User talk:Ramsquire

Archives
1,2,3,4,5

Workspace

FNC

Appreicate the note... protecting the page is quite the wrong reaction... the admin refused to issue the block, and then threatened blocking everyone because of an unrelated issue. What's the project coming to?  ;-p /Blaxthos 22:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No harm no foul. I believe AuburnPilot to be pretty reasonable, and I will ask him about his "support" (I missed that comment). This guy is definitely on a power trip, I'm just not sure how to proceed -- he's giving legitimacy to editors who are more concerned with pushing an agenda than following our policies. In any case, giving up is not the answer -- that attitude will guarantee that this little experiment is won by those who will destroy it. /Blaxthos 00:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My edit summary was to the subject of the post, and not you. You did the right thing. The summary was just in case the post happened to roll across his eyes. I'm not giving up yet, but, let me just say, that sometimes I wish I could meet people face to face to have these discussions. A lot more can be done when someone isn't hiding behind a keyboard and computer screen. I am pretty certain the events of these last few hours probably wouldn't have occurred in a face to face sit down. AuburnPilot's support is in the ANI section, which mage me agree to drop it. Although, these later comments by this guy make me pick it up again. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm done for now. See comments on the talk page. Good luck, should you decide to stick with it. Let me know if there is any real progress or effort (RFC, etc)... /Blaxthos 03:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes

Are you insane? Return of the Jedi was the best of the Star Wars films. By the way, I have stolen your separation of church and state userbox. --JHP 21:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me started with ROTJ :) ...outside of Vader, Luke and the Emperor, that storyline made no sense. One word sums it up... EWOKS! Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You hate Ewoks?! Do you hate Jawas too? ;-) --JHP 23:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Your Feedback on NPOV/POV

Thanks for your comments on Gamaliel's talk page. I left a response there. You have an interesting user page. You also have a warped sense of humor, with which I can identify. I even identify with some of your political views. I would have to respectfully disagree with your support of the un-Constitutional notion of "Separation of Church and State" (which was taken out of context by the Warren Court from the writings of Jefferson, and are not to be found in the Constitution). However, that's what makes America great: we can respectfully disagree without getting nasty about it! <smile> Sdth 03:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I agree with your opposition to a state-established religion, which IS found in the Constitution. I am just very careful to make that distinction. Thanks again. Sdth 16:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Attack of the anons

Do you think semi-protection is warranted in Lee Harvey Oswald?--Mantanmoreland 21:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. An admin stepped in and did the deed.--Mantanmoreland 22:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

FNC/Referree

I appreciate your effort at quelling the argument, however I think these sorts of things could be more permenantly settled if everyone participated in sharing their opinion instead of watching two guys fight and then saying "you guys shouldn't fight." I noted at the top of the summary section that the RFC was effectively closed with consensus being to remove the image entirely, my only intent in continuing the discussion was to try and get the community (read: beyond the editor or two who have been fighting this from the beginning) to actually take up the issue instead of covering it with a bandaid or ignoring it completely (which is what happened anyway). If more of you would stand up and say "this is what I think about the content" instead of just trying to find a quick fix, I think we could erradicate a lot of the bullshit and trolling that continues to plague us. I think you've seen (many times) that I'm certainly willing to re-evaluate my position when it appears the community feels differently than I do, and it's my hope and belief that when trolls (even those with what they believe are the best intentions) see that they're just flat out wrong they'll be less willing to cause such tomfoolery. /Blaxthos 18:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I don't like to feed the trolls. I am pretty confident that people like OutforthePeople, Arzel, Tom will not listen to any dissenting viewpoint from theirs. So, if they are violating policy, I will step in and give opinion, but I don't want to legitimize their nitpicking in situations where nothing is gained by going to the mat. If they wanted to change article content, I'd stand right by you. But since it was about an image, why stress yourself out. The other thing is, I was not actively following the discussion (I'm dealing with a troll/sockpuppet/anon and another misguided admin who thankfully has seen the light on the other articles I edit here) the reason I stepped in is that Cogswobble had gone into a very childish "well if you say so" mode, which told me that he had nothing else to add. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you're right (in all of your points). I just think that the "social shaming" aspect is what's being neglected in this case. Is it more likely they'll stop if the meat of their nitpicking is ignored, or if a majority of editors point out that they're wrong/childish/etc.? I don't know... different approaches I suppose. In the end, though, I recognize that if the community writ large doesn't also actively jump in and honestly address the issues (which they did not, IMHO) then it just ends up making me look bad for pressing it (which is what, I'm afraid, happened here). "Being right is no excuse", eh?  ;-) Point taken. /Blaxthos 19:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry you don't look bad. I believe most of the community agreed with your position, but just couldn't get as worked up over an image. BTW-- the FAQ has been taken down again. It is interesting on the FoxNews page. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate the words of support -- by and large, I'm so avid because I am confident that the community supports my interpretation. The micro issue may be the image, but the macro issue is the bullshit that was used to force its deletion. I don't care so much about the image as I do about the blatant wikilawyering/policyshopping that is used to try and justify removal (read: censorship). Why doesn't the community step up to the plate? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, no? /Blaxthos 22:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering the developments of today (tushie still sore), I am more inclined to be more pro-active in these areas. I'm more of a "give them enough rope to hang themselves" kind of guy, but I do see your point. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, isn't the timing ironic? I recognize the wisdom in the enough rope to hang themselves argument, but all the rope in the world does no good if no one is willing to say "enough is enough" and attach it to a set of gallows. It was, however, very thoughtful for Arzel to go ahead and prove my point for me.  ;-) /Blaxthos 23:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)