User talk:Snowspinner~enwiki/Archive 1

Re: Abandonware: I'm not quite clear on the procedure here. Is the discussion on the Talk page effectively a vote, or are we just kicking the ideas around with the aim of achieving consensus?--Gadfium 04:14, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Kicking ideas around, largely. POV discussions are not voted on - they're hammered out by people in the talk pages until the ephemeral beast "consensus" is tamed. Snowspinner 04:19, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi there. Welcome to Wikipedia! You seem quite savvy for a new user. Did you contribute as an IP for a while? Isomorphic 06:45, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, not especially. I just pick up fast, I suppose. =) Snowspinner 14:53, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hey, sorry you got blamed for my misdeeds on Roman Catholic Church. See my comments on Template:Vfd-Roman Catholic Church for the long explanation. Basically, I didn't realize there was a VfD discussion. I saw your page move, agreed with it, and wanted to delete the redirect to Criticism of the Catholic Church that it left behind. I think you changed the redirect to point to Catholicism right before I hit the delete button. I definitely want there to be an article at Roman Catholic Church - just something better than what was there ;-) Isomorphic 02:18, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Because the article needed some rewiting to fit an encyclopedic/news style. It sucked otherwise, really, and didnt really need all the stuff about "speciesism" and Nazis in the top (called the "lead") paragraph anyway. -IOH tok 05:06, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * OK. I'd argue for putting gender back in as a mode of supremacism. Snowspinner 05:14, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

After reading your user page, I think you may be interested on Changing attribution for an edit. Pfortuny 07:16, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Don't let AlexR get you down on Heteronormativity. He's obviously way too invested in the topic to discuss it with the proper distance. Yes, he's mildly abusive, in a contemptuous sort of way, but I don't think he does it intentionally, and when I've called him on it, he's largely backed off. He's just too emotional about it to judge the NPOVness of the article. I think part of what's bothering him about it is that he was largely responsible for the article before the lot of us showed up and took issue with it, and maybe he feels deposed. That's no excuse for his behaviour, but I sense he's the sort of fanatic who opposes all disagreement at first, and then accepts it afterwards.

I'll keep an eye on the Critical Theory project, and help out if I can. Justin Johnson 22:16, 21 Apr 2004 UTC

Hey, thanks for the welcome aboard. I'm glad someone finally got around to starting the project! -Seth Mahoney 21:48, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hey, finally a project I'm really interested in. Well done Snowspinner! You've got the ball rolling. It'll be a hoot - it's really important that we work together actually, as it's really not that easy to write encycopedic articles on critical theory and we better double check we write... This is really important - so many Wikipedians are just dismissing theory along with things like mysticism etc., so we'd better at least make sure they know what it's all about... Pteron 04:12, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

heteronormativity
I objected, but not on that talk page. I haven't witnessed a well reasoned communication on that page in some time, and feel the need for outside intervention. You are thickly involved, so I don't much expect your acquiescence. Sam Spade 03:51, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * It doesn't do much good to object off of the talk page for the article. As for involvement, I've been working to NPOV the article. Snowspinner 05:15, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * It does when the quality of communication on the article talk page is so poor as to make communications there redundant and inneffective. I understand you are new here, but don't presume that you can arbitrarilly declare an objection resolved. Sam Spade 05:17, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, see, when on a talk page I ask "Is there any objection to removing the tag" and I see multiple edits of yours go up, none of which are "Yes, there is objection," I think believing there to be no objection is reasonable. I mean, I'm not going to go combing Wikipedia to see where you might have hidden your objection. Snowspinner 05:44, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"and I see multiple edits of yours go up"? I'm not follwing this. Sam Spade 05:47, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I saw, over the course of some time, you edit multiple pages on Recent changes. However, you did not post anything to the talk page for Heteronormativity. I took this to mean that you were done with that article. Since it's not as though "I still object" is a major task to write. Snowspinner 05:50, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I realized a while back that there was no communicating w the level of closeminded ideosyncrity and self-centered illogic present on that page. It was simply ineffective. But high levels of foolishness, and my abstention from them, in no way imply neutrality, my friend ;) Sam Spade 05:59, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I question, in that case, the validity of your objection. Honestly, if you're not willing to deal with the article itself, nor to request mediation, nor even to take drastic measure like put it on VfD, I think you've pretty much exhausted ways to get anything done. I'm going to take it back off of RfC, due to the lack of anyone commenting in the Talk page on its being anything less than NPOV. If you object, please take it up in a productive manner. As a secondary note, I'm going to be out of town all weekend, so if you reply to this, I'd appreciate if you didn't archive it until Monday, so I get a chance to see it. Snowspinner 06:04, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you remove it from RFC, I'll put it back. That is how I will get things done, by bringing in the light of day. If you wanted to have any say as to what happened to this convo, you wouldn't have brought it back to my page after I put it on yours. I'll archive as soon as I feel I have adaquately responded to your latest comment. You can either mess about in my archive, or create a new thread. I don't like my talk page messy, certainly not for the weekend. If you don't like that, you can move all this back to your talk page, or copy it, or do whatever you like. I'll do the same. Sam Spade 06:08, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I put the conversation on your page after you replied on mine - figuring that was the way you intended to do it. As for getting things done, your RfC has not generated much comment. If you're really having a problem, I strongly reccomend asking for mediation on the matter. In any case, I'm copying this over to my talk page. Please post any replies you make there as well. Snowspinner 06:12, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanx. Sam Spade 06:13, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)