User talk:Santa Sangre

Welcome!

Hello, Santa Sangre, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links to help you get started:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 15:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda Due & Ceaucescu membership

It seems that Ceaucescu was a member of Propaganda Due masonic lodge, involved in quite a few terrorist acts. Maybe you'll want to have a look, and translate any info about that given by the reference. Santa Sangre

You don't make it clear: is this material that has already been placed in an article and you are asking me to verify, or are you asking for translation in order to use this material? - Jmabel | Talk 19:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see: in the P2 article, not in the Ceaucescu article. I'd never really looked at our P2 article. - Jmabel | Talk 21:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished translating the relevant portions. My own take? It is not useful for anything besides documentation of Pleşita's own weird views. - Jmabel | Talk 19:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may feel free to copy that wherever you wish. Let me know if there are any specific other passages of the article you want me to take a shot at. Because it was long and (to my eye) not very impressive, I didn't see much point in slogging throught the whole thing. - Jmabel | Talk 04:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Techno-progressivism

Although I appreciate you wanting to contribute to the Techno-progressivism article and its related article, I suggest you read and understand the article before making a judgement and edit the article to include your point of view rather than the facts. Also, since you insist in claiming that there are people who have criticized techno-progressivism, which I doubt since it is a term whose *current definition* most people are not even aware of, please cite your sources for these criticisms. In other words, who are these critics? Please name one critic who has actually use the term 'techno-progressivism'. Until you can provide this, your edits of this article will be reversed. By the way, I have moved your mention of Peter Sloterdijk to the Posthumanism article since his 'usage of a fascist rhetoric to promote Plato’s vision of a government with absolute control over the population' prevents him from being considered a techno-progressive. --Loremaster 17:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can only politely reply that if I need to "read more", than you certainly do need to read more about Peter Sloterdijk. His so-called 'usage of a fascist rhetoric to promote Plato’s vision of a government with absolute control over the population', if you knew Sloterdijk's writings & maybe read with more attention the Wikipedia article, is an allegation made by his philosophical & political opponents. I've read the text in question & others by Sloterdijk (as I'm reading right now Donna Haraway, whose writings I've wanted to read since a long time), and I assure you that he is what you define as a techno-progressivist. Maybe we should both stop thinking that only we know what is what? We both seem to know the subject, don't you think? Santa Sangre

I was aware of the fact that Peter Sloterdikj being a crypto-fascist is only an allegation. My point was simply that if it is true, this would disqualify him as a techno-progressive. That being said, although you probably known more about Sloterdikj than I do, your edits of the Techno-progressivism have shown a poor understanding of that particular subject. Futhermore, you still refuse to offer sources for your criticsms. I don't claim to know what is what but, at least, I don't try to include my personal point of view in a Wikipedia article. --Loremaster 19:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bongo

I only edited in a reference to Germany after Gabon, so you'll have to go through the history a bit more. Harrypotter 14:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was referring to my entry in the of Freemasons.

I mus admit I know very little about Omar Bongo, although I am interested in Bongo Country because of a member of my family's connection there. However, I have come to consider that the connection with Gabon maybe incorrect.Harrypotter 15:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights portal

Portal:Human rights
I, Lucinor, creator of the Portal:Human rights, invite you as editor of Human rights-related articles to start contributing to aforementioned Portal.

--Lucinor 20:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geist and Geist (philosophy)

The redirections you made didn't make any sense and they were reverted. If you think they should be made redirect pages, please state your reasoning. Thanks. --BorgQueen 15:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok now I see what you were trying to do. Thanks for your explanation. --BorgQueen 15:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.
When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.
"See also" sections should contain only links not included in the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all; getting the hang of all the ins and outs of Wikipedia is a long job... none of us knows it all (I certainly don't). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Underground economy

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006_April_19#Category:Underground_economy

The {{cfd}} tag is put on categories, not articles, so obviously you wouldn't know just by looking at the articles. Circeus 11:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Putting Backgrounds on a Page

Hello. I know this seems weird that I am just asking you this question, but I want a answer quickly so I went to the "Recent Changes" and you had just done a edit, so I knew you would get this message quickly. I am the owner of D&D Wiki and I was wondering if their is a way to make a background above words. For example, a image behind text on a page. Am I making sense? If so, is their a way to do this? Please help. --Green-Dragon 19:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second International

Hey, good work on this article. I've been meaning to fix it up, but hadn't found the time yet. -- TheMightyQuill 13:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marx's theory of human nature

Hi, cheers for your message on this article. I'm sure most of what you say (e.g. about needing something on Althusser, better endnotes and a better discussion of the sixth thesis) is valid; but unfortunately I won't have time for a good while to do much about it. A few thoughts, on some things I might tend to disagree on:

It's my sense that an account of alienation should start out from an account of human nature, rather than the other way round. (I agree that the alienation section of the article should be expanded; and I also think that the alienation article itself needs to be expanded and improved.) This is because, though human nature is often explained through the lens of alienation, it is a more fundamental concept. It can be explained without reference to alienation, though the reverse is not true.
I agree editing for length would be a good idea in principle; my only concern is that the quotations from Marx remain as far as possible - I feel everything should be supported textually and referenced to the text.
I certainly take the point about using phrases such as 'it is generally recognised that' etc., my concern would be that fleshing that out would take even more room. And I think the particular example is probably right too, since Geras' book I don't think any serious writers would advance the Althusserian position... I suppose that's difficult to prove as a negative though; can you think of anyone who'd hold the contrary?

Anyway. Yes. Let's work together on it - I'm more than happy to discuss the article more and chip in small edits, though I'm going to be short on time for serious editing for a while. cheers, Breadandroses 16:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Laplace

Santa Sangre, you did check the second website link on the Laplace talk page, right? It seems like the guy used the Catholic Encyclopedia for this biography of Laplace, but he did not list his sources. Can you take a second look? I'd appreciate it. You can give me a reply on my wikiuser talk page Tlozano.

TL 21:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weird (negative) obsession with EGS

What's that about, anyway? It seems to occupy a lot of your edits; the ones I encounted over at the Zizek article. One of your edits seemed perfectly reasonable in taking the affiliation out of the lead, since it is only a minor affiliation of Zizek's. And actually, taking it out of the resource list seems perfectly reasonable too. But the tone of your edit comments is wildely hyperbolic for the actual concern. For example, in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slavoj_%C5%BDi%C5%BEek&diff=prev&oldid=58109853 you comment:

EGS has neither to be listed as the first nor as the second, STOP SPAMMING with European Graduate School which is so good that we all want to go there!!!!)

The term "spam" seems to be what you always use in any edit involving EGS, in fact. However, the mentiond edit, with the hysterically breathless comment, just moved EGS from one place to another in the (rather long) list of places where Zizek has been a visiting professor. I could hardly care less which order the list is in, but it's entirely unclear why you bothered with such a change, or what meaning you assign to the order you chose. Is it meant to be chronological or something? It's definitely not alphabetical. But in any case, the change has nothing to do with the overstated edit comment.

FWIW, I really have no opinion whatsoever about EGS. I'm not sure if I ever heard of it prior to its mention in Zizek's article; if I had, it was passingly. It does seem to have a list of rather impressive visiting faculty, though so do a lot of other schools. If you had a bad personal experience at the school, or something like that, you should not take it out as POV edits to WP. LotLE×talk 01:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a look at your bad-faith AfD nomination for EGS; I'm really tempted to raise an RfC on this, since not just the nomination itself but your long comments are a pretty gross violation of WP:POINT. Yeah, the school isn't the biggest thing since sliced bread; and yeah, in the scheme of things it's a pretty minor university... and yes, it looks like some other editors have overlinked to the page by a bit. But you just don't nominate an article on AfD (and comment verbosely and angrily) on the grounds that some editors have behaved (slightly) badly: an AfD is about the topic itself, and you haven't made any case that reached remote plausibiliy that EGS is non-notable (most community colleges have articles, and so do a fair number of high schools; EGS surely reaches that degree of prominence). Cut it out! If you want to complain about the behavior of overlinking editors, do it at RfC, with mediation, or at WP:ANI. LotLE×talk 21:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not following proper procedure might be the result of unfamiliarity with protocol rather than bad faith. Cut down on the false accusations, Lulu. (There is nothing on WP:POINT that says you can't use the AfD page for lengthy discussion.) I also notice that Santa Sangre has apologized twice for mistakes/incivility, something you might pick up on. ~ trialsanderrors 19:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hey, I've noticed that you've edited quite a few articles on Marxist theory. Can I ask that you work on Wage labour? I know it's not specifically Marxist, but since the two are related somewhat, I was hoping if you knew something about it. I started the article a few months ago, and wrote a stub based on the little that I know. However, at the moment, frankly, it is a piece of crap, and I don't really know enough to be able to write it up properly. Could you go have a look? Thanks. :) -- infinity0 20:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EGS

Hey, just wanted to give you a heads-up that editing at European Graduate School continues, with some interesting new findings. Feel free to join if you want to keep the article balanced. ~ trialsanderrors 23:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know the answer is coming late but have a at my talk page User talk:Ericd. Ericd 20:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting the marxism article

Hi, I was wondering if you would have the time to take a look at User:JenLouise/Marxism proposed and give me your ideas. I think you'll see from the outline that I've created, that I have really big plans for creating a Marxism article that is structured and comprehensive and deals with everything that Marxism implies. It's a big task, and I need as much help as I can get! Cheers JenLouise 23:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herd Behavior, Human Herding, etc.

Santa Sangre, you made a suggestion on the Herd Behavior page back in May. That suggestion finally got some discussion/debate going in September. Since then, I've discovered there are (at least) three Wikipedia articles on herds and human herding: Herding instinct, Herd behavior and Herd. If you are still active on WP, I would appreciate it if you would go to the two talk pages where the discussion is happening and weigh in if you could. It will really help the discussion to have some more eyes on it. Talk:Herd behavior and Talk:Herd -- some perspective worth seeing on both pages. N2e 18:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herding instinct

Hi, I noticed that you had added a general source for the information in the article Herding instinct in this diff. It seems a merge is about to take place and it would be helpful if you could attribute the reference to text in the article. Please see WP:FOOT and WP:CITET. Alan.ca 19:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Pratkanis

I noticed you have contributed to the article Crowd psychology. Would you care to expand the biography on Anthony Pratkanis who teaches about such. SriMesh | talk 02:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Comité Consultatif National d'Ethique

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Comité Consultatif National d'Ethique, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mcewan (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biased editing of Technological Utopianism by Loremaster.

Due to your past contribution to Technological utopianism, you may currently want to help editing the Technological utopianism article because currently only one editor is contributing to the article. The Singularitarianism Article could also benefit from your help.

I feel Loremaster is editing Singularitarianism and Technological utopianism in a biased manner in accordance with his Save The Earth propaganda. Loremasters's ideology seems to verge towards Neo-Luddism. Here are the damming facts Loremaster has stated in discussion:

Loremaster says he is:

"...critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms."

Loremaster wants people to:

"...stop indulging in techno-utopian fantasies... ...so that we can all focus on energies on saving the planet."

Loremaster sees his editing as a 'fight' and he states:

"Although I am convinced that the world is in fact heading toward an ecological catastrophe, I think it can be averted and my optimism makes me want to fight to do do just that."

81.151.135.248 (talk) 12:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)JB[reply]

LOL
Despite the fact that I openly admit to being a technorealist who is critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms, I have let never this point of view influence any of my edits or reverts of the Technological utopianism or Singularitarianism articles. On the contrary, I am the person most responsible for expanding the former article with content some would argue is “pro-techno-utopian” (i.e. passages from James Hughes' book Citizen Cyborg).
I find it disgusting that 81.151.135.248 would take comments I made out of context to falsely make it seem I see my editing of any article as part of my fight for the environment.
In light of this outrageous act of bad faith, I will do everything in my power to get this jerk banned from Wikipedia.

--Loremaster (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2010 (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) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

La Découverte listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect La Découverte. Since you had some involvement with the La Découverte redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - - mathmitch7 ^{(talk/contribs)} 16:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Modernist art movements" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Modernist art movements and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 18#Modernist art movements until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]