User talk:Peace Inside

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Welcome!

Hello, Peace Inside, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --MONGO 06:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for the warm welcome, Mongo. You seem familiar. Do I know you from some place? --Peace Inside 06:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote for my adminship

Thank you for joining the Yamla Adminship Collective. Your cheque is in the mail. Hehe, just kidding. I must say, the votes are making me happy. :) --Yamla 23:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Unsigned" template

Hi there, I noticed from your post here that there might have been some confusion on the use of this template. It's an important Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages. When someone forgets to sign a comment, the conversation might become confusing to the reader and difficult to tell who said what. The unsigned template can be inserted to help the reader. When using it, however, one doesn't need to actually sign that they have inserted the template. This is rather superfluous because they really didn't contribute anything and might make things even more confusing! Hope this clears things up. Mrtea (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When proposing something for others to give their opinion on, the proposal itself should be made from a neutral point of view and not signed because it is representing everyone. Those adding their POV thoughts about the proposal should sign their POV. See the Wikipedia:Requests for comment pages for examples. --Peace Inside 22:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that does apply to RfC issues, but Template talk:User GWB isn't one of those is it? Users don't sign the RfC links because they are representing a neutral POV in the dispute. Talk pages are different, and what you posted wasn't in RfC fashion anyway. If it's not there already, why don't you use RfC for that template. Mrtea (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you what, Mrtea. I won't impose my reality on you if you don't impose yours on me. Okay? --Peace Inside 06:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despotism?

Hardly. There's simply a larger background to the situation of which you're apparently unaware. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zen-master for details. R adiant _>|< 22:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Despot" is not synonymous with "bad guy." Despotism refers to a tightly knit group that rules with absolute power. Whether or not Zen-master deserves to have his opinions quashed, it doesn't change the fact that you do so with absolute power. There is no viable method for me or any other non-administrator to stop you no matter how corrupt your methods become to the neutrality of this project.

Just because you are part of a system of despotism and have ample opportunity to use your powers for corrupt purposes, however, doesn't mean that you do so. I'm just saying that, because there is no system of arbitrator accountability, it doesn't matter if Zen-master is guilty or innocent. The result is the same. *Peace Inside 22:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply not true. Most people here are perfectly reasonable and willing to discuss matters in a civil way. Failing that, any admin action can be contested by contacting other admins (what, you think we're all a cabal here?), or if that fails, to the ArbCom. And any ArbCom action can be contested to the Board, or to Jimbo. So we're really a monarchy here, and you should talk to its king. I think you're confusing the right to an appeal with the non-existent right to have that appeal granted; I'm sure that Zenny made that confusion. R adiant _>|< 22:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchies are generally more stable than dictatorships, but they lack neutrality. In a monarchy, more power translates into more control over content. You might argue that a better editor should have more control of content, but administrators here don't seem to be chosen for their editing prowess. As I'm sure you know, an editor only gets promoted if he plays ball with the existing administrators. The result is that the administrative body has a distinct bias that manifests itself in the articles. It takes a very empathetic person to see his "truth" as an opinion no more viable to society than that of any other person, and an even stronger person to resist the natural urge to push an agenda by any means at his disposal. So far, I have read of one person in the history of the world strong enough to do it. You may argue that things didn't turn out very well for Jesus in the end, and that he should have used his powers to force others to adopt the truth he believed with all his heart, but Jesus had the great peace inside that comes only through realization of God's most fundamental gift: freedom that cannot be taken away. No matter what you do to someone, his mind will always be free. He will always be able to choose between all options physically available to him, regardless of the coercion you levy at him. With all of the power Jesus had, he still allowed consensus of the group to determine his physical fate, but he never allowed the threats of others to stifle his freedom of expression.

I have found that I am as powerful as Jesus in my ability express my beliefs without anyone being able to stop me. In fact, this power belongs to everybody. Those who paint themselves as victims, claiming that someone "forced" them to do something, are lying to themselves or others. God puts a firewall around our brains that nobody in the history of the world has been able to hack. If someone is in our brains, it is because we have allowed them to come in and refuse to kick them out.

The most frustrating thing in the world must be trying to hack the brain of someone who is aware of the impenetrability of that firewall. Under no circumstances can you control me or anyone else who doesn't want to be controlled. For us, your systems of punishment are meaningless because nothing you can use as coercion is more important than our freedom. The more you leverage your power to keep your small band of biased administrators in control of Wikipedia's content, the more people will realize that you haven't the means to do it. All we have to do is say that we don't recognize your authority to act outside consensus or to enforce the edicts of your small group of friends. Your job as administrator gives you more tools to use, but those tools are a broom, mop and bucket. According to Jimbo's words on what an administrator does, you've signed up to be janitor, not ruler. I, for one, refuse to treat you as anything more than a fellow editor who happens to have additional janitorial duties. When you start acting like you have the right to tell me what to do or what content needs to be on articles, don't be surprised if I remind you that you aren't a Duke of some Monarchy. The thing you're holding isn't a sceptre; it's a mop. *Peace Inside 01:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice monologue, but entirely missing both the point and the background information I've pointed to earlier. R adiant _>|< 11:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the background information you provided, but I disagree with your conclusion. It appears that you are relying on ever higher degrees of authority to counteract human foibles. The higher authorities, however, are still human. Who will counteract their prejudice and predisposition toward personal POV? Even if Jimbo were able to micromanage everything, I have several examples of his natural human bias as well.

If there is one thing that history keeps demonstrating above all others, it is that in the end, all systems based on artificial inequality will fail. Wikipedia certainly fits the definition of a "single person or tightly knit group which rules with absolute power." It shows in the bias of its articles. *Peace Inside 21:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Browncoats.nl image

I take it you haven't seen Serenity yet? Your question would be answered there. --SarekOfVulcan 22:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it a long time ago, but I can't remember seeing that image. My girlfriend can't remember it either. Will you give me a hint? *Peace Inside 23:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space Westerns

Hmm... I had a look - I'm not sure that relativism is going to help you there - there's a fairly established genre of "space westerns" isn't there? Starwars, Blade Runner, etc? Despite being a movie buff (though not one as assiduous as you, I'm sure) I've never come across the term "science fiction western" (as distinct from "Space Western" before. I guess you can try to coin it, but it's a bit of a dog... It'll never catch on... ElectricRay 23:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that I didn't write any of the Space Science Fiction article, so I have no bias toward it. I merely copied the shows it listed to a category.

I've been researching this on google today. From what I can tell, the few people who use "Science Fiction Western" have expanded the term from "Space Western" to encompass all science fiction that has a Western style of story writing. Blade Runner, for instance, didn't take place in space, so it technically couldn't called a "Space Western," but it could be called a "Science Fiction Western." This is where the balance of linguistic prescription and description come into play. "Space Western" doesn't accurately reflect all of the similar shows we want to put in that category since many of them don't have anything to do with space. In order to use "Space Western" we either have to drop shows like Blade Runner or admit that our term doesn't really match the context. If we keep the term "Science Fiction Western," however, most people will say that they've never heard of it and won't know what it means. For the purpose of creating a better language, what is the most useful way to delineate the relative importance of these prescriptive and descriptive elements when we can't have both? *Peace Inside 01:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok. it's not something I can get terribly excited about, to be honest. Perhaps I am missing something? ElectricRay 08:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion of Space Westerns on the surface may seem to have nothing to do with economics and politics but underneath, linguistic prescription is the key to both. When you control a country's language, you manipulate the way people think and communicate. Domination of their politics and economy becomes easy when the people lose their ability to convey meaningful information.

Creating taboo words, terms and subjects is fundamental to an internal political/economic coup. For instance, here in the United States, it is impossible to discuss comparisons of economic ideologies with many people because some of those ideologies are considered evil. How can an economic system be evil? --Peace Inside 17:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can anything be evil, indeed - since Bentham that idea has been nonsense on stilts. It cracks me up that the US purports to be the land of the free and the laissez-faire capital of the known world, when it's nothing of the sort. Its securities and tax laws, for example, which govern its (and by extraterritorial application, the rest of the known world's) capital markets - surely the greatest bastion of the free market - are the most complex, arcane and inhibitive of free commerce of any that I know. But, as you say, it would be heresy to even suggest the repeal or simplification of any of them. Whilst i generally have no time for the anarcho-sydincalist and chomskyite loony fringes on most things, they are quite correct about the perniciousness of the US government.

Economic ideologies can't be evil, but they sure can be stupid. what do you mean when you say "When you control a country's language, you manipulate the way people think and communicate."? It seems wrong to me. ~ElectricRay

Evil political and economic ideologies

"Communism," "Socialism," "Terrorism," "Anarchism," etc., are all political or economic words that have negative connotations in modern usage but not in historical definition. The negativity associated with these words is so strong today that few people dare to mention their existence without also adding a disassociating disclaimer, and for a reason. Those who fail to create an adequate buffer are pilloried. By the same token, most people wouldn't dare to use the terms "Jew" or "Affirmative Action" without expressing positive association with the object of the term.

Linguistic elements that have become synonymous with good or evil cease to be useful parts of our language. We can no longer express concepts, convey ideas, or solve problems using the above economic and political terms. They become essentially a black hole in our culture, robbing us of the collective thought necessary for people to better themselves in these areas.

The communication void in our politico-economic system may be initiated by aristocracy, but it is nourished by victims, people who want to see the world in black and white—good guys and bad guys—Hollywood. Relativism tears down the notions of absolute truth. It promotes NPOV objectivity and informational tolerance at the same time, giving our language the power to convey and combine large concepts in concise terms, enabling us to network our ideas to solve complex economic and political problems. *Peace Inside 20:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it does quite do that, actually. I'm making this up on the fly, so bear with me if I get a bit incoherent here. The problem is that concepts like "objectivity" and "tolerance" "negativity" and "collectively bettering ourselves" are ones that proper relativism doesn't have any truck with either. I don't think relativism can be used as a "sword" in such an argument: to use a sword is to make an assertion, based on assumptions where the truth of those assumptions is not a given. That is exactly what relativism counsels us we cannot do. Now I might be misconstruing what you're saying, but if you're wanting to lead everyone to some sunlight uplands of relativist nirvana, where the objectivist scales can fall from their eyes and these conflicts will dissipate, I think you'll have problems of a Sisyphusian type. That view of relativism is susceptible to the familiar criticism of being viciously circular in asserting a universe having true content (ie, that relativism is true) whilst saying at the same time (relativism) that nothing is true. That's a contradiction.

On the other hand, your conversation about prescriptive and descriptive language is more recognisable to me: if all you want to claim is that relativism says is that there are no oughts, only ises; that ises are simply points of view that have no connection with The Truth, and in a conflict between contradictory ises, there's no way of adjudicating between the conflicting sides, then I'm completely with you. But in that case, relativism is only descriptive, not prescriptive - it can't chide someone for being not being relativistic. They can think what they like.

This is one of the things Richard Dawkins - an excellent scientist, but a lousy philosopher - hates about relativism. "How can we be happy that there's no way of adjudicating between established medicinal procedure and healing crystals in the treatment of cancer?" he says (in not so many words). "How can it be that a proto-fascist analysis of little red riding hood can be equally as valid an interpretation as a Christian one?" But he misses the subtlety which he really ought to understand as an evolutionary biologist and the coiner of memes: relativism ignores the intentional fallacy of there being a correct reading or a truth, and just shrugs its shoulders and says "whatever works for you, fellahs".

What we can judge is not the truth or falsehood of the particular theorem or interpretation, but its success or failure, purely in terms of uptake. It is a popularity contest. So if everyone goes for the fascist interpretation of the fairy story, then that's the "better" interpretation. And so on. (in the case of cancer treatment, some other factors will be at play, like evolution: those who believe in healing crystals won't tend to survive so well as those who go for radiotherapy!)

What I think you're referring to above in terms of the taboo nature of certain subjects in politics and ethics is the self preservation mechanisms which are built into competing, currently dominant political ideas: they are defence mechanisms against competing ideas (this is a central theme of the study of mimetics - a successful meme evolves little self-preservation subroutines). In the same way that religion (a self reinforcing meme par excellence) contains defences against natural scepticism (risk of going to hell, requirement for "faith" as the purest form of belief etc etc), so neo-conservatism has evolved little defences and antibodies to communism - as has communism to conservatism (left wing ideologues are similarly, if not more, intolerant of the expression of laissez faire and capitalist perspectives). But I don't think appealing to relativism helps persuade anyone else - it is simply our personal inoculation against the traps in certain ideas.

I had a long and interesting conversation on my talk page with a user called Zephram Stark about these sorts of things. He is/was a pretty in-your-face sort of editor, advocating a number of fairly taboo positions (in a taboo kind of way, violating all sorts of wikipedia protocols) - he didn't mind pissing people off (and I must say was pretty funny about it when he did it, too), but there was a little cartel of self righteous admins here who basically banned him from the site, simply for calling them names and saying things they didn't want to hear. I think Wikipedia is vulnerable to that sort of behaviour. ElectricRay 00:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over his edits, it appears that this user:Zephram Stark was a potty mouth. Now Carbonite has blocked me indefinitely as being him. I would like to talk with you more about the things you said above, but fear that he may blank my talk page any minute (the way that he has blanked by user page). If you get this and I'm not able to respond here, please email me at masonjsinatra@hotmail.com. I'm very interested in the premise of the book and would like to contribute in any capacity that would be helpful. *Peace Inside 18:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom Empire

I am not sure why evil idiologies is under the subhead "space western". In any case, given the definitions in the article, surely The Phantom Empire is Western Science Fiction, not Space Western. Unless the Empire of Murania possessed an evil idiology, of course. Rick Norwood 21:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Thank you. *Peace Inside 21:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfB

Hi, Peace (I mean, you). I can't thank you enough for your so very kind words in my RfB. Thank you so very much for your vote of confidence in my capacity to do the job. I remain at your disposal should you ever need my help. Thank you so much, again. Redux 22:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued help in making Wikipedia great is all I ask. Congratulations. *Peace Inside 22:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of creating a better editing environment, I have one request. Carbonite has accused me of being a sockpuppet (RfCU), something that is not true. He has received no response to his checkuser request. He has failed to answer my questions about why he is attacking me. I suspect it may have something to do with the tags on my user page that he blanked. Until a checkuser response proves my innocence, would you please remove the indefinite block he has placed on my account? *Peace Inside 18:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Bush Fly.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Bush Fly.gif. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 11:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:User teapot

A tag has been placed on Template:User teapot requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Stingray Sam

The Wikipedia article for the upcoming Cory McAbee's film Stingray Sam is nominated for deletion. Please contribute to the discussion.--DrWho42 (talk) 03:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Raining Teapots.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Raining Teapots.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Pickford-Fairbanks Studios.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Pickford-Fairbanks Studios.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]