User talk:K/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Contents

Bot requirements[edit]

This is an interesting requirement, how often would the list need to be updated? Rich Farmbrough, 12:32 22 September 2007 (GMT).

If you want I can have that script update daily to a page on wikipedia, its not that big of a deal. (No one asked before about doing that) :) βcommand 15:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Great. I like the idea. I also still would like to talk further about a small group of trusted bot designers working together on this. Any further thoughts about that? ... Kenosis 16:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

NOR[edit]

I appreciate your recent comments on the talk page. I'd like to know what you think of my proposed rewrite of the explanation for the policy (at the top of the talk page). If you think it is a good idea, I invite you to make any edits you think appropriate and constructive, and comment. I think when people lose the historical context it frees them to invent explanations for the policy that too often are used to justify nullifying major elements of it. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll go have a look. Where is it located? ... Kenosis 18:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The proposal is section 1 of the current talk page. The poll and discussion is sections 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.1.2, and 1.1.3 - top of the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Needless to say, if you don't like it I would appreciate your telling me why - or if you think it can be improved, how. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't, could you vote and comment on the proposal in section 1? Thansk, Slrubenstein | Talk 08:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

here (voting beneath it) Slrubenstein | Talk 11:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC) About source - thanks for your comment. I put a revised version at the bottom of the talk page, in which I tried to address this.

I need to think about that one a couple of days. It's a fairly long addition to a policy page, and I think maybe it should be linked-to and made available from the policy page, but not necessarily part of it. ... Kenosis 12:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for putting into words over the last few days, many of my concerns over change to Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my talk page, Slrubenstein | Talk 08:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT[edit]

You said at Wikipedia talk:No original research: "That is flat-out incorrect. It achieved a consensus among the participants in the proposed policy page. Then it was rejected when exposed to a much wider consensus upon being put into play." Actually, WP:ATT did not achieve consensus among the participants. Although it was claimed that there was consensus, there were a number of objections expressed and these concerns were largely ignored, rather than being discussed with the aim of achieving mutual understanding or compromise. --Coppertwig 23:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

My evidence says differently, and so do many others' recollections of that now-somewhat-notorious fiasco. Though it's true that there were objectors at WT:ATT, around January 2007 the weight of opinion among the participants in that discussion turned very substantially in favor of implementing it. I would suggest cautiously avoiding a similar occurrence at WT:NOR if at all possible. And, truth be told, I think the day is probably not very far away when the method of affecting, changing, and/or implementing core WP policy will need to be tightened up and perhaps lengthened in the expected time from proposal to implementation, so that vocal opponents of current policy do not too quickly hold sway over long-developed and established consensus. Consensus is inherently flexible, but experience and continuity are also important for most users at the grass roots, local article level. Another thing: "consensus or compromise" is not the applicable standard. If it were, any small group could make radical proposals, even irrational and unfounded proposals, and then demand "compromise". Perhaps the wiki is, in some respects, too quickly outgrowing itself, so to speak. I certainly do not want to make a full-time task of repeatedly explaining and defending longstanding consensus and the justifications that gave rise to the current core policies established by the WP founderIs), and I doubt that many others do either. C'est la vie, I suppose. ... Kenosis 23:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Kenosis' recollection is accurate. •Jim62sch• 14:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
...As is his reply. •Jim62sch• 14:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis means[edit]

Isn't this the greek word used.. I think in Phillipians to refer to Jesus pouring himself out or emptying himself? How did you come to take the name? --Blue Tie 17:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a long story. Literally it means "emptying". Maybe it's has something to do with the use in Philippians, maybe something to do with the "kenotic ethic", maybe something to do with emptying some accumulated knowledge onto the wiki without expectation of quid-pro-quo compensation. Or, maybe I was just a bit empty headed at the time. ;-) ... Kenosis 00:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought[edit]

"Any use of primary-source material involving significant analytic or evaluative expansions of the plain meaning of the primary source requires a secondary source" would seem to mean that it is ok to use secondary-source material to create a significant analytic or evaluative expansion of the plain meaning of that secondary source. Surely we don't want that. Surely we want editors to stick to the plain meaning of any source they use. WAS 4.250 06:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe best to remove the additional sentence ... Kenosis 13:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design.[edit]

Majorly's edits are valid. They are minor, but still improve the article. I suggest you don't keep reverting him, not only because of the article improvements, but also because of WP:3RR, which is a blockable offense. He got a warning as well, and I strongly suggest you discuss this on the talk page, rather than revert each other. I realize that you have contributed much to that article, and are eagerly awaiting for October 12th, but Majorly has just as much right to copyedit that article as anyone else, and after all, that's the reason why articles are put on the main page: not for show, for improvement. Please accept improvements, since nothing is perfect (not even WP:MOS--it can always be re-written). · AndonicO Talk 00:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take it to the article talk page. What Majorly did was remove a several images and reformat the quotations, all at once, with a misleading edit summary. I reverted twice, then bowed out and left it to others to express consensus which has been to include those images. The formatting Majorly changed to on the quotations is reasonable, and I have no objection to that approach (so long as the quotations are not surrounded by a solid border line). And, actually, not only am I not "eagerly awaiting" main page placement of that article, I personally think it's a pain in the neck and personally would just as soon not have a controversial topic like this on the main page. You'd need to speak with the FA people about that decision. ... Kenosis 00:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC) ... As to the hint about 3RR, I suggest you look closely at my edits, which amount to two reverts, with an intermediate undo of the quotation format. Moreover, Majorly's removal of the "semi-protect" template was erroneous and would merit as many reverts as I might have chosen to implement in order to keep it accurate. Thank you for the good-faith note about this. ... Kenosis 00:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I'm sorry, I didn't notice the copyediting he did was to quotations; I apologize then. And you should "eagerly await" the article's spot on the main page; they're usually improved (and vandalized :P). · AndonicO Talk 13:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am guessing the poll will be there for good, because IDers think it helps there cause. Personally I think it looks terrible for IDers to put in fake polls, there are plenty of real polls that show many people believe (which does not demonstrate any validity of the idea) so putting in the fraudulent one just makes the DI look dishonest. Rather than waste space on the ID page it should be moved to the DI page, but I won't bother pushing it. I'm assuming that the admin who reverted my change just didn't bother to check that the reverted link was correct, no harm done. Sad mouse 04:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Time evolution wars.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Time evolution wars.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. GRBerry 02:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Thanks for the heads-up. I've now explained myself on the article Talk page. Best, Johntex\talk 16:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Re Book --> Magazine[edit]

Thanks for letting me know; I edited my message accordingly. — xDanielx T/C 03:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Intelligent Design[edit]

I took it to Talk. Nobody's taken the bait just yet. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Bait"? I hadn't thought of your preferences for the article quite that way. But the talk page is the appropriate place to express them -- thanks for letting me know. ... Kenosis 20:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I found vulgarity[edit]

I don't know how to report this...but check out the section on The Philidelphia Campaingn.

There is a reference to licking one's anatomy.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Howe%2C_5th_Viscount_Howe

Thanks,

joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noquitjoe (talkcontribs)

I corrected the situation [here]. ... Kenosis 03:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Missed a bit. [1]. – ornis 04:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. ... Kenosis 04:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
No worries. – ornis 04:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad link on the Science article[edit]

While reverting my edit of adding a link related to Science Projects for kids, you have commented that it was a bad link, would you care to explain, Why?

Vig vimarsh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vig vimarsh (talkcontribs)

Please sign your posts using four tildes (on the upper-left corner of your keyboard, simultaneously using the "shift" key, in order to allow other WP users to directly tie into "user talk", "user page" and "conributions").
As to the question: The link (1) substituted an existing link to science projects for kids for another without justification, and (2) didn't link to any site at all. Here is the link that was improperly substituted for the previous link, to which I reverted: At least as of 23 October 2007 this link did not work properly. ... Kenosis 04:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, I did check the link when I put it, and I do believe it is a much better link then the existing link, but unfortunately it has exactly the same title!

Thanks for the help about identifying, I have been using four tides but the use of shift key is new for me. Let me try it for the forst time, here itself. Vig vimarsh 15:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your[edit]

assessement of the definition of ID. You seem to think that those who want to have ID taught in schools are unethical for their efforts to use politics to obtain their goals. I think the US is still a free country where people can use legal means to change laws. And I believe you are misdefining the term ID to promote your own agendas. Please stop the POV pushing and OR. Dontletmedown 20:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I imagine you're referring to the talk thread from Talk:Intelligent design as it existed on October 30 that was "userfied" and moved to User_talk:Dontletmedown#I_see_problems_here. No comment -- maybe go back and read what I said again. ... Kenosis 05:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
You must be kidding. Intelligent design has been found by a United States Federal court to be nothing more than an attempt to teach religion in school, which violates the anti-establishment clause of the United States Constitution (you must know that document...do you?). The only POV pushing is by Dontletmedown. Thank you for your consideration. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting the decision and using OR. They never said that. Read it. Dontletmedown 21:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. This conversation has passed the expiration date of usefulness. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy notice[edit]

I have mentioned your username in evidence presented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Your contributions were mentioned as one of many participants in an edit war. GRBerry 01:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe the quoted passage from the linked-to arbitration reads as follows: "An edit war ensues, in which Mr. Hoffman is reverted by FeloniousMonk twice, reverted in substance with some other improvements to the article by Kenosis once and is reverted again by Filll. Some talk occurs at this time, but not much. Mr. Hoffman gets blocked for the 3RR violation by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves).". Thank you for the heads-up just the same. ... Kenosis 01:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
That is indeed what I said, and all I currently anticipate saying regarding you. GRBerry 04:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again for the clarification. ... Kenosis 04:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration[edit]

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 00:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, Cogden. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

rewording at NOR[edit]

I like some of your latest changes. Maybe we will actually get somewhere after all. DGG (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

More NOR[edit]

Hi Kenosis. At times it seems like we may have been 'combatants' on the NOR talk page, especially when you first arrived there a couple months or so ago. However, It was only to try and get clarification on several (numerous?) points or aspects of the myraid comments floating around. Anyway, my take on more recent developments there seem like we are still divided in two 'extreme camps', with most participants somewhere in the middle. One 'side' seems like the best bet is to move PSTS somewhere, so further diversions like the 'Journal articles' discussions don't get drawn into NOR, that's a completely separate issue totally unrelated to NOR. I think I can honsetly say that this is where I generally tend to fall. On the other end, there appears to be a position that NOR simply cannot be defined or enforced without defining PSTS, which I think is where you generally fall (correct me if I'm wrong). Anyway, we both seem to occasionally come out of our respective 'sides' occasionally to discuss issues and provide input. It seems like reaching any kind of consensus about PSTS is beyond they capability of either 'side', so the status quo prevails. In the meantime, we still have occasions like the 'Journal article' discussion that will keep cropping up. So to address this problem, as I think it's the only really viable alternative, do you have any ideas on how we (the participants) can clarify this section so almost any Wikipedian can read the page and clearly understand what it means and how should be implemented so that they can readily get back to their productive editing? I don't think we should expect every Wikipedian that winds up coming to the policy, or the talk page with a specific problem, to spend several hours digesting all of its various nuances and interpretations or spend days (or more) away from productive editing before getting either a clear understanding or a clear, definitive answer to their question/problem. Can you think of anything we can do to alleviate this? I ask you, since you seem to have an inside ear on the position of those on your 'side' and seem more than willing to participate in discussions. You also seem to be acceptable most of the time to parties on either 'side', similar to Vassyana, but now mainly coming from the other 'side' in concensus building. Thanks. wbfergus Talk 17:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Evaluating sources[edit]

Would you lend a hand or comment on this idea? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bergson-Nobel-photo.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bergson-Nobel-photo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

BJBot[edit]

My bot does not decide to tag images for deletion, it only lists images other have tagged for deletion but failed to list properly. The sudden amount is because I haven't run it in a while. BJTalk 22:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 04:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

…1:35 p.m.e.s.t. this is cool this is so far the second time i have enterd a message with the season greetings attachment oops it is also coolthe terming Kenosis preity good , Kenosis Theol. the doctrine that Christ relinquished His devine attributes so as to experience human suffering [1835-45; < Gk kenosis an emptying (Keno-, var . s. of kenosis to emptyout, drain + -sis-SIS)]. adj.. i was just currently doing research on the tree of jesus and ofcourse every now and again i go to church , now my thought cosists of Christ the word that is being i just came from the topic oops well it cosisted of two words one perhaps the second ,Domain, here it is a thought concerning Jesus it is true he was perhaps born Jesus Christ though my thought now is was it Jesus of Christ Jesus within Christ well as much as there is on the issue it is mostly for sure Jesus Christ my option here in thought is if he was for sure the ruler of kings and or King of Kings to rule then all good and the same though the roughness to accept one to be and be proclaimed as such would then have to recognize that Christ is of teaching and perhaps by now it is the name jesus wich means the same perhaps though dsoftly as when it is to be first or in front of it stabilizing Christ in a Domain carrector though aswell leaving the teaching to the pertaining vertue,hope that wasn't confusing this is just my personal expresion"Short But Deadly" d.e.a.d.l.y. Desired evry awareness disireing you meaning the end [you] you oughto understand, "But" Beauty Understands Togetherness,ed in desired establishing {the} understanding wich is now posibly a end wich then pertains to a begining; i supose pertaining to where one is to teach a far away place perhaps. 1:52 P.M. E.S.T.David George DeLancey (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Science and Positivism[edit]

To Kenosis: You have replaced the SCIENCE edits of myself and Ryan Paris with the "long standing lead".

This is much better. The introduction is now entirely neutral on realism and positivism.

It is inappropriate to talk about "understanding" and "explanation" in Science without a balancing definition which allows the positivist point of view (and even a discussion of the schism). These should perhaps go elsewhere in the article.

I completely agree with the intro as it stands today. Thanks, Keithbowden (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Eins1.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on Image:Eins1.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Eins1.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Gary King (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

G'day Kenosis[edit]

I thought I'd come and say hello - and also wanted to run an idea past you. First, I should say that we've crossed paths in the past in my previous user incarnations (User:Petesmiles, I think, and maybe User:Purples - both me, and I recognise that it's a bit silly that you need an almanac to keep track of folk nowadays!) - I have always been thoroughly impressed with your contributions to article content, and collaboration, and it's with that in mind that I thought I'd see if you were possibly interested in joining a 'real world' discussion about some of the issues surrounding the current unfortunate troubles surrounding 'ID' and the 'ID Project' editors.

I've been working hard (as has User:Filll, and others) to promote a project called 'Not The Wikipedia Weekly' - which is basically regular conversations over Skype on any and all wiki related issues. If you are at all interested or available to engage in this way, then I think that would be fantastic! - we can also 'plug you in' via a regular telephone if that works better, or offer some technical advice should you find that helpful.

Regardless of your response - thanks heaps for your huge contributions to the project, and do feel free to get in touch if you've got any further questions about all of this! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Review help for Anekantavada[edit]

I can see that you have a substantial interest and understanding of Philosophy and are a major contributor of this area. Hence I request your assistance to make this article as a featured article. Users, Alastair Haines (talk · contribs), Qmwne235 (talk · contribs) Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) have made a lot of improvements, but I still need more assistance which would be appreciated. Anekantavada is the most important principle of Jain philosophy and I hope it will be the first article on Jainism to qualify as FA. Thanks. --Anish (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Truth and Correspondence theory[edit]

Hi Kenosis! :) Thanks for all your contributions at Truth. I have just discussed this topic in the talk page of Truth. You can find it here. My apologies for this move. Marax (talk) 07:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kenosis, Sorry for my delayed response. I have just replied to your comments at Talk:Truth. :) Marax (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

According to Quaeler: between an article at state 0 and it at state 1, if the large edits made to reach the second state are the ones in question, the article must be left in state 0 while the discussion consensus is reached (lest any nutjob be able to force an article to remain in a state containing falsehoods while they argue their point).

According to me: state 0 is Marax's version of April 2008. It is a version running April to August 2008. Hundreds of Wikipedians scrutinized it and bearing excellent reasons accepted it for several months. Recently Kenosis (you) changed it to state 1 - to a version of 2006 but whose reasons for being have been duly contested in numerous arguments. The talk page of Truth is an excellent page where you can appreciate the reasonableness of my edit and Marax's many arguments. I enjoin you with my whole heart to read Talk:Truth. You are most welcome and encouraged to join our discussion - to give reasons why you prefer state 1 or version 2006. I repeat - no arguments for version 2006, no reversion, no edit warring. Walter Ching (talk) 08:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've responded at Talk:Truth#Correspondence_theory_and_section_consistency. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

PSTS Policy & Guidelines Proposal[edit]

Since you have been actively involved in past discussions regarding PSTS, please review, contribute, or comment on this proposed PSTS Policy & Guidelines.--SaraNoon (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment on the project talk page here. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOR[edit]

Thanks. The wording seemed strange as fringe theory promoters can insist that no citations that disprove their claims can be included unless the article directly refers to their fringe theory with wording such as "fringe theory XXX is incorrect because ...". lk (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahem.[edit]

You could at least have a more descriptive edit summary, or did you not notice the in use tag and associated talk page thread?--Tznkai (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on the article talk page. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you commented there as well.--Tznkai (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Done, as requested. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV/FAQ[edit]

Thanks, I agree with you that it's getting a bit off track. The original intent was to discuss the Policy status of WP:NPOV/FAQ, which I don't think was ever meant to be an actual policy. Naturally, some of it should be moved to WP:NPOV since it's been written as policy. But the conversationn has veered a bit from its original intent. I was considering undoing the rediroect on the NPOV/FAQ talk page and moving some of the discussion there..and refactoring some of the..um..less than helpful comments that have cropped up. Sorry to revert your move, and thanks for your gracious commeents on my talk page. Dreadstar 04:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, I've implimented my plan to undo the redirect on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/FAQ, and move the discussion so it can continue there. Thanks for prompting me to take action on something I was delaying doing... :) Hopefully it will actually stick. Dreadstar 04:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design[edit]

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Seriously?[edit]

Talk:ID please.--Tznkai (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

NOR[edit]

I posted some proposals for the policy, on the talk page - perhaps you would want to comment? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe the plumber[edit]

Sorry 'bout that. I read the edit wrong; I thought I was removing that section. 66.177.105.166 (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. By the way, welcome to Wikipedia. Take care now. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I've been around a little while; I just don't edit much here (I'm an admin on Wiktionary) so I don't bother logging in. I'm Sewnmouthsecret. 66.177.105.166 (talk) 06:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'd mistaken you for the new user who inserted the original research (and I thought perhaps was subsequently seeking to self-remove it?). I didn't notice that you were in the mix there. Thanks for the note, Sewnmouthsecret. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy of Nature and Natural Philosophy[edit]

Hi, I just noticed this edit, which if I understand correctly states that the old Philosophy of Nature article's material, originally split out of the Nature article I believe, was being merged into Natural Philosophy. However I see none of it there, so it just looks like a big deletion? Could you explain further, because the material that was in there seems to be nowhere in Wikipedia now?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It was an article in bad form. It was really made of scraps. I have therefore started to build a new one, which contains what I thought was the necessary subject matter that is not currently in any other article as far as I can see.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I have reconstructed what has happened, and I'd like your comments on proposals to go forward. You did not merge to Natural Philosophy, but rather to Nature (Philosophy). So now I have accidentally made a new article called Natural Philosophy which overlaps a lot, too much, with Nature (Philosophy). This is not a bad result though, because I think the latter article was made of scraps, and certainly I had not gone far beyond that in previous efforts. So my first question is whether we should simply delete it and replace it with the new article. I ask someone else's opinion because the new article is basically just written by me so far. Secondly, in the meantime I also tried to follow your various comments on the discussion pages of all three articles concerning the older versions. To keep it simple, I do follow that sourcing was a problem, which was never denied. But for the rest I suspect that you misunderstood what my POV would have looked like should I have been guided more by it. I do think it would be POV for someone to say that "the solution to the a-priori/a-posteriori dilemma requires an understanding of obscure thinkers like Kant, deSaussure, Peirce and others to sort it out"[2], because as you yourself say "indeed this debate is still not settled today". So hopefully that was not what you were insisting upon. I have some suspicions about what else might have caused concern, but perhaps it is easier to refer you to the new version of Philosophy of Nature. For example it was never my impression to say that Bacon had a theory of Platonic forms - only that he claimed to have something which could fill the role. That some of the first moderns cloaked themselves in medieval terminology such as "natural law" is a confusion which nevertheless needs handling.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Hi. As you indicated that you might be interested, please contribute to the ongoing discussion here. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 02:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I just did so, by placing the proposed new section on Talk so it could be viewed for discussion. Thanks. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Will you be contributing to the discussion at all? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Most likely yes. I'd like to take some time to consider how it might reasonably be edited so as to provide added value to the existing article, and where it might best be placed in the article. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Not ah 'tall :) DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 17:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Great job -- thanx for helping! DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 04:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

National Criminal Science Education?[edit]

Thanks for fixing my embarrassing NCIS/NCSE brainfart. I have to admit I had a good laugh at my own expense when I saw your correction. -R. fiend (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

New WP:NOR footnote based on your previous footnote[edit]

I just added a footnote at the end of the 1st paragraph of WP:NOR that follows the precedent of a footnote that you previously added at the end of the 2nd paragraph of WP:SYN. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Request + question[edit]

apologies for butting in above; I have followed this rather confusing issue on NOR and arrived here. I hope you do not mind?

Also, please archive. Really. Some day soon. Thanks! KillerChihuahua?!? 03:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I added MiszaBot, which I cribbed from your user talk page (yes, I did change User_talk:KillerChihuahua to User_talk:Kenosis in the script, so you won't be getting my old talk in your archives :-) . If I did it correctly, I imagine the bot will be along soon enough. Thanks for prompting me. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Good man. Many happy returns of the season, btw. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Ye gods, you just copied my whole header. No one has ever done that before. I'm flattered, but I also thought I was on my talk page not yours when I first arrived. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings[edit]

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)









New thoughts regarding Footnote 2 and "unnoticed" issue[edit]

Hi Kenosis, I just inserted a message in the discussion of Footnote 2 which supports it and alleviates my recent concern. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of "non-controversial" in footnote 2 of WP:NOR[edit]

Hi. With the term "non-controversial" in footnote 2, were you referring to the non-controversial aspect regarding the correctness of a proposed statement to an article? In the example of the subject sentence of the SKIP-BO article, does non-controversial mean that no one involved in editing the article disputes the correctness of the subject sentence, "Alternatively, the 162 cards could be comprised of 3 regular decks..." ? (I'll look here on your talk page for a response so that the discussion isn't fragmented, if that's OK.) Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It was pretty much what you say, though I'm not familiar with SKIP-BO myself. Non-controversial statements in articles are seldom contested. When statements are substantively uncontroversial and contested solely on the basis of an overly strict interpretation of WP:NOR (whatever exactly that may be), other editors will commonly react by simply removing the request or demand for citation from the article. The footnote is intended to reflect this widespread editing practice, as noted in the somewhat lengthy discussion I linked to in the WT:NOR archives. In general, it is only when a statement or set of statements is substantively controversial that WP:NOR and WP:SYN is needed anyway. In the case of many math articles, the community of math-interested generally know what's uncontroversial synthesis and what is controversial. Thus, when a similarly knowledgeable math observer sees a controversial synthesis, they tend to either fix it or flag it as needing verification or as original research. This is why the footnote reads the way it does. Although the footnote remains in place, we never really achieved a consensus for it. AFAICT, the "verdict" remains split, fairly consistently with the general flow of argument in the most recent WT:NOR thread about the issue. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Re "When statements are substantively uncontroversial and contested solely on the basis of an overly strict interpretation of WP:NOR (whatever exactly that may be), other editors will commonly react by simply removing the request or demand for citation from the article." - Would you happen to recall where this happened? I think these examples might be useful in the discussion. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I see no point in dragging in other instances. Disruption is disruption; spurious tag use has always been gently discouraged, as well as simple removal of tags. Do you contest the addition used? Please explain clearly here precisely what your objection or position is, thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Bob_ K31416 has previously put forward some of his reasoning at WT:NOR#New_footnote_at_end_of_first_paragraph. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes thanks, I read that. Perhaps my query was unclear. Bob wrote a good bit about skip-bo, and seems to be arguing that the sentence " Alternatively, the 162 cards could be comprised of 3 regular decks of playing cards, including the jokers, with ace to queen corresponding to 1 to 12 and the kings and jokers corresponding to the SKIP-BO cards" is the type sentence which requires sourcing. Then he goes on to argue that it should be removed. Am I following this correctly? KillerChihuahua?!? 13:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
The skip-bo example is hypothetical. The discussion is about whether to include footnote #2 (removed 22 December 2008 here) as a caveat at WP:NOR to legitimize situations where an uncontoversial synthesis occurs, as opposed to original synthesis. My argument was, essentially, that uncontroversial synthesis of simple "A+B=C" deductions is a common editorial practice, and that where a demand for citation of a simple, otherwise uncontroversial deduction is made by someone based simply on the rule that "no, you can't synthesize", it's commonly considered tendentious and the citation is simply removed. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
And you are correct. So which argument is Bob using skip-bo for? Keep footnote, lose footnote? It looks like Bob wants to deny the clarification offered by the footnote altogether. IMO, the footnote is silly and that situatiion should be addressed in the text, but if people prefer a footnote its no skin off my nose and certainly not worth arguing about. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Presently Bob appears to me to be advocating in favor of a caveat that gives explicit permission for uncontroversial syntheses. The more I think about it, the more I'm in favor of it too. (I was the one who put the footnote in, but I hadn't felt very strongly about it.) Several have argued sternly against any such reduction in the strength of the language of WP:SYN, apparently feeling they need the strongest possible rule to counteract editors seen as too fast-and-loose with their conclusions about what their cited sources are saying. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Then I repeat that Bob's arguments are, at least to me, unclear. He seems to me to be arguing the precise opposite, but his posts are so verbose I am having trouble winnowing the point from any of his entries. I'll wait for him to clarify. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
His position appears to have shifted, upon gaining an understanding of some of the subtleties of the issue, to supporting a footnote of the kind we're talking about. This happened to me too-- the more I thought about it, the more VasileGeburci's now archived point about math articles and such made sense w.r.t. the "A+B=C" scenario that WP:SYN forbids. Problem is, simple deductions are part of standard editing practice. I recognize it's a rather long and somewhat confusing thread at WT:NOR. Perhaps we should let it go for now and pick it up again after Christmas. .. Kenosis (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(out)Hi Kenosis, I left a message on KillerChihuahua's talk page offering to answer, on his talk page, any questions that he might have regarding the footnote 2 discussion. I'm also glad that he apologized for interrupting our discussion. BTW how are things going regarding finding those examples? If I can help in any way let me know. I'm still very interested in them. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Which I promptly removed, per my standing notice at the top of my talk page that I prefer not to split discussions and will remove any posts which do so. Do try to read those notices when editors place them at the top of their pages; it is basic courtesy. thank you. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Kenosis, The administrator KillerChihuahua has disrupted this discussion so much that I don't know where to put this message! Anyhow you don't have to look for those examples anymore. If you noticed my last message at the footnote 2 discussion, I'm not pursuing it anymore. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, I don't think you behaved properly here. First you interrupt a discussion, then you apologize for it, then you do the same thing again. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I view it as "butting into" a conversation, which I am now a part of - and the apology was a simple courtesy, much as "pardon me for butting in, but..." would be. There is no "did it again" since its still the same conversation. Do you have trouble following conversations with more than two participants? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Why not come to my talk page to discuss the issues that we have between us? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Ye gods, to what purpose? I only wanted a clarification, which you seem unable or unwilling to give. I see no purpose in spreading our inability to communicate over yet more of WP. KillerChihuahua?!? 06:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Okayyyyy....I agree with Kenosis that the material in footnote 2 should be part of WP:NOR. Aside from the language of your remark, I agree with you when you wrote, " IMO, the footnote is silly and that situatiion should be addressed in the text, but if people prefer a footnote its no skin off my nose and certainly not worth arguing about." Like you, I think it should be in the text too, rather than a footnote. I support the ideas in footnote 2 and I even tried to place a similar and more general idea in another part of WP:NOR, which is how all this ruckus got started. I suppose you can criticize me for that, whatever.
P.S. If you're interested in the topic, why not comment on it at the WP:NOR talk page? Footnote 2 could sure use your support. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Now that I know whether or not I agree or disagree with one of the primary voices there, I might. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. One thing I may need to add for clarification is that footnote 2 was deleted by Tmore3 while the discussion was going on at WP:NOR. I restored it and then Tmore3 deleted it again. Not an edit war since there was discussion between those edits. It is presently not part of WP:NOR.
Also, of the people who commented over there, Blueboar, Kenosis, Bob K31416 and maybe Semitransgenic, are in favor of footnote 2 but Tmore3 and Professor marginalia are opposed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Now I feel caught in the middle. Anyway, KC made a point just above that might help to answer your initial question. I mentioned it in WT:NOR. Maybe I'll just copy and past the relevant part over there. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice[edit]

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: RFC policy list[edit]

Whatever happened to the rfc policy list of current discussions? Right now the link in the template for creating a policy rfc redirects right back to the template. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. —harej // change the rules 21:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
It came to my attention here. When I clicked on the link to the RFCpolicy list, there's no list-- it just redirects back to the page with the RFCpolicy instructions. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
That does not happen to me. —harej // change the rules 21:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The template didn't seem to auto generate any listing for the RFC policy list. I'll manually list it. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
When I attempted to add it manually via the "manual add" button, I really screwed it up. Something's haywire there. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed but I don't know how. —harej // change the rules 00:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! You have the magic touch, I guess. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome[edit]

And thank you too. Discussions about policy are important, but can be taxing, can't they? Professor marginalia (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep. ... Kenosis, were you aware that the WP:UNDUE sentence about "premièring a proof" is also present in WP:SYNTH (right at the end)? Jayen466 00:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

request for suggestions[edit]

here when you have some time (concerns a proposal to Verifiability policy) Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Intelligent design[edit]

I'm honestly astounded that you feel I have attacked you, but can we please keep the discussion on-topic? I don't know if this is some kind of stalling tactic, but the constant chatter about bad faith and whatnot is detracting from the real discussion. Also, I have come into the discussion with an idea about where I stand, obviously I have, but that does not mean I will not change my mind. However, being willing to change my mind does not mean that I will accept any old invalid argument you choose to throw at me. Please stop trying to villify me, please stop patronising me and please keep on topic... J Milburn (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. You've used ridiculous terms like "vilify", "attack" and such. In the space of one not-very-lengthy talk thread, you've quickly turned simple disagreement with your explicitly stated agenda, to remove three images from the article, simple disagreements by two long-time editors at that article, into alleged ad hominems. No one is attacking you. On the other hand, as I pointed out on the talk thread at Talk:Intelligent design#Book_covers your agenda was quite demonstrably clear from the outset. Indeed you yourself made eminently clear at several points in the discussion what your agenda was, so pointing this out is by no stretch of reasonable imagination a personal attack. Problem is, in part, you're not the sole arbiter of what is and what is not an enhancement of readers' understanding, particularly given that you've not thus far demonstrated one whit of knowledge about the topic that might reasonably be interpreted as being anything but finding new excuses to support a decision you quite plainly already made at the outset. It is eminently clear that you have only one purpose at the article on intelligent design, which is to remove the book-cover images by whatever criterion you can find to do so. After your initial insistence that the images were in violation of NFCC #10 was shown to be clearly erroneous, you immediately proceeded to seek other reasons to remove them, and fell back on NFCC #8, which is basically an editorial judgment, and quite frankly a fairly subjective one because we cannot conduct a proper survey of readers so as to definitively learn whether they believed their understanding of the topic was in fact enhanced by the inclusion of the book-cover images. If you believe that arguments contrary to your insistence that the images will be removed are, as you've just said, "stalling", then by all means please proceed to implement what you appear to believe is inevitable. By all means call in further reinforcements among NFCC#8 interpreters and regular advocates of NFC removal, and remove, within appropriate WP process, the book-cover images in keeping with what you asserted in the talk thread you started, which was that the removal of the book-cover images at that article will happen if they are not needed. I should point out, though, that your statement that the removal "will happen if they are not needed" says nothing about the policy-- nowhere in the NFCC does the policy state that NFC images must be "needed" in order to merit inclusion. But your statement, among others you made, does make quite clear what your own intent is. Despite your attempt to characterize it as such, this is not a personal attack but rather is a simple identification of something you yourself have made quite explicit, which is what your own agenda is and what your own made-up standard is for removal of the three images the presence of which you've disputed at that article. .... Kenosis (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
My agenda is simple- remove the book covers, unless it can be demonstrated that their use meets our inclusion guidelines. This is an aim clearly supportive of policy- the burden of proof lies with those wishing to include the images. I do not use terms like "vilify" lightly- claiming I have joined the article with "one purpose, with one agenda only" is clearly an attempt to vilify me, as it has the connotation that this purpose is a malevolent, perhaps ulterior one
As I have stated more than once, your belief that I know nothing about the topic not only counts for nothing (I don't need to know about a topic to attempt to enforce policy, and it often helps to prevent a potential conflict of interest, or reading into a subject too far- instead, to use this current case, the purpose of the covers should be clear to everyone, not just self proclaimed experts) but is wrong. I'm fairly well read on the subject, and recently sat an exam where I discussed it at length. I used the claim that the covers had no rationales as an aside- it was never the main thrust of my argument. Note that my initialy comment says that the covers "did not even" have rationales, while I actually focussed on the fact they weren't necessary. Also note I was happy to admit my mistake and apologise further down- don't crucify me for being human. Further, I doubt I used the word "stalling", as it's not a word that I ever really use. I have not once called anyone in specifically- instead, I have posted neutral comments for further input on public talk pages- pages habituated by those who normally fall on the "include images" side of the debate (Jheald, 2008Olympian) as well as this perceived "cabal", not running off to friends, or anything of the sort.
As for "I should point out, though, that your statement that the removal "will happen if they are not needed" says nothing about the policy-- nowhere in the NFCC does the policy state that NFC images must be "needed" in order to merit inclusion."- Grow up. I'm not going to rise to that kind of crap. J Milburn (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Check your attitude at the door. Your post is in violation of WP:NPA. •Jim62sch•dissera! 13:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Rubbish. Kenosis attempts to provoke me, I state I am not going to rise to it. I have not made any comments about Kenosis, nor do I intend to- I do not know him or her, any judgements I make will be in response to their conduct on Wikipedia. J Milburn (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Kenosis made no such attempt as his history on WP will show.
By the way, judgments work both ways: right now, I'm afraid that your conduct re this issue has been less than sterling. Perhaps it might be best if you and Kenosis started over, without any animosity or ill-will. •Jim62sch•dissera! 17:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Fascinating logic - if someone "attempts to provoke you", that means that it's OK to reply with personal attacks and insults. Hmmm...think we need to change NPA and CIVIL..."The Milburn Exception", maybe?  :) Guettarda (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Of course "attempts to" is subjective in that it implies intent, which is one of the hardest things to prove. •Jim62sch•dissera! 17:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Jim62sch's statement "[S]tarted over, without any..."? from what point? Is this a request to submit a pretense that I haven't read anything thus far? There's no personal animosity on my part, certainly not as of this point in time. Still, I reserve the right to point out anything I choose about statements that have been made, e.g. by J_Milburn, or any WP user, what their intent appears to be, whether on a simple reading of a statement clearly intended to make a demand or seek a result, or in the context of a pattern such as that displayed thus far as regards attempting to control the editorial content of the ID article. This user J_Milburn came into the ID article with one purpose only-- to remove three images. His reasoning and angle of argument against these images has changed repeatedly, and moreover a number of his comments have turned out in my estimation to be, frankly, not very forthright. Is this a request to start over and ignore these issues? For what purpose?
.....Stated a bit more simply: This guy comes into the article with one agenda, to remove three images, using several different reasons why and changing his approach and angle of argument depending on what the response is. After my being very deferential about it he demands that I (and/or other users) stop "patronising". Then when I respond directly and call to attention his purpose for being at the article, he calls it an attack, and here on this page, an attempt to "vilify". And he starts real assertive on both pages, like instructing participants on Talk:Intelligent design to "cut the crap", etc. etc. Do I need to continue to review the events thus far? At what stage in time should be "started over" from? W.r.t. what page(s)?... Kenosis (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The post was intended to be balanced, without casting aspersions on any specific editor. As I noted, I do not see that wou were being provocative. To understand my thoughts and opinions precisely, you must look at all of my posts on this issue and apply the appropriate analytical skills. [3]; [4]; [5]; [6]. •Jim62sch•dissera! 18:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I have no interest in continuing this discussion, as I do not feel it is particularly productive. I have taken into account that some people are not happy with my motives and my comments, and I'm sure others have taken into account my unhappiness about the comments they've made and the attitude that they have had. If someone has a serious concern about my conduct, please raise it on my talk page- the discussion can stay there. In the mean time, I request that you do not talk about me behind my back (such as continuing this discussion here, as I will no longer be reading this page). J Milburn (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
And the originator of this thread on my talk page writes: "I request that you do not talk about me behind my back (such as continuing this discussion here, as I will no longer be reading this page". I'll do best to respect this request. Show's over, folks--time to move along, citizens. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In that case, per his request, I suppose further discussion about J Milburn's incivility should re-locate to here. Guettarda (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me, although I could have sworn that Wiki is an open-source and anybody can read any non-admin page. I guess I was misled. •Jim62sch•dissera! 17:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops[edit]

I don't know how this mistake happened. I apologize and I'm glad you caught it quickly.   Will Beback  talk  05:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem-- I assumed it was inadvertent. ... Kenosis (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent design[edit]

Hi. Edits like this are in breach of our policies. If I see you make another edit like this I shall block you. Please let's not go there. Thank you. --John (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

On what grounds? ... Kenosis (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Reported to AN/I[edit]

Heads up-regarding the above threat --Aunt Entropy (talk)

Responded there. Thanks for the note. (Grrr...).... Kenosis (talk) 05:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Don't growl at nice ol' auntie.  :) •Jim62sch•dissera! 05:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Don't you dare browbeat me, buster. ;-) You forgot to sign your last post at Talk:Intelligent design. ... Kenosis (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Works for me - I just renamed the section by reflex before reading it. When I went to move my comment just below yours, I found that you had already taken care of it. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. thanks Eldereft. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

More image removals[edit]

You may be interested to know that Andrew c has removed File:Darwin on Trial.jpg from Phillip E. Johnson. Whether that image's fair-use rationale covers Johnson is unclear. It's main title is "Non-free use media rationale for Phillip E. Johnson" but it does not appear to contain a rationale specific to that article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Time evolution wars.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Time evolution wars.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. PhilKnight (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm in hospital bed at the moment & using a GPRS pda to surf, so I'm a little limited. I can't open the thread to edit (it's too big) but, if it's acceptable, you could copy the following there:

keep. The image is almost iconic as a relevant illustration of the article. I have to admit that my main reason is as an improvement to the readability of the article, however it seems to me that the attempts to lawyer or fiibuster this image off the wiki seem to be bureaucracy for its own sake rather than for the improvement of the article and of Wikipedia as a whole. The spirit of the "law" should be the guidance rather than a particular over severe, one-sided view which the "deletionists" seem to be taking. TheresaWilson (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand. I'll attempt to do so, and see if the overseeing administrator permits it. I wish you a speedy recovery. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem with example of OR in WP:SYN[edit]

Hi. Thanks for posting that info about previous versions of the example. As I mentioned, I thought it was very useful info. Would you consider putting it in its own subsection of the section that it is currently in on the talk page, or a section of its own on the talk page? I think that would help the previous discussion to proceed better and also make it easier to discuss the info that you brought up. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the section of the Talk page took a good turn so that there won't be a need for any of the changes that I suggested above. Hope I'm not speaking too soon! Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Rationalism[edit]

Please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationalist movement. It's fallout from a 2006 discussion that you participated in. Uncle G (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I imagine you mean here, when there was an article titled Continental_rationalism, later merged and subsumed into Rationalism. The term "rationalism" is a classification quagmire and POV tar pit for the purposes of a summary article in Wikipedia-- too many different views by reliable sources on what it constitutes and whose philosophy should properly be classified as such. I left it to others to try to sort out and haven't followed it since 2006. Just the same, I appreciate your having left a note about it. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WT:NOR survey[edit]

FYI, I made a response to your comment at the WT:NOR survey re example. You may delete this message on your talk page after you read it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks Bob. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Flew, Schroeder, etc.[edit]

On what grounds did you remove my edit of the Intelligent Design article, in which I pointed out that not all its primary supporters are Protestants belonging to the Discovery Institute?Aleitheiophile (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It has long been the consensus among WP editors participating in the article that the reliable sources indicate all the leading proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute. Repeatedly a request was made to name just one person who is a leading or primary proponent of intelligent design who is not affiliated, and it turns out all the primary proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute or its direct offshoots the Center for Science and Culture and the ISCID. It turns out, according to the reliable sources, that it's not a product of independent competing institutions but rather is a one-organization show, with all the leadership clustered around the Discovery Institute and its planning and funding. Sorry to disillusion you. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Asperger image[edit]

Thanks for the comment, but I'm afraid it'll have zero weight there, as the venue has moved to Talk:Asperger syndrome #Asperger photo. Please comment there if you want to be heard. Eubulides (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comments[edit]

I don't give a flying fuck about being blocked. If you block me, it's your encyclopedia that loses. The reverts in question were caused by a person who asked for comments, then deleted the claims that he wanted comments about. That's not sensible.Likebox (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please wait for comments, then delete! If people read the sources, decide it's OR (which it obviously isn't), then OK, delete it.Likebox (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
It would also help for you to reread the source. It talks about mesmerism and animal magnetism without making any distinction with hypnosis. I know, because I found the source by googling "hypnosis pseudoscience". You can easily find other sources, by making the same search.Likebox (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for losing my temper. To explain (but not to justify): I felt besieged by the deletes of sourced material, making me dig through the diffs to get the sources back, or find them again. It's very time consuming. So I took the shortcut of restoring to preserve the sources, instead of copying to talk as I should have done.Likebox (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
No biggie. Thanks for saying that. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Gnosis article[edit]

Hi, would you like to participate in the gnosis article again? User LoveMonkey said to me that it's ok for him to reduce the Eric Voegelin section to just a couple of lines. Besides that, I think it could be good to add another section that clarifies the nature of the gnostic knowledge. What do you think? --JuliusCarver (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Nihon Ōdai Ichiran[edit]

I noticed your name amongst those contributing at Talk:Primary source.

Will you take a look at what I've pulled together at Primary source -- see here?

What do you think? I wonder if you'd be willing to suggest how this analysis might be improved?

Perhaps you may want to argue that using Nihon Ōdai Ichiran is not helpful as a strategy for illustrating the differences among primary, secondary and tertiary sources? --Tenmei (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Tenmei, primary sources are, in my experience, typically regarded far more broadly than the lengthy example you've developed at the article on primary source. Ordinarily we don't get bogged down in debates about which archaeological artifact is the primary source, because they're all primary sources. Indeed, it's not at all uncommon to regard as primary sources the writings of those who personally found or personally examined the actual artifacts--not only the field notes and laboratory records but also published writings of those who have direct experience with the particular artifact. Truth be told, I would be very reluctant to confuse unfamiliar readers with a debate or example as "nit-picky" as the example you give. The concept of a "primary source" is very much relative to the scope of one's inquiry-- for instance, by way of analogy, it's widely accepted to be unlikely to be able to find, say for example, the very first written copy of the Book of Genesis, or Gospel of Mark, so all the archaeological artifacts relating to these works are primary sources, and quite arguably so are the publications of those who've examined them in person. Not only that, for many purposes any current translation of these books are regarded as primary sources. (The secondary sources involve commentary on the content of these books.)
..... Having said this, I think it's preferable to place this content you added at the bottom, and see where it goes in terms of other WP editors' responses to the example. I stopped short of removing it outright. Thanks again for the note Tenmei. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


Kenosis -- Thanks for the feedback. Moving this section to the bottom of the page was easily accomplished; but perhaps there are other improvements to be made?
What I'm looking for editing help -- tightening the sentences, focusing the ideas so that the illustrative example is instructive and useful. I think this particular text is useful because it's cross-cultural, non-western, non-controversial, minor, etc. In this context, I don't want my abilities as a writer to diminish the potential value of this example. Perhaps I might encourage you to try editing these few paragraphs so the relational concepts are more clearly presented? Perhaps too much detail is muddying the effectiveness of this example? I need a fresh perspective in order to make it better. --Tenmei (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Regrettably, I understand your comments to be suggesting that this added text is unhelpful. Other than abandoning it altogether, I wonder if there might be some way for me to re-think the way thes examples are presented so that they enhance, rather than detract from the overall utility of the article? --Tenmei (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Anselm of Canterbury[edit]

I improved this article a bit, adding footnotes from the references readily available to me. Could you visit and see if it still needs the tag you put at the top of the article in November? And if it does, would you discuss specific things you want addressed in the talk page? I've started a short discussion on it there. Thanks. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation bot[edit]

Regarding this, it's actually required at WP:FAC that page number ranges be converted from a hyphen to an n-dash. So it's actually doing something useful. Guettarda (talk) 23:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hyphens to n-dashes? Required? Surreal. I don't see it anywhere on WP:Featured article criteria or WP:Citing sources. Anyways, thanks for the explanation. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Neither did I, until I sent an article through FAC last year. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Dashes. Guettarda (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Timeline of Tea Party protests[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Timeline of Tea Party protests, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Tea Party protests. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 23:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

TBH, don't care one way or the other. The length of the timeline had gotten out of control in the article on Tea Party protests. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Science[edit]

I see you have removed the "Unbalanced" tag on the Science article. While moving the paragraph to the lead is an improvement, I believe it is not enough. Tha article suffers from a pervasive and imbedded bias towards the physical sciences and natural sciences. In general, the Science article reiterates the ideas of those two, when it would better by just referring to them.

The lead still suffers terribly from this bias, mostly because of the following:

"Using controlled methods, scientists collect data in the form of observations, record observable physical evidence of natural phenomena, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. Knowledge in science is gained through research. The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions. The outcome or product of this empirical scientific process is the formulation of theory that describes human understanding of physical processes and facilitates prediction."(emphasis added)

Taken on face-value and in context of the article, this seems to invalidate any legitimacy of the social sciences as "science" at all, often lacking the "pysical" and "natural" requirements this definition gives.

This is just an example. The article suffers from such problems throughout. I suggest you consider restoring the "Unbalanced" tag.Shoreranger (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. They're natural processes, not necessarily just "physical". I'll go change those instances right away. As to the rest of the article, it's proven to be very hard to maintain. Please feel free to replace the template if you feel that strongly about it. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Science lead[edit]

Sb, my sense is that the lead was getting close to a reasonable lead, even with the one-word parenthetical note about praxis. It seems to me the more specific discussion about the uses of the word "art" (technical or practical art as opposed to creative or fine art) almost certainly ought be in the "Etymology and usage" section, if anywhere. The existing section on usage is presently too lengthy IMO, and ought be made more concise and less like part of a paper somebody wrote, but there certainly is room there for the clarification about "art". IOW, while a proper observation, I think it's a bit too much of a contextual explanation for the opening paragraph. ... Kenosis (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

But how can you leave out the first meaning of the world "science" which was used for millennia, which means something you've reduced to a prescription so that anybody can follow it?As in "how do you you make those incredible violins, Stradivari?" "Well, I don't really know. I sort of do it by feel and tone and work my way along. You can make some with me, and see if you can pick up the knack." "You mean you haven't got violin-making reduced to a science?" "No" "Well, if it's not a science, what IS it?" "I suppose it's still partly an art."SBHarris 00:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I understand the difficulties, but IMO the subtleties definitely don't belong in the first summary paragraph or even the article lead as a whole. The mere use of the word "prescriptive" says what you've said here, at least very basically and appropriately for the lead paragraph. Perhaps the subtleties of this should be mentioned instead in the "Etymology and usage" section which is presented immediately after the lead. Also, I intentionally included the basic relevant usages in the initial footnotes-- perhaps they can help to form what the summary of the issue might look like in the "Etymology and usage" section? ... Kenosis (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I can live with the way you've got it. Thanks! SBHarris 01:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Sb. I know you put some serious thought into this article... Kenosis (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Location change (and reservations made) for DC meetup[edit]

We originally considered TGI Friday's in Foggy Bottom as the meetup location, however I stopped by TGI Friday's this evening to make reservations. I was less than impressed. They apparently don't take reservations, except perhaps if you call 24 hours ahead of time. The staff was not so helpful, and the menu has hardly anything vegetarian which is an issue for some people.

So, I checked out the Bertucci's pizza/Italian place across the street (21st & I St NW). Their staff couldn't have been more helpful, think it will be fairly quiet so we will be able to hear each other, and is a very suitable place for us. So, reservations are made for Bertucci's at 5pm on Saturday. I hope you can make it to the meetup. --Aude (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "Unity Church"[edit]

Thank you..that information helps.

Yes, Unity has evolved over the years. I understand that Fillmore writings are dated. I'd be OK with fewer Fillmore sources, and more from the Association of Unity Churches website. If that's more appropriate, that's good news.

Do you think the information on the page as it is now is complete enough for people to grasp what Unity is all about?? I have not been so concerned with the details of what Unity is not...and why it's not..That seems to miss the point.

Would you agree??

Kwhistle (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)kwhistle

ISCID defunct?[edit]

Hi Kenosis, I added a comment about the past tense issue under the heading "EAAN, ID & TE" on Talk:Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism. It's all explained there. Regards -- Muzhogg (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit clash on EAAN talk page[edit]

Hi Kenosis,

I just had an edit clash with somebody on the EAAN talk page and think it might have been yourself given that you were contributing at about the same time as myself.

If so, just be advised that you might need to check whether your contribution has, or has not, gone through.

Thanks for your contributions on that article, by the way. :)

Regards, -- Muzhogg (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If the WP source code is working correctly, I would have received the same "edit conflict" message as you did had it not gone through. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

For your attention[edit]

Hi Kenosis,

Just as a favour, I am drawing your attention to the following at Student of Philosophy's request. I think it's essentially an admission of error in a recent 3RR case of which I don't know the details;

User_talk:Student_of_philosophy#Comments

Hopefully, passing on a message from a blocked user is not out of line - please accept my apologies if it is. And let me know so I don't do it again!

Regards, -- Muzhogg (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Employee Free Choice Act: Original Research?[edit]

You erased a section I had explaining why unions want binding arbitration, claiming it was original research. However, it is not. I cite the original paper, but I also cite an AFL-CIO release that cites the paper, which is a secondary source. I assume good faith, but you may have a hard time showing that the AFL-CIO, one of the main advocates of the Employee Free Choice Act, doesn't argue what I said they argue. Are there objections you had we should discuss to find a consensus version to put back up? 75.119.22.100 (talk) 05:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced the paragraph, making more explicit that the statements towards the end of the paragraph are the AFL-CIO's assertions about what commonly occurs. ... Kenosis (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section[edit]

Hi,

I've posted on the discussion page as to why that section should be included. Please respond to it before deleting that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talkcontribs) 22:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've explained on the talk page. Thanks for the note. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

God of the Gaps[edit]

Thank you for your discussions and many edits on this article. It reads much better now. Rlsheehan (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Rlsheehan. ... Kenosis (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

urgent[edit]

I think there is a very dangerous section in the NPOV policy, which I deleted and discussed on the talk page here. Now there is an RfC, I hope you will comment. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #8[edit]

You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.

There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #8. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know.

--User:Nbahn 04:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for help with Fillmore article[edit]

Kenosis, thanks your recent help with the Charles Fillmore article. I'm not sure why Hrafn continues to challenge innocuous statements on New Thought-associated people -- if he's interested in improving the articles, he could help out. But it certainly gets tiresome, so it's nice to have your help in setting the article right. Madman (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Health care reform in the United States[edit]

Hi Kenosis - regarding this edit summary [7], please remember to assume good faith. I quoted Marcia Angell verbatim and did not misrepresent her position at all; I have no objection to your adding her opinion in favor of single-payer healthcare, even though it is not strictly relevant to the specific subsection (which is about insurance). Also, although I linked to the New York Times "Room for Debate" forum because it is a good forum, I chose Dr. Angell's opinion because she was the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and is thus probably the most widely respected source in the group; to call that "cherrypicking" seems misleading in the context of accusing me of misrepresentation. I also have no objection to your adding Karen Davenport's opinion, although she doesn't even have her own article yet so you might want to remove the non-working Wiki-link.TVC 15 (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Good faith, and the assumption of it by others, have nothing to do with misleading statements within what were quite obviously very POVish edits. I believe the edit summary to have been an accurate representation of the content I saw and how I handled it. Thanks for the feedback nonetheless. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
As stated above, the opinions that you added had been omitted because they were not strictly relevant to the specific subsection; the affected sentences have since been moved to a more appropriate section.[8] Unfortunately, I will have to revert your recent deletion of a USA Today Editorial/Opinion. The edit summary calls it "unsigned" but newspaper editorials are the opinions of the paper; USA Today is the largest circulation newspaper in the United States, and clearly a reliable source. Assuming good faith, I guess you didn't notice the caption or how the newspaper is structured. Please consult WP:NPOV regarding how to balance POV issues. I saw Senator Durbin's statement and added his source (apparently President Obama's opinion), and contrary opinions including the USA's largest newspaper (citing HHS data). If you feel something is POV, especially in the context of ongoing debate, the appropriate response is to balance with contrary sources and ensure neutral presentation. Each side is entitled to its own opinion, but not its own facts. I am curious how assuming good faith can be consistent with accusing someone of misrepresentation though.TVC 15 (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say the misrepresentation was intentional. In any event, your edits will need to be consistent with WP editorial policies or they'll likely be reverted or otherwise brought into keeping with WP policies, including WP:V#Reliable_sources. An unsigned opinion piece isn't a reliable source. I trust that should conclude this discussion on my talk page. Please bring any content-related issues up on the article talk page(s) as you think necessary. Thanks. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Hopefully this edit helps resolve the issue here. I've attributed the statement in the article specifically to the USA Today editorial staff and worded it accordingly, without drawing conclusions not explicitly in the source. It'd be better yet if we had the original HHS information to cite rather than an opinion piece. Thanks; take care now. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Kenosis that the text removed was misrepresentative and taken out of context.Scientus (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

WHO study, Intro to HC in US[edit]

[9] Agreed. I have tried to make the same change in the past, and for the same reason, and been reverted.Scientus (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe Wilson discussion[edit]

Kenosis, I want to let you know I have just posted a lengthy explanation of my position on the Carter question, and answers your last question to me about why I brought up Donna Edwards in discussion. In fact, the more research I did, the more I became convinced that Carter was probably misquoted, and the "racism" charge is a serious BLP issue. I'm looking forward to your response, thanks. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you know what happened over the past hour with the discussion on Joe Wilson? I was wondering if you saw it. I know I added a comment and it seems like it is gone and it's not even in the history or anything. Really weird. Was there some kind of Wikipedia revert? Reliefappearance (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Were you referring to this diff? If not, possibly you'd hit "preview" or had an edit conflict when you submitted it. It's happened to me before. If such was the case, I'd just resubmit it. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Ya I dunno I must have just hit preview. Reliefappearance (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


Science[edit]

Kenosis, I posted a defense of the addition to the first sentence of the science article on the Talk:Science page. Please discuss, thanks. Nickenge (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring, WP:REVXP[edit]

Try not to encourage edit wars by violating WP:REVEXP. Editors submitting good-faith edits tend to undo when reverts are done without any explanation in the summary or in the discussion. QuilaBird (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

So I'm being accused of encouraging QuilaBird's brief binge of edit warring at Matthew Shepard Act? In fact, three other users had already rejected Quilabird's assertions on Talk:Matthew Shepard Act, and two had already given valid reasons for reverting your preferred interpretation of the facts of Shepard's murder. Which after two others had already reverted you with valid reasons for doing so, should require no further explanation by the time I came in and reverted. In other words, by the time I got involved you were already edit warring. I believe I've since said my piece on the talk page and in the edit summary of my next revert of your additional attempt to unilaterally overrule consensus at that article ([10]). I do appreciate that you then desisted from making yet additional reverts yourself, leaving instead your opinion on the talk page. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)