Jump to content

User talk:Plain regular ham

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fairness and Accuracy[edit]

need your help on two RFCs[edit]

Please visit these pages and post a comment in support with an example of how this is true. Thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:Gamaliel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:Robert_McClenon 17:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the note left for you at Talk:Animal Liberation Front. You need to supply reputable references for any edits that are challenged. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 17:44, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have provided what you requested. Regards plain_regular_ham 18:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not breaking the law[edit]

As regards to Your post at the Benedict discussion page:

Dear Ham,
No offense. Both of my posts were directed mainly to CATP, as she asked to be represented (as in a democracy). And actually, if the hierarchy represents God's stance and a Catholic accepts the church teaching (as he should) then the hierarchy also represents catholics (on the doctrinal and moral level of course - the abuse cover-up is different, as individual bishops can err just as much as any one can, it only makes more noise)

Actually I looked up the CATP link and it seems to me like an assembly of the worst lies and half-truths against the current and past popes in time-hallowed anti-Catholic fashion.

Str1977 18:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No offense was taken. Thanks for the note.plain_regular_ham 19:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear Ham, the flamekeeper situation is heating up. Could you please take a look into it as well. Battleground is mainly the Pius XII talk page, but he is all over the place, also on the "theology of Benedict XVI" page. Could you please answer the query I set up there. Thanks. Str1977 23:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ham, as you have been involved at some point, maybe you are interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Famekeeper. Str1977 10:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benedict XVI Pigeonholes[edit]

Dear Ham, You deleted the "excesses of" capitalism from the BenXVI entry. I think, however, that it'd be inaccurate to say he's an opponent of "capitalism" per se. It might work in German, where the term has a more narrow meaning, but not in English, where it is a synonym for "market economy". I don't think he opposes that, but merely some "excesses". Please think about it. Str1977 13:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Str1977. I am working to amend a portion that was added to the BenXVI entry. The addition was, in itself, a totally unnecessary diatribe in criticism of "American conservatism". If the Pope had made a statement in such a light, it would make sense, but no such statement was referenced. I will continue to work on it, but I am working against some who wish to use the Pope's entry as a platform from which to criticise "American conservatism".
All right Ham,
posting again to adress this issue:
The passage should bascically warn people from putting him into this or that drawer.
Of course stereotyping US conservatives should also be avoided (I saw them merely as an example. Originally the paragraph said approx.: should be confused with pol-con as his opposition to x,y,z shows. - Then someone inserted American or US because the issues x,y,z were seen as positions of US cons, not e.g. European cons - Then I split the two into what you found, using the US con positions as examples for illustrating). Of course US cons too have a great variety of opinions, so you have a valid point.
And though I have some issues with some positions of some American conservatives, there should be no stereotyping and no platform against anything.
However, I don't think "excesses" is POV. The passage said there are some things the Pope doesn't like about capitalism in it broadest sense. Unless he opposes capitalism alltogether, I think these things can be called excesses (at least if they flow from a onesided adherence to capitalist principles)
Again, thanks for your understanding and for your effort.
Str1977 16:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Excess" in itself is a totally relative term and depends wholly upon ones opinion of what is an appropriate amount of 'x'. As I mentioned before, this is all truly a venture into editorial and the only appropriate inclusion on a page about the Pope would be a quote from the Pope himself on the topic. I am hoping to lean this discussion toward the Pope page Discussion so that others need not duplicate this line of reasoning. In any case, though, your thoughtful consideration is appreciated. plain_regular_ham 16:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Dear Ham (assuming the The following was from the end of the "Overview" section post was yours),
Is it a call to rephrase or is it your suggestion?
From what you've post, it now looks like Benedict is opposed to capitalism per se, not just excesses or extreme forms. Yes, excesses is a relative term - in this case it'd be relative to Benedict's opinion.
But it's also clear that we need an example, otherwise the meaning will get lost.
Also I'm a bit uneasy about the "What some call ..." Yes, sometimes we have to resort to such phrases to incorporating judgements while distinguishing them from objective truth, but I think in this case, a "His views" or the like should be enough.
Thanks again anway,
Str1977 17:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Dear Ham,
in answer to your question on the Benedict discussion board:
Actually, from browsing through the article it is not needed. I find it remarkable that the entry right does not include the word conservative even once. Hence, no more "disclaimer" needed. As long as it stays that way. (At least the wiki entry on him does not file him in a drawer.
What were the examples you objected to?
Str1977 18:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'll post the bit with some interjections here..
"His stance (For the most part assumed), in accordance with Catholic doctrine, should not be confused (who was confused in this way?) with conservatism in a purely political sense. Note, for instance, his opposition (again assumed for the most part) to positions held by some American conservatives (as well as some of just about every other type of person), e.g. on the death penalty and preemptive war (preemptive war is an 'American Conservative' position?) and his emphasis on social justice (attempting to place 'American Conservativsm' contrary to social justice.) and opposition (still assumed) to the excesses (relative term) of capitalism and consumerism."
A bit of detail on the many problems with the removed piece. It was clearly a sophomoric effort to soapbox against "American Conservatism" on the Pope page.
Have enjoyed your participation in the discussion. Regards, plain_regular_ham 18:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Allright, Ham, I agree.
It's best to leave it out, though in answer to your questions in parantheses:
His stance = the things mentioned before, e.g. Catholic doctrines on marriage, family, and homosexuality - issues US conservatives are engaged in currently, holding similar opinions.
who was confused in this way? - some might be, given his constantly being labeled a conservative as against to a liberal (a very US-like opposition imported (wrongly IMHO) into Church matters
his opposition (again assumed for the most part) - not entirely assumed, as he has voiced opinions on the Iraq war, on capital punishment, on social justice (unfortunately I cannot give references right now)
Short of references, I must hold out. plain_regular_ham 19:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
conservatives (as well as some of just about every other type of person) - yes, but a) he's labeled a conservative and b) these issues are often attributed to US conservatives (rightly or wrongly)
Wrongly I think. Labels are best left out unless claimed by the labelee. plain_regular_ham 19:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
attempting to place 'American Conservativsm' contrary to social justice - some US conservatives sound like they are, at least they are against intervention to improve social justice, though they could argue, we just don't want the state to be involved
I believe that many US liberals are contrary to social justice, but such opinions "what is justice anyways" are best deployed in Discussion. plain_regular_ham 19:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
excesses has been explained above, it is modifying the term captitalism
To me, it was phrased as inherent in Capitalism. plain_regular_ham 19:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
But again, I agree with you to leave it out completely.
Whether your suspicion is correct in regards to the first poster of these lines I don't know, but it certainly wasn't my intention to soapbox anyone. Only to draw a line between politics (where Benedict has his own views just like any other man) and teachings of the church (that should not be carved up into con and lib or whatever)
I honestly see no need to label the man as anything but what he is "Pope" or what he claims to be. plain_regular_ham 19:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The pleasure's been all mine. Regards,
Str1977 19:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
But there you go, you've got Nickptar disagreeing with you on the discussion page.
Str1977 19:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear Ham, are you satisfied with the new wording "while promoting more politically 'liberal' attitudes on such issues ..." - I'm not, as it is "pigeonhole" thinking again, only this time to the other side. Also, again there are assumed positions again. Str1977 08:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) PS. Is the phrase you coined the "bleeding heart one"? Like it. Str1977 08:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More of the same, an editorial on capitalism...("the deleterious effects"?) Why do people insist on inserting these diatribes in an article about a religious leader?
re:PS('Bleeding Heart')...Yes indeed. The expressions in the audience were interesting when I dropped it in a 'Sanger' presentation. I like for people to consider that idealistic good intentions can be very harmful if not well considered.plain_regular_ham 19:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ham, yes, I didn't like the cnn article as well, though mainly for its misleading definition of "liberation theology", its hypocritical reference to "religious pluralism", its wrong attribution of the late Pope's "failure" to restrain him because of their long-lasting friendship and his supposed "centralism". Now, enough of ranting. You probably have read my (unanswered) entry on the discussion page the distinction between B16's personal theology and his work as head of CDF. Also further down the are complaints about the entry section being too long. What I'm going to do is this: I'm going to move "our problematic sentence" as well as the "other issues" from the CDF section over to the theology page. There will be some reworking going on there, though probably not today. Str1977 19:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about the same thing (moving to theology) but I hesitated because the referenced ideas are more political than theological. Should there be another page about "Politics"?plain_regular_ham 19:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A political page? Only if the theology page is too big, but I don't think that'll be the case. My aim is to divide the theology page into a section "his personal theology" and "views that are mentioned because of his office as head of the CDF". There can/should also be a "not strictly theological" (political, moral, other) section.
Str1977 19:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Detractor websites on Hannity, Coulter, Savage[edit]

Hey Ham, can't say I won the complete argument on the detractor websites on those three articles, but at least I got a concession out of those that insisted they had to be there. They're at least sorted by supporter and detractor now. A decent compromise IMHO. Equinox137 02:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well done. I made sure that the same (need for detractor links in the first place) standard was applied to the Al Franken page. Accuracy and fairness. plain_regular_ham 12:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Now it appears that the link categorization is being removed. Maybe summaries of individual links will be better received. plain_regular_ham 13:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, it was done by the person that insisted the most that the detractors needed to be there. I give up! If Wikipedia has a reputation for liberal bias, it deserves it. Equinox137 14:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just thought I'd let you know, I've reverted your changes to this article. I've posted my reasoning at Talk:Accuracy in Media. Feel free to reply there. All the best, Meelar (talk) 21:15, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the notification. I have posted my thoughts back at the Talk:Accuracy in Media page without reverting your reversion. plain_regular_ham 22:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know...[edit]

You might want to have a look at Wikipedia:Civility. We're all trying to work together here, and it's really not productive for you to be dripping with hostility over every minor disagreement. Gamaliel 00:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you get 'dripping with hostility'. I hope you, as an administrator, are open to criticism and having others point out your selective application of standards (sometimes double ones at that). After all, we won't improve anything without honest criticism. Regards plain_regular_ham 00:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between "honest criticism" and snide contempt. Don't hide behind the former when your comments are full of the latter. Gamaliel 00:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is hiding Gamaliel. It is unfortunate that you take a turn of phrase or lack of warmest regards as 'snide'. So, I am terribly sorry and hope that you will accept my apology. I so admire your work, though it may have just the slightest flaw. Warmest regards and best wishes. plain_regular_ham 00:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Plain regular ham[edit]

Dear Mr. Plain regular ham,

You, sir (or ma'am), seem to be, by no means, "plain" or "regular". If I knew how to give awards on wiki, you'd get one just for having a sense of humor (i.e. the above conversation with Gamaliel). Or you'd get one for being a true stickler for accuracy (i.e. your edits). Or you'd get one for knowing how to argue with people, and keeping an intellectually cool head while doing so (i.e. all the edits on talk pages). Please keep up the good work, and know that you have (at least one) fan out there.
Hugs and kisses,
Stanselmdoc 20:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Request[edit]

Dear Fellow Wikipedian

I would like to invite you to my RFC request on  the page One America News Networks. I am reaching out to you to include your expert opinion and your solution to this problem in the RFC request. Please also invite more editors so that we can have a fair discussion that will improve the page. I

Kind Regards