ShaneKing

A quick note to say thanks

I just wanted to drop you a quick note to thank you for your support in my request for adminship. It was certainly a wild ride, and I really appreciate you taking some time out to contribute. ClockworkSoul 16:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cheers mate :-)

Yeah, they've been a little stressful, but I think it comes with the job. My Wikivacation is soon to come to an end. Unfortunately, Real Life™ is sort of weird for me at the moment. Such is life! But thanks for your kind words :-) Ta bu shi da yu 11:39, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Politics

I swung by your userpage - I like to know who I'm talking to. Your comments regarding politics seemed weirdly apropos considering the path the blank page proposal thread took. In my home country of USA, there was a saying back in the 1920s: "If you're not a socialist by the time your twenty, you have no heart. If you're still a socialist by the time you're thirty, you have no head." (Hopefully you're under 30 - otherwise I may have just insulted you :->) These days, much the same could be said for anarchism - or I guess any extreme political view, any time. Back in high school, I toyed around with anarchism, or rather, limited government-ism. These days, I'm a moderate by American standards. I do lean liberal - they seem to have their hearts in the right place - even if their head is usually up their... By European standards, that would make me a Conservative. I still believe that Anarchy, meaning a society where everybody works towards the common good without coercion, is the ideal form of government. Unfortunately, we don't know how to do that, in the real world at least. It's nice to take a break in a wiki, where, about 95% of the time, Anarchy reigns. Until we can get that Anarchy, democracy will have to do. (anarchy, little a, is just the mess you get when you don't have any government. In a true Anarchy, government exists - you just don't see it.) I'm skeptical on socialism - capitalism can be awful cruel sometimes, and government is the best tool the little guy has against the big guy. But government is awfully good at screwing things up.

Anyway, I hope you don't mind me nattering away - but I was hoping to get your views on the subject. crazyeddie 08:56, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(copy-and-paste)

Well, I did say I'm an anarchist sympathiser, not an anarchist. I guess my views are a bit similar to yours: Anarchism is an ideal, but I have no idea how to make it work on a large scale. I think most anarchists rely on a lot of hand waving to explain how it would work really. I also think there's a huge scope for abuse there. I don't know if you're into punk rock, but I think Jello Biafra from the Dead Kennedys says it best in "Where do ya draw the line": "How many liberators really want to be dictators? Every theory has its holes when real life steps in". There's a lot of other little reasons why I can't call myself an anarchist really, in general I don't like to ally myself with any ideology. You're much better off doing your own thing and making your own choices. It's funny how so many self proclaimed anarchists are conformists!

To me mainstream politics can best be described by the fact that there are equal quantities of stupid, obnoxious or naive people on either side of the imaginary liberal/conservative fence. At least like you mention, the liberals have their heart in the right place more often than the conservatives do. I know the US doesn't really have an effective way to get third parties into any sort of position of power, and that's unfortunate. At least here in Australia we usually end up electing third parties to the senate to hold the balance of power. That tends to at least limit any damage the government can do. :)

Anyway, thanks for dropping me a note, I always like it when I get that new messages banner. Catch you around. Shane King 23:21, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Woot! Somebody who likes talking about politics! Even better, that person isn't an American!

Although we're about the same age (I was born in May '79), I was effectively locked in the basement during the 80s. Until '89, we lived in a town of about 200, listened to the Oldies, didn't have cable or even a vcr, and were too broke to go to the movies. We moved to Sedalia (a town of 20,000), got cable, etc. Even so, I took about 5 years for me to get up to speed musically. By the time I did, punk had gone mainstream - Green Day, The Offspring, etc. So I appreciate punk as a form, and for its ability to promote political messages, but I wasn't around for the punk message to be a formative experience.

It seems to me that "little a" anarchy is just the youthful urge to tear down the existing structure. It's healthy and normal, but just as mindless as conformity. Assuming our forebearers weren't complete twits, the true individualist will go with the status quo the vast majority of the time - but on the issues he or she disagrees, fight like the devil.

It isn't so much the two party system that gets me down. It's the fact that we've had the same one since the Civil War! Of course the ideologies have shifted a lot since. (I'm going to assume that you've had enough American history crammed down your throat - let me know if I should explain. Or just link to the article.) We're due for another critical election, an election where there is a realignment in ideology, in 2008, assuming that the political cycle holds. We're currently in a Republican dominated phase, which has gone on since either Nixon or Reagan - take your pick. The Republican domination has been really weak, which could be caulked up to Watergate and/or the Fourth Great Awakening. (I consider punk to be a part of the overall Fourth Great Awakening.)

Yeah, the two party system is pretty much tied in by how we elect our president. In our defense, we were the first modern democracy, so we didn't know about political parties. There are some ideas on how to reform the Electoral College being kicked around, but I think they wouldn't so much get rid of the two party system as make it more likely for one of the two parties to be replaced. On the other hand, I think our system has more checks and balances than the parlimentary system. Like you said, there are usually enough third party members that a coalition government has to be formed. But if one party got the majority, they could ram through just about anything they wanted. Unless the Upper House could do something about it?

Over here, to get the same effect, that party would have to get control of 1) The House, 2) The Senate, 3) The Presidency, 4) The Supreme Court. One of the scary things about the current situation is that the Republicans have that control. The place where that control weakest is the Supreme Court, where it's 5-4, but one of those 5 is a moderate. However, the Supreme Court is also the weakest link in the chain. Even worse, Bush got elected back in 2000 in part because he disguised himself as a centrist. When the gloves came following 9/11, we suddenly had, not just a conservative, but a neo-conservative running things. Ack!

I'm kicking around an idea for what could be a "virtual" polital party. I'm still working on the details, but I know I/we'll need a coder to pull it off. But first I have to get the LQwiki squared away politically!

So for practice, here's an idea I've been kicking around, and I'd like to get a non-American opinion on it.

Currently the United Nations doesn't have any real power. This is a good thing, because it was designed to be ineffective, with five different nations with veto power. But eventually, we're going to need a world government that can actually do something, even though that would happen over America's metaphorical dead body.

I'm modelling this idea on the early United States, when the phrase was a plural: "these United States". Say, about the time of Andrew Jackson. The federal government had the ability to tax, and had a small military of its own, but the states had their own militaries that could give the federal one a run for its money.

Membership in these new United Nations would be limited to stable, multiparty democracies, which would leave out China (and depending on how things go, Russia). Which would mean that it would not be doable now. I also expect many discussions over what exactly stable, multiparty democracy means.

Since I'm basing this on the early United States, it'd be a presidental system, complete with an electoral college (but with the bugs worked out). However, a parlimentary system would do just as well.

The kicker would be that representation in the lower house would be based on GDP rather than population. To me, democracy works because it's an ongoing civil war, fought with ballots instead of bullets. For it to work, the various factions should have the same distribution of representation as they have of power. If representation in the United Nations was based on population, a country like India would have a lot more representation than the United States, even though that's not how the power is distributed in the real world. This system wouldn't be fair - but what is?

The federal military wouldn't be able to enforce the majority view on a deal breaker issue against a bruiser like the United States. But the member states who would make up that majority would be able to - I think GDP is a pretty accurate predictor of potential millitary strength.

What do you think? (And could you cross post to both your page and mine - I'll do the same.) crazyeddie 19:05, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CSD Hoaxes

I'll admit, a strict reading does allow interpretating it like that, however to me at least it's pretty clear this is not what was intended, especially since hoaxes are listed specificly in the proposed CSDs (ie as an alteration to the current policy). I don't think hoax-ness should be judged by a single admin and I don't think the people who wrote the original CSD had that in mind. Luckily this doesn't come into play too often as almost all hoax articles (like the ones that started this discussion) also contain factual information. --fvw *† 01:28, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

User:Avala

I just want you to reffer to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Avala and User:Snowspinner/Avala Evidence. I did call what can be interpreted ambiguously, after being harassed by Avala numerous times. I really only did do such misguided steps those few times with Avala, and that was long ago and hasn't repeated since than. GeneralPatton 01:51, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

LinkBot

Thanks for your constructive suggestion - I've added a fuller response on the User:Nickj/Link Suggester/Negative Feedback page.

Quick question for you: Do you think the LinkBot should not add suggestions if there are fewer than say 5 suggested links + backlinks ? My concern is that adding subpages with only a handful of links on them might be over-the-top. All the best, -- Nickj 05:57, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Australian Aboriginal art

You voted for Australian Aboriginal art, this week's Australian Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. Thanks.

Need your expert opinion

The ye olde "Why aren't we using Creative Commons?" discussion is happening again here. IIRC, the reason we aren't doing as Mark suggests is that the MediaWiki cvs isn't accurate to tell who added what parts of an article when. Is it possible to upgrade to a more accurate cvs, which would enable us to track what parts of an article are available under which licenses? crazyeddie 07:54, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

VfD: List of songs with brackets in their titles

I noticed you've contributed to this page in the past. It is now on Votes for Deletion. Would you consider taking part in the vote? Thanks. [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 00:17, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities

Hi, I notice that you and one or two other people have noted that this article (now split into a number of subarticles) is being raised for deletion for the second time in just so many weeks.

I guess I naively assumed that there would be a rule against such behavior. I have looked for the previous VfD but I don't know how to find it (I'm fairly new to Wikipedia).

Would you support a proposal to explicitly set a minimum period of moratorium before an entry can be considered for deletion after it survives a VfD vote? I'd suggest something sensibly long like six months, which should help articles that pass one VfD to outlive all but the most determined campaigns. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 03:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wishing you the best

I'm just dropping you this note to wish you a Merry Christmas and I hope that this new Year brings you and your loved ones happiness and lots of joy. You know, one of your best traits is that you're a person who stands up for what he believes in. I admire that. Your friend Tony the Marine

Happy Birthday

Just wanted to say happy birthday for yesterday. So have you got a boyfriend at the moment?

Problem now?

At Wikipedia:Graphic_and_potentially_disturbing_images#Alternative_policy_by_Shane_King you said "Do nothing now, as there's not really a problem now. Revist this if it ever becomes a widespread problem that can't adequately be handled on a case by case basis on individual article talk pages as it is now." If you look at WP:IfD there seems to be a spate of images which some are describing as unencyclopedic vandal magnets; others are taking a firm anti-censorship line. Do you think it is becoming a problem? --Audiovideo 22:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Military history of Puerto Rico

It's been a long time! I wrote the article mentioned above and have self-nominated it for Featured article status. Please take a look on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Military history of Puerto Rico and express your opinon. Thank you, Tony the Marine

Friendly Chat

Hi, I just thought that I would let you know that Linuxbeak has nominated me for adminship. I would like to invite you to participate at WP:RFA if you wish to do so. Thank you and take care Tony the Marine

List of warez groups on VfD

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of warez groups for an ongoing discussion regarding the potential deletion of the List of warez groups article. —RaD Man (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Bureaucratship

I'm letting you know that I've just nominated myself for bureaucratship for the second time. If you didn't care to know about this, I apologize for the inconvenience. Andre (talk) 02:38, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

VFD: Bracketed songs

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just a quick message to let you know that a page that you have voted to keep in the past List of songs with brackets in their titles, is up for deletion againhere :( David 5000 18:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Collingwood Football Club Logo

Hey I see you uploaded the Collingwood football club logo. The thing is it has slightly changed. Could you please update this I can't seem to do so. If you are wondering what has changed the Australian and Black and white flags have switched places. Thanks.

WP:AFL

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi mate, wondering if you're interested in joining WikiProject AFL? Rogerthat 03:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Regarding Warcraft page

Hey, I added a hero to the warcraft characters page. The characters name was Akama, and he had a role in Warcraft:TFT and as the draenei leader in Outland. However, this whole addition is totally gone. Is there a reason why? - Take care. User: Syroco