User talk:SusanLarson

Hi! Welcome to my talk page,

Please read these policies before posting:
• Always sign your messages with ~~~~. Please do not post if you are not going to do this.
• Please do not respond to other people's messages here. This has the effect of spilling disputes from other pages onto my talk page, and it is very distracting for me. This talk page is for messages to me, not to the other people who have written here.
• Please create a new heading for new subjects. (IE: == Your subject here ==). To respond to a message under the same subject, find the applicable heading below, press the "Edit" button on the right, and add your message to that section.
• Responses will go on your talk page.

Click here to leave me a new message. Also, please remember to always sign your messages with --~~~~

Archives

1 Jan 2005 - 31 Dec 2005

Vicki Walker

(Continued from 2005Archive#Vicki Walker)

Kind of, but I was wondering if it is possible to push the text up in to the blank area. Do you know what I mean? If not, that's ok. I just thought it would possibly look better if that could be done. Maybe it's that I'm just too picky. Davidpdx 08:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I saw the changes on the page. Thanks, that's what I was looking for. Hopefully I can find a better picture then the one I've got on there. There's so little time to work on these things anymore. I'm sure you'll hear from me again soon. Davidpdx 11:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Added Link

Susan, thanks for your reply and I added a link to your site on my website, and I submitted my url under the Cross-dressing category on your site. Thanks for the suggestion! --Athena2006 18:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello

What's going on with the FISA article? Incidently, could you sign your comments with ~~~~? Makes it hard to read the flow of discussions. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

No worries :-) I only ask because I want to get the FISA article more up to date. Basically, my idea is to do what I'm doing with the article USA PATRIOT Act, Title II - document each section and give a broad summary. What do you think? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hurrah for the dinosaur copyediting marathon!

Thanks and good night! Killdevil 05:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

I know, I did that once too (and an anon reverted me!) which is why I made sure to say "or error".  :) CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Pedro's Tracker

Hi Susan,

Sorry if you saw this article as advertising.

--Flacinhell 01:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Japanese artists

I'm not sure what you mean by retroactive editing. Could you explain? Perhaps we can move it to a relevant WikiProject so the list is still available, but not in the main namespace? - Mgm|^(talk) 14:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

List of notable brain tumor patients

Could you be persuaded to reconsider your post at the poll? This particular list has unique educational and research value. Approximately 2500 children are diagnosed with brain tumors each year in the United States alone. This presents thousands of families and schools with the challenges of answering questions. The patients want to feel as normal as possible. Other children may wonder if cancer is contagious or be frightened of the side effects, which often include hair loss and seizures. [1] [2] Relatively few resources put a human face on this illness. Nothing on the Internet covers this particular aspect of the subject nearly as well as this presentation. It offers a starting point for parents and teachers to develop innovative educational techniques. Grade school age children may be interested in the early Osmond Brothers recordings or Elizabeth Taylor's juvenile starring role in National Velvet. High school and college students could write papers about Lance Armstrong or Senator Arlen Specter. I hope our disagreement over List of Japanese artists doesn't color your view of this other subject. Respectfully, Durova 00:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

(* Note: responded on users talk page)

???

Most of the time when i post someting, it puts it in a yellowish box with a blue outline. Also then when I go to my contributions, it says "(top)" by it. Why? - Abhorsen123 15:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

afd

Worry do not about sockpuppets on afd, :) they are usually discounted. By the way, the proper way to add a signature to an unsigned comment is {{unsigned|username|date of post}} as shown in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronicles of friendship. I'll be away for rest of weekend, but if you need assistance, drop me a note -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Nambla Vote

Hi, "Susan." I saw your vote on the NAMBLA discussion page, and couldn't help but be concerned that many of the reasons you have cited for casting your vote have already been discussed and refuted on the talk page. This leads me to believe that you voted on the subject without really knowing what NAMBLA is, what its history is, and without reading any of the discussion on the talk page.

NAMBLA does not "espouse illegal practices" or advocate that anybody break the law. This is made very clear at the NAMBLA home page. NAMBLA is a political and education organization that seeks to inform members of society about a different perspective on relationships between adult and adolescent males (which is NOT pedophilia, since pedophilia is a sexual attraction toward PREPUBESCENT children), and seeks to end the criminalization of those relationships.

NAMBLA has been "rejected" by ILGA, but not after being a member for over ten years, during which time ILGA's own position statement coincided with NAMBLA's platform on revision of age-of-consent laws (see the section on ILGA in the nambla article). The fact that most gays now hate NAMBLA because right-wingers have used it to paint all gays as child molesters does not have any bearing on whether NAMBLA is classified as a gay or "LGBT" group for encyclopedic purposes -- a classification, I might add, which has already been given to NAMBLA by an online queer encyclopedia called GLBTQ. And quite rightfully so, since many other gay rights gruops in the 1970s and early 1980s supported NAMBLA's platform (again, see the article's subsection entitled "ostracism"). Regards, Corax 16:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I really think you need to understand that this is an encyclopedia. The entries should not be based on what you or anybody else wants, but what the facts dictate. The facts are clear, and they conclusively show that NAMBLA is LGBT. That you find this repugnant is irrelevant. That people continue to argue against it in spite of what the facts dictate is irrelevant. It sounds to me as though you would be better served maintaining a personal web page where you can write whatever you want without letting the facts get in your way. If people want to condemn all gays just because a few of them have supported NAMBLA in the past and continue to do so, that's their prerogative -- just as it is their prerogative to condemn all Muslims because Osama Bin Laden is listed in the "muslims" category here at Wikipedia. Corax 19:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you are way off base. Look at the poll on the talk page. If anybody is trying to advance a minority point of view, it's you. Stating that NAMBLA is GLBT is not the same as agreeing with NAMBLA's positions. While not many gays ascribe to NAMBLA's platform, most are honest enough to concede that NAMBLA is GLBT. To answer your questions (which, again, are irrelevant to the issue of whether NAMBLA is LGBT), I have never been a member of NAMBLA, and I do not agree with the platform of totally abolishing all age-of-consent laws. Corax 19:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

In case you must know, my interest is in reporting the facts. I have a very low tolerance for people who seek to revise history to suit their political interests. I have an even lower tolerance when those people are my fellow gays, and they're doing it because they think that catapulting anything even remotely related to the sexual rights of gay youth will enable them to win silly rights like "gay marriage" -- which they mistakenly equate with gay liberation. While NAMBLA's views of totally eliminating the age-of-consent are naive (as they stupidly allowed the religious right to portray the group incorrectly as advocating pedophilia and anal sex with toddlers), the modern-day gay assimilationists have totally forgotten that the very goals they are hoping to advance by joining in the attack -- like gay marriage -- are attempts to mimic the very same institutions that have both failed straights and oppressed gays for centuries. Corax 20:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The view that NAMBLA is LGBT is currently supported by 25 people, while the view that it is not is supported by 18 people. My view is hardly a "small minority." You are correct in stating that NAMBLA is extremely unpopular with most gays and almost all gay groups. But that doesn't alter the fact that NAMBLA itself is a gay group anymore than Osama's infamy amongst American Muslims strips him of his classification as a Muslim. As I've said repeatedly, the classification of "LGBT group" is not some status that must be granted by other gay groups. All that one need to be in order to be classifed as LGBT is to deal with gay issues. Since NAMBLA does this (yes, seeking to decriminalize non-coercive sexual relationships between teenage males and adult males IS a gay issue by the gay community's own definition of gay), it is an LGBT organization. The popularity of NAMBLA with most gays has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. Corax 20:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You are correct in that we are obviously not going to be able to reconcile our views. Clearly you think that the acronym "LGBT" is copywritten by a segment of gays, and that these gays are free to apply this label only to other gays and gay groups of which they approve. I, on the other hand, think that gay is clearly defined in the dictionary and on the wikipedia article, and that if a person or group meets that definition, then it is LGBT. I suppose it's just an honest disagreement, although I'd remind that you that Wikipedia's own definition of LGBT supports my position, not yours. In any case, thanks for being relatively civil while disagreeing with me. Regards, Corax 20:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Re ASS-U-ME

I apologize -- you're right. I didn't think to check your own talk page. This whole cross-user talk business seems a little counter-intuitive to me, but I should remember how it works. Sorry. Clayboy 20:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Dinosaurs

Hi Susan,

I sense you got a bit upset on Talk:Dinosaur. I don't mind you archiving that discussion (it seemed to have degenerated anyway), but in general you should avoid archiving current, ongoing discussions (see WP:ARCHIVE). I don't know why you've assumed that people on that page (and yes, it's clear you included me in your comments) were there to push a POV, but I'm saddened that you've simply decided that I'm a deceitful POV-pusher out to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. I'm not! Wikipedia:Assume good faith is good advice. I would hope that you can remember that Wikipedians can argue in favour of including a POV without holding to that POV themselves, and that reasonable people can disagree about the best method of achieving NPOV.

With regard to your self-appointed "arbitration" of the page, I would again encourage you to avoid such an approach in the future — it isn't very wiki, it's inaccurate (you can't self-appoint as an arbiter), and it's very aggressive; people are likely to be irritated and "push back". It's good that you wanted to help mediate a dispute; a better approach would be to have said something like, "Hi, I'm a newcomer to this debate, and having read the arguments it would seem that the biggest bone of contention is X; perhaps we could compromise by doing Y" etc. The job of a mediator is to help facilitate reaching consensus, not settle it themselves. — Matt Crypto 08:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, please realize that the vast majority of wiki users are not disruptive pov pushers. If you looked into either my or matt's edit history, you'd see we've both made many useful contributions to the encyclopedia. And, as for me, this is the first time i've been involved with any type of creationism debate. To be honest, i think creationism is effing ridiculous and don't understand how anyone could not believe in evolution (a recent doonesbury strip summed up my thoughts quite nicely, in which a doctor asks a patient if he wishes his TB to be treated in the form in which god made it or the antibiotic resistant form it's since evolved into). That said, it is most certainly a popular veiwpoint (unfortunately) and thusly should be included. This is, in a way, pov-pushing - but with the overall aim of NPOV. remember that an article with an npov should do its best to cover all popular points of view, lest it be pov through hiding information. As a result, i felt this pov deserved to be addresesd on dinosaur. Also, in the future, please do your best to assume good faith in the future. Even if you had your doubts, a simple run through of our edit history shows us to be good wikipedians with no bad faith simply here to make an encyclopedia. OR, conversely, agents of a creationist plot who've been working on building up our reputation as a good user just so we can orchestrate a massive strike on the dinosaur page to include a brief mention of our views. But Occam's Razor takes care of that debate. --jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 09:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't buy the disinterested party line from either of you. No one pushes an extreme minority point of view on an article unless they have a personal interest in the subject.

What you were pushing was highly POV. It was about the views of a specific sect of Christianity not religion in general, it claimed the beliefs were highly popular, and it claimed 50% of Americans believe part or all of the YEC beliefs which was not backed up by the citation provided as justification which did not specifically mention either YEC or dinosaurs. The article instead ended up with a very NPOV statement of religious disagreement.

You claim one thing I firmly believe another. I don't see either of you convincing me otherwise. This is the last contact I want from either of you on this matter. Future contacts on this matter will be construed as harassment. So let’s let this end gracefully. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 17:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)