User talk:The Evil Spartan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Contents 1 Merry Christmas 2 Artist Pictures Reply 3 Re: Interesting 4 United States presidential election, 2008 5 Please revert that edit 6 Deleted image 7 Xplor international 8 Request for your opinion 9 Barack Obama article 10 Please take another look at the Obama vote 11 Glenn Beck and FAIR 12 Notice 13 Map Image 14 WP:COIN / Xplor International

[edit] Merry Christmas

Marlith ^T/C 05:07, December 21 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Artist Pictures Reply

I'll take a look at that after I complete what I'm working on now. -Brian Alexander (talk) 15:23, December 28 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Interesting

(Copied from User talk:Rrius) I figured you couldn't be replying to my comment yet because I had just finished. I'm sorry that I offended you. -Rrius (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You didn't really offend me. I get a bit snappy myself when perceive that others don't assume good faith, have a double standard, or ignore me (these are the three things that will set me off in a conversation). No worries. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith, really. You had an earlier comment further up the talk page, so it was natural to assume that was what you meant. -Rrius (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You didn't really offend me. I get a bit snappy myself when I perceive that others don't assume good faith, have a double standard, or ignore me (these are the three things that will set me off in a conversation). No worries. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith, really. You had an earlier comment further up the talk page, so it was natural to assume that was what you meant. -Rrius (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The keyword is perceive. I perceived the failure to assume good faith - that doesn't mean you weren't actually doing it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] United States presidential election, 2008

Please comment at Talk:United States presidential election, 2008#Candidates in the Infobox. -Rrius (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please discussion first. That article has mostly gone with not having the images at the top of the article. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That's big of you, considering the discussion has been on the talk page for at least 10 minutes now. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, there's been past discussions over this since March 4th (when McCain became the presumptive Republican presidential nominee). GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you fix the no candidates section aswell? GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I could have sworn it was fixed. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I just fixed it, no worries. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please revert that edit

I saw your comment in the "Mulatto" section of Talk:Barack Obama. Using the word "nigger" just bothers too many people to make it worthwhile. I'm trying to tamp down emotion as we discuss some controversial changes in the article. It would be very helpful if you'd remove that comment or word because it can be interpreted as goading, meant just to irritate people. I'm not assuming that was your purpose. As a favor, please remove it. It would really help out. I'd appreciate it. Noroton (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't meant in the slightest bit to offend. Feel free to remove it yourself, I won't be unhappy. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Evil one, perhaps you could change it to "N-word" or some such euphemism?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

All right, thanks. I'm not offended. I'll wait first for your response to FerryLodge. Noroton (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know any, or I would. Anyone else who wants to change it can. I'm quite nonchalant when it comes to things like words (I have a thick skin myself), so I usually end up dishing out more than I should. Just remove it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, no problem.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted image

Hi, is their any way I can see this deleted image: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dirty_Kuffar&diff=175648731&oldid=175165217 Thank you User:Arthur Warrington Thomas (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You can ask the deleting admin for help: User:Shell Kinney. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Xplor international

Thanks for your interest in our organization. As one of the 3,000 members (and one who has been active for 23 years) I appreciate any further help you could provide in improving our article Mrprtr (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, we can't figure out how to change the name of the title. It should be 'Xplor International' (please see www.xplor.org). ThanksMrprtr (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again, thanks for your interest in our organization. I am sure that you followed some of the external links to other web sites and found the programs that we have run over the past 27 years as a not-for-profit organizaton. An example would be: XML Forum: Introduction to XSLT, Xpath, XSL-FO.

Also many other large, legitimate organizations reference the organization: IBM

And if you Google on Xplor AND Documents you get over 40,000 hits (which isn't suprising for a 27 year old international tecnnical association).

Carl Sagan (in 1988), John Naisbitt and Alvin Toffler (in 1989) and even Dilbert's Scott Adams (in 1995) addressed the association general meeting.

John Warnock spoke on numerous occasions in the mid-90s as Adobe launched PDF.

The Public Printer of the United States lead a special Xplor session for government pinters and organizations that contract to them.

As we build this article and can find citations, we will be adding much of this material.

Again any constructive suggestions would be most appreciated.

William Broddy edp (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I am not debating the notability of your organization. However, the page is unquestionably written like an advertisement, not an encyclopedia article, and it needs to be fixed. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your observation. Could you point me to an article about another industry association that would be a good model? A couple of us have been trying to crack the code on how to dso this.William Broddy edp (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know any others in your field, however, I believe Adobe Systems is a good short article for comparison. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at the Adobe Systems article and went through a number of the articles in Professional associations. My observation was that an article should be written in the third person and that it should focus on history and statistics.

I also noticed that the majority of associations are also flagged as adverts. Is this because their style is first-person plural, e.g. AIIM?

Am I cracking the code yet :-?

William Broddy edp (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

An article not only should, but must be written in the third person. The other article you have tagged also has problems sounding like an advertisement. Quite simply put: the article should sound like an encyclopedia article written by an uninvolved source, not like something you might find on the business's website. In fact, we often include criticism sections: see American Family Association. The Evil Spartan (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in moving the article to Xplor International. After reading the process, it looked daunting.

William Broddy edp (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for your opinion

		Please Vote For Change We Can Believe In Or Even No Change at Obama Article
		Requesting your final opinion on the Bill Ayers language You previously !voted (here) on what language to use at the Barack Obama page. We're trying to get a consensus now. Please take another look at how the discussion has progressed (especially here) and consider what option might make the best consensus, then !vote again at Talk:Barack Obama#Call the question after detailed discussion: Option 3 or not?. Please keep in mind the discussion has been long, so if you can accept what seems to be a likely option, please do. This is one of Wikipedia's most prominent articles. Thank you. Noroton (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barack Obama article

You seem to be edit warring[1][2] over adding problematic non-consensus material there. I don't know if you've reviewed the history and the talk page, but this is an ongoing discussion and you seem to be editing in support of tendentious editor / likely sockpuppet. My hunch is that the article is very close to needing protection if people are going to keep trying to add the material. I urge you to self-revert, and instead participate in the discussion if you wish to contribute. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I am and have been participating in this discussion; I suspect protection is imminent. I have also, you may note, left a rather nasty request to stop socking on the user's talk page. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please take another look at the Obama vote

I've moved my vote into the "Option 3" column, and I don't think anything else could possibly pass. Could you support that option? I think that if you do change your vote, now is the best time, because other people may follow once they see movement in that direction. Please think about it. Link: Talk:Barack Obama#Call the question after detailed discussion: Option 3 or not?. By the way, it looks like Shem is building up a case that could get you blocked. Please be careful. Thanks, Noroton (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glenn Beck and FAIR

I'm not going to revert you (yet) because I don't like to edit war. However what you are doing over on Glenn Beck is not acceptable and I think you know that. The question of how we ought to label (or not label) Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting has been debated for some time at the talk page of that article. You are well aware of this. Your preferred term "liberal" had no consensus whatsoever. Yes, I know there are sources which describe FAIR as "liberal." You also know that there are sources which do not. So why do we use your source which describes them as liberal rather than another one which calls them progressive, or simply calls them "FAIR?" Other than personal preference based on your politics, what is your basis for choosing one over the other when it comes to label FAIR (which I don't think is even necessary) in the Beck article? "The quote is sourced" is not a good explanation. We don't include any and everything that is sourced and there are conflicting sources here. More importantly, how can you possibly justify calling FAIR one thing on its own article but another on an article that mentions it? "This is Beck's article (not FAIR's)" is an absurd statement. Are you seriously arguing that we should use different adjectives for the same group based on the whim of whomever happens to be at article X or article Y, rather than agreeing on an adjective at the parent article and then applying that throughout the encyclopedia? Would you be okay with me running over to an article which mentioned the Heritage Foundation and adding in "right wing" just because one or two reliable sources used that term? I would hope not because if I did that I would be POV pushing.

I'm not going to rehash the whole argument with you and explain why "liberal" is simply inaccurate when it comes to FAIR because they are to the left of American liberalism. I don't know why you are so obsessed with labeling FAIR liberal or left-wing or whatever, but don't drag that dispute to other pages. There's a new discussion about it at the FAIR talk page so why don't you head over there again? Right now consensus was apparently reached to use the term "progressive" earlier in the article. If you want to change that consensus than have a go at it, don't insert your personal preferred term over at Glenn Beck or anywhere else. And please don't accuse me of trying to "sanitize" anything, whatever that means. I've already said (repeatedly) that FAIR is to the left of "liberal," which from your perspective is obviously worse. The arguments for describing them as progressive are thoroughly articulated at the FAIR talk page and that's the place to discuss this further. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have stated before, and I will state it again: the term is confusing. The term on the main article is far less confusing, because of the context; however, in the Beck article, it would only lead to confusion. We can use "left-wing", a term you used immediately above; that would be fine with me. As for simply using the term that an organization uses to describe itself: would it be appropriate to refer to the Ku Klux Klan as an equal racial opportunity organization because they thus describe themselves? (I am in no way comparing the two, except to say that self-descriptions are biased and often confusing). The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the term is all that confusing if we link to an article about progressivism in the United States. This section is an excellent general description of where FAIR is at politically speaking. My actual preference is to use no adjective whatsoever. The wikilink to FAIR on the Beck page allows readers to scan that article and get a sense of where the group stands. If we must use a term "progressive" makes sense because it is used both by FAIR AND by some third-party sources. Unsurprisingly, the term "left-wing" is not really used by reliable third-party sources, though personally I think that left-wing (which I only mentioned above as something you favored) or better yet "leftist" or "left-leaning" is basically accurate. If it mollifies you, you could add the modifier "self-described" before progressive but then we are pushing this whole labeling process even further and we don't generally do that on Wikipedia. Your Ku Klux Klan example is an apt one. In the first sentence of that article the only adjective we use to describe the group is "secret" which is indisputable (the sentence does mention what they advocate and actions they have taken, but that's rather different). If you look in this section of the Antisemitism article (one of many which links to the KKK article) you'll notice the phrase "used to build support for the renewal of the Ku Klux Klan" - not "of the racist Ku Klux Klan" or "of the white supremacist Ku Klux Klan" even though the Klan is clearly racist and white supremacist. This is typical best practices for Wikipedia. We don't label the group or person in question with either weasel or peacock words, rather we link to the main article so readers can learn about them there. Again, my strong preference is for no label whatsoever of FAIR on the Beck article, but using progressive is acceptable.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the next sentence of Klu Klux Klan or Al-Qaeda would be helpful. And left-wing is sourceable. Look, I'm not trying to create a problem. But I believe the use of possibly confusing language in order to avoid huffing and puffing is silly and does nothing aid WP:POV, only to sanitize and lead to political correctness which removes from the value of Wikipedia. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you are getting in the KKK article, and quite frankly I'm not even sure that AQ should be called "terrorist" in the opening sentence but that's really beside the point so I don't want to continue with those analogies. Honestly this really isn't about being politically correct, it's about being accurate. It is utterly inaccurate to call FAIR "liberal." We could say that some people say that, but not in another article and not in the first sentence of the FAIR article. This leaves us with saying nothing, saying "progressive", or saying "left-leaning, "leftist," or something similar. I'm sure we would find more sources that say progressive than left-____, and that is the term FAIR uses for itself. My personal preference on the FAIR article is to remove any adjective from the first sentence, then let FAIR describe itself, and then explain how third party sources have described them. I would have no problem saying something like "a number of media outlets and commentators have described FAIR as 'liberal' or 'left-leaning.'" We could then source that heavily to things like the Times, the Post, TV news, and maybe media "critic" type people like Howard Kurtz (I'm sure he's said something about FAIR at some point). A sentence like this could be at the end of the lead. I don't have much energy to start work on this right now, but if you start a discussion over on the FAIR talk page I'll participate. I hate these silly battles over one word in the intro and perhaps a sentence along the lines I'm describing would calm things down a bit. We might also mention that FAIR criticizes "liberal" media outlets (they regularly rip into NPR and PBS for one thing, see here for example) but that they do so for being too conservative. That gives a pretty good sense of their POV without using labels.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notice

[edit] Map Image

In regards to your reverting of my edits on the map image, I think it would be in the best interest of the article to remain constant with all fluctuations among the maps as often as possible. I understand it may take quite a few edits to completely match up with all the fluctuations this election cycle may experience, but purposely not updating something out of complete disregard to the latest information available seems a little off-beat to me. And in regards to the SVG version, the program used to create that map was through a free, open-source program that is available for download and can import that map to be easily edited by simply using the tools in that program. The program is not difficult to operate, and I for one, will be trying to adjust this map as often as possible to correspond with the latest data that is within the article. There is no reason to remove the map, especially since you just admitted to the fact that you don't want to adjust the PNG map because of fluctuations. I am reverting your edits, but you are welcome to change the map to correspond with what you feel is necessary, despite it ultimately being incorrect, despite the ease of changing the map. CoolKid1993 (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, again, a few things:

1. It is not out of date, and it does not have to do with not trying to adjust. It simply averages the latest polls in order to cut out the odd polling results that probably are not indicative of the real opinion of a state. I try to update it about once a day, though I'm not perfect. After working on these maps for a few months now, I am convinced the algorithm is far superior to just using the latest data. I truly believe that if you try to replace the old algorithm with the new one, the page will be worse off for it.
2. Certain pieces of data are incorrect, which I mentioned to you: South Carolina and West Virginia, at least. Please rectify these.
3. Again, it is inconsistent. Please rectify this. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, thank you for explaining your reasoning for having inconsistent states colored what I presumed were just wrong colors. I simply thought it was the result of laziness, and not the average poll results. Again, thanks for the explanation, and I will be happy to readjust the SVG version of the map to what it should be if you could recolor the other map to what it once was. CoolKid1993 (talk) 05:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In reference to your most recent comment on my Talk page, unless I'm mistaken, and I'm not because my comment is right above this one, I told you to fix the PNG map, so that I could correct the SVG map to correspond with your algorithm of doing the poll results maps. I do not know your algorithm, and have no idea how I am supposed to fix the SVG version to your specifications when the only specifications you've given me is "fix this state" and "fix that state." Either fix the PNG version to the correct colors, or the SVG map gets left incorrect because I have no idea what and how I'm supposed to be coloring these states. CoolKid1993 (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The PNG map is exactly as it read before you made the changes, with the exception that South Carolina is now dark red, not light red. I do not want to make the changes so as to leave an inconsistent map. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

PS. I do not have Inkscape, and cannot download it as I usually use public computers. Unless there is a Linux version, and you can explain to me how the heck to do a temporary installation on it... The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

PPS. I have given an explanation of the algorithm on the talk page of the local image: Image talk:McCainObamaMatchupTWIN.png. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There, I apparently "corrected" South Carolina. Even though it wasn't even red to begin with before I changed it just now, as you seem to think. If you can't download Inkscape, then don't come whining to me. I will only update the SVG map when YOU, not me, update the PNG. I don't know how many times I've told you to simply correct the PNG map so that I can correct the SVG map, but I guess it obviously takes at least ten or twenty times before you get it through your thick skull. Maybe I should just write YOU in all caps and bold italics from now on. CoolKid1993 (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sake, cool the fuck down, I have no issue with you, nor have I been inflammatory. We have to deal with each other; communication problems happen on the internet (and yes, I have found myself frustrated at my inability to communicate with both you and others ). Anyway, as stated above: the image I referenced in my previous post and to which you can refer is the one before: [3], with the exception that South Carolina ought to be dark red. Please change both images at the same time to avoid inconsistency- you can change the second image with MSPaint. And honestly, if you can't spend the time to read my posts in their entirety (this is at least the third time I've asked you to change West Virginia, and I've explained several times about how to get the old image), and don't want to spend the time learning the algorithm which I so nicely just posted for you even though it was explained on the page (or don't want to spend the time even changing the caption to be correct to your new algorithm), then please don't go removing the previous and upload a new one. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clueless as to how to get old versions of the map. I'm not changing anything else until you finally update the PNG map yourself, since even if I did change West Virginia, you'd bring up some other state that needs to be changed as well that you can just do yourself. And by the way, I have read your posts in their entirety, I'm not stupid, and your algorithm for updating this map is probably one of the weirdest and most confusing ways to use the maps. Nobody has ever used that formula in any of the previous maps that involved poll data. Either way, I might as well just fix West Virginia. If you want any other states changed YOU ARE THE ONE WHO WILL UPDATE THE PNG MAP, AND I WILL THEN UPDATE THE SVG MAP TO CORRESPOND WITH WHAT YOU ADDED. And no I don't need convincing why your system is better than updating the map with the latest results, so don't even bother, please. CoolKid1993 (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:COIN / Xplor International

I have done some significant edits to Xplor International, please take a moment to look over the article and let me know over at WP:COIN, and close if appropriate. The article is better now, I believe, but it still has a notability issue, along with reliable sources. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)