User talk:Sethmahoney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:Sethmahoney/Archive1
User talk:Sethmahoney/Archive2

Contents

[edit] Homosexuality in ancient Greece

What I just edited was the truth. Not all people believe that the article is true, only some, and the sources listed in the article are not credible.

My edit was 100 percent correct and you have to admit it.--66.53.98.122 02:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Descartes

What I added to Descartes' page was not nonsense. Upon further inspection of the page, I actually found that it was already present in the trivia section. I was careless and didn't look the whole page over for it. But don't accuse me of vandalism; every word I wrote was true, and absent a trivia section as many articles are and should be, that was the proper place for it. And since you are apparently the head Descartes honcho around here, I'll tell you that you are missing Optics in your list of works. I won't add it myself. I wouldn't want to do it wrong and get yelled at. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maverix0r (talk • contribs) 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for arbitration

I have filed a request for arbitration which names you as a party. --Malthusian (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 13:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandals

Nice one Seth, I got an edit conflict while I was trying to report the same vandal as you. I will keep a watch on that page and IP, but I'll assume you have it covered right now. Orangutan 23:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit]  :(

You will be sorely missed. I'd beg you to stick around, but you've been dealing with the brunt of Lou and so I can completely understand why you want to take a break. Go destress as much as you need to, and hopefully I'll start seeing you around again soon! Hbackman 04:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Burnout understood. Same thing happened to Apollomelos. You have to keep some distance from this stuff, it is only play in the end. Haiduc 03:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Do my eyes deceive me?! ;) Haiduc 23:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-gay slogans

Why did you change same-sex love to same-sex desire. Until I saw your (older version) userpage I thought you were probably a bigot who thought queers weren't capable of love and were pushing your pov along those lines. So why did you change it? Also, I mentioned quite a while ago on the talk page (before I even had an account) that we should start a pro-gay slogan page but no one has responded. Do you like the idea and/or have anything to contribute? Thanks. The Ungovernable Force 04:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Just finished Pro-gay slogans and symbols! Needs major work though. The Ungovernable Force 07:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Limes inferior

You are correct that the original text had serious style issue, I haven't read the stub (but I read the book - it's an excellent dystopia (yes, not utopia, correct again) - although I don't know if it was ever translated from Polish). I'll go over your comments on talk and see if there is anything I can add from other sources (although I don't think I'll have time to edit it too extensively).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand - I like them too. If you can find anything by Janusz Zajdel (there may be some Russian translations) you should most definetly read them. Zajdel stub is pitful, but he is considered to be one of the most influencial Polish sci-fi writers, and the Zajdel Award - a Polish top sci-fi prize - was not named after him by an accident. As far as dys/utopias go, he is the main Polish writer in that subfield, and every single one of his (way to few...) books fits in that genre.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Being a native Polish speaker helps :D--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I did some checking, and I am afraid this short story is all you can find in English.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invite to join/help organize Wikipedia:Wikiproject LGBT studies

Hello. (Sorry for the form letter) In my various travels in Wikipedia, I have run across your name as someone who takes an active interest in LGBT articles. This is an invitation to check out a new project: Wikipedia:Wikiproject LGBT studies. The initial goal is to create an within Wikipedia a unicversity-level academic-quality reference encyclopedia for LGBT and Queer Studies-related topics. The goal is two fold: 1. bring as many as possible up to Featured Article quality, and 2. prove that LGBT-related topics are as academically relevant to WP as other anthropology subsets. - Davodd 21:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool. If you just want to pipe in ocassionally or just voice your opinion when so moved, that's all that's required. Welcome. Davodd 02:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin

This arbitration case has closed. Lou franklin is indefinitely banned from editing Societal attitudes towards homosexuality and related articles and discussion pages. He is also placed on personal attack and revert parole. These remedies will be enforced by block. For further details, please see the arbitration case page. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 18:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reminder

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

— Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 03:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lou Franklin

Hey, I'll pass on to you the same advice that I gave KimvdLinde about Lou. I'd suggest just ignoring the posts on his talk page. If we assume good faith to what is probably an unreasonable extent, it seems that we are unable to effectively explain the arguments that you (and I, and others) have placed on his page, and that further reiteration and recapitulation is likely to be unproductive.

If we don't assume a maximum of good faith, he's just trolling to get a rise out of you (and I, and others) to amuse himself during the remainder of his block. Either way, it's not productive, and if he is trolling then I don't like to see him get the satisfaction of a response. We've done everything humanly possible to explain why his actions haven't been acceptable. When his block expires, we'll see if he's learned anything. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Totalitarianism

Hi. I undid your revert here. [1] Can we talk about why you want to revert all my changes to the article? Please meet me at talk:Totalitarianism. --Uncle Ed 15:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User:TheBill

You seem to have reported this user at WP:AIV, yet a review of contribs shows no obvious vandalism, nor are there warnings on the user page. Can you enlighten me? RadioKirk talk to me 22:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, going through your contribs, I discovered User:Thebill is quite different from User:TheBill. The vandal-only account is blocked. RadioKirk talk to me 23:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, fortunately, it occurred to me to check your contribs :) RadioKirk talk to me 19:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You have been flagged as a Terrorist

Greetings, and under penalty of purgury, I declare that I represent the National Security Agency, and after examining your userboxes, particularly your criticism here, and monitoring your e-mails, phone calls, and IM conversations, we have flagged you in our database as a terrorist, a possible communist, and a general undesirable (useful to know, we ever get around to mass genocide WITHIN our American borders). We are particularly concerned about your interest in Hegel and Kant... everybody knows that's not real philosophy. Also, based on our mathemetical formulas, we have concluded that you could possibly have an interest in learning about new things like Islam... we do not look kindly upon anyone who likes to learn. Please contact me and we can arrage your re-education. - Abscissa 05:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nietzsche und Vandalismus

Straightaway, I'm very glad to see your recent reversion to the article (which automatically nominates the violator for a block of some sort, no doubt). It is apparent, or at the very least an incontrovertible observation, Petrejo is altogether beyond all sensibility. I'm too new to Wikipedia to know how to handle such pathetic situations as this (or one in which the situation never really was there in the first place but rather falsely constructed), and in any case could you inform me how this should be considered for further action? It seems this individual is simply a troll and not someone with genuine concerns, a play-actor of trivialities. You need not reply on my talk page, but here shall make due. I'm grateful for your assistance and experience. — ignis scripta 01:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

While I see the need for some well-done criticisms of Nietzsche, those, yeah, definitely aren't it. I'd say your first step is to have a look at Wikipedia: NOR and Wikipedia:Cite your sources and point out how these additions count as original research unless they are sourced to some notable thinker. If that doesn't work, you can try Wikipedia: Requests for mediation. -Smahoney 02:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The last reply by Petrejo simply shows this ridiculousness I've pointed out above. In all manner, I see no need to respond to it. Perhaps others who haven't mentioned anything on the situation would be in order, but I seriously doubt this false obstinacy will be put to an end. At best, this is a troll, nothing more. — ignis scripta 22:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Then it seems like Wikipedia:Requests for mediation is your next step (or, ignore them and hope they go away). Its a fairly complicated process, but I think they have ample instruction on the main page there. -Smahoney 23:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Here's another fine example of Petrejo's sincerety: [2]. Of course, this was reverted by me. — ignis scripta 21:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I just read your response to Petrejo on his/her talk page and I am in full agreement with everything you noted; I couldn't be happier that you acted so well as mediation. Hopefully we can now look forward to much more pleasing developments at Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche. — ignis scripta 00:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Specifically, Petrejo

I'll post here since it's relevant: Though you might not need to know, Petrejo has left a few statements for you that require your attention at Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche. Things are as heated and confused as ever. Best of luck,Non-vandal 20:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I'll try to tone things down more, it's the least I can do, even if this is what influenced my first leave from Wikipedia. This kind of hostility simply blurs everything that could be more easily solved by calm and thoughtful comments. His arbitrary statements that everyone else has some "hero-worship" POV is really discouraging and incites disgust because it isn't true and then amounts to a kind of trolling/disruption, obviously. It's clear this is what Igni was against, but Petrejo, who, as we've noticed, uses quotations to "prove" points, remains convinced of his conviction instead of being deliberate and mature. I know that you aren't an administrator, but the more people there are that can provide outside views of the discussion can be a serious aid to this. Your statements have already proved this. It is unfortunate uncritical blindness should feel obliged to run rampant through the talk page, though.Non-vandal 22:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
That case you linked to in your post at my talk page is very interesting: a lot of it seems extremely similar to what is occurring here. Other than that I noticed Petrejo's reply to you on his talk page. I can list corresponding objections to his numbered statements:
  1. the 10-against-1 senario was put forth by Petrejo's sloppy work, and nearly every other editor objected to it from first to last;
  2. opinions are inapplicable when they conflict with policies;
  3. he's overemphasised others' insults to obscure (or so it seems, but, even if not, he has avoided them in the past and continues to) their genuine criticisms of his work (for example, my last comment that Nietzsche quotations can be used to demonstrate any point of view, and this he has still ignored: others (yourself too) have made this same point);
  4. this isn't even relevant, you're referring to him as "User:Petrejo";
  5. "obviousness" of a POV in others is not a genuine statement of objection, consensus is the general rule anyway and this seems to be in bad faith;
  6. "I've only want [sic] a fair hearing and to be fairly considered with words and arguments and re-eding [sic] of my contribution": these he has gotten;
  7. this must be due to ignorance or ignoring of policy, it is all "hostile" because it is a false label of others;
  8. see #7;
  9. see #3 & #7;
  10. see #3 & #7, this is simply not in good faith - he continues to ignore others' points on this;
  11. always assuming someone has been insulting him is a false claim - I recall Igni tried to say when Petrejo first came around his comments about Petrejo were not "insults" at all;
  12. see #7, besides, an overdefensive position is not a smart take on this (proverb: "take it like a man");
  13. his edits weren't constructive as consensus showed (the revert war, etc);
  14. he's obviously ignorant of Jossi's act in this... another user (I don't remember who right now) and Igni helped get it unprotected long ago;
  15. criticism has been given where it is needed, again see #3;
  16. this isn't true: you, Mahoney, have criticized others (myself too), who in heated debate became a little carried away;
  17. see #1, #3, #5, & #7, again this is a ridiculous characterization that he had started from the very beginning and he isn't giving up that trite method, sadly, and even so, I don't think outside mediation would help his case at all...;
  18. this isn't a threat by you, it is an observation on his disruptive behavior;
  19. not really relevant, but he's been playing the martyr for quite a while now...;
  20. see ALL PREVIOUS, compensations have been suggested by other editors, who are not biased against the truly relevant interpretations of Nietzsche, and he so far hasn't listened to them but insists on egregious and ill-intended or -considered methods consistently against consensus that would be bad for the article. "Objectivity" is senseless here.
This may seem poorly placed, but I'm not for the idea of speaking to a (in my opinion) more-than-slightly-off-kilter individual unless I absolutely have to, plus he's responding to you. That he added the {{POV}} has misguided origins but reasons other than Petrejo's are also applicable, so I support the tag's insertion. Again, best of luck and thank you for your generous help - we all seem to be in this unsightly mess, though.Non-vandal 05:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I somehow get this dreadful feeling that Petrejo needs serious babysitting before he "gets" it right... His latest comments now accuse users here of using the "Protection" as a way to establish their POV which is not how it happened, of course. It actually occurred due to Petrejo's attempts at edit warring, for which the "Protection" is mainly designed.Non-vandal 09:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, it's me again. Yes, I saw Petrejo's latest reply to you about how "betrayed" he feels. Here's a link of the correspondence between Dume7 and Igni on this topic. Now, let's keep in mind that Petrejo came in the very beginning blaming everyone else for the article's constitution, as if they "owned" it, and continuously added nonsense material that was reverted, which then led to the article's protection (that is what protection is for, nothing else) as seen here. There was, in my opinion, no need to come to a "consensus" about the article's status at that time, because everyone "knew" it was sloppy, but Petrejo doesn't put an end to his "suspicions" about everyone there, continuously "pointing fingers" (like a child: a "level playing field" has always been the situation) but doesn't realize everyone doesn't like what he's doing (or not doing). Keep in mind, Igni's last comment to which Petrejo replied earlier at the Nietzsche talk page notes that Igni isn't going to continue with "arguments" but only sources - Petrejo's reply basically ignored this and continues to "argue" senselessly.Non-vandal 22:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It's statements like this in their unadorned senselessness that seriously irk me. It even more importantly leads to the suggestion that all this is is a POV project of Petrejo's, and his poor suggestions for the improvement of the article are still far from satisfactory (as we both already know). I will continue to assume good faith. But I will not hide how much I cringe at bad taste and obvious POV vaunting in the trendy fashion of idle speculations - and it is this problem that continually has turned up in Petrejo's comments.Non-vandal 01:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This is becoming incredibly tiresome but here's Petrejo's latest draft. Here are the problems so clearly visible within it (and I quote piece by ample piece):

1. "... is often counted as adequate to demonstrate with conclusiveness that Nietzsche not only disliked anti-Semites, but he was also sympathetic to Jews and Judaism...."

  • Nowhere is a source provided here - Petrejo is working from his already poor comprehension of the discussions at Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche.

2. "... (which several writers in the mid-20th century have attempted to blame on Elisabeth, citing her marriage to an anti-Semitic fanatic)...."

  • Again, no where is a source given for this slanderous depiction - the case of Elisabeth's alterations is a legitimate issue in Nietzsche scholarship, and it isn't limited to this bizarre fixation of Petrejo's upon anti-Semitism.

3. "Walter Kaufmann firmly denied any connection between Nietzsche and anti-Semitism, and his view has prevailed in the educated public, especially in the USA."

  • Huh? What? We see the problem here, don't we? It's the same as the last two.

4. "Certainly Kaufmann lauds Nietzsche for being unblemished and opposed to all Nazi intents and acts."

  • Where? How? Is it indeed relevant as a contrast here? Or is it a serious mistake of the editor?

5. "This is because in his book, The Antichrist, Nietzsche postulated a most unholy role that Judaism played in Europe's spiritual history, namely, that Christianity was the ultimate Jewish blood poisoning, and so the Jews were the most fateful people of world history."

  • Is this an interpretation of Aschheim's or the editor's (Petrejo's)?

6. "Although it is true that Nietzsche did dislike anti-Semites intensely, and Nietzsche did say many flattering things about Jews -- things that Nazi leaders attempted to suppress -- as early as 1940, Maurice Samuel's studies in anti-Semitism pinpointed the specifically Antichrist nature of Nazi anti-Semitism, and he insisted upon Nietzsche's central role in shaping it."

  • This whole paragraph is downplayed to the point of POV. No sourcing. No examples at all are given.

7. "To counter views like this it is often cited that Nietzsche broke his relationship with the composer Richard Wagner because Wagner expressed an outlandish form of anti-Semitism."

  • How? Where? Who? This sounds exactly like Petrejo's misunderstanding of a conversation I (tried to have) had with him.

8. "...tutelage under Richard Wagner...."

  • A thoroughly POV phrase.

9. "... was a loud and boisterous anti-Semite..."

  • So do we reallly need "loud and boistrous"? No. It's POV.

10. "When Nietzsche served as Wagner's press writer for many of those years, he would himself write anti-Jewish slurs in sympathy with Wagner, and would blame the 'Jewish press' for critical opera reviews."

  • Petrejo has again let slide a significant point that has been viewed in the scholarship for many years as indicative of Nietzsche's sympathetic appraisals of Wagner (by keeping in line with his anti-Semitism). It is through this passing comment the implications that Nietzsche was "thoroughly" anti-Semitic can be implied, and as such is POV and OR.

11. "Nietzsche exhibited a deeper and more complex "Judeophobia"."

  • That's great of Conway to say, but how and where is this stated? It makes no sense here.

12. "The popular notion that Nietzsche’s sister, Elisabeth Foerster-Nietzsche, is to blame for forgeries that made Nietzsche appear to be an anti-Semite...."

  • Again, where is this "popular notion" expressed? Is this Holub's view or Petrejo's?

13. "Rather, says Holub, it was Nietzsche himself who wrote about war and cruelty in a positive and most troubling manner, praising the warrior ethic and advancing the notion of European hegemony over the whole world. [And the whole paragraph]"

  • This interpretation of Nietzsche seriously needs proper referencing.

14. "There appears to be ample scholarship today to question the efforts of those who would scrub Nietzsche's writings clean of any and all attraction to fascists, anti-Semites and Nazi partisans."

  • An outright false, POV claim. The quotation of Derrida isn't even suggestive of this and is wholly irrelevant, used to assert a POV via WP:OR once again.
In the end, nothing here has changed in Petrejo's thoroughly unsatisfactory proposals. What about the prevalence of the "proto-Nazi" Nietzsche that has been known for decades? What about the "nihilist" Nietzsche? So much is dismissed by Petrejo merely to assert that somehow these "fascist", "anti-Semitic", and "Nazi" views are genuine and absolutely correct interpretations of Nietzsche's thought. Quite ridiculous.Non-vandal 04:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I recently had to revert Petrejo's POV edits from the main article. It is far from clear Nietzsche was thoroughly anti-Christian. It seems the Petrejo-like behavior is in full swing. WP:AGF always applies, but it will be a long time until we see something worthwhile, I think.Non-vandal 05:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Smahoney, things are going still much the same. I really don't see much improvement with the problems in Petrejo's 3rd draft as I had pointed out in his second. Compression was a fine thing, but I would also suggest he make larger paragraphs (too many one-sentence paragraphs reveal an inability of the writer to construct well-formulated ideas that he's trying to describe, and consequently it loses the reader) - that's what the WP:WIKIPROJECT_PHILOSOPHY guidelines suggest, right? Petrejo's latest draft is not satisfactory yet. I also mean this is just utter trash (but I'm glad he got rid of that arbitrarily placed Derrida quotation): "A rising chorus among scholars today questions those who would scrub Nietzsche's writings clean of any and all attraction to anti-Semitism." (It is no "rising chorus", [and such rhetoric is itself POV; and what "attraction" is there?] it has been around for decades! And all the rest [here I mean his baseless statement about Kaufmann, etc., etc.].) Well, I think your discerning eye doesn't need anymore input from me. Please take your time. We have plenty of it.Non-vandal 19:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Excellent cleanup, Smahoney! I did some too. We're on our way to merited material. I think it will fit perfectly into the reception section of the main article.Non-vandal 00:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
You may find this paper by Robert C. Holub (PDF) particularly informative on the history of N's uses for political agendas.Non-vandal 03:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, we have come a long way since all that nonsense was started by Petrejo (pardon my unabashed POV), but now I think we've got something useful for an article. Could you provide your opinion on where it should go or whether it might need further working? You can do so at Talk:FN or my talk page.Non-vandal 10:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We have a newcomer: 172.1XX.XXX.XXX

Hello, Smahoney, I see you reverted an edit by this fellow. I think we'll need to keep an eye on him. This is clearly another POV-advocate and it will be awhile be for anything good comes about. I would also direct your attention here: Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche.Non-vandal 01:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there was a whole lot of junk at Talk:Übermensch that I just cleaned up.Non-vandal 02:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation on Nietzsche-Petrejo

Hello, I offered my opinion on this issue on the case page and would like your input on my suggestion. --Marinus 12:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox Public Transit

According to Wikipedia:The German solution, here’s a a tip for you: {{User:Olve/Userboxes/Public transport}} (in lieu of the blanked template:User Public Transit). -- Olve 22:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My page being redirected to yours

Hi- I'm new to Wikipedia. A user named No_viewing redirected my user page to yours. Have any idea what this is about? (I'm very new here, so sorry if there's some obvious answer I don't get!) Cultural Freedom talk 11:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] black people's legal issues

Hey, I just read your comment on the Template talk:Gay rights page about black people's legal issues and it made me laugh :) Thanks for brightening up my day. It was spot on. I'm sure the page is already on your watchlist but the ever-changing gay rights template is now neither gay nor rights... apparently the term rights is not neutral. What do you think? ntennis 18:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] moral panic

What happened to the listification plan? Onsmelly 07:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I thought I would at least inform you that the article, Friedrich Nietzsche, is going to be hard pressed if a person is out to present Nietzsche ONLY as a Nazist non-Philosopher like Petrejo clearly appears to be doing, and his sourcing of others is already questionable--he doesn't give much attention to context at any time. Is Wikipedia full of such morons? Rhetorical questions aside--I think the article is going to head below its already low level if this is going to continue. Just my two pences. Cheers, Just passing by 07:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Very well then indeed, mate! I was at first unclear of how exactly things worked here, but giving a good look at Wikipolicies has given me the same kernel as your statement. Another thing, do you not find it odd that Petrejo vaunts feigned "objectivity" (which is inapplicable anyway given "NPOV" policy) in those with whom his "POV" finds agreement? This sort of thing is derisible. And yet another: is it alright for him to quote so gratuitously to the point of absurdity? It is after all only one source and there is nothing else he has set forth except more material than is already needed (and this is only "40% done")! Cheers, Just passing by 09:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I concede it does little to damage the ultimate end, but as regards means such behaviour would more likely disincline competent contributors, especially if such a boorishly, and intentionally, bigoted bloke were there making noise about nothing in ill-humour; wouldn't you agree? So you see, his obnoxiousness is more of a problem than it would at first appear, and by that token it appears some have still to rebound from discussing at the talk page in the past. There are only a few who seem to want to contribute, and less still of those who can; the latter is not a real problem, the former is. Perhaps there's nothing to be done about such a troubling feature, but it would be worthwhile to seek a way to correct it (or wait it out?). Cheers mate, Just passing by 02:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The situation no longer seems to require any formal mediation. I suppose my ideas about Petrejo will have to be reserved -- particularly with what appears to be an over-represention of Nietzsche's derision of Jews (ignoring such features in Hegel on his part, for example; or ignoring Nietzsche's derision toward his entire culture and era for the sake of drawing questionable parallels with Nazism), though for all intensive purposes they need to be adressed in the article (but not from a single source). I suppose I'll be around more or less but I'm not for the whole contribute-to-the-project thing. So cheers, Just passing by 03:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:LGBT

Hi Seth, I was attempting to integrate pederasty into the template and have run into opposition, which is not surprising. Nevertheless I want to see to it that if it belongs there it is included and if not, not. It seems to me that it needs to be there on two accounts. First, if LGBT includes all the forms of homosexuality, then it is one of the basic three forms. If, on the other hand, it is argued that LGBT is something other than homosexuality, and thus does not encompass all the forms of the latter, then it still seems that it needs to be mentioned in the history section of the template, since pederasty was the predominant form in the late 1800s and early 1900s when the movement was gathering steam, and was carried on the shoulders of many pederasts. What is your view of these various arguments? Regards, Haiduc 02:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is a discussion that will have to be expanded to include views other than our own. Here's an interesting snippet from glbtq regarding Szymanowski: "With his friend Stefan Spiess, he visited Sicily in 1911 and Algiers and Tunis in 1914. Szymanowski, not unlike other European gay artists, such as Baron von Gloeden, Oscar Wilde, and André Gide, found the spectacle of unabashed boy-love in the less inhibited southern climate to be psychologically liberating and, thereby, an inspiration to his art." There are many other such examples out there that indicate that the clear distinction that we would like to draw between pederasty and LGBT is likely to be a form of pc speech rather that social or historical reality. Haiduc 04:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Deleting Content

Sorry, just give me another minute. I am not deleting any information, just rearranging it. I did delete one line, regarding Kilgore Trout's cameo, but that was because my reorganization made it irrelevant (the previous paragraph mentioned the same thing, only in greater detail).

- Ryan, 168.122.188.8

Thanks, I'll summarize my edits from now on

- Ryan, 168.122.188.8

[edit] I can be a bit a jerk on wikipedia

But you've been way nice in sending me that comment so I'll just leave the article as you want it. 132.241.245.245 22:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's the strangest thing

In real life I consider my self a nice guy but on wikipedia I tend to go Hunter S. Thompson wanting to list Mohammed as a child molester, Ann Coulter as intersexual, and Friedrich Engels as a virgin. 132.241.245.245 22:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] lol

I'd perfer those cat's be switched too but I seriously think they're both true check this out http://www.ramdac.org/images/anncoulter1.jpg

And Engel's lived a long time was never married and never dated....he never dated right?

132.241.245.245 23:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexuality

I would not have intentionally removed content from the article. I see my revert was in error. I stand corrected. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 23:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] is it or isn't it?

Please take a look at these edits (July 19th only) and tell me if you think they are appropriate or not. Thanks, Haiduc 00:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For your immense troubles...

The Barnstar of Diligence
For acting as a source of deliberative, three-weeks-long mediation on a contentious topic, I, The Non-vandal, hereby award you The Barnstar of Diligence.05:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[You may reformat this as you wish.]

[edit] Nihilism revert unjustified

Your recent revert in Nihilism was unjustified. Nihilism is not merely ad hominem as the definition implied when it was modified. Please only revert subjects with which you are familiar.

To anon user: Sethmahoney's revert was not unjustified in any way. ... Kenosis 02:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Truth

Seth, the issue I had actually was with another editor about the attribution to Ecclesiastes that quite obviously was fabricated by Baudrillard to make a point. That editor already had made it clear the tendency was going to be to resist requests for citations and attempts to get this stuff right. Apparently you noticed the action and were reverting a correction I made about it with an edit notethat I'll be back in a minute with a citation. When I came back with the citation a few minutes later and it came up as an edit conflict I couldn't believe it (though I actually figured it was another editor who already had demonstrated some willingness to be a bit fast and loose with the facts in other recent edits). So I'm inclined to stand by my edit summary, which was: "The people that believe this stuff. It's unbelievable sometimes." That's not snotty, but a comment about reverting a correction of very erroneous statement. Remember, this was a premise for the movie "The Matrix". Sorry if you saw it that way. Take care, OK?. ... Kenosis 02:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fix Signature

Thanks. I obviously started off with my cursor in the wrong place on the page and just kept going. Thanks for the catch and the fix.—Chidom talk  21:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation tags

A few too many "citation needed" tags methinks :-) Evercat 23:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there some general "this whole section needs citations" thing? Evercat 23:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation tags on Reparative therapy

Hello. I noticed you placed some citation tags on the first paragraph of the article. They're on three statements: 1)That the therapy is harmful according to most mental health professionals (and this is pretty well covered in the article) 2) All mainstream health/mental health organizations are opposed to it (a lengthy list is in the article, one can't "prove" there is an organization who supports this therapy if there isn't one) 3) That those who support it regard homosexuality as a sin (the vast majority of the supporters are religious groups or have religious ties).

This is a highly disputed article. I would have removed the tags but that would actually violate Wikipedia:Three-revert rule for me today. Would you consider removing them yourself? Ifnord 23:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kmaguir1 disruption on Judith Butler

While I tend to side with Lacatosias' current position that we're better wholly without a foolishly personalistic "criticism" section, we're definitely in bad shape with the rambling "everything nasty, nevermind grammar" stuff that Kmaguire1 has stuck up. I've reported his 3RR, but can't fix it again without being in hot water myself. Aaaghh! Care to fix it for me... my last version with the Nussbaum criticism at least expressed in semi-philosophical tones is bearable. LotLE×talk 02:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit conflicts on Same-sex marriage

Sorry, everyone is edit conflicting. Go ahead if you have more. Fireplace 22:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

All clean, I think. Here's the diff before and after the past two hours of activity. Fireplace 22:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nietzsche... again

Due to all the sock-puppetry there has been all across the Nietzsche pages, I evoked the Mediation Cabal. And if nothing comes of it, I guess nothing comes of it. This is frustrating. -Bordello 04:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Left-wing banter

The NPOV rule is meaningless because it's an excuse to have Left-wing only and exclude contrary arguments. Seth, arguments refuting the one-sided pro-homosexual arguments are essential, otherwise all you have is a POV article. Are you afraid of arguments that contradict your worldview? --Pravknight 22:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{subst:bv}}

Hey, I saw you said "don't post {{blatantvandal}} at all. This is an official administrator warning." I use bv on rare occasions where it is warrented, even though I am not an administrator. I also know that I'm not the only regular editor who does this. I looked at the template_talk, and couldn't find anything about its administrator-onlyness. :) ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. My mistake. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Crispin van den Broeck painting

It seems to me that you're the edit warrior here. You don't, after all, have a reason for the picture to be in the article. Mangoe 04:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
You have been left this message by PocKleanBot, an automated process that notifies editors that articles to which they may have contributed on more than one occasion in the past now need cleanup. If you have any comments or object to this message being left, please leave a message on PocKleanBot's talk page.

[edit] Request for opinion

Hi,

There's an AfD debate about deleting the List of bow tie wearers page. Back in February there was a debate about the similar Category for Famous bow tie wearers, and I see you were in favor of keeping that category (now gone). If you're still interested in the subject, please visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers and insert your two cents. If not interested, sorry to bother you. Noroton 03:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

Hello. I note Davodd invited you to join WikiProject LGBT studies, but you never added your name to our list. Can I persuade you to do so when you get back? I have seen your edits all over the place and think you would be a fine contributor. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Were the Chartres philosophers "scholastic"?

Hi, I'm writing to you about the category Scholastic philosophers: I have some doubts about the 12th century Chartres philosophers being listed in it. Yes, they taugth in a "school", but I think they do not correspond to the definition of scholasticism... Let me know! Benio76 22:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/e/t/User_talk%7ESethmahoney_c0a8.html"