User talk:Yopienso

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


Hello, Yopienso, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Este es el formato normal de bienvenida que está en inglés y es de mucha ayuda cuando uno recién comienza a conocer Wikipedia.
Muchas gracias por escribir tus comentarios en el discussion page antes de editar el artículo. Aunque en principio en Wikipedia se permite editar con libertad, cuando no se está seguro es mejor discutir primero en el discussion(talk) page del artículo. De nuevo bienvenida (o bienvenido, no se jeje)  Rosa 19:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)



Re: Charles R. Burton[edit]

I admit that WMC's edits here and here are problematic, but he seems to think you are following him around to annoy him. Now, it's possible he doesn't have as many good interactions with you that Dave and I do, so maybe he doesn't know how wonderful you are. :) But if you see it from his POV, he probably feels like he is being stalked. Any chance you can clear this up with him? I mean, I'm on your side, his edits are somewhat eccentric, but maybe you could make nice with him? Viriditas (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The friendly overture I made by private email to him several years ago was rebuffed. Later, he sent me an email accusing me of malice here, where there was none. I would gladly "make nice with him" but he prefers to consider me his enemy. I do not consider him my enemy, however, and have no desire to antagonize him or make his experience at WP or anywhere else unpleasant. He improved the opening sentence structure by joining two short sentences and inserting the words "best known for," so I was happy to let that stand. I just wasn't willing to let him remove "explorer" in the face of RSs that used that word. Seemed to me he was discrediting Burton and harming rather than building the encyclopedia. I generally make a point of not engaging with him since that prevents disputes; this one time I did.
In any case, it's nice seeing you again, and I appreciate your continued cordiality. Yopienso (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I understand. BTW, are you still interested in working on Tommaso Campanella? How is your Italian these days? :) Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I haven't looked at him for ages. The article I keep trying to leave alone is Thomas Jefferson. I manage to stay away for awhile but seem to have a homing instinct for it. Right now I'm examining Russia from 1917-22, not necessarily, but also, at WP. Reading a couple of Sheila Fitzpatrick books and indignant writers from St. Vladimir's Seminary. Yopienso (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Art historian controversy[edit]

Any interest in writing about the Obama/Rubio et al. art historian controversy? Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you think that's encyclopedic? 04:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, considering it's part of the overarching STEM vs. social sciences debate which favors the subversion of the educational system as a fabrication plant for constructing collectivist, conformist worker bees who obey and do what they are told like robots, rather than as free, critically thinking individuals who question authority and do what is right as human beings. Art historians have the unique ability to see what humanity shares in common across cultures in cooperation with each other, rather than the ability to focus on our differences and prepare us for war. That's why they are such a threat to the corporate power structure. The more art historians we have, the more peaceful our culture becomes, and the less demand for war and destruction. I was just talking about this with someone who graduated from Stanford after WWII on the G.I. Bill. Back then, they went to university to become informed citizens who would eventually contribute to the betterment of society by improving their knowledge and understanding of the world. They did not become educated to become better consumers or to learn to sell products that people didn't need or want. The entire system has been turned on its head. Viriditas (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
This is ironic--you're the S in STEM, right? I'm the history in social sciences. (Art history is a field I've dabbled in and appreciate but am no expert in. I'm no expert historian, either, but history is my field.) Yet you seem more adamant against STEM than I. Actually, I'm not against STEM at all, just sorry the social sciences are being excluded from the government's thrust of a more highly-educated populace. I disapprove of the unequal opportunities for students today and the unfairly low remuneration for educators, but we do need the STEM courses. It's interesting to me that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs accomplished so much in STEM without much formal education. Most people, though, aren't geniuses and have to earn credentials in order to secure employment. Obama did make a point of apologizing and explaining that he appreciates art history.
In the social science courses, it seems to me students are not so much opened up and taught to think critically, but indoctrinated into liberalism. The "liberalism" to which I refer is a defined, boxed-in, leftist political opinion, not the freedom and fruit of unfettered, wide-ranging, deeply-probing thought. I think the "informed citizens" of yesteryear were likewise indoctrinated into conservatism. Have you read Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind? He would be a case in point.
I don't really see where this would fit in the encyclopedia; what is the title of the article[s] you have in mind? Yopienso (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not against STEM at all. I think you misunderstood my point. It's not an either or situation. The arts and the humanities, including music, are all severely threatened in the US now, because certain people think they are no longer important. Perhaps you aren't aware of how dire the situation is now. Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics should be integrated into the arts and humanities curriculum, of that I have no qualms (see mathematics and art, for example). But to demean them as unimportant and unnecessary as Obama and others continue to do? I'm sorry, but I can't go along with it. The arts and humanities represent the highest pinnacles of human culture and the best of what we have to offer. Viriditas (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

DR process[edit]

I realize you are learning, and that's good, but the dispute resolution process requires one to attempt to generate consensus in an RFC or content-oriented noticeboard before escalating things to ANI. That's why I recommended the RFC on the talk page. ANI is generally where you go when all other options have failed. You have at least two options open right now, a content oriented noticeboard and an article RFC. I can help you file one if you like, but you may want to learn how to do it yourself. Keep it simple and brief, such as "Should Charles R. Burton be described as an explorer in the lead section?" Follow the instructions at this link.[1] Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I'll try it myself. Check the Burton page in a few minutes to see if I've got it right. Yopienso (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Yopienso. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 10:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Peridon (talk) 10:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hiss history edit[edit]

Check the history. I'll gladly accept your apology should you tender one.

Unclear what "check the history" means. I clicked on "view history" at top of page & found a list of edits, but couldn't grok what was being done/undone. How about a before & after to help me see what happened. DEddy (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, we'll do this is a couple of steps.
1. Click on "view history." Scan down the list till you see:
06:44, 23 February 2014‎ DEddy (talk | contribs)‎ . . (64,006 bytes) (-587)‎ . . (Schrecker published before Haunted Wood) (undo | thank)
It will be easy to spot because the (-587) will be in red. That shows you deleted 587 characters. When you add something, the number of characters added is in green.
I see that, but I do not see whatever it was I'm alleged to have deleted. If I did delete something it was not deliberately. Since I cannot see what I deleted, you have my permission to put it back. DEddy (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
2. Click on the radio button to the left of that line, and then on the bar at the top that says, "Compare selected revisions." That opens up what are called "diffs." Now, there's probably a better way to do this, but the only way I know is that once you're on the diff page, you click the hyperlink, "Previous revision." Highlighted in a cream color on the left is what I wrote; on the right is the blank that shows you deleted that portion.
3. If you keep clicking through "Next edit" you can see I had trouble restoring it; undoing also deleted your comment.
OK, another point: whenever you add a comment to a talk page or edit an article page, you should leave what's called an "edit summary" so changes are easier to track. It's a white blank at the bottom of the page you are editing. There are guidelines for edit summaries.
Hope that helps. Cheers! Yopienso (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to lead me though this process, but it's way too convoluted for me to retain. I cannot see what was there, & what evidently I undid/deleted. You have my permission to revert. If I have to figure out what to revert, it's likely to take a looooooong time. DEddy (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

As I said just above, I already restored what you accidentally reverted. Click right here and you'll see that you deleted the shaded part on the left when you added a comment.
Please do click on the link above to learn how to make edit summaries. Doing so is all part of the process of being a good Wikipedian. Yopienso (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I certainly appreciate your efforts here to convert the heathen, but you're swimming against the tide. For certain I have the Wiki editor as a YAWE—yet another wonky editor—that I'm not going to learn other than superficially. I'm impressed that you seem to know the nuances. In depth knowledge of this specific editor is just not on my todo list. Too many other equally wonky editors ahead of Wiki. DEddy (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

A small cup of coffee.JPG Thnx for the helping hand at the Gore effect Serten (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; coffee happens to be my favorite beverage/addiction. Yopienso (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)



Here or on CD Talk page please? (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't found them. Are you Serten? Yopienso (talk) 08:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Cornerstone Speech[edit]

Probably the domain name registration expired, but the link wasn't originally spam... AnonMoos (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I see. Sorry for my goof. Yopienso (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year[edit]

Hi, Happy New Year! Thanks for your comments; I couldn't believe an editor decided to spend all that effort to tell me small errors rather than just making the changes. I too have made many Wikignome improvements to many, many articles. Well, have returned to focus on the rewards of learning and contributing. Got in touch with a younger cousin who has become interested in his family history in NY, which includes 17th c. French Huguenots, Dutch and Mohawk in the Mohawk Valley. Was glad to share some of my research and in the process got interested all over again in that area, and have come across new studies. Good working!Parkwells (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you, too! Just call me Buttinsky. Did you see I pinged you here? And later waxed schoolmarmish myself with Cmguy, poor soul. He means well but doesn't research or write at an acceptable level. My forbears in upstate NY arrived from England during the Puritan migration. I was looking at the other side of the family for a book I dream of writing about the grandmother I so resemble. Of mixed English, Scottish, and Dutch ancestry, they arrived later. Yopienso (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Take it easy on Yobot[edit]

You do realize that on Elizabeth Warren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), you're now edit-warring with a bot (and demanding that the bot gain consensus for its changes on the talkpage)? The bot lacks the AI to argue its argue its case on the talkpage, and in any case its changes appear to be along the lines of uncontroversial cleanup. I'm assuming you had the bot confused with someone else, but please consider easing up on the "undo" button a bit, and reading before reverting. MastCell Talk 17:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I didn't; thanks for the heads-up. (Although I wouldn't call it edit-warring.) I know what I thought I saw when I made a hasty edit before rushing off to work, but I see I was mistaken. Maybe I had an old window open? I really don't know, but then I arrived at work without a folder I needed, too, and now find it here on my desk at home. One of those mornings. Sorry to cause confusion. Yopienso (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

References unfixed[edit]

Hi Yopienso, I found much merit in the point you made about over-use of primary sources in the Inhofe article: Inhofe's record of his 2003 speech differs from the Congressional Record. Have been in the process of bringing it into line with academic sources, arguably putting in too much detail while showing Inhofe's views, an editor disagrees and has reverted my work to the second paragraph. Reinstating broken links, original research and all. What do you think? Will probably take it to the talk page and consider a condensed version, but would appreciate your thoughts. . . dave souza, talk 20:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I've been very busy at work. You may have noticed my flurry of activity was over the Christmas-New Year's break. I realize I've left some issues and edits hanging but really shouldn't take the time to engage. Face-sad.svg Will try to go by there and take a look. Right now I'm just going to do some gnomish work on articles I'm using in Spanish. Yopienso (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Yopienso, no problem, hope the work goes well. I've taken a break from it myself, have found some more sources and will return to it when it suits me. All the best with the gnomery, . dave souza, talk 13:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP Discretionary Sanctions notice[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Dreadstar 02:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Dreadstar, you're over-reacting. You should assume good faith and explain your stance in a collegial manner. You're acting as if I had willfully added a photo into the article against consensus. Yopienso (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a standard notice that implies no wrongdoing; I'm notifying all editors editing that article, not just you. Dreadstar 02:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your kind reply. But look at what you did--you templated numerous editors for discussing the addition of a photo. User Aladdin Sane spent time making very helpful comments, and you came charging through like a bull in a china shop hatting everything and threatening to block.
I accept responsibility for causing confusion by not stating I came to realize inserting a photo to illustrate hair color was a bad idea. But I don't see that we came close to "repeatedly or seriously fail[ing] to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process." Au contraire; the other editors helped me figure out how to better adhere to the normal editorial process.
Please think about this incident before over-reacting to a future one. Thanks, and best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to continue arguing this, but I did not overreact. If you believe so, then take the matter to WP:AE. Dreadstar 04:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
So here you are over-reacting again! Can't we talk like two adults? Can't we simply share our dissimilar perspectives on the incident without you making a mountain out of a molehill and huffing that if I disagree with you I should open a case about it? I'm neither litigious nor a black-and-white dualist. Believing you are over-reacting doesn't oblige me to run tattle on you. It doesn't mean one of us is completely wrong and the other completely right, either.
Bottom line: I think I engaged in appropriate talk page discussion but you think I disregarded the well-being of Sen. Warren, her friends and family, and the very essence of Wikipedia. I think you have over-reacted but you think your draconian measures were the most appropriate reaction. So be it. It's good to realize that what one does in the best of faith can seem grossly off-base to someone else. Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say you did anything wrong, I hatted the entire section because there were problematic comments there - not necessarily yours. You're free to suggest the image for the reasons you describe, but if anyone takes it back down the path of unsourced race identifying, I'll sanction them based on the blp notification. I do not believe you did anything wrong and you have not been sanctioned in any way, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Dreadstar 14:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks for that. I think we're probably at a good closure here unless you want me to elaborate on the what the problem is/was. It's probably best to move on. Yopienso (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree and think we're fine, now get back to editing. Dreadstar 05:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for adding your voice to the discussions on the U.S. Grant talk page. It's been nice to work with someone who keeps a cool head and brings a fresh perspective. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome; I've been around the block with those guys at Thomas Jefferson, the only POTUS on whom I've done formal research. Likewise, I appreciate your smarts and collegiality.
I added myself to the Presidents project, but the formatting's wrong on the list of members. I've been interested in the presidents since elementary school, when I read the whole set of presidential bios from Washington to Eisenhower in the school library. (JFK and then LBJ were in office but not in the series.) My degree is in history. I actually try to stay away from WP, but continually get drawn back by its siren song. Face-smile.svg Yo Pienso (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Jefferson. Just looking at that talk page makes me want to take a long vacation from this place. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Intelligent Design[edit]

Just in case you are interested, the following seems uncontroversial to me, and it always seems important in any complicated discussion to try to find points that are not controversial. Maybe it helps develop better understanding, so please do read it through if you have a second and let me know if you spot any errors:

  • Intelligent design is a term that can refer to the "intelligent design creationism" of the "intelligent design movement", but even in published articles purely about this movement it is also consistently used as a term for the intelligent design argument which Wikipedia handles in the teleological argument article. Also, in many cases, it is clearly and specifically used to refer to both old and new forms of that argument, which (the sources themselves insist) are all pretty similar. (And note that we have no sources which say the term applies only to new versions.) So making any of these subjects the main subject of the article called "intelligent design" could be considered.
  • According to you, it is already clear that the article is about the intelligent design creationism of the intelligent design movement. If so then there is a problem in the innovative way in which Wikipedia treats "intelligent design" as having had a recent "virgin birth" which separates it (not just distinguishes it) from the tradition of the intelligent design argument.
  • Looking at the sources, Wikipedia currently actually follows those creationists, who occasionally pretend that they developed the term and concept of "intelligent design" in the late 20th century, and Wikipedia disagrees with all the other sources, who insist that intelligent design creationism is an old religious and philosophical idea. This is not a "fine point" and it is not confusing. The fine points come from attempts to wiggle out of this.
  • Wikipedia is very innovative in strongly emphasizing the newness of "intelligent design creationism", but what is so new about it? What is uncontroversially innovative in "intelligent design creationism" is that it uses a new STRATEGY of presenting the old intelligent design argument as consistent with the normal practice of modern experimental science. Several editors have repeatedly, and apparently quite thoughtfully, insisted that the article is about a "strategy".
  • There is no source at all for the term "intelligent design" referring to such a strategy of deception, nor to anything new and innovative. Note: I am not denying that the intelligent design movement is innovative, only that their innovation is never one of the things referred to as "intelligent design". Again this is not a fine point, and it is not confusing. Reliable sources go out of their way to insist that for the most part Intelligent Design creationism is not new. Only Wikipedia and the creationists argue against this.

You mentioned how "fine points" can lead to many confusions. I agree, and the argument defending the demands that the article called "intelligent design" needs to be about something new and innovative are just such a case. An enormous number of silly discussions seem to hang on this obviously silly position.

As a closing paragraph, I just write to you as one person interested in the history of ideas, writing to another. The talk page makes it clear that many or most editors insisting on these confusing fine points want to separate intelligent design creationism so strongly from its ancestry because of two connected concerns.

  • One is that they do not want readers connecting creationism to respectable old philosophers.
  • The other is that they do not want the idea running around that there might be difficulties still between modern science and Christianity as a whole (as opposed to a small group of extremists).

These connect to very big subjects, discussed in many good sources. These are subjects an encyclopedia should cover. And what we can see in those sources is that, like it or not, there is a link between respectable old philosophers and creationism, and like it or not, there is no clear and simple resolution to the ancient conflict between faith and sceptical reason, nor between teleological understandings of nature and modern science. Can one be a Christian without faith and without a teleological understanding of nature? Can modern science still be modern science if it accepts faith, stops being sceptical and starts being teleological? I put it to you that Wikipedian editors would be over-stepping the mark if they would openly claim that these issues are resolved somewhere, but in effect that is what is happening with the Intelligent Design talkpage. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, to me, distinguishing among ID creationism, ID movement, ID argument, and ID strategy is overly fine. It's too complex for me to think about.
I think ID is separate from Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Thomas of Aquinas, etc. and the teleological argument. Phillip Johnson didn't connect his ideas to theirs, AFAIK.
When I was first introduced to ID by the principal of the school I taught in, it was presented like this. The principal was also a Bible-believing minister. He never mentioned ancient philosophers or teleology. No, he saw ID as a way our school could confirm the Genesis story of Creation while still believing we were teaching our students real science.
Here are links to ID proponents' explanations of their "theory":
This is what popular neutral references say:
AFAIK, you are the only person who holds your particular views, which is fine. They just can't be incorporated into the WP article on ID. YoPienso (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Yopienso, I think you misunderstand.
  • It is not me at all that is making a fine distinction between "ID creationism, ID movement, ID argument, and ID strategy". The fine distinction you criticize is now in Wikipedia, and presented not as a fine point but as a very important black and white thing. If you look at the talk page histories, defenders of the current approach do not deny that they make a big thing out of this "fine point". Currently, ID (simply) has an article which is (according to different explanations) either about the creationism or the strategy of the creationism; ID movement has its own article; and the ID argument, strikingly, is basically a forbidden term on Wikipedia! That's not a fine point. It is covered under an article called teleological argument, which is a very uncommon term most readers will never search for.
  • You know, I am sure, that one of the most frequent concerns expressed over many years by many editors is this last point about deliberately de-emphasizing the link between the "teleological argument" and the term "intelligent design", Wikipedia editors are denying that the term can even be used to refer to the teleological argument when it is clearly the most common term for it in recent decades.
  • Concerning the history of the movement, which is an interest of you and many editors who defend the current approach, a lot of what you say here and in the past is apparently based on personal experience, not published sources, and many of the sources you mention are low quality sources in one way or another, for example primary sources from inside the movement itself, or user-edited websites. I have stuck to discussing top quality sources, including all the ones already being used in the article. So when you talk about what "can't be incorporated into the WP article" please keep that in mind.
  • The EB sources you mention are strong obviously, but they have long been mentioned on the talk page (not by me) as sources which are in CONFLICT with WP. Defenders of the current approach have admitted this, and so you should really consider this. EB says that ID refers to the historical teleological argument! Please do read that, and consider how stunningly different the approach is on Wikipedia. I understand looking at past discussions that most encyclopedias and dictionaries take the same approach.
  • Anyway I think your citation of sources has no clear point relevant to what I said. I already agree with you that the IDC of the IDM is innovative and new in some ways. But what was not new was the "argument" they use, which basically all sources call "intelligent design". All better sources emphasize, over and over, that this is NOT new, but old. The only sources who disagree are the Discovery Institute themselves and, frighteningly, Wikipedia editors. This is clearly not a concern I introduced to the Intelligent Design talk page either, as it has been discussed for many years without me being aware of it. Try looking up old posts of User:Atethnekos.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I must admit a mistake! The version of EB you posted is not the one I thought it was, but apparently a new online essay. Like most articles it insists ID is based on an old religious argument, but it does not call that argument ID, as do many sources. So it is not that interesting to our discussion. You can look through the talk page history to see that editors with access to the pay-per-view editions of the best encyclopedias and dictionaries have posted. I live in a non English speaking country and have no access to a good academic library. It would be interesting to compare what the premium editions of the EB and OED say about the term. BTW, I am wondering still about your last sentence. What is the position which you think I hold which you think no one else holds? That seems important to clear up!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't really have time for a fruitless discussion. And there you have it--in your wall of words I got your point exactly backwards. I do understand why WP has to make those distinctions; right now at the U.S. Grant BLP there's been discussion about what belongs in that article and what belongs in daughter articles. Any broad subject has to be split up like that here so no one article is too long.

No, I haven't talked much at all about my own experience. Primary sources from the movement are good for what the proponents teach/believe. User-edited websites aren't great sources, and I don't think we should use NCSE because they are anti-ID activists. They have a lot of good stuff, nonetheless.

ID is highly controversial; people can't agree if it's religious or not, if it's creationism or not, if it's old or new. So WP has to go with what the best sources say.

The WP article presently mentions Aquinas and has multiple links to teleology; the very hatnote sends interested readers there. EB does not! It goes back only to Paley. You must not have read what I linked to.

Wrt your 2nd bullet point, Dembski says, "Increased philosophical and scientific sophistication, however, is not alone in separating my approach to design from Paley's. Paley's approach was closely linked to his prior religious and metaphysical commitments. Mine is not." Separating, mind you.

If you can't see the relevance of my links to your arguments, we're both wasting our time. They clearly show the generally-understood present-day meaning of "intelligent design" is that formulated by Johnson, Behe, Dembski, et al. YoPienso (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you checked out the EB articles. They're entirely pertinent to our discussion--they call the Discovery Institute's ID the ID. That's the position I think you hold that I referred to in that last line--you won't agree that "ID" in common parlance isn't Aquinas's teleology but this new idea the Discovery Institute propounds. That's what you really should accept. YoPienso (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually I do not think there is any debate relevant to anything I am saying concerning what the movement says about itself, and concerning the fact that secondary sources say they are religious, despite what they claim. Not sure why you keep focusing on that.
  • I still think you misunderstand me. Actually, I think that arguing about which meaning of the term "intelligent design" is the most common or correct is difficult or impossible. It is quite a difficult case because the movement itself is accused of trying to hide its real origins. But we do at least have numerous sources showing the term often being used to refer to past and present versions of the teleological argument. (We also have sources from before the movement existed, using the term that way.) So we just should not hide this.
  • You mention that the links to the teleological argument article are not all perfectly hidden, but the talkpage discussions do not hide at all that they are deliberately de-emphasized, emphasizing the newness of the movement, and therefore following the movement's own propaganda rather than emphasizing what the secondary sources say, which is that they use an old religious argument that is sometimes itself called Intelligent Design. What is new in the movement is not any new version of the teleological argument, but their politics and strategies. No normal reader is going to get be able to track all this down from our way of presenting it, and that is deliberate.
  • Common Parlance is specifically not the standard we need to follow in cases like this, according to Wikipedia policy on article titles.
Anyway, I can see you don't want to think about it, and who could blame you? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

STEM discussion update[edit]

There's an opinion piece in the The Washington Post you might find interesting:

As you know, I agree with this article. Viriditas (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; nice to hear from you! Jack Ma's comment is interesting. Funny the article doesn't mention Bill Gates' and Steve Jobs' lack of formal higher education. YoPienso (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Good point! I think he used Zuck as an example instead. How is the weather up there? I heard there was some issue with flies. ;) Happy Easter! Viriditas (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


The newbie in question was greeted with a welcome, and got slowly escalating feedback (and a block) regarding their behavior. The fact that they are at lvl 4 warnings is their fault, not mine; they have had ample opportunity to incorporate feedback at this point. VQuakr (talk) 06:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It took me awhile to learn the rules of engagement here and I appreciated the editor who taught them to me, but resented the ones who were hateful to me. I figure other newbies may feel the same. If Cali turns out to be a bad apple, he's easily dealt with later. WP culture is distinct from any other I know, and I don't believe it's fair to expect a newbie to master all the rules and customs immediately. I wish no one were allowed to edit before passing a quiz on a basic tutorial, but Jimbo doesn't want to put any limits on the encyclopedia anyone can edit.
See the AN/I for my opinion of how you're handling this. YoPienso (talk) 08:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I assume you meant the AN3; if there is a discussion at WP:ANI that mentions me please post a link. WP:5P was given the the editor in their welcome and is not a long or complex read. I find it improbable that WP is the only culture you know in which insulting others will cause problems. Neither I nor anyone else expects a newbie to "master" WP immediately (I haven't yet), but that is a straw man since no one has presented that expectation. VQuakr (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I meant here, whatever it's called.
WP is very inconsistent about handling insulting comments; I've watched many cases in which foul-mouthed or snarky editors are supported. Many editors are routinely rude and never are reprimanded for it, but often praised. The only place I saw Cali curse was in the edit summary. Yet you have consistently been inhospitable to him.
"Master" was an overstatement--I meant "proficiently and compliantly engage in correct procedure." YoPienso (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
No worries; I wasn't trying to nitpick just making sure I was not missing a discussion of which I should have been aware. Wiki is indeed inconsistent in enforcing its policy on civility. That is not a valid reason to race to the lowest common denominator. Escalating warnings in response to uncorrected bad behavior is not inhospitable. Blaming me for the Cali's troubles on Cali's talk page is not going to help Cali. VQuakr (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I hope you and I are working toward convergence of viewpoint.
I do think escalating warnings by pasting in templates with no attempt to explain or help is inhospitable. Not uncivil, but unwelcoming.
Although, for the sake of the project, I wish you were more hospitable, I don't blame you for Cali's behavior. What I said on his talk page was, "Even though I think if VQuakr had approached you more diplomatically you may have responded better, you are nonetheless responsible for your own behavior." The last phrase is the main point of the sentence. Nonetheless, I stand by the first part. Please notice I said may have, he just as well may not have.
Everything you did is fully justifiable by policy, but in my view still comes down to biting newbies. (This is assuming Cali is a newbie.) My own experience as a newbie with unwelcoming veteran editors was enough to make me an advocate for helping them rather than pouncing on them. When they persist in misbehavior, as Cali has, I leave them to their fates. Best wishes to you, YoPienso (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

"Wikipedia editors are people, too"
Thank you, editor with the "annoying habit of thinking" in English and Spanish, for quality contributions to articles such as Thomas Jefferson and Intelligent design, sometimes pruning, for understanding and wording with precision, even in edit summaries, for welcoming with friendly advice and being an advocate of the "newbies", for "Wikipedia editors are people, too" - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, thank you, I guess--I appreciate the thought. Sadly, that most recent newbie turned out to be a sockpuppet. But it's still better, by my lights, to assume the best and be kind; bad traits reveal themselves soon enough. YoPienso (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Wise, thank you. It doesn't hurt to be nice to new people and assume the best. I nominated a sad fact for DYK which appears right now, but love the collaboration on that article, of people who never interacted before but joined forces in improving, - Wikipedia dreams coming true, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ulysses S. Grant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ocean Grove (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)