User talk:Sethmahoney/Archive1

Kierkegaard

Not only did Kierkegaards Christianity influence his work, it ruined it. - Sigg3.net 08:34, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion re: cursed pages

If you hit "Show preview", it ought to display whether or not a link worked (it will either be red or blue). This saves me some headaches with sorting out what a link is or ought to be. Thought you might like the tip. Happy editing, Jwrosenzweig 19:36, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Welcome aboard!

Hey, glad to have you on WikiProject Critical Theory. =) Snowspinner 20:09, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've started up the WikiProject Critical Theory talk page. You should stop by, have a look, introduce yourself, etc. Also, I see that you're up on queer theory. Any chance you could do some work on Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick? Poor girl needs a major overhaul, and I'm just nowhere near knowledgeable enough about her to do her any justice. Snowspinner 04:47, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I might be able to give it a once over, though it all really depends on when and if I get some time to do research. I'll put it near the top of my list of things to do, though. -Seth Mahoney 04:53, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh! My! I just glanced at the article... She needs more than a major overhaul! I'll bump it up a notch on my list. -Seth Mahoney 04:54, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nietzsche and Nazism

I noticed that the German article had an article called Vordenker von Nationalsozialismus. Literally translated this means Pre-thinkers of Nazism. I think there should be an article on this subject but I would rather call it Intellectual origins of Nazism. I know something but not much about philosophy and Nietzsche but quite a lot about Nazism. Such an article could deal with the neverending dispute and confusion (that bothers you so much) about the influence of Nietzsche's (distorted) philosophy on Nazism. Andries 11:34, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

That would be great, or maybe a section in Nazism about the intellectual origins of Nazism. Of course, I'll insist that it be pointed out that Nietzsche's actual relationship to Nazism is very much disputed and that it is generally accepted that his sister distorted many of his views, and that, in his writings he very much opposed both nationalism and anti-semitism. But yeah, I think that would be a good idea. Were you thinking of doing basically a translation of the German article, or writing a whole new article/section with some of the same info? It would seem that we're a pair on this subject - I don't know a whole lot about Nazism, but enough about Nietzsche to be worthwhile. I'd be interested in hearing what you think of their relationship. -Seth Mahoney 16:34, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I think it is better to start with a translation of the German version It looks reasonable though written by only author. I think the author forgot to mention Karl May because it seems that this Karl May influenced Hitler's world view, not sure though. Andries 17:10, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Good plan. Are you working at all with the group of people translating to and from German? If you know enough German (and you clearly know enough English) you'd be a valuable asset to their team. Anyhow, go for it. I think its a great idea. -Seth Mahoney 05:57, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

RfA

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I've been nominated for adminship status over at Wikipedia:Requests for Adminship. Since you've worked with me on a couple of articles through Wikipedia:WikiProject Critical Theory, I thought you'd probably be a particularly good person to cast a vote either for or against, so I thought I'd let you know. Snowspinner 18:54, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

Like (preposition)

This article now has a new section you asked it to have a while ago. Is this article doing well?? 66.32.255.134 23:27, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Excellent! I'm actually kinda excited about this article. Like has become, like, a really interesting word over the past couple decades. -Seth Mahoney 01:38, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

Good argument on Somari

I though you presented an excellent argument for inclusion of somari on vfd. It was exactly what I was thinking, but I couldn't think of how to say it very well. Such arguments seem to apply to a lot of articles in wikipedia. Anyways, I think that "battle" seems over—only 2 votes against it by my reckoning. —siroχo 01:36, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Phillip K. Dick

hi there... you appeared to list this in Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, but there's no category to delete, it's a red link. If you did intentionally list this category, you need also to reformat so it appears as a title in the TOC, and sign it. Chi Sigma 13:08, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Planet of the Apes (2001 movie)

Hey, I removed the category "Post-apocalyptic science fiction films" from this page and you readded it. How does this apply? --StAkAr Karnak 10:23, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't recall readding it - I edited it to add Category:Dystopian films. Isn't it post-apocalyptic, though? I don't remember the remake so well, but if it follows the story of the original it takes place after humanity is all but destroyed in a nuclear holocaust. -Seth Mahoney 18:29, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

From what I can tell by comparing edits in the history, you added the category. POTAY2K+1 didn't follow the original; it was a remix that took place on another planet.--StAkAr Karnak 00:56, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, right. Well, its gone regardless. -Seth Mahoney 01:03, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Cats

See: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. I would support the consistent existance and use of categories such as "Category:Gay people", "Category:Straight people" and "Category:Asian Americans", "Category:European Americans", but the best that I see happening would be that anything too controversial, such as gay people, would get deleted. Hyacinth 23:40, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Childlove movement

Until the page is locked, I'd suggest you don't revert my work for no better reason than it's on the VfD page. If you want to modify it, or you object to it, OK, I guess I understand (I'll probably revert or modify the work somehow to come to consensus in this case). As for participating in the VfD, I already have and I want the page removed. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:50, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fine. I give in. I usually strive for NPOV, but on this particular issue there are people damaging childrens lives, that's why I edited the page. I'm not being overly dramatic here. Ironically, my edits which I suppose would appear to be POV to some are really pointing out facts that the "childlovers" (disgusting term if ever I've heard it) have totally glossed over or deliberately not placed into the article. That's why I editted! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:02, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Seth, apologies for the revert war and somewhat emotional messages on this talk page. I'll leave it alone. I hope you can understand that when it comes to kids, I'll do whatever I can to protect them from those who try to exploit them. Even if that means making slightly POV edits in Wikipedia, or editting a page where people are trying to leave it alone. Please understand no offense was intended. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:12, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cool. I appreciate your level-headedness... if the article is kept I'll try to dive in. I hope you are right about others also. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:28, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:Chuck Palahniuk

At first I thought it was vandalism, since you gave no reason for deleting it. I recommend, as a matter of ettiquette, giving the reason in the summary in the future. Still, even after I realized that it wasn't vandalism, I still felt that a category for Chuck might be needed for the future. If you've ever seen Category:Stephen King, you'd know that a popular author can end up with a lot of related articles to him. Future articles may be needed for Chuck, such as one for chuckpalahniuk.net. Even more likely, we might have to make a short fiction and/or short non-fiction subcategory for Chuck; after all, he has a rather massive amount of those already published. For now, I'd leave it as it is, so that others can expand on it as more Chuck-related articles show up. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 21:05, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

I may write more articles aboput Chuck in the future. I am currently undecided whether or not "Guts" should have its own article (which would not go into Category:Chuck Palahniuk books for obvious reasons), so that might have to wait until Haunted is published. I'm also not sure if a "Short works of Chuck Palahniuk" article should be made or not (given that there is an article for Stranger Than Fiction), but I will be looking into what short works I can put into that so that I can decide on if it should be made already (it is likely that it will be needed in the future though). Either way, Chuck's career isn't nearly over yet, so technically there will be more to write about. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 03:12, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

human vs civil rights

I don't worry too much about categories, but I thought it might be worthwile to point out that "human rights" and "civil rights" are not really synonyms. The former belong fundamentally to all persons; the latter are accorded by a state to citizens. - Nunh-huh 05:24, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Categories are a deep morass I'm probably happier with no involvement in. Just wanted to make sure you weren't digging a hole you'd later want to climb out of. Marriage is, I think, rather specifically civil (of course, it may be evolving into human<g>.) - Nunh-huh 05:34, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the cool cat

Thank you for adding the LGBT civil rights cat to HomO. :-) HomO is the neatest ombudsman title ever, IMO, and this is the first time since I created the article that anybody has added anything to it. Bishonen 15:51, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pat Robertson

Why did you classify Pat Robertson under homosexuality, except maybe to piss him off? I mean, that's not the worst goal in the world, but it seems unencyclopedic. -- Jmabel 18:41, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

<moved from User talk:Jmabel>
I've been putting articles that relate to a specifically clinical view of homosexuality and those that deal with opinions on and views regarding homosexuality (along with the people who express them) in Category:Homosexuality (which would otherwise be pretty much redundant with Category:LGBT), including those on people who have public views opposing GLB issues and people. I've put a few other people in the category, including Laura Schlessinger and Fred Phelps as well. I've been thinking for a while that they will need their own category, but Category:People opposed to homosexuality is all I can think of, and it sounds absurd to me (how can you be opposed to homosexuality?), so it hasn't happened yet. -Seth Mahoney 18:49, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC) <end moved content>

Let's keep dialog on one page; I'll temporarily add this to my watchlist. I have a feeling we'll want to copy this somewhere when we are done.

I'm not sure if Category:People opposed to homosexuality is exactly the right title, but something like that is needed, or Category:Homosexuality is going to get very confusing: especially as to whom it applies to. We do have a Category:Anti-gay rights legislation, which is not exactly on the mark, but maybe something else under its parent Category:LGBT civil rights? Or under the more open-ended Category:Gay-related topics?

In any case:

1. We may want a categorization hierarchy distinguishing:
   1. People who say homosexuality is sinful.
   2. People who advocate criminalization or civil penalties for homosexual behavior.
   3. People who advocate or perpetrate anti-gay violence.
2. The mere fact that someone holds an opinion (and even has expressed it) does not seem to me to be adequate reason for inclusion in the category. I the Pat Robertson article, we quote one homophobic remark. We don't really discuss his views on homosexuality beyond that. Is this a useful categorization under the circumstances? -- Jmabel 19:03, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

I'm all for breaking up Category:Homosexuality and possibly removing it completely. As I said on the Category:LGBT talk page, I'm trying to press for (or just do it myself) a restructuring of the LGBT categories, as they're a mess right now. I also think that Category:Gay-related topics needs to be broken up and deleted, as it is pretty vague and pretty much redundant with Category:LGBT (though I would be in favor of creating a Category:LGB or something similar to deal with those articles that exclusively talk about issues of sexuality and not transgender). As far as your categorization scheme goes, those people who advocate the criminalization of homosexual behavior are often people sho say it is sinful, so there's going to be a lot of overlap between the two categories, suggesting to me that they should be merged into one, and the same with people who advocate anti-gay violence and people who advocate criminalization. Really, what we're talking about is two categories: Category:Homophobia and Category:Homophobes (and possibly Category:People who are against homosexuality for religious reasons), but of course we can't call it that because it would be POV. As far as Pat Robertson goes, my reasoning was that his comment was extremely homophobic, extremely public, extremely opportunistic (using 9-11 to attack gay people), and very obviously representative of his views on homosexuality. He has also made himself an icon of the anti-gay-rights movement. To me, this justifies his inclusion. Also, I was thinking of copying all of this to the talk page for Category:LGBT if you don't object. -Seth Mahoney 19:14, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, please do copy it or move it, but can we do one more back-and-forth here first?

1. I'm glad someone is thinking about this, but now that the current categories have been used enough to be suggestive of the problems, you might want to stop actively place articles into categories likely to be reworked soon.

   Agreed.

2. Yes, a category Category:Homophobia would be very controversial, and a Category:Homophobes more so. We already have Category:LGBT civil rights where that's relevant: it can include both those who support and those who oppose civil rights for LBGT people. We could easily add a Category:religious views of LGBT and use it similarly.

   I agree that's a good place to put them, but what do we call them? Category:Supporters of LGBT civil rights and Category:Opponents of LGBT civil rights? Something like that is pretty long, and I don't think a lot of people who would fit into the latter category would not agree that they actually oppose gay rights, but that some other concern supercedes any particular gay rights issue, like their conception of family or marriage, their religion, or whatever. Actually, I just got an idea. I'm going to do a little poking through CBN et al's web sites and see what they call themselves.

-Seth Mahoney 22:46, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC) -- Jmabel 21:16, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, that idea wasn't too fruitful. Of course Pat Roberston and the like aren't going to refer to themselves in the third person, so I'm not going to get anything useful there. "Opponents of gay rights", though, seems to be a fairly common term in the US media, though, so that might actually work. -Seth Mahoney 23:06, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think everyone is going to be cleanly a "supporter" or an "opponent" anyway; for example there are gay people who are pretty appalling on their attitude toward transsexuals. Subordinate to Category:LGBT civil rights we already have Category:LGBT rights activists, so what we call that side is easy, the category is already there. I wouldn't object others who have significant stands on the issue of LGBT civil rights being classified for now directly in Category:LGBT civil rights until we can come up with a name for the subcategory: it's certainly a lot more appropriate than Category:Homosexuality.

I still think that the religious issue and the rights issue are separate. Many (although not all) who come at this from a religious perspective are not neatly "supporters" or "opponents". I'd advocate a category Category:religious views of LGBT and after we have, say, 20 people in it, it's time to see whether it needs further subcategories.

That's probably about it from me on this. Feel free to move the discussion to Category:LGBT, I'll put that on my watchlist (and drop your user page). Ping me if you want me back in the loop about something not on Category:LGBT. -- Jmabel 23:49, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Exploding whale

Thanks for your support! I'm glad you appreciated the article and got enjoyment from it :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 09:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The stuart

Oh, sheesh. Seth, hi, I think The stuart is just trying to be helpful with the categories. Perhaps the mysteries of capitalization set the whole thing off. Look at the William Baylebridge History for an illustration! I blame myself for speaking sourly to him the first time I reverted him. Now I've tried to hurriedly write him a friendly yet clear message on his page instead — probably all I've achieved is further confusion. :-( Gosh. Bishonen 21:50, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Broken cats :-()

Right, I've taken a wikibreak from categories, I'm afraid. I still insert them, but I avoid going to look at the tree they're part of, now I know how likely it is to be misshapen. At the beginning, I even actively looked for incestuous trees and reported them on Categories for deletion or wherever it was ... but a person could go mad doing that all the time. Maybe some day I'll report that "Novelists" is the direct parent of Chuck Palahniuk and George Orwell, but the grandparent of "British novelists", which only has two children, neither of them being George Orwell. I hope I will :-( --Bishonen 22:24, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Seth, I just messaged you, before I read yours, and I guess the message above answers your question about me paying much, or any attention to cats — nope, none. No, I wasn't getting at stories vs. writers, only at the capitalization, that's what the stuart had changed. Of course you're right that William Baylebridge will be a lot happier with "Short story writers". Thanks. Now the stuart won't need to, or indeed be able to, do what I asked him to do, I hope that doesn't bother him. The stuart, if you're reading this, chill, everything's fine. --Bishonen 22:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Long story

Seth? I tried to explain this sad story the other day, but it's so complicated, I never managed to lay it out properly. Now that I've heard from the stuart, I think I must try again. I apologize beforehand for filling your Talk page with a tale told by an idiot, but I do need your help with this wretched "Short story" category.

This is how it went: a coupla days ago, stuart thought Category:Short stories didn't look good at the foot of William Baylebridge, so he changed it there, to Category:Short Stories, with an upper-case -S. So I came along, patrolling my new page, saw the resulting redlink, and changed it back to Short stories. Fine, except that I couldn't leave well enough alone, I had to write a note to stuart in the edit field pointing out that you can't go changing a cat, it breaks the link. I never should have done that. He returned, changed back to Short Stories and wrote in the edit field: "I've fixed the link". Yes, I could see something bad had happened: that wrong spelling now came up blue! Feeling I might be going to cry, I went look at the category itself: he had changed it. The category is now "Short Stories". And stuart was ahead of me: he'd gone to "A Perfect Day for Bananafish," to "The Murders in the Rue Morgue", to ...he'd been everywhere, and "fixed" the spelling to "Short Stories" on those pages, too, bluing all the redlinks. He never answered my messages, begging him first to desist, and later to please change the spelling back again to how the Manual of Style wants it: Short stories. Why didn't I simply change it back myself? Because I don't know how. That's the shameful fact: stuart knows how to edit a category and change its spelliing, but I don't!

(Somewhere in the middle of this inexorable chain of events, you very properly changed William Baylebridge's category to "Short story writers", so he's no longer part of the problem. That made you and me bark up different trees, though, when I told you about the Short Stories before).

This morning there was an apologetic note from The stuart, who sounds worn out from the spelling paperchase. He writes: "-Hey I got on a roll with making that category. The only way to change it would be to go to each one of those pages and change the s in stories to a lower case. I don't think its worth it though. Sorry to have messed up your page you wrote though."

Poor guy, he was only trying to help. Hey, doesn't the note sound like he may have made a new category, "Short Stories", and left the old "Short stories" still sitting around, somewhere out there? But I don't know. Anyway, I can go to all those pages, I don't think that's such a big deal as he makes it sound, but what I can't do is change the spelling of the cat itself to lower-case -s, which I think ought to be done before I start. Could you please do it, Seth? Bishonen 07:54, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Meaning, the definition of

I appreciate your continued efforts on the subject. Cheers:

Apogr 15:44, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! -Seth Mahoney 00:16, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Hi! I added some more point in situ - perhaps you could clip what you like and put them in one chunk to allow me to add some more points.

In the meantime I remembered this:

Try to recall how a frane of mind, the knowledge of several languages influences your understanding of the maning of any input. Those selecting words and compiling them in a dictionary tend to forget that soem of the maning is never explicit, it is in the realm of the speaker/listener. This is why a lot of garbage is produced by MT and why some people are difficult to follow, especially if they enjoy using allusions, ambiguity, etc. to create suspension and/or fun (See Arthur Koestler: The art/act? of creation)

If you ask me, disambiguatiion in wikipedia is very poor and concerns only one aspect: (homonyms) . A very knowldegeable translator in Hungary has published a book of the vocabulary of the Hungarian language, which is not a thesaurus, nor an OED type of lexicon, but his arangement of "a repertory of words that explain other words". Of course, he has been atatcked by the academia, I find his work fantastic, and very useful, because it helps me find the right word when I am stuck in a text and not finding the route/thread to follow.

Apogr 07:11, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi Seth,

1. Can I ask you a favor? I just added a section to Wikipedia talk:Importance about 100 year test vs public address test. I'm not usually bothered by the fact that I'm no native English speaker. Here, however, I'm not sure whether I managed to make myself clear very well. So, what I wanted to ask you is whether you could read that, and enhance understandability however you think wise (including changing the name of the test I propose if it is no good English)? Anyway, your opinion on the issue is very welcome too!
2. Tx for your contributions on the Priest category discussion. The thing is quite complex, so I don't think everything will be settled in just a few days - but, hey, don't you think too that wikipedia methods to treat such issues are improving (as compared to exclusively CfD as used to be common practice earlier)? So, thanks again!

--Francis Schonken 08:02, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bishonen confused by cats again (now nowiki'd!)

Hi, Seth, sorry to bother you, but I'm again mystified by the way a category is acting. See, I removed a number of articles about plays from [[Category:Drama]]. Some of them were already members of Category:Plays, and those that weren't I added to Category:Plays. (When I say "removed", I mean I deleted Category:Drama from the foot of the article.)

BUT, when I look at the population of [[Category:Drama]], it still contains the articles I removed! They are for instance The Trojan Women, The Rehearsal (play), The Rover (play).

I reload the page, I restart Mozilla, I restart the Mac, none of that makes any difference. The articles have no Category:Drama at the foot of the page, but they're are still listed at [[Category:Drama]] as members of it. Are cats supposed to act that weird? Is it a bug? Is reality slipping away from me? This is Bewildered Bishonen (it's totally impossible to log in from here right now, usually it's only semi-impossible). --213.238.211.112 12:50, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cool

Cool, thanks, Seth. Perhaps it had something to do with the very wonky connection with Wikipedia that I was experiencing, with trouble logging in, etc. I'm glad it wasn't my mind going. I'll just move the rest of the plays that I see in Cat:Drama, then, always assuming I'm able to stay connected that long.--Bishonen 18:49, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gattaca/Esperanto Question

You asked me if Gattaca was translated from Esperanto. Actually I added it to the catagory because Esperanto is spoken over the loud speaker system during the movie. I also added The Dictator because the signs in that movie are Esperanto. I guess I should have specified that better or possibley make a subcatagory to make that more clear, and prevent future confusion. --The_stuart 02:03, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Me=Newb/Noob/N00b/New/Hey%20I'm%2014/I_Just_started_uh_wikiing

Hi Seth. You contacted me about the changes I made to nihilism; sorry if I messed anything up. That was a pretty fast response. Anyway, about the confusion: While I was editing I was figuring out how to phrase it and I had something like 'a band called Paris Texas' and wanted to change it to 'Paris Texas', I forgot to remove the 'a'. As for the quoting poetry part, I had no idea, I think it's convenient when the lyrics line up in the manner that they rhyme in. Soooooooo... I hope this gets to you and doesn't do anything bad like clear the rest of chat... or something...

This is wierd I've never had technologyphobia or technophobia or whatever before. I think it's because Wikipedia seems rather large to me. I'll have to do some 'practicing'. Mainly: I'm one of those wiki-gremlin thingies. Or at least that's how I feel, because my articles in comparison to others' are so immature, small, stupid. I don't do it on purpose... Oh well, I have quite a bit of time.

Stub categorising

Hello! I noticed that you - among others - had attempted to change the general stub message in Genderfuck into a more specific one. So far I have reverted all those attempts, because the categories you assigned it to were completely inappropriate.

• It is not a "sex-stub", because genderfuck has little to do with sex (the equipment) and less with sex (the action). Whoever uses that one ought to get a grip on the differences between gender, sex (the equipment) and sex (the action).
• It is not a "psycho-stub" because people who genderfuck hardly belong into the same category as undisputed mental illnesses. And the other articles there were about those.
• And it is not an "lgb-stub" either, since while lgb people might do genderfuck too (although most do not), it is certainly not a matter limited to lgb people.

So either find a category that fits, or make one, or leave the generic stub message in absence of any usefull specific one. Thank you very much! -- AlexR 08:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re your answer on my page: I don't think that putting the article into a category where it does not belong does in any way increase its chances of being improved; putting it with sex would only marginally increase that chance over putting it with, say, math-stubs. Putting it with sex-stub, though, does it a great disservice: It would imply, once again, to the reader who knows little or nothing about this matter, that it is somehow sex-related, which it is not. So using this category (or the other two) would be misinforming the reader - not exactly what we want, is it? As for stub categories, I think they are fairly useless. The only use I see in the stub message is telling the reader that there should be more, but isn't. Obviously, the compulsive stub-categorisers disagree, but each their own. However, I don't see a point in miscategorising stubs - if a stub does not fit into any existing category, then either make one for it (gender-stub would probably the most apporpriate), or leave it with the uncategorised stubs.

And regarding my alleged "fucking condescending attitude": Sorry, but I had similar debates umpteen times already, and you know, it does get annoying. I had to remove "sex-stub" three times from the article, because obviously the people putting it there were clueless - either that, or intentionally aiming at misinforming the reader, which I do not assume - and the last two did not exactly bother checking the edit history either. Not to mention that my message to those insisting on this thoughtless and repeated stub-categorising was not condescending, it was merely informing the three of you that there was a mistake, and it was repeated several times. I don't know about you, but you know, I think one has to tell people where the mistake is; otherwise, how shall they ever figure it out? Although I prefer doing that without swearwords, but that is simply a matter of style, of course. Regards, AlexR 20:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Substance D

FYI...I merged and redirected your excellent contributions to the Substance D article into A Scanner Darkly. As it stands, the Scanner Darkly page still needs lots of work, so any help you can offer with that page is greatly appreciated. --Viriditas | Talk 01:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Literate

Literate can also mean well read, but point taken: my usage might be confusing to some. --Plainsong 01:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Paul Grice

Thanks for the guidance! --Jeremybornstein

A little memento of chunking:

http://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/~kermes/diss/papers/03_diss_Kermes.pdf

Apogr 09:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Fool

Hi Seth: I noticed that you removed some info from The Fool as possible copyvio; an anon just added the text back. I've given him a "just so you know" note on his talk page, but could you provide a link to where you think the copyvio is from so I can list it on Wikipedia:Copyright problems? -- Essjay · Talk 05:47, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

I noticed you posted a comment about a partial protection for heavily vandalized articles so that only registered users can edit. If you haven't voiced this openly and are still interested, you may wish to log in and voice your opinion here: semi-protection Thanks!--MONGO 20:12, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Limitations on deletion proposals

I'm beginning to wonder if maybe it would be worthwhile to limit the number of times per four month period or per year or whatever a category or article can be nominated for deletion. It seems like every other week this category or some other LGBT-related category is nominated. (This isn't a criticism of your comments or nomination, Hall Monitor, just an observation and a little speculation.) -Seth Mahoney 19:30, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I believe something along these same lines was proposed in response to the GNAA being nominated six times. As far as I know, no consensus was ever achieved, but I didn't track the discussion very closely. Hall Monitor 19:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Reducing biological reductionism

Btw. I really love your range of interests expressed on your user page... by which I mean, of course, that a lot of them are the same as mine. I'm a Ph.D. in philosophy; more in the PoMo direction than analytic, but I still loves my Quine and gang. But I've also done a bunch in queer theory and that sort of thing; in fact, I updated that article prompted by seeing it listed on your page.

Anyway, in the regular old Homosexuality article, I've made heroic efforts to reduce the overall tone of biological reductionism/determinism (a bit in Sexual orientation too). If you'd like to chip in with any further edits in this direction, that would be way cool. I definitely think the scad of URLs I linked to to prove there really is such a thing as psychoanalysis are superfluous. I just put them there to try to sate the complaining "biology-is-destiny" editor.

One thing that would be nice would be to get in a distinction between "socially determined X" and "socially constructed X." But maybe that can only go in the more sophisticated Queer* pages. There's a big difference, after all, between Foucault and Freud (to the bio-reductionists, there's only iron-clad determinism and voluntary behavior; so they can't get this). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:33, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

Care to explain?

You reverted the homosexuality article to one with major errors. Can you please explain? Why did you delete the hormone section?

And this:

• "Freud and many others, particularly in psychoanalytic traditions, speculate that formative childhood experiences (a.k.a. nurture) help produced sexual orientation. Biologists, in contrast to psychoanalysts or psychologists, tend to believe that in-born biological factors"

That is wrong. Not one singly major organization today believes that parenting causes homosexuality or vice versa. I have asked lu lu and now I will ask you. I want to see a citation for that. Furthermore, it is not just biologist who say it is "in-born", the American Psychological Association does as well. See lu lu's talk page for more details. 70.57.82.114 01:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Who said anything about parenting, or about Freudianism constituting the current belief? The fact is that there have been major theorists who have made these claims, and there are theorists out there today who reject the nature/nurture dilemma. I am forced to think there is some serious misunderstanding here, so let's hash it out on Talk:Homosexuality -Seth Mahoney 01:49, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Batman and Robin up in a tree

From comments you've made elsewhere, I reckon you'll be interested in this cease and desist order from DC Comics to a New York art gallery, and, for what is presumably a limited time only, this sampling of some reproductions of the most tame of the works of art in question - Outerlimits 04:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:LGBT philosophers

Really?! What makes you think it has any merit. As I say in my comment (I put it up for CfD), it's subjective, violates WP:V, and really just amounts to gossip. Looking at the list concretely, about half of them are completely unevidenced in the articles, and the rest just have gossipy comments on the philsopher. What does Kinsey find, that something like 5-10% of people are entirely heterosexual throughout their lives (including in attraction, fantasy, etc). So if we want to have the category, it should really just be Category:95% of philosphers. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:06, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_27#Category:Images_containing_nudity

I'd like to remind you that you should assume good faith in your dealings with other Wikipedians. I don't believe you had any other grounds, other than a knee-jerk assumption of bad faith, to accuse me of 'puritanism' in nominating Category:Images containing nudity for deletion. --Ngb ^?!? 15:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, forgive me, but how else am I supposed to take your comment 'enough puritanism already' when it is made in direct response to my nomination? --Ngb ^?!? 23:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I take your point, but note that I explained the reasons why I nominated the category, and I don't see why those reasons would lead you to think that my nomination was motivated by 'puritanism'. I think the reason I got so upset about this was that inane censorship of Wikipedia is something I am very strongly against (because I believe any such thing a total violation of WP:NPOV), and something I have battled against in the past. I'm sorry that this led me to accuse you of bad faith if this wasn't how you were intending your comment to be read. --Ngb ^?!? 21:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Long time no see

Hi Seth, I don't know if you still remember me, a long time ago we worked on wikipedia:categorisation of people. Anyway, after a long time I've done it again. I mean, working for wikipedia policy. I see you're very busy, nonetheless I'd like to ask you to please have a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), and leave a comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people) (even if that comment would be affirmative! - up till now seemingly it's only the usual royalty watchers taking their grunt out on it - mark that any constructive criticism would be appreciated, even if it's disapproving) --Francis Schonken 08:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks for your note on my talk page!

I had a look at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization/Gender,_race_and_sexuality:

Alas, in my eyes it looked too much like re-chewing an old discussion, for me to get interested in taking part in the disussion. Hadn't we solved that by the Business Card/Non-Business Card concept? I congratulated Reinyday on her formidable update of the "Categorization of People" guideline. I still think that's true. However I didn't realise that the gender/race/sexuality categorisation discussions hadn't concluded yet. Maybe a bit risky to present that in the Cat of People guideline as if it were "non-sensitive" at that point. So, and maybe now I start to think that gender/race/sexuality cats are "non-Business Card" forever (applying the obsolete terminology - indeed who would put "I'm a man", "I'm a lesbian" on his BC?). So, never can take over lists for these topics, but only as a complement for indicating some explicit and undoubted examples.

Another thing that maybe is hampering a clean discussion of this issue appears to me the way it is presented: it's always about Double categories (as is the general concept nowadays, so that wikipedians maybe even don't think about that aspect any more): it's "women + composers" or "male + porn stars"; not about "supercategories" marking any person that has an article in wikipedia either as man or as woman; as white or black or whatever colour; etc. Then one would soon come very close to what nazi's did with people up till the minute they stepped in gas chambers. Maybe, yes, I think wikipedia should abstain from such supercategories, while irrelevant. And I think a lot of wikipedians would have a lot less problems with gender/race/sexuality cats, if the possibility of such supercategories were excluded, and it would be exclusively about sensible categories. Many of such categories quite naturally exist: any "European monarchs" cat exclusively contains white people as far as I know; and a category filled with exclusively "original New Orleans Jazz musicians" (which would be perfectly viable) would normally only contain black people. No problem there. But if then all these categories were put in a tree structure with "black" and "white" as top categories, then yes, I'd think many wikipedians would have a problem with that. If I would I can't even say. I think something like principally no; practically yes, for the hurt it might cause. And no, I don't think wikipedia should worry whether it causes hurt or not. But I suppose I think more than 50% of wikipedians would not be ready for it (maybe even I wouldn't be myself, despite all my principles). So I couldn't put my energy in it. And that's why I guess revamping the presentation of the issue could maybe solve it in a swiff:

• Whatever way it is turned these categories are and remain sensitive = non-Business Card categories;
• Approach it as a "double category name" issue and not as a gender/race/sexuality issue - reaching consensus would be far easier on that one I suppose.

You know, this is a bit "re-chewing" a talk we had a long time ago, it's still on the the "Categorization of People" talk page, if I think back on it: one of the most intensive talks I ever had in wikipedia, and one that made me like wikipedia forever, just for the shear possibility of having such talks.

Now I start nagging a bit again about the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) guideline proposal. I improved it still in various ways, and had some constructive criticism by Geogre and Bishonen (also by Bill Thayer, but that's not on the talk page of that guideline proposal). So I'm really looking forward to see your constructive criticism appear on the talk page of that guideline proposal! I try to make other criticism also look as "constructive". I don't know whether I succeeded that. --Francis Schonken 16:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Really hadn't thought about the Mr./Mrs. Of course that's true, that is: most of the time - more "modern" people maybe don't put the Mr./Mrs./Miss any more; and maybe put the pink triangle; or something else; or nothing at all, except for their occupation & address. Remember that BC principle (as we defined it then) was what people would put on their business card themselves (it is in this part of the "cat of people" guideline talk): so maybe differentiation by gender is BC for an older generation (and thus should be "non-problematic" for these people), while sexuality is the non-problematic part for many people of our age. You know, after the chat above, I remembered I put myself on 2 lists as wikipedia:wikipedians: the "by nationality" list; and the "by sexuality" list. I didn't put myself on a "by gender" list. So I'm "proud to be ... on the same by-sexuality-list as you are". Gender? Irrelevant - and I wouldn't like to be categorized that way. You see? that's how BC principle works: what people communicate as relevant about themselves in a standard by-category way is BC/non-problematic. Not what they only show without putting into words (e.g. how they dress); also: not what they would only tell in a private message, nor even what they would put in an elaborate published autobiography.

And the rest "can" be categorised too, but then with a sensitive category type of approach, the person composing such description of someone else makes an assesment about what are the 4 or 5 most relevant characterisations on top of the self-evident BC classification data.

Yeah, put me to thinking too. With all this thinking going around, something is bound to come up sooner or later.

& tx for the "people" naming conventions comments - these I reply to on that talk page. --Francis Schonken 22:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Seth, I had this new idea burping up: Wikipedia:Easy navigation - FWIW! Of course I'd be happy to receive comments, even if it's only at a very, very embrionic stage --Francis Schonken 12:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

User Categorization

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Oregon page as living in or being associated with Oregon. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Oregon for instructions. Rmky87 06:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Reform

Which of the million of AfD reform pages did you find? (joking)

Just wanted to say: yes I want to reform all VfD type pages, in fact all sort of voting pages that somwhere lost touch with the common ground of consensus. I want that badly. Only: a good set of non-rigid open-ended (or "self-regulatory" as you used to call it) guidelines are needed if anything of voting pages reform wants to succeed.

Voting is the playfield of the unexperienced wikipedian. And sucks up an unreasonable amount of energy. Yeah, we agree on that one. --Francis Schonken 23:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

That's indeed already another one than the one I read last month. This was my single edit at the time (maybe it's still in an archive I don't know - it has vanished from the page): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_reform&diff=20176252&oldid=20175692

This was one of the ideas I rather liked too (and about the opposite of my own idea, but nonetheless might maybe even work better): m:Pure wiki deletion system (proposal)

--Francis Schonken 00:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

CFD Portland Oregon buildings

Hi, I added a category to this Cfd discussion, to be part of the merger/rename I proposed. ∞Who?¿? 19:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Welcome to Category:Queer Wikipedians, and thanks for taking part in the deletion debate. :) --Jacquelyn Marie 16:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Cultural appropriation

I don't know exactly what the issue with my addition was. It was simply removed with a vague edit summary. The editor who did so has been blocked for 3RR and personal attacks for 60 hours (not directly related to my edit), so he won't be back for a couple of days. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 22:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

If the problem is that the editor considers fashion trivial, then I'm really baffled because the entire cultural appropriation page is about fashion. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 22:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Star of Sophia

For services to Philosophy on the Wikipedia, and especially for the idea of a category for philosophy images, I hereby award you the coveted star of Sophia - congratulations on being the first recipient!

Also, if you want to fix this image up a bit, that would be appreciated...)Banno 23:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

		An Award
		Thanks for your advice on queer theory. Voyager640 02:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

My response to your comment

Please see User talk:Haiduc#Category issues. --Nlu 04:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

quotes on gay rights

I understand where you are coming from. I have sort of gone around in circles with people over the use of the word homophobia as a "controversial term." This is not something for me to fall on my sword over, but I still think it is a loaded term and not NPOV. I'll leave your edit for now but let the record show I think its pejorative force should be somehow mitigated or toned down this article to live up to wikipedia's NPOV standard. I hear you about how that's how proponents use the term (right or wrong) so that makes it a little better. Peace, MPS 04:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Homophobia is the generally accepted term that is used both by academics and laypeople to describe that particular phenomenon. It does not need quotes. Voyager640 07:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

CfD heads up

Dobriy dyeny (you did say you were a Russian major). I just wanted to invite you to give your opinion in the latest debate over deleting the category of "Pederastic lovers". It is here: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 15 ACtually there are two efforts afoot there, the other, to delete category "Pederastic deities." Regards, Haiduc 23:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Existentialism and other philosophical theories in popular culture

When you get a chance, please look at my response to your comment on the existentialism Talk page. Thanks. Jeremy J. Shapiro 04:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Social constructs

Hi Seth. I guess it wasn't me who started the merge issue, although I do agree with the merge and suppose that the articles are so similar that really no argument is needed. Velho 02:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC) Was it? I suppose everybody was just to lazy to merge the articles. Velho 02:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The Movement

What do you think of the movement? Reply here. Thanks. --Kin Khan 02:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Translating "law" to other European languages

Seth, would you do me a favour? Just get to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Translating "law" to other European languages and vote, will you? Thanks. Velho 04:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks. Velho 02:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey Comrade!

Nice to see that there are other wikipedians fighting to keep the dream alive. I am just asking you if you know about any frontlines on wikipedia where there are articles of bad quality, or themes where articles explaining marxist theories aren't present at all. The problem today is that capitalism xbury the important information in stead of sensoring it. I got the shovel, but where to dig? I wish you an interesting and a peaceful new year!

Axezz 09:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance

Thanks for the links you sent me. We'll keep the editing going strong in 2006. Axezz 16:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes Camp in Portland

FYI RecentChangesCamp Tedernst | talk 22:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC) (PS Go bikes!)

Link Deletion

I'm trying to open dialogue about why you delete anus.com links from the nihilism page without reason. "I disagree with it" is not a comprehensive reason, Seth. Be a man about this one, and let's come to an accord here, or it will escalate. www.anus.com 18:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)