Ambush Commander

== My views == First of all, despite my wild-eyed opposition, I am not a biased editor. I feel strongly that all views must be presented neutrally, which is the core of the NPOV policy (a policy I heartily support. My general POV's are listed User:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases. The debate on the atheism page is unrelated to my POV's however, and is more about Wikipedia:Civility, and the question of if theists should be ''allowed'' to edit the page, or discuss it in the talk, or should be run off. As far as what the page should say, I feel that it should not state that the concept that atheism is the default state of humans (and animals, and objects) is a common one, nor widely accepted. I do feel it should be present however. I would say that the commonly accepted definition is that atheism is the intentional disbelief in God, an act (albeit an internal one) of rejection of things religious. Therefore those below the age of reason cannot be classified as atheist IMO. Of course the organized atheist community disagrees, and feels that Weak Atheism is an acceptable classification for those normally referred to as agnostic or irreligious. I hope that gives you some idea of where I'm coming from. In summary, all POV's should be expressed within the article, but the intro should focus on more widely accepted definitions (such as can be found on other encyclopedias). Cheers, User:Sam_Spade_User_talk:Sam_Spade_Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2004">User:Sam Spade|User:Sam Spade User talk:Sam Spade Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004 22:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) == Talk:Breast == I just wanted to point out that if I sounded a bit terse in my reply to you on Talk:Breast, it was because I was annoyed w the poster just before you. My reply to you was acyually a reply to him, which I edited slightly due to an edit conflict when you posted. Your arguments were not the ones I described as "particularly unpersuasive" for example, that, and most of my reply was geared towards him. You were both polite and articulate, and I wanted to let you know. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|User:Sam Spade User talk:Sam Spade [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Boardvote Wants ''you'' to vote!]]] 01:18, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) == VFD Reversion == Howdy. I'm glad you reverted that change on the main VFD page, but I think you blamed the wrong user for it. Compare [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVotes_for_deletion&diff=13846878&oldid=13834955 10qwerty's edit] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVotes_for_deletion&diff=13847210&oldid=13846878 Jesse's Girl's edit]. Unless something goofy happened with the page history, you correctly reverted User:Jesse's Girl's edit, but User talk:10qwerty is an innocent bystander. Just thought you'd like to know. Cheers, User:Android79↔User talk:Android79 22:18, May 17, 2005 (UTC) == Spelling == See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. User:Gdr 08:06, 2005 May 18 (UTC) == My proposal == Hi, first I want to thank you for your comments on my talk page. About deleting or moving the proposal — right now the proposal is formatted to appear at the Wikipedia think-tank. I think this is where it belongs. Some proposals there date to 2003, so there is no time limit. If you think there is a better way to publicise the announcement I have no objection. But I think the proposal and the accompanying discussions should still be together and linked to the Think Tank. As to why I mentioned so many names. My main reason was that I wanted to make clear that I was not creating hypothetical straw-men arguments just to criticize them; that I was responding to real arguments actually made by Wikipedians. As to the passage you call attention to — well, I was responding to real objections. You raise a different objection which I also address in another section (on popularity as an argument for NPOV). Of course, you may still disagree with my argument. I understand why you think it might have been better to have mentioned no names. If the explanation I gave above (to show that my arguments against a position are against positions that people have actually taken) does not satisfy you, let me explain that when the topic first came up on the Talk: Jesus Page (I didn't start it; JimWay changed dates to BCE/CE, someone reverted, I reverted back to Jim's changes and gave an explanation; all this is now archived) it quickly turned into a very viturpritive argument. If you think that the acrimoneous arguments and personal attacks against me are a result of how I wrote the proposal, I assure you that you are wrong; the people who have written long and at times nasty comments are people who first expressed their hostility to the ''idea'' of BCE/CE and me personally on the Jesus talk page. I have no doubt that no matter how I wrote the proposal, they would have responded in exactly the same way. I know you are making a second point, that perhaps how I wrote turned off otherwise neutral people. If that is so all I can do is regret it. I honestly think nothing I could do now would make a difference as some people have already decided I am a stupid troll. However, if you pesonally believe this is a discussion we ought to be having, well, I urge you to come up with your own proposal, you own wording, and your own arguments. I think that if there is to be an honest discussion about NPOV and dating, someone else has to try at this point, and will hopefully be more effective. User:Slrubenstein | User talk:Slrubenstein 14:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC) ==De La Salle High School== After I moved this page to De La Salle High School (Concord, California) I edited the new redirect page to make it a disambiguation page, but got an edit conflict notice. Since common sense would have led you to realize that's what I was going to do, would you please explain why you object to it? User:Michael Hardy 19:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Q Who? == Please read the naming convention for the Star Trek project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek. User:Cburnett 19:51, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) == Googletest == Please stop adding google test templates to VFD entries. It strongly reduces legibility, and is often considered a form of vandalism to mess with VFD layout. Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus/Regarding tally boxes and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus/Deletion criterion boxes. Yours, User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!>|<">meta:mergist 16:10, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) *No problem! Sorry if that earlier message was overly harsh, it's just that we've been through something similar a couple months before and I wanted to keep it from getting out of hand. Yours, User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!>|<">meta:mergist 21:29, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Ambush Commander

User:Ambush Commander is a person. He is not a zombie. Nor is he a robot. He is definitely not from Mars. Hmm... I am also Ambush Commander on Meta:User:Ambush Commander and Wikisource:User:Ambush Commander. Interestingly enough, he is also Ambush Commander on [http://openfacts.berlios.de/index-en.phtml?title=User:Ambush_Commander OpenFacts], but pretty much only lounges around the Wikipedia Status page. His real name is Edward Z. Yang, in case you wanted to know. God, I love God-mode. So useful. ;-) ==Personal Subpages== *User:Ambush Commander/monobook.css *User:Ambush Commander/monobook.js *User:Ambush Commander/OpenFacts Testing *User:Ambush Commander/Vanilla *User:Ambush Commander/Chocolate *User:Ambush Commander/Mover *User:Ambush Commander/Mover2 *User:Ambush Commander/Mover3 *User:Ambush Commander/Mover4 ==A Little Ditty== Who am I?
You don't know.
Who are you?
I don't know.
See?
We're even.

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

A

AB | AC | AD | AE | AF | AG | AH | AI | AJ | AK | AL | AM | AN | AO | AP | AR | AS | AT | AU | AW | AX | AY | AZ |

Words begining with Ambush_Commander:

Ambush_Commander
Ambush_Commander
Ambush_Commander/Chocolate
Ambush_Commander/monobook.css
Ambush_Commander/monobook.js
Ambush_Commander/Mover
Ambush_Commander/Mover
Ambush_Commander/Mover2
Ambush_Commander/Vanilla