User talk:Samboy

OK, talk about what I do here. I'm afraid I will be mostly a lurker! Samboy

Is there a page out there which is a reference for all the "secret" ascii sequences, that explains things like the format for a link and what not, and how to escape any magic ASCII characters?

Note: I will delete useless flames or discussions I do not want to get in to on this page

Childlove images

Samboy, I understand why you are offended by the images, but Wikipedia tries to cover many subjects that many, including me, find offensive. In relation to the specific subjecr, the images (which I posted) and are mild compared to many and are important to the topic of the article.

Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia. Since it seems you haven't been welcomed yet, let me do so now. You may especially want to see the welcome section if you haven't already. Cheers! Cecropia | Talk 19:46, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I have a somewhat flameful comment in the talk section for, what is to me a (and probably 99% of people) rather disgusting page. I am all for NPOV, but in my opinion, in Pir's opinion, in Mark's, and in Danny's opinion, those images just don't belong here in an online encyclopedia.

Child molestation is one of those horrible and evil things which damages a person for their entire life, and, quite frankly, having these kinds of images in this encyclopedia can easily be viewed as an endorsment of pedophilia.

Hi Samboy, you've hit on the point. The entire subject is disgusting. How long ago did you first come upon the article? Until I and GBWR and Ed Poor happened on it, it was a surreal apology for pedophilia, which essentially said: "We are your friends and neighbors. Most of us mean no harm to your children except that we want to change the law, society, education, and parental rights so that we can liberate them and incidentally allow us to have sexual access to them."

Wikipedia standards do not allow the article to be deleted (you could try listing on VfD, but I'm afraid you might be shocked by the response). What we do is try to move it to NPoV. That means that, if the article accurately reflects what people in the movement say and advocate, it is appropriate material. That does not mean it can be posted without balance and criticism. As to the specific pictures, let me tell you why they are important. The article attempts to make pedophilia seems like just another sexual preference which should not be controversial. The images, from the movement's own literature, shows what advocates really do. Delete the images, and you delete an important perspective for the non-pedophilic reader. The images are not pornographic and not, in and of themselves, disgusting. It is what they accurately imply that disgusts people. That is why it is so important they remain in the article. -- Cheers! Cecropia | Talk 20:11, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I hit the page by hitting on "Random Page", which is my home page in Firefox. Can NPOV articles be hit by the "Random Page" link? I am, of course, a little hurt that an edit of mine was reverted, but I try to be balanced about it by putting up a relevent paragraph on the talk page in question. In a case of an article like this, I think the only real NPOV is to say, in polite terms, "This is a bunch of BS abusive people use to justify their behavior". Considering that four people, including myself, have deleted these images in just the last week, it is obvious that these images strike a very discordant chord with many people. My first reaction was, "My God, Wikipedia has pedophiles who get off on pictures of little kids and revert people's attempts to remove such images". Again, thanks for you POV. Samboy 20:23, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, compromise edit. I've moved one of the images down, and added a warning at the top. Samboy 20:48, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

gedday guys... sorry for any terseness... this shit doesn't leave me in a good mood... tommorow I may be a bit more chipper. The images are a kick in the guts aren't they? I guess i'd say I was 'strongly ambivilant'. user:ratgurl definitely thinks they should go though... Erich 13:09, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have a feeling that certain pedophiles are constantly editing this horrible page. Samboy 20:39, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Chess site

With regard to the constant edits by 69.133.93.199: I notice that, before he came along, the Garry Kasparov article (the one I happened to look at for a sample of his edits) had a link to Kasparov's games at muljadi.org. That site, like 69.133.93.199's, appears to be noncommercial except for the Google ads at the top. One difference between them is that, when I go to muljadi.org, I encounter some kind of error and can't play the games, whereas I can play them at 69.133.93.199's site. While I certainly agree with you that 69.133.93.199's behavior is extremely offputting, there remains a serious question about whether we have any reason to prefer one such free site over another. At least 69.133.93.199 makes the effort to tailor his link to the specific game or player involved. JamesMLane 03:19, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

One of my annoyances is that he has some javascript that locks out Mozilla/Firefox; I have added a link to your support on the "Vandalism in Progress" page so people can form their own opinion. Take care, and good cheer! Samboy 05:00, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The user has promised to be on his "best behavior" and is now discussing rather than simply re-inserting links. I've started a section on the general question of links to such sites at Talk:Chess#External links to game repositories. I hope you'll have a moment to add your thoughts. JamesMLane 14:22, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

AFP

About the Bobby Fischer page, I do believe AFP stands for Agence France-Presse one of the major news agencies of the world. AFP is a common acronym in newspaper articles; that must be why no designation was provided. And, most of all, a link *was* made towards the disambiguation page (AFP) where Agence France-Presse is the first meaning given (I agree that a direct link would have been more appropriate). Therefore, I am quite certain that the acronymn wasn't made up and that it can and must be brought back to the article, with the proper direct link to the Agence France-Presse article, this time. --Liberlogos 18:59, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've updated the page. Thanks for the information. Samboy 19:25, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Picture

I just saw your picture. May I ask how old you are? The facial hair makes you look very, well, not old in a pejorative sense, but more like...mature. I think that's the word. Mike H 19:05, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

I'm 33; I have since shaved, but don't have a really really good picture of me shaved yet; I'll get Victor to take a picture of me in a day or two before he moves away. Samboy 19:13, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, what a pity. I liked the facial hair. But now that you bring it up, I am curious as to what you look like without it. Mike H 19:16, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

There is a picture of me without it on my fotolog page, and a picture of me before I had my beard (summer of 2002) in my ChristianForums.com page (I haven't participated there for a long time). Samboy 19:25, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You look nice either way, I think. My hair's just a little bit darker than yours. It really depends on the time of the year, but right now my hair is a really dark brown. Mike H 19:29, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

It was nice conversing with you! Feel free to drop a note on my talk page or email me anytime. Talking to others is a nice diversion.

P.S. (Just saw your user info on the ChristianForums). You're a Scorpio, too? How cool! Mike H 19:54, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Yep; I'm Scorpio. When does college start 4 u? (Everyone at the college I go to talks like that) Samboy 19:59, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, God, IMspeak makes me cringe. August 23, but I'm moving into the dorms on August 15. I'll have a week to get adjusted, and to meet my roommate. He seems really nice and he wants to do so many things with me. It sounds fun. Mike H 20:00, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, IMspeak makes me cringe too; I only use it seriously when replying to someone who emails me in IMspeak, or when doing text messages on my cell phone. My college starts on the same day. I don't think the academics is what is going to be toughest for you in college; I think getting adjusted to the social structure at college will be your challenge. Samboy 20:03, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, yeah? Tell me about that. I already know it's going to be tough because I won't know anyone from my town. Mike H 20:06, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

OK, the secret is to get involved with a lot of social clubs. A lot of other people will be in the same boat as you. A well-maintained dorm will have social meets; depending on the college, their are usually faternities, social clubs, and Christian clubs. Because I'm a Christian, I have found a lot of love and acceptance in Campus Crusade for Christ; I'm not a fundamentalist like them (I believe in: old earth, no automatic damnation for non-Christians) but can still hang out with the people. Faternities are nothing but trouble; being in a faternity is the fastest way to flunk out of college. Ditto with drinking and drug use. About sex: Trust me, you only want to have sex with someone you are in love with; if a girl turns you on but you feel no emotional attraction to her in your heart, don't go there.

Some other fun clubs that you college may have: SCA; a political activist movement; etc. The college probably also has a student union, which is a good place to meet other students. It'll be hard making friends, and most of the people I have met have not become real friends and I have made the mistake of thinking there is more in a friendship than there really is. Don't fall in to the trap of spending too much time editing Wiki.  :) Speaking of which, I got to fix my sister's computer, then go to the beach or somewhere. OK, enough preaching from me. Samboy 20:15, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, in my case, I think I'm going to be very closeted. I don't want any trouble, so I won't tell people about my sexuality unless it's absolutely necessary (I'm gay). I don't think I'll be telling my roommate at all, as not to threaten him in any way. Mike H 20:33, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

There is a lot of homophobia at the college I go to; doesn't affect me directly (I'm straight), but, despite all of the homophobia, there is a group of gay people on campus who can be found. I am sure that a lot of people in Campus Crusade are homophobic, but I haven't seen it firsthand with this group. One of the reasons I'm not involved with the Catholics anymore is because I'm sick and tired of the anti-Gay rants (which are really common with especially the Spanish-speaking Catholics); I've always supported gay rights. Samboy 20:37, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I figure there would be less homophobia down in Tampa, since it is a bigger urban center. Mike H 20:40, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

You're right. The bigger a town is, the less homophobic it is. For example, the town where my college is is smallish (500,000 people) and quite homophobic. That said, I've seen articles in the media about gay activities with a pro-gay slant. Where I live for the summer is quite conservative (military city), but not that homophobic, and has a much bigger population. Samboy 20:44, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

College

I will start classes at the University of South Florida on August 23. I'm a bit nervous about making friends and all that. Mike H 19:18, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

How far from home is your college? (It's really weird writing an 19-year-old who doesn't write in IMspeak) Samboy 20:05, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm in Escambia County, Florida and USF is in Hillsborough County, Florida. It's about a good eight hours away by car, if not ten. Mike H 20:31, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Tally adjustment

Just a heads-up: concerning the on-going VfD discussion, my vote was mistakenly tallied as a delete. I've fixed that now, listed it under the "keep" tally, and adjusted the numbers to reflect this. Note that I did not adjust the numbers where you are doing a day-by-day tally, then striking through the last day's tally. I just wanted to let you know in case you wondered why the numbers changed. Thank you for keeping track of everything. That would be a real headache to sort through, otherwise.  :-) SWAdair | Talk 23:48, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comment

I was just thinking that it wasn't the nicest thing to say publicly, since no one else had done it. But still, I was concerned. Mike H 20:53, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

I agree; I'm just a bit miffed right now that he thinks he can act like "Anonymous Coward" on Slashdot. Strange how the people who post the biggest flames appear to have, well, insteresting issues. Samboy 20:55, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My main concern is that I never wanted to be catty about it. It's a creed that I go by in my real life as well as anywhere else. I try to tell people how I feel straight out. I was just thinking it was selfish of me to just publicly say that, because it's one thing to think something and another to just point it out for everyone to see. Mike H 21:06, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

About the Atlantium-specific article

Thank you for informing me about the List of micronations issue. You were right to cancel that page and turn it into a redirect since the Micronation page alone was enough, and serious micronations with real world connections to UN member states can have separate pages. Atlantium definitely doesn't deserve any such separate page, especially since Fifth World nations don't deserve a separate article, or even just a separate category within the Micronation article, in Gene_poole unqualified opinion. I have also visited the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Atlantium page, and added my suggestion for deleting the Atlantium-specific page. --IndigoGenius 20:09, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words; to clarify, I didn't turn this page in to a redirect page, Anthony DiPierro did. As an aisde, I have pushed some nasty buttons with George; he really doesn't want people to know who he really is whenever he does his pro-Atlantium rants. Samboy 21:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

About the Atlantium attack

That attack was so personal and vicious that it obviously violates Wiki's standards on NPOV. At first the nation didn't exist at all, even though TTF-Bucksfan is actually close to 6 years old; then it was placed in an incompatible micronational category, and now His Non Imperial and Non Majesty George wanted to place it among the fruitflies, the nations that own little more than webpages, and some don't even own that!

Somehow I'm not surprised if the Wiki Admins notice a nasty comment towards them on my personal pages, but don't take notice of this vandalism perpetuated by a so-called serious micronation. --IndigoGenius 01:59, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please revert the change yourself on the micronation page; Gene Poole, "Emperor of Atlantium", a.k.a. Gene Poole is in an edit war with me, but he can't out-revert two different editors. You have a right to defend your micronation. Samboy 02:02, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually did better than that, although you may not agree. Took the Kingdom of Bucksfan off the Micronation page altogether. It doesn't belong there if the entry needs constant protection, and it isn't even my nation's full name, which is TTF-Bucksfan. I don't need this hassle to protect a few lines in an encyclopedia that one day will probably go out of business. --IndigoGenius 02:15, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, that is probably for the best. I think that is a good edit; Gene Poole, "Emperor of Atlantium", a.k.a. Gene Poole has no right to attack your micronation.

Please stop making personal attacks. They don't make things any easier. RickK 06:04, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Good idea. I guess I'm getting a bit heated at this point. I think it is important to stand up to George, and let people know why it is that he is the way he is. If people don't stand up to him, there is a good chance that the micronation page will become a vehicle for self-promotion of his micronation. I've asked him for mediation, but he ignored the request and put more personal attacks on this page, which I have deleted to try and calm things down. Samboy 06:08, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)