay logged in, any idea why?

Zarove

67.213.77.138 03:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I noticed on the Acharya S tlak page I seem to be the other side ofthe coin to Acharyas Follwors. I was wonderign why.

So, I thoguth Id ask.

Am I relaly that bad? As all I do is revert when they whitewash her.

And, can I rlelay be banned for htis? As all I am doing is tryign to prevent bias. I know they claim this, but I havent gone otu fo my way to discredit her. Just add valid critisisms.

Anyway, thanks. Hope you mdessge me back.

Zarove 18:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey CrazyEddie,

RE: 'I want an article that says "Archrya is a nut".'

I do appreciate your honesty, at least. The fact is, Zarove is a Christian zealot and that's why he cares. He wrote the article in the first place. Nobody from acharya's mailing list came here to 'promote' acharya, we came here to deal with Zaroves attempted hatchet job. Pure and simple.

^^James^^ 02:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James, can you prove Im a Zealot or wrote a Hatchet Job? If not, lets nto resort to Ad Hom shall we? Just beign a Christyain doesn tmake me aZealot. Im pretty open to pthe ideas, and have told you befor we let anAtheist be a moderator on the same forum you see me administering.THat harldy zealotry.

We accept all viws. Whats not tolerated is you use of WIkipedia to promote your msitress.

67.213.47.240 11:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Sounds important :) Dysprosia 09:45, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It looks okay, except for the following:

You may want to use benevolent dictator instead of dictator-for-life... sounds better.
They can be declared absent if they have not posted in the wiki for a period of 45 days, or for failing to vote on a Council measure (see the Rules of Order for details).

I don't like this. It means that admins have to vote or they will lose their priveleges. Voting on measures shouldn't be compulsory. If it were, it may encourage donkey/apathetic voting, for users who don't prefer to vote on things. The absentee issue is also troublesome, what if someone goes on holiday, or needs a break from editng (see Wikipedia:Wikibreak)?

HTH Dysprosia 01:14, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If a majority of the active members of the body have voted for or against a measure, the vote can be closed early.

So this allows the possibility for one to be active and not vote?

If they haven't posted in that long, then they're probably enough out of touch with events in the wiki that they shouldn't be allowed to mod anyway.

Two issues with this: that implies that it is then impossible to get back in touch when it is in fact possible, and that this shouldn't have to apply to admins also.

'I'll put in a bit about members who expect an extended absence can request to be placed in "absent" status,

This seems a bit restrictive. Maybe merely just ask that if they go away for some time they make some notification on their user or talk page somehow. Dysprosia 02:36, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

FOX News Hi - got your message - will review your proposed handling of the Allegations of Bias stuff tonight. --Trodel 22:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

CC license template

You might want to update your CC license with the Template:DualLicenseWithCC-BySA. Just replace your current notice with {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA}}. That way, you'll be listed in What links here page. JesseW 07:03, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've been updating the CC licensing stuff (Guide to the CC dual-license) and also created a new template {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} to license contributions under the CC-by-sa version 1.0 AND version 2.0. Just wanted to let you know in the event that you also wanted to add version 2.0. -- Ram-Man 18:03, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your note on my talk page. I've since become rather disenchanted with the entire VfD process, as I've witnessed valuable pages become cancelled because someone (and a few of their friends) didn't feel it was important enough (to them) to be included. I'm now of the belief that Wikipedia will ultimately fail unless it makes some sweeping changes to its policies, and perhaps a more thoughtful system, less subject to abuse and exploitation will fork to take its place. As it stands now, things do not look too bright. That is a travesty. Our greatest strengths do not need to conversely be our greatest weaknesses. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 00:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re: Politics

Well, I did say I'm an anarchist sympathiser, not an anarchist. I guess my views are a bit similar to yours: Anarchism is an ideal, but I have no idea how to make it work on a large scale. I think most anarchists rely on a lot of hand waving to explain how it would work really. I also think there's a huge scope for abuse there. I don't know if you're into punk rock, but I think Jello Biafra from the Dead Kennedys says it best in "Where do ya draw the line": "How many liberators really want to be dictators? Every theory has its holes when real life steps in". There's a lot of other little reasons why I can't call myself an anarchist really, in general I don't like to ally myself with any ideology. You're much better off doing your own thing and making your own choices. It's funny how so many self proclaimed anarchists are conformists!

To me mainstream politics can best be described by the fact that there are equal quantities of stupid, obnoxious or naive people on either side of the imaginary liberal/conservative fence. At least like you mention, the liberals have their heart in the right place more often than the conservatives do. I know the US doesn't really have an effective way to get third parties into any sort of position of power, and that's unfortunate. At least here in Australia we usually end up electing third parties to the senate to hold the balance of power. That tends to at least limit any damage the government can do. :)

Anyway, thanks for dropping me a note, I always like it when I get that new messages banner. Catch you around. Shane King 23:21, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Woot! Somebody who likes talking about politics! Even better, that person isn't an American!

Although we're about the same age (I was born in May '79), I was effectively locked in the basement during the 80s. Until '89, we lived in a town of about 200, listened to the Oldies, didn't have cable or even a vcr, and were too broke to go to the movies. We moved to Sedalia (a town of 20,000), got cable, etc. Even so, I took about 5 years for me to get up to speed musically. By the time I did, punk had gone mainstream - Green Day, The Offspring, etc. So I appreciate punk as a form, and for its ability to promote political messages, but I wasn't around for the punk message to be a formative experience.

It seems to me that "little a" anarchy is just the youthful urge to tear down the existing structure. It's healthy and normal, but just as mindless as conformity. Assuming our forebearers weren't complete twits, the true individualist will go with the status quo the vast majority of the time - but on the issues he or she disagrees, fight like the devil.

It isn't so much the two party system that gets me down. It's the fact that we've had the same one since the Civil War! Of course the ideologies have shifted a lot since. (I'm going to assume that you've had enough American history crammed down your throat - let me know if I should explain. Or just link to the article.) We're due for another critical election, an election where there is a realignment in ideology, in 2008, assuming that the political cycle holds. We're currently in a Republican dominated phase, which has gone on since either Nixon or Reagan - take your pick. The Republican domination has been really weak, which could be caulked up to Watergate and/or the Fourth Great Awakening. (I consider punk to be a part of the overall Fourth Great Awakening.)

Yeah, the two party system is pretty much tied in by how we elect our president. In our defense, we were the first modern democracy, so we didn't know about political parties. There are some ideas on how to reform the Electoral College being kicked around, but I think they wouldn't so much get rid of the two party system as make it more likely for one of the two parties to be replaced. On the other hand, I think our system has more checks and balances than the parlimentary system. Like you said, there are usually enough third party members that a coalition government has to be formed. But if one party got the majority, they could ram through just about anything they wanted. Unless the Upper House could do something about it?

Over here, to get the same effect, that party would have to get control of 1) The House, 2) The Senate, 3) The Presidency, 4) The Supreme Court. One of the scary things about the current situation is that the Republicans have that control. The place where that control weakest is the Supreme Court, where it's 5-4, but one of those 5 is a moderate. However, the Supreme Court is also the weakest link in the chain. Even worse, Bush got elected back in 2000 in part because he disguised himself as a centrist. When the gloves came following 9/11, we suddenly had, not just a conservative, but a neo-conservative running things. Ack!

I'm kicking around an idea for what could be a "virtual" polital party. I'm still working on the details, but I know I/we'll need a coder to pull it off. But first I have to get the LQwiki squared away politically!

So for practice, here's an idea I've been kicking around, and I'd like to get a non-American opinion on it.

Currently the United Nations doesn't have any real power. This is a good thing, because it was designed to be ineffective, with five different nations with veto power. But eventually, we're going to need a world government that can actually do something, even though that would happen over America's metaphorical dead body.

I'm modelling this idea on the early United States, when the phrase was a plural: "these United States". Say, about the time of Andrew Jackson. The federal government had the ability to tax, and had a small military of its own, but the states had their own militaries that could give the federal one a run for its money.

Membership in these new United Nations would be limited to stable, multiparty democracies, which would leave out China (and depending on how things go, Russia). Which would mean that it would not be doable now. I also expect many discussions over what exactly stable, multiparty democracy means.

Since I'm basing this on the early United States, it'd be a presidental system, complete with an electoral college (but with the bugs worked out). However, a parlimentary system would do just as well.

The kicker would be that representation in the lower house would be based on GDP rather than population. To me, democracy works because it's an ongoing civil war, fought with ballots instead of bullets. For it to work, the various factions should have the same distribution of representation as they have of power. If representation in the United Nations was based on population, a country like India would have a lot more representation than the United States, even though that's not how the power is distributed in the real world. This system wouldn't be fair - but what is?

The federal military wouldn't be able to enforce the majority view on a deal breaker issue against a bruiser like the United States. But the member states who would make up that majority would be able to - I think GDP is a pretty accurate predictor of potential millitary strength.

What do you think? (And could you cross post to both your page and mine - I'll do the same.) crazyeddie 19:10, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

fourth awakening

definitely! i'm getting my stuff out of "The Fourth Turning," a book written after "generations" by the same authors, but focuses on this "time around." -- i'll beef it up the best i can -- especially regarding the neoevangelical revival in the 70s:). i can't say i know anything about subsequent cycles in britain after those two ... although something tells me they probably parallelled ours (they had a bit of a hippy revolution themselves in the 60's with the beetles and everything i think) -- i'll look into it:). oh -- and thanks for your comment about "backroom alliances," too:). take it easy! Ungtss 07:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

heya -- i've got a response to your thoughts on my page if you're interested:). Ungtss 14:13, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reply to comment on Talk:FOX News

I'm a lifelong UK resident, and I mostly agree with this comment. However, I don't think that the publicly owned BBC being so influential makes Ofcom is more appropriate. I believe that both organisations work for the government and that therefore Ofcom isn't an effective check on BBC power. Tim Ivorson 10:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It has been good working with you on the FOX News section - that was my first real effort to make somewhat significant changes to an article. I will keep it on my watchlist and see what else goes on there. The interesting thing is the US vs UK view on politics - especially right vs left. There is a great book The Right Nation by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge who both work for the Economist discussing how both liberals and conservatives in the US are right of the viewpoints of the political spectrum in the UK and Europe. Trödel (talk · contribs) 20:11, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looks like Silverback has done it again. This time he has replaced the PIPA study with the one which he proposed (including the finding which PIPA did not consider a misperception), and created an entirely new section titled "FOX viewers" for the PIPA report (as though he wants to absolve FNC of all blame for misperception and pin them on the viewers). I agree with you that we need a pro-FOX advocate, and that it doesn't have to be Silverback. Perhaps we could contact Wikipedia's AMA for a pro-FOXer who is willing to compromise. Looking through this article, I see another way to resolve the conflict is to request for more comments from the wider Wikipedian community. Ethereal 09:39, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Despite what I have said about Silverback in Talk:FOX News, I never had any dealings or any conflicts with him in the past. The answer to that is simple, this is because I have only recently started to edit Wikipedia's articles. However, as I've said before, if you look through his user contributions, you would have seen that he has crossed the path of a lot of other users before (and angered them as well). Do you have an email or something? It might be better to discuss these things through email instead. Mine is defennder@hotmail.com. Ethereal 09:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tessaiga

Hi. I have posted a request to revisit this topic at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related_articles). Thanks. Your input will be appreciated. LG-犬夜叉 09:29, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

other horizons

hey man, just figured i'd let you know i'm leaving the wiki. i always enjoyed our conversations, tho -- if you ever wanna continue them, feel free to email me. Take care:). Ungtss 20:30, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

FOX News (again)

Sorry I was on a wikiholiday because of some system issues at work required much more than full time work. I will take a look at it today and make some comments - hopefully it is not too late to do something smart. -Trödel|talk 18:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I moved the bias to the bottom of the article - hopefully it will stay there - I just think that the controversy is just not the main part of FOX News - I agree on giving it some time. Trödel|talk 22:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Slo-mo is a much better word - the discussion will probably never die - but in the mean time the article is looking better - the latest anon addition - saying look below is the kind of comment I would delete out of hand as a minimalist - since it is obvious to any thinking person that affiliates are dismissed - pointed to by both parties to bolster their claims. I think the "but see below..." just assumes a disrespectful level of intelligence of the reader. Trödel|talk 18:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chamaeleon

Sorry to intrude, but if it's not too much trouble, and you have an opinion on the matter, I'd very much appreciate it if you could make a little comment on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chamaeleon.

Sorry again if I've bothered you. Chamaeleon 15:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

reply: Ungtss

Thansk for clearing up my mistinterpretations. I never reeally understood how they got most of the radioactive isotope half-lives. I go along with a lot of the dates, I just don't get how some are obtained with radioactive dating, so I feel better knwoing that now. And yeah, in retrospect, I did misinterpret the Big Bang. Which is kind of ironic, since I love astronomy so much. Eh, live and learn. About the evolution thing, the writer was somewhat neutral though. He leaned toward creation, but he wasn't a die-hard creationist. He accepted that there are hominid forms well-before the Bible said Adam was made, and acknowldegdes evolution of animals. He just didn't subscribe wholely to random mutations and natural selction, and he didn't believe the human mind or personaltiy evolved. He seemed more like a supporter of evolutionary creationism. The author also tore down some common creationist arguements and looked at other views, letting both Genesis and science support each other. Although, I admit some bias in his arguements. He said in his calculations, that the selected form a of a trait, and the gene for it, was locked, so no mutations could "undo" it. Which is fine, but he then continued to say this never happens in nature and he "errs" in favor of evolution in that way. Although no genes are really locked in nature, natural selction does a good job. I know the basic premises of evolution fairly well, and if a living thing has a harmful, mutant form of a trait, natural selection won't favor it, so the mutant form and its gene will not remain in the population. By the way, since you saw most of the chat, care to help Ungtss and I? I am a moderate evolutionist, but don't know enough about creationism or evolution to say I am an expert on either (particularly Creationism). We could use another person who wants to keep things in an NPOV fashion and help correct any misconceptions like mine. (What link led you to Ungtss talk page? An edit or one of the various talk pages it seems he has posted comments on? Just wondering) Mred64 19:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks fo responding back. I like the quote. And you have a point, it seems too many just tire of this debate on the evolution side. It reminds of a person in my biology class when we were learning about evolution. She would have codemned and sent me to Satan himself when I said evolution seems to describe life on earth. Even answering the teacher's questions on evolution provoked an ice glare from her. And when I asked her why she didn't ask teh teacehr any of her objections to evolution, she said "because I know the teacher won't give me the right answer." She had made up he remind about an evolutionist before they even started talking and trying to rebut her objections!! I wouldn't say I'm ignorant on terms of creation according to science, just don't know as much of the more, shall we say, "passionate" debaters on either side of the spectrum. Thansk for the website, I'm sure taht'll help. But for now, ungtss and I decided to lay back a bit and see who to talk to, so maybe we'll live through the maelstrom. Oh by the way, I read a bit of your debate with ugtss. Very interesting. It looked like you two kept it pretty civil, which is more than I can say about some article talk pages on the subject. Maybe I can try to keep it like that. Thanks for the advice and encouragement. I just hope I get to keep my sanity if you are right about it all. Mred64 02:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Re: User_talk:Sam_Spade#Combine_the_Existence_of_God_Articles, can you remind me of what I had proposed which was similar? I'm drawing a blank... Cheers,

Sam Spade 18:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A pleasure.

You're one of the first Wikipedians I've ever "worked with" on anything for longer than three or four days; never figured I'd manage saying "it's been a pleasure" to working on a FOX News piece. Shem^(talk) 05:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Silverback

I'm beginning to wonder if Silverback's recent string of edits on FOX News is in violation of the 3RR. Could you take a look? It seems like he is usually very careful about following the letter of the 3RR - always skirting the line, never going over. crazyeddie 17:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't use the WP:3RR, for a variety of reasons. You'd be better off talking to another administrator. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WP:AGF

I'd not take up a formal RfC over this Wikipedia guideline alone, just so you're aware. For rather obvious reasons. Shem^(talk) 29 June 2005 06:35 (UTC)

He's not edited Wikipedia since June 30th, his last response to you concerning a potential RfC. I'm not quite sure where to go from here, but my self-imposed hiatus from FOX News pending a Silverback RfC doesn't seem to be of much consequence, now. Shem^(talk) 19:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ann coulter

poll you might want to check out --kizzle July 9, 2005 16:15 (UTC)

Re: FOX News

okay, I've added my comments there. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

merge then redirect

Merge then redirect the god articles. piece by piece merge and delete until the article contains nothing or merge all at once in a marathin sesssion. But as it stands, references to the two arguments articles exist in many places even in the existance of God article. Also by looking at the additions to the existance of god article, I doubt all data was merged. So i reverted to redirects, because the merge has not taken place. 4.250.168.182 14:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silverback

Sorry that it took me so long to reply. I moved house and still don't have internet access at home. Catching up with the FNC article takes a while after a break. I hope it's going ok. Tim Ivorson 13:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

new vfd

The prior VFD that you voted at ended with no consensus, a new VFD has been opened at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Historical persecution by Muslims. ~~~~ 18:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External links and sources

In response to "Incidentally, any reason why that last section is called "Sources" and not "External links"?" at [1]

Wikipedia has a very big problem with content that can be trusted, because too much data is unverifyable because there are too few references and sources tied to the data. One thing to do is add the verify tag where no sources at all are listed. When there are external links such that some are sources, saying some are sources in that subheading is one step in the direction of providing verifyablility. Seperating sources from nonsource external links is better. And actually tying the data to the source with a referencing mechanism (several are available and used on wikipedia) is best. WAS 4.250 16:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Existence

We're having a discussion on how best to reorganize the Existence of God article. We currently have two competing plans. One version is being sandboxed here, and is being discussed here. The other plan (mine) is being discussed here. Since I remember you being interested in this article, I'm asking for your input. (This is being copy-and-pasted to several people.) Thanks! crazyeddie 19:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I have an opinion, outside of what I've just said on the talk page, and done in the article, except that the article is sliding towards a NPOV dispute. I doubt people are intentionally biasing things, but I do think the statistically abnormal level of atheist contributions need to be balanced out abit more, if nothing else by more "writing for the enemy", and a more inclusive talk page environment. I found much of the discussion at Talk:Existence_of_God so unpalatable that I avoided the article for some time after. There is a reason I contribute to an encyclopedia instead of some random lowbrow forum, and its not hear how stupid people are for loving. Speaking of which, you have been consistantly polite, which I think you for. Sam Spade 10:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a blog

On the talk page of Exitence of God you and another are having a discussion on morality. Could you guys carry on that discussion somewhere more appropriate (maybe a subpage to a user page)? Moving the conversation in its entirety would be useful as putting it in the archives for talk about the article Existence of God makes no sense. When things are in their proper place it make it easier for everyone to find what they are looking for. Thanks in advance. WAS 4.250 01:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]