User talk:Stanselmdoc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BOTHER!!!

Contents

[edit] I am offended

I am deeply hurt that you would turn a sacred game into a joke with you people. You muggles are all alike! --Ronald Weasley 18:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bother! --Ronald Weasley 18:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I Will Get You!!!

Now that I know where you are, I will get you!!! --Lord Voldemort 18:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] " short lived"

id say that soix months is pretty short lived, which is when i started seeing a lot of news coverage of the return to the way americans had treated each other prior to that little disaster... would you call six months short lived?

Gabrielsimon 8 July 2005 14:59 (UTC)


Okay Gabrielsimon, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, because I know you're not American. But I am. And I know what my country believes in and flies. And just because it's not on the news, doesn't mean the flags still aren't flying, and that people don't cry when they think of the military. The news doesn't always cover the truth, you know, regardless of what we hope. The vast majority of Americans are extremely patriotic and love their country, even if they disagree with who's in power (which is what the news covers) and the policies. It's the country they love, and saying the words "September 11" is enough to incite patriotism in the hearts of everyone. It's still going, and it's not short lived. That's like saying the happiness of the end of World War II was short lived, because the news stopped covering the celebrations....Stanselmdoc 8 July 2005 15:15 (UTC)

Hi, Just wanted to comment.. first I understand your difficulty in dealing with GS, I've had difficulties as well. I've given up addressing my concerns to him on his talk page, as his usual response is to delete my comments. However, I do have to say as another American I disagree with your statement "The vast majority of Americans are extremely patriotic..." In my experience, people who are highly patriotic tend to believe that the vast majority shares their patriotism. People who aren't very patriotic probably assume most other people share that belief as well. At any rate, such a statement is fine for a talk page but not an article. (Not that I'm assuming you put it into an article). It would be appropriate for an article to contain something like "According to a survey run by Something Magazine, 42% of respondants described themselves as extremely patriotic.." as long as it was cited. Friday 8 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)

Point taken, Friday. I agree with you. The issue arising from GS's comment was from an article on Sept 11. He placed the comment that the patriotism arising from Americans after Sept 11 was short lived. I removed it, calling it "debatable", not "false". I agree to the fullest extent that things should be cited or sourced, and his comment wasn't. And yes, I know you've had issues with GS, I've been following. Thanks for the comment! :)Stanselmdoc 8 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)

[edit] Dumbest Thing Ever on Wiki

You know what the dumbest thing is? Getting blocked on wiki. Mostly because if one person gets blocked, a bunch of people get blocked. Blocking shouldn't be allowed unless a certain amount of people agree to block someone. Because I can guarantee a lot of people who should be blocked (insert whoever you're thinking of here) would actually FINALLY get blocked, and the people who do their own thing (and are most likely not doing anything wrong) would be able to continue editing. Oh yeah, and "talk" pages and user pages SHOULD be available to the user's own edit. That's why it's called the USER'S PAGE. Let them write what they want. Sticks and stones, people. If users aren't allowed to write what they want on their own page, why even let people have their own page? Take it away from everyone, because you could find something wrong with anyone's page, if you keep getting so politically correct about it all. I motion that everyone should pull the stick from where it's shoved and get over it because if they're really so low in self-esteem as to care about what a completely stranger says, then they shouldn't be allowed on wiki to begin with.Stanselmdoc 15:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

And I agree, I hate the First Amendment. Let's just throw it out okay? Oh, unless I can use it to support my own argument. Then it's okay. People aren't allowed to say anything that offends me, but I'm allowed to be MORON, which most likely offends many more people.Stanselmdoc 15:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] RFC on SlimVirgin

I have filed a request for comment on SlimVirgin. You can visit the page by going here. FuelWagon 22:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Insults, etc.

Inviting you to contribute to this discussion of insults, etc. of public figures in the Village Pump patsw

[edit] Interesting

You seem to have deleted one of my comments to the Terri Schiavo talk page with no explanation. I'm intrigued, what's up?
Fox1 14:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem, it was kind of a throw-away comment anyway.
Fox1 16:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Advice on deleting content

It's a good idea to declare a paragraph a candidate for deletion in the talk page for 24 hrs. before deleting it. You don't have to, of course, but people could use your deletion without warning as a template aganist you later. patsw 20:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities

I think it had started out as part of the main article, but was extracted because it was getting too long. It seems a little odd, the title, as it probably should be "2004 U.S. presidential election controversy" (or "controversies"), since the irregularities should really be "alleged". Perhaps I'll suggest a name change. Who knows? I wasn't there when it was really being written. Thanks for the note. Good to see you back. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 13:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] as (is) such

Hi. Thanks for cutting "As is such" out of the Rick Santorum article. I'd seen it and planned to remove it. I'm tired of this idea that "As such" and "As is such" mean "Because of what I've just said". President Lethe 00:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oh, so I amuuuuuuuse you?

I amuse you, huh? How do I amuse you? What am I, a clown to you? Whaddya think, I'm a clown? ;-) Lawyer2b 21:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ann Coulter poll

Hi, you have participated in Ann Coulter discussions in the past, please see here to cast your thoughts about whether Ann Coulter should be described as a "civil rights advocate" in the intro. --kizzle 07:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your "ME!" Stuff

Interesting that you are spawn of Poe. See this. Also, my wife discovered her half-Hungarian background a few years ago, and since then we've been looking into those most interesting people. Crazy (in a good sense) and very smart (some of 'em, at least). I joke with her that she grew up in a wagon (she is not amused). I also agree with you're userbox (is that what those things are called?) comment's about people who dont know how two use apostrophe's. Its a shame, isnt it? (Manny of them also cant spel.) Lou Sander 19:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to here that your eye's are bleeding. Luckily, the eye is an organ that can heel it's self. (Dog's heel, two, I gues's.) BTW, do you eat any of the Hungarian food? Some of that stuff is pretty good, though I don't see anything really spectacular about chicken paprikash or goulash, both of which some people rave about. Lou Sander 19:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please comment on plagiarism

Thanks. Here you go. ____G_o_o_d____

[edit] Firefly: As if (it/they) were

I suppose you are correct that "episodes" is the subject, but with both "audience" and "characters" in the sentence, it's gotten quite confusing about what "they" refers to. I think the sentence might need to be rewritten to avoid the confusion, but I can't figure out the right way to do it. --LarryMac 18:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

How about dropping that pesky subjunctive completely:
In addition, to give the feeling that the audience was with the characters, the episodes were shot in a documentary style with hand-held cameras, giving them the look of "found footage". --LarryMac 19:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Done! Sorry about the "snap" earlier :-) --LarryMac 19:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Coulter picture

O Spawn of Poe, If you care to give me your email address, I'll point you to a GREAT picture of Ann Coulter. You will have to swear on your ancestor's grave that you won't reveal it to anyone else. (It's a JOKE, for you in the media.) But then again, of what value is the oath of a Hungarian gypsy??? Anyway, I'll trust you. ;-) If you'd rather not share your email address, that's fine, but you'll miss a good Photoshop job. LSander153(at)aol.com Lou Sander 20:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DC Meetup notice

Greetings. There is going to be a Washington DC Wikipedia meetup on next Saturday, July 21st at 5pm in DC. Since you are listed in Category:Wikipedians_in_Virginia, I thought I'd invite you to come. I'm sorry about the short notice for the meeting. Hopefully we'll do somewhat better in that regard next time. If you can't come but want to make sure that you are informed of future meetings be sure to list yourself under "but let me know about future events", and if you don't want to get any future direct notices \(like this one\), you can list yourself under "I'm not interested in attending any others either" on the DC meetup page.--Gmaxwell 22:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edgar Allan Poe

Hello! I love your note about your (ahem... "alleged" ;) relationship to Edgar Allan Poe. I'm starting up a Poe Portal and I'm looking for support/feedback (especially welcome from a Poe several times removed!). If you're interested, the portal also has a list of high priority Poe projects I'm looking for help on. Many thanks! --Midnightdreary 17:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Killed vs. murdered

Thank you for your intelligent contribution in the debate. I don't think I can say anymore personally, I've now made as clear a summary as I think is possible of the difference between the existing 'agreement' on usage (according to OneNightinHackney's own words on my talk page) and our proposals (which don't differ significantly at all). I've dropped advocating allowing "x murdered y". Your statement "If their conclusion states, "x was murdered", then logically we should be able to say that as well" is exactly my point. We accept the conclusions of experts and state them as fact in articles on physical science, so if we are talking about whether a murder has taken place, i.e. the science of forensic pathology, we do the same logically. The existing agreement, according to Hackney's own words restricts use to saying "x was killed" when describing any death directly, regardless of evidence that the killing was in the common definition of the term, a murder. Deus Ex 19:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi there

I believe your comments on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style deserve a WikiThanks. This talk of GNL reminds me of a convention where I once worked, where the chairmen were all referred to as "chair" (when all three of them happened to be male), whereas a certain group of employees were all referred to as "hostess" (when roughly half of them were male). It's a weird world... >Radiant< 15:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Reagan article

Let's get it settled, one way or another. Please see the Reagan talk page for my suggestion, and please comment appropriately. Thanks. Info999 19:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks for providing those lead sentences for the recent presidents. Btw, if you feel left out, that I am not bullying you enough, please come to my Talk page, and I will endeavor to bully you mercilessly. lol - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to WikiProject Catholicism!


Hello, Stanselmdoc, and welcome to Wikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help
contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Catholic Project Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your edits. Again, welcome, and happy editing! --Thw1309 15:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GNL

I don't think you're in the minority on this; part of the impression that you are is that much of your side of the the discussion is too sensible to care about MOS; and part is the loudness of those on the other side. I would like the final settlement, which is likely to be a two or three sentence permission of gender-neutral language in order to avoid "offense to the weaker brethren", to be satisfactory to you, as to others. Please stay tuned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GNL

Oh, you've made my day a happy one. I'm so pleased that I haven't offended you, and I, too, am sorry for being intemperate. My best wishes. Tony 15:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration

This is a reminder to go vote for the
Catholic Collaboration Effort.
Support or comment on the current nominations, or nominate an article for collaboration.
Current nominations:

freenaulij 03:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jane Austen

You expressed an interest earlier in the Jane Austen replacement article. The first three (of about five) parts are now up, the main article, a sub-article and a timeline/chronology. Simmaren (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald Reagan

Stanselmdoc, as a fellow dedicated editor I am asking you to watchlist and contribute to the discussions going on at Talk:Ronald Reagan. There's an issue of Reagan's nicknames - "The Great Communicator" and "the teflon president" - being mentioned but more specifically the style/tone/prose. You can see it in the second paragraph at Ronald Reagan#Popularity. Then there's the issue of Reagan's Cold War legacy, part I here and part II here. Any contributions are greatly apprecited. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope I've clarified your confusion on the talk page. --Happyme22 (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Christianity

Hello Stanselmdoc!

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity

The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

You are receiving this invitation because you are a member of one of the related Christianity Projects and I thought that you might be interested in this project also - Tinucherian (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)