User talk:Sethmahoney/Archive2

For you

In recognition of your efforts and your considerable patience in dealing with homosexuality-related pages. -- Exploding Boy 16:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

May I second that award. You have show far more patience that I thought possible with a certain newbie user in engaging him in a long conversation. I don't know how you are doing it; heck, I don't even understand why you are doing it. I grew tired of his uneducated ramblings ages ago. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 21:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Re your comment at the B-P talk page

Hi, thanks for your interest. But I want to be sure you realize what has been taken out. here is a link to the original version, before the deletion. Haiduc 21:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with a full article, as long as the synopsis is ample and not deceptive as at present. To do it justice it would have to be at least half of what it was before, there was a lot of evidence. Haiduc 22:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

on ling

hi. saw su-um u wrote on talk:like. glad to find someone else into sociolinguistics on here. we need to combine our powers on this 'pedia, cuz sometimes some of the argumnents in sociolinguistics are not represented here enough. skizzno^logic3.1 23:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism warning for Nihilism

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Iconoclast 21:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Somebody already did state on the Talk Page...

You're just upset about it because you're gay. 68.110.9.62 21:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

...And nobody has fixed the article since then, because of obfuscators like yourself, you would sweep the concern under the rug like dust and pretend nothing is wrong at all. 68.110.9.62 22:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the same, regardless of who addresses it. I was right; you are not interested in solving the problem, but enabling it. 68.110.9.62 22:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You're not listening and it is plainly clear that you have no interest in what is already said. 68.110.9.62 22:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to address the issue if you don't want to, but at least leave it a readily available option for those who do. Like I said, hiding the controversy under the carpet is vandalism. 68.110.9.62 22:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop harrassing me and pay attention to the talk page, or is following your own recommendation below you? 68.110.9.62 22:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You have made an empty threat because you feel it is in your best interest to make sure nothing gets done with the article. The fact that you prefer to threaten instead of heed the dispute on the talk page, is a clear indication that you never cared in the first place. What I did was merely reinforce and reaffirm the disputed tag. You are essentially not telling why it is proper to remove it. Let a consensus come out of this, or be prepared to live with the label "vandal" and troll". 68.110.9.62 22:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The main problems are already given. Must we say the same thing back and forth until the protagonists return? 68.110.9.62 22:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You've brought this on yourself, but I guess I shouldn't do anybody any favours? 68.110.9.62 22:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You prefer edit-warring over listening to the talk page? Well, let's have it! 68.110.9.62 15:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject subproject

Hi Sethmahoney. I'm contacting you because you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. I recently created a project Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia which by right ought to be subproject ot Sexology and sexuality. In fact, I was (properly) upbraided for creating this project without consulting the members of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. (Sorry, I just plain forgot). Anyway, my questions and comments are:

• Are you still an active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality?
• Hi! As a member of the (logical) parent project, you are invited to view, contribute to, oversee, and/or join the subproject Wikiproject Pedophilia.
• Be aware that we have had a difficult birth and are considered by some to be inherently controversial, and may have some future controversies due to the sensitive nature of the material in our purview, although I hope not.
• In the normal course of things, I would join WikiProject Sexology and sexuality and edit it to include Wikiproject Pedophilia as a subproject. Do you have any objections or comments on that.
• We are considering renaming Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia to Wikiproject Paraphilia, for various reasons. As a member of the parent project, do you have any thoughts on that?Herostratus 22:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, section header.... you're fast... Herostratus

Admin?

Seth, for ages I assumed you were an admin, and just now realized that you are not. Do you have any interest in becoming one? I'd be happy to nominate you. -- Samuel Wantman 03:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I have taken the case of Societal attitudes towards homosexuality and will be the mediator. Before mediation can begin, we will need to decide on a mode of communication. We can either do this on the wiki at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, or we can discuss it off-site using e-mail or IRC. Please indicate your preference at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. Thank you. —Guanaco 04:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have closed the mediation case because I don't think continuing it would be productive. Further discussion can take place at Talk:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. —Guanaco 05:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

I award this Barnstar to Seth Mahoney for his great efforts in cleaning up Societal attitudes towards homosexuality.

Feel free to move this to your user page if you like. And thanks for all your hard work. --Chesaguy 02:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

A matter of taste

Hi, The vacation from the anon will soon be over. My own take on it is that it is a simple case of bullying, or gay bashing, if you will, and that it has to be treated as any other abuse of power. We should draw up a list of probable characteristics for these people (low self esteem, reduced social abilites, inferior body image, a history of being abused or neglected, probable failure with the opposite sex, high probability of unresolved homoerotic attractions, religious and political conformism, tending towards right wing causes, problems with athority figures resolved through courting those in power, low intellectual and emotional intelligence despite appearance of cleverness, etc, etc.) and refer such abusers to the list so that they can recognize themselves. Now that I got that off my chest, regarding the main point of your message, I have been reading "The Age of Beloveds", a book about homoerotic expression in 16th c. Ottoman culture, and the authors express the ideas in that paragraph (just added today) very succintly. I will provide a ref, but many, many people talk about the indifferent interest in beautiful sex objects regardless of gender in all cultures save the judeo-christian. Regards, Haiduc 05:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, primary sources, I get it. I'll start collecting the stuff, there is no end of it. Martial has a great set of epigrams. One comes to mind right now, it de-sexualizes the discussion by thrusting it right into the nexus of sex: when his wife offers him the "same thing" a boy gives him he retorts, "You are wrong, dear, a woman merely has two cunts." I love the way he essentializes not the body parts but the masculinity. Yes, we should do a writeup of the bully type and (I liked your idea) behavior. Add two more things to the type category: rage, and obesity. You can't help but feel sorry for these people. Cheers, Haiduc 12:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

JSTOR links

JSTOR access is widely available in libraries and on university campuses and is among the most widely-used and well-respected databases of reference material. Even for those who do not have access, JSTOR links often provide abstracts and the first page of the article, as well as complete citation to the full text. This is not unlike citing a text's ISBN when including it as an additional reference. I can see that as an "External link" it may not have the same pedigree as those commonly listed and as such have relisted the article under "Further Reading." - User:CheshireKatz

Graphics

I just noticed your comment in response to my comment on the Star of Sophia page. I haven't looked over all of the philosophy articles on the German wiki, just those which concern philosophy of mind (where I have been focusing a lot of attention lately). There are some outstanding graphics (some with German text and some without) on many of these pages. In fact, if you take a look at the Category:Philosophy images, you will notice that I've already added many of these images to several English-langiage artciles and have put them into the category. I'm sure there is much more over there. The only problem is that my German is not even good enough to think of some of the equivalent names of English articles. So, basically I've already started on the sort of project you were referring to. I would be happy to collaborate with you on gathering images, just as long as I don't have to actually draw anything. I'm the type of person who can't even draw a decent stick-man.--Lacatosias 09:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sartre

Hey, I tried to redirect the "Existentialism is a Humanism" to the French title and I thought it worked but for some reason the article is no loger showing up on any of the titles. I have no idea what happened, and I don't know how to revert what I did. If you can help out, I'd highly appreciate it. Rayana fazli 20:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. For a second I thought I had deleted the whole article which totally freaked me out. Rayana fazli 22:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Republic Request for Arbitration

Thanks for your advise on a request for arbitration over the matters at Republic (dialogue). The anonymous user has recently vowed that his/her "organization" will perform a "wholesale assault on the sham that is Wikipedia". I think I have a somewhat good case, but I'm not sure if I did the request correctly. It's at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. --Kentaur 02:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC) (formerly 24.124.84.133)

B-P afd

Wonders never cease--Haiduc and I agree on something-;). See Haiduc and my comments on the afd for the B-P sexuality article.Rlevse 16:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Utopianism

It's not original research. I did learn most of it at university but in this case I learned it from someone else ;). I don't actually know if my lecturer published anything on it but I'll find out for you. In the meantime, Manuel & Manuel's "Utopian Thought in the Western World" is a good starting point. I was going to fully reference the whole thing once I was done with it (check my article creation to see that I honestly do reference!). But, thank you for bringing a sense of urgency to this. I will do my best to provide references sooner (within the week) rather than later. Also the page is Utopianism (the mode of thought), not Utopia (the place or idea) - that said I think the two should be merged and sub-pages created for the more notable examples of each one. Nach0king 23:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a mighty tome but much of it's well worth reading. The chapter on Rousseau I found particularly refreshing. I have a good reading list somewhere, I'll dig it out for you sometime :) Nach0king 23:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

If I haven't done it within a week or so, remind me about it, as I'm prone to forgetting these things. Nach0king 23:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have added citations and a small amount to the text, as well as rephrasing it to make it look less original. I know it's very short right now and doesn't fit into the rest of the article (which, while it has much substance, needs a thorough restructuring IMO) but I'll expand it in due course. Again, I strongly recommend the book by the Manuels, it's incredible. Nach0king 16:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

*Barnstar*

		The Original Barnstar
		For your contributions to Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. You're doing a great job with it, and I think you deserve some acknowledgment. ;) Hbackman 02:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi There

Thank you for correcting my mistake although I hope you haven’t developed some sort of vendetta against me since you are obviously monitoring me very closely. I do realize the edit you disagreed with me about some time ago was a little awkward and that’s why I accepted the modified version. I haven’t been familiar with Wikipedia for that long so you’ll have to excuse me. -User:151.213.167.25

User:Lou franklin

Attempting to improve the article while simultaneously defending against a POV edit war is frustrating, I know, but please try to keep cool and not, for example, call him a 'jerk'. If he's invented a policy violation against you, don't give him the satisfaction of making a real one. --Malthusian (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the words of advice. At this point, he can try and do his worst. I'm done with him. -Seth Mahoney 19:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I just removed the J-word from his talk. But 3 of us now think the 3RR report wrong, and Ive noted that I think it was bad faith. William M. Connolley 23:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC).