User talk:Scooter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] concern on Gavin Newsom edit

In your edit on the Gavin Newsom article you wrote:

Gavin Newsom (born October 10, 1967) is the Mayor of San Francisco, California...

Today is Jan 3. Newsom won't be mayor until Jan 8. That means it's not practical to call him the Mayor now. Gotta love Lame duck periods... - iHoshie 08:24, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Whoops. Thanks for the catch. I was attempting to find a way to word it where the other user wouldn't just revert it immediately. As he's a partisan, he did anyway. Scooter 08:26, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
You are welcome. Speaking of your reverts. No wonder I got so many edit conflicts last night. As for the Wikipedian who incerted his POV into the article, it's not right. There appears to be a lot of people who are bitter after the runoff. My guess is that the user you reverted appears to be one of them. - iHoshie 19:54, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Which is rather odd, considering that his candidate won! As a Green, I wasn't happy about the outcome, but not enough to take POV in a Wikipedia article. As I mentioned on wikc, this particular user seems to simply be a partisan; his purpose is to list the best possible spin on Democratic candidates. Why else would he edit an article so thoroughly as to delete the name of the person his candidate defeated? Scooter 21:29, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Looks like the guy you reverted is a Democratic Party hack. As for the bitterness I interfered in my last message, I got the info from this Chronicle story:
The election may be over, but the sparring between San Francisco Mayor-elect Gavin Newsom and defeated rival Matt Gonzalez shows no sign of letting up.
From what I've read, the bitterness is between Gonzlez and Newsom, not the other way round. Sorry for the confusion. As to the article, I am writing Newsom's office in order to use a photo. - iHoshie 01:13, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
As far as this guy is concerned, yes, he has some terrific problems with NPOV, and I hope some action - either by him, in learning some balance, or by administrators, in making sure he doesn't damage anything else - is taken soon. As far as Gonzalez is concerned, good. Personally, I'd love to see a Green put the screws to Newsom. :-) Scooter 02:18, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Large images

I saw that you listed Image:Gwbasketball.JPG on images for deletion, citing that it is too large. You you display the image separately by linking to [[Media:Gwbasketball.JPG]] like Larger size (and preferably under a smaller version if one exists). Hope this helps, Jiang 00:31, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Letter to ChrisDJackson

Scooter,

I have posted a draft of a letter I wanted to send to the guy who made a ruckus out of the Newsom article. It's on Jiang's Talk page. Comments? -- iHoshie 11:52, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] AMORC Peer Review

Thank you for your comments on Talk:Ancient Mystical Order Rosae Crucis. They are helpful and I have answered there. Peace Profound, Optim 05:09, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) (?)

[edit] Thank you

I appreciate your kind wisdom on talk:atheism, and I will take your advice. Jack 07:06, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I didn't get the impression that you thought that I had conducted myself incorrectly; Just making sure about the accuracy of the description of the contentious issues on the talk page. I try to hold myself to the standard of judging every edit for its worth, no matter who it is from. But I admit that it is a very hard thing to do, and I have failed often by judging edits based on who made them. --snoyes 05:46, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, unfortunately it has much too little content due to my incessant Wikipedia editing. ;-) --snoyes 03:04, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Belanger

Paid and paid. Thanks for the work! -- Matty j 03:52, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)

Oops! I just reverted your deletion re David Cobb's announcement on the 2004 presidential election page by accident along with another revert. You suggested there might be compromise language. What was your objection to the entry I made? [[User:Mcarling|Mcarling}} 22:15, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A comment left on my User page

    • lysdexia's reply: Non sequitur, science and religion must overlap and override. I rightly claim that no one can follow a religion without being a fundamentalist; otherwise, it's only part-religion-part-humanism. Religion and science make incompatible statements.
My reply: I can only guess that lysdexia hasn't followed a religion before—or perhaps science is hir religion. My religion is a tool for deeper introspection. The certainties which it provides to me have nothing (much) to do with the natural world, so I don't accept that this is a "right claim". I do hope, however, that lysdexia finds the answers that sie needs in hir life. - Scooter 07:21, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What do you mean by follow? I'm more likely to start one, though I intend not to. The natural and nonnatural worlds run together; they cannot be sundered. Scooter, what would you do if I did find the answers and it turns out they destroy yours? I have torn apart many "certainties" that people have had, from and in many backgrounds, and they could not fight back. Faith is not limited to the nonnatural; that is why it must either override or be overridden by science. Religion is not eschatology, spiritualism, or theology. You'd better review the meanings of those before you throw around pop words and call them your own. lysdexia 00:30, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: lysdexia's edits: I've been trying to keep an eye on this user's contributions; some of them appear to be motivated by a preference towards certain spelling or usage, even when that preference is at odds with generally-accepted standard English [1], or with basic human perception [2] [3]. Lysdexia has corrected many instances of genuinely wrong spelling or usage, for which (s)he should be commended, but the almost mechanical replacement of certain words with others ("their" with "one's", for instance) can lead to a significant alteration in meaning, as it did here. Adding rebuttals to user pages (instead of talk pages) seemed to be overstepping, but I thought I should leave it to you after I reverted it once. I think you handled it well. -- Wapcaplet 16:52, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Question

Thanks for your questions, the fact you've asked means at least one person read my candidate statement. :) I responded on my user page, since I thought other people might like to read it. You can find my response here

[edit] Jesusland maps - Cool, but...

The 'Jesusland' maps are cool! However, I have a problem with the colors. You have the "United States of Canada" part colored as light coral or #F08080 and Jesusland as light green or #90EE90. (the colors are close guesses). Have you thought of putting the "United States of Canada" as 87CEFA (light blue)? It looks like this:

foo

Have you also thought of keeping the F08080 (light coral) color and using it for "Jesusland"? It looks like this:

bar

This would be keeping with the red state/blue state paradigm. Thanks! - Hoshie 12:19, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Election question

My response is on User talk:Mirv/Arbitration election. —No-One Jones 06:05, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 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 2000 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:

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)

[edit] Triskelion

Hi Scooter!

I have begun the article on Triskelion - would you care to expand on it? Or you could send me (use the addy that I use for the Weasel Patrol) the stuff that you used to have on your website (you do have a back-up copy, I assume)? --Palnatoke 08:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, thanks. Obviously I was a bit wary of doing it. The information is on my Web page. - Scooter 17:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey, there, Steve. Didn't know you were a fellow Wikipedian. I also added a bit to the triskelion page (quickie synopsis of some of the rules) and added a bit of linkage and other wikifying stuff. Sounds like a fast-moving game. Anyway, good to meet you (virtually) here as well as in politics. Deirdre 16:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of 'green wikipedians' category

Hi. I saw you're (like me) listed in this category which is up for deletion. Hoped you'd like to vote in favor of keeping it... Thanks! Larix 02:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for voting! Larix 16:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Putting two and two together

Hmmm... "Scooter". Maryland. Soccer. Tea. Green politics. "Steve". Do the words "Port Colice" mean anything to you? Grutness...wha? 11:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC) (James in New Zealand)

One could add FOTW, if one wanted. --Palnatoke 09:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
looks like we're slowly taking over Wikipedia! :) Grutness...wha? 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I could mention {{User FOTWer}} ... :-) --Palnatoke 09:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Who's this then?

I'm still at the embarrassment stage about it - there are far more worthy people that don't have articles yet, but apparently I was a redlink on several pages, so someone decided I needed an article. They seem to have used the "non-article" I wrote as a user subpage as a basis for it. I wondered if it was that article was about the same Steve Kramer... shouldn't you have {{Notable Wikipedian}} on the talk page of the article :)? Grutness...wha? 07:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I ended up taking it to AfD myself - I just wasn't sure I was notable enough. The vote was closer than I expected (5-3), but the general idea was "delete with no objection to re-creation later if I become more well-known", which is pretty much what I expected. Grutness...wha? 21:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/c/o/User_talk%7EScooter_6802.html"