User talk:ShaneKing/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Re: The Late Show

Since The Late Show is a proper name, I believe "The Late Show" is correct. "The late show" is not. Also, should there be some mention of The Late Show with David Letterman? Yours, Meelar 07:54, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Not sure which is correct, I don't tend to think of shows as proper names, only people. I'll trust your judgement. I have no idea as to whether people talk about David Letterman's show as being "The Late Show". I've only ever heard it referred to as "David Letterman" or "Letterman". Maybe the situation is different in America? ShaneKing 08:00, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Good edit

That was a good clarification of what I had written on agnosticism (agnostics often don't profess anything, or are mislabeled, etc...). I know how on here everyone is quick to point out where they disagree, so I like to let people know when they do some good everynow and again too ;) Sam Spade 05:44, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Postcards from the Farside

Hi Steve - caught your comment re. agnostics on the God page. Did you check the page history? This has been a work in progress the last few days. And good on ya, mate, for keeping up on the Oz stuff. Denni

[edit] Libertarian Socialism

One of the reasons why I study is to formulate my own opinions. I actually don't have a rigid POV regarding politics (despite what some may say) but rather am in the fairly open minded state of formulating my opinions. I think there is a lot to be learned from the failed attempts at socialism. There are some basics tho, that people in the socialist community rarely like to acknowledge. These are little things like the surrender of liberties (often meaning making all other political parties illegal, suppressing speech, media, religion, etc..), intense taxation, and incredibly poor economic circumstances. This is not a good bundle of stuff. While the good parts (propaganda) about feeding everybody sound great (I agree w that 100%) the totalitarian implementation is scary to me. It just doesn't seem to work. And no matter what name you give it, this "anarchism/libertarian socialism/communism" does something wrong when it tries to take my entrepreneurial spirit away. It does something wrong when it tries to make me be quiet, and accept them taking my stuff. And they will probably kill me, because I'm not giving up my stuff, or my guns. I am perfectly happy to help feed hungry folks, and make sure everybody has a job and a place to sleep. I will even give some money to your charity, or accepted limited government services/somewhat higher taxes. But I like freedom, and I'm not giving that up to anybody, no matter what they name their theory. Just my two cents, Sam Spade 10:56, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I ask you to consider the obvious bias inherent in their impossible title. I will never agree (as I said above) to anything involving sacrifice of my liberty to pursuit of happiness. You seem pretty clear that nobody intends to involontarilly force me to. I don't believe it. If you are right, there isn't the most remote inkling of forcing others to accept totalitarianism involved, I tell you that is a deception. I tell you that it always has lead to totalitarianism. And I further more tell you that I'm not really very ignorant at all. I have read The Communist Manifesto by Marx, and I have studied history and politics extensively, and all my life. I have personally known a large number of anarchists and socialists. The desire I have to learn more is two-fold. On the one hand, it is based on the eternal desire men like me have to learn more about nearly everything (particularly whats important). The other half of what I don't understand is based on intentional misinformation and lies, which appear to me to be the basis of political science. I think it is vital to have access to information presented in as neutral a fashion as possible. That means a minimum of B.S. Sadly, I have been finding a maximum in certain articles, and therefore am currently expressing my outrage. As I said, its not about my POV. I also want poor people fed, and other nice stuff. But I will not accept propaganda/Doublespeak instead of a NPOV article. Lets call a spade a spade. Sam Spade 13:47, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] More compliments

I am very pleased with your response, I honestly don't ask for more. Between your reasonable assessment of information discussed, your polite goodwill, and your optimistic predictions and assumptions about the character of others, you’re just the sort I wish the wiki had more of. Cheers (and thanx for the convo), Sam Spade 14:20, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC) (the above is in regards to what you put on my talk, I've since been more scoldy in regards to points elsewhere, so I wouldn't want you confused) Sam Spade 17:59, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Three Canadian doctors were shot....the fourth listed is an American doctor. I added his name in because he was killed and someone was convicted....suggestions on a better way to put it, or should i just turn it back? (good point on the number though...--Marcie 13:23, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion in Canada

Interesting comment. I've always felt that North American countries really don't provide "free choice" since there is often no way for a women to raise a child alone outside of poverty, and is that really a free choice considering the scorn that is put on these women with their children. In countries like Sweden where there is adequate funding for raising children the questions is different.

Never put it on a page cause i'm still trying to get the basics on that page up to date (it needed a lot of work) and then people have worked on my work so its even better---good feature of the Wiki although annoying at first when everything i wrote got erased practically. For a while i put stuff on the talk page for that one and had others write it in.

The material on the women in Quebec wanting third term abortion comes mostly from a CBC.ca article, although i didn't plagurize it...i just put some of the facts from it in and then they were rewritten. The article showed that it was almost the most poor and youngest women who were in need of the third term abortions. Often teenagers that had successfully hidden their pregnancy for a long time from their parents, and those who were poor. Thought it might interest you given the comment (it got rewritten to the most marginalized" from the way i put it in originally). There is support in Quebec for women who want to continue a pregnancy though---better than in most of the country, so its not purely an economical issue

I noticed comments on socialist comments on your page. One thing you might want to consider is the difference between different kinds of socialism (or you may have already i don't read minds). The bias in Canadian universities at the moment is actually quite right wing, although there are exceptions. I went to a university that was well known for being left wing for my poli-sci degree ( i didn't even know it had that democraphic i liked the university and it had a better poli sci program than the other in my city. Anyway i would often get comments about its left wingy ness...in fact i had to fight to write papers from a left wing/social activist position and while i could try and take courses with proffessors that were reasonable it wasn't always. For example we had to take a course in political thought for the degree...only went up to Hegel. There was a 3rd level for liberal/right wing thought, but the 3rd level for Marxist/left wing had not been taught in about 10 years since the prof who did it retired. To study Marxism i had to take it from the philosophy department which is quite different, and it showed in my mark (although lower marks in stuff outside your discipline were OK and my average was well above where it needed to be and the mark wasn't that bad so not a huge deal. In fact one professor spent most of the term making fun of my support for the NDP...however i then made fun of his support for the PC's as most of his jokes were based on the size of the party...and they had less at that point. Mind you he was a fair marker, and i can put up with a bit of ribbing, especially when he considered it perhaps unusual but fair game for me to comment back if i wanted to.

The biggest split is socialist democracy and then communism. Socialist democracy is done through elections with free votes and candidates from all sorts of parties on the ballot (not just one like in the old USSR...although you cold vote against the one candidate). The Nordic countries are the best examle of this and have been successful generally at keeping the economy running and having enterprise. They tend to use a tripartite system where business, politicians and unions make decisions on wage increase and such together. Even when Sweden elected a conservative government in the 80's it was a hell of a lot more leftish than most of the liberal one's around...write me back if you want--Marcie 14:38, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


[edit] re message to Marcie

I noticed you left me a message. It had been erased but there was still a copy viewable. So i don't know if you decided you didn't want me to read it or it otherwise disapeared. I would put a quick and small response it but i'll wait because of the confusion. If you want me to ignore your response i will, otherwise can you put something short in, cause i watch my talk page and that will tell me you are there (it may be you were editing it when i got one...i really don't know all apsects of the system, yet except there was a difference--Marcie 10:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I didn't erase it, it's still on your talk page as far as I can see. Shane King 23:27, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia

Thanks for your comments

You say: However, as I see it wikipedia is an amazing success. I base this on what some might think an unusual source: it's been used as reference material by people's "phone a friend" on "Who wants to be a Millionaire". That speaks bloody highly of it, in my opinion: people are confident enough in Wikipedia to risk tens of thousands, or perhaps even hundreds of thousands of dollars, on the factual accuracy of the articles it contains.

I agree that Wikipedia is increasingly successful in terms of being cited as a source. This however makes it all the more important that its contents should be accurate, reliable and consistent. At the moment this is not the case, at least in the historical-political parts (the rest may be excellent, but I am not qualified to judge). To that extent Wikipedia is perpetrating a fraud on the public, who think is is an encyclopaedia like, say, the Britannica, whereas it is in fact nothing of the kind.

Adam 22:50, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Allen Ginsberg

Greetings ShaneKing. According to some quotes that are currently in the Allen Ginsburg article, he admitted to being attracted to young boys and claimed that such an attraction is natural (digression: I found the part of his statement where he mentioned the Vatican as an example of normative sexual values to be quite amusing). I would think that that and a NAMBLA membership would make him an admitted pedophile? Regards, Fire Star 01:42, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] FYI Entomology

ShaneKing, I applaud your contribution to the discussion at Atheism, but would like to point out a small issue that may be purposeful on your behalf, or may be a typo. Entomology is the scientific study of insects, whereas Etymology is the study of the origins of words. I am pointing this out to you as information only. Best regards (20040302 23:07, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC))

 (in response to your thanks) - No problem!  We all have our pecadillos! (20040302)

[edit] Dispute Resolution

My thanks for your warm comments on my talk page. To be honest, I am no longer concerned with adminship. I am doing just fine being able to participate in the community without it.

To me, Wikipedia immediately stood out as an amazing opportunity. I am an academic and expect to never stop learning because I have found such value in it. Wikipedia is able to bring that value to many others who feel the way I do as well as people who may not have felt that way, but begin to see the value of knowledge after spending some time here. I am just proud to be part of the project.

As for Atheism, it definitely did not end how I wanted it to, but the dispute has ended all the same. Meaningful contributions can now continue and I am happy about that. That is all I came to do. Thank you for your participation. I have full appreciation for the fact that you seemed to be one of the more calm members in the discussion. I hope to see more of you in the future.

Wikipedia is knowledge. Knowledge is power.

Skyler1534 13:46, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Tukaram

I disagree with you Tukaram is great saint. - 67.106.157.231 I have added more details about him. Ok, thanks. I have added more info.

[edit] SkyOS unprotected

Unprotected at your request. Kim Bruning 11:23, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Deletionist campaign

Hi there. As someone who has displayed a fairly rational and objective attitude towards micronation articles in the past I thought you might be interested to note that the rabid deletionist lobby is on the march against them again.

The latest target is New Utopia, which although a poorly written article in its current form concerns a subject that is eminently encyclopaedic, being the latest in a long line of libertarian "new country projects" (and therefore representative of a notable social/historic phenomenon), being the subject of dozens of international press and TV stories, as well as the subject of a widely-known US Securities & Investment Commission investigation for fraud.

You might want to take a look at the VfD and respond accordingly.

For future reference you might also want to note the articles in the Micronations Category, in order to keep an eye on its contents; I’ve been adding a number of well-researched, illustrated, fully referenced articles to this category in recent months, but there are moves afoot thanks to a highly suspect ongoing arbitration of process to have me banned completely from writing anything at all about micronations on the basis that as the founder of one, anything I write is somehow self-promotional and/or controversial. --Gene_poole 22:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hi, Shane King

How you doing? I noticed your oppose vote and to tell you the truth I'm not upset. First of all it came from you, a damn good administrator and second of all, you're right! I guess with all the rush I have forgotten to tag my edits. I changed that and I'm tagging everything. The thing that I admire about you and some others is that at least you explained why you opposed me and that way you're helping me to become a better Wikipedian. I hope that you count me among your Wikipedian friends. Take care.

Tony the Marine

[edit] Thank You

Thank you for your trust in me, if I become an admin. I won't let you down. You're not an administrator? Holly s--t, how can that be? Let me tell you, something has to be done about that because my senses tell me that you would make a great administrator. Tou can count on me friend. Tony the Marine

[edit] Uploading art covers

Hello, there, Shane. I heard you probably like to uploading album covers, did you know I do that too?. Have you ever added infoboxes in albums before? -- Mike Garcia 14:30, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I complement your wisdom and productive comments on Talk:Atheism. Sam [Spade] 23:36, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of which, are you an admin? If not, I'd like your permission to nominate you. Sam [Spade] 23:38, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
My reply is @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#Re:_Atheism. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 00:20, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)