User talk:Tznkai

Welcome!

Hi Tznkai! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing!

Dave (talk) 02:03, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

PS thanks for cleaning up the Reagan vandalism.

Hello!

Hi, welcome to wikipedia. You seem to be a rather nice and sane person, let's see how you do on the wiki too! :-)

Kim Bruning 21:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Now you're a "true good editor"!

• kerblink* Looks like SPUI is going crazy again with his wierd edits. How odd... ;-) Kim Bruning 19:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Thank you for supporting my candidacy for administrator. Kelly Martin 15:12, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Robert consistently remove facts from reliable sources. His personal opinions are unreference and often out of date. He is not an expert in this field but he consistently remove quotes by the leading experts Gallo, Fauci, Weiss and others.

I am not an AIDS denialist and resent this ad hominum attack.

We should be discussing the article!

Fred2005 14:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is not relevant. Refrain, refrain, refrain, from inflammitory statements--Tznkai 14:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VFD listing

Just thought I'd let you know - subpages are case sensitive. I've corrected the template call on the VFD page. Cheers, Alphax ^τεχ 14:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Self-induced abortion

Hi. Sorry for getting snippy and inflamatory on the vfd page. I tend to get defensive of my articles. I appreciate your open-mindedness on the topic, and willingness to be persuaded by contrary arguments - those are the marks of a great contributor. Cheers. -- BDAbramson ^talk 01:46, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

• Thank you for withdrawing the VfD. I assure you that I will continue to work on improving and substantiating the article. -- BDAbramson ^talk 01:17, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

Excising sections

Perhaps you should consider that dispute resolution doesn't magically happen simply because you "excise" a section from an article and ask everyone to talk about it. Maybe that's all well and good when you're dealing with rational users. The AIDS article is under attack by conspiracy theorists. You are relatively new to both the article and to Wikipedia, so perhaps you haven't realized this yet. Rhobite 16:41, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I am acting in good faith and for a better article.

I'm sure you are acting in good faith, but your actions themselves are detrimental. Rhobite 17:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Double pro-life

Sorry for messing things up in editing this section. Gone for today. Str1977 22:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Been a little frustrated, i've been working on that article all day. sorry if I seemed snappy--Tznkai 22:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's all right. I think it's difficult to walk the fine line between reducing and including. Also thanks for deleting the cynicism section on religion and abortion - I reduced it considerably a few weeks ago, cutting out, well, quite cynic language, and cut it down the things actually saying something about the issue. However, I didn't dare deleting it all, lest I be accused of "religious imperialism" or something like that. So thanks. Str1977 07:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Abortion

You're welcome, although it may be premature... but always nice to know I'm doing something useful around here. :-D - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments from A ghost

I see 3RRs on Intelligent design. I got it from here for a couple hours. Can you report this? I haven't had too before.--ghost 20:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort. I'm glad we got him to talk.--ghost 21:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LOL. Not a problem. Goes with the territory.--ghost 30 June 2005 14:49 (UTC)

You wrote: Glanced over your bit on the talk page about presenting ID as a philisophical idea. I'd like to work with you on this, while I, llke the majority of the eitors detest ID as a scientific theory, I personaly subscribe to the general concept philosphically (stacked deck). I think it'd be an intresting article to write on. Any ideas?

LOL. Sure. Lots. Some are Original Research though. Did the notice the reference to Joseph Campbell? Actually, Dembski's The Design Inference is not a bad reference, provided that one remembers to read it through the lens of a philosopher. User:Dave Bergan might be someone else to touch base with. Let me know what you want to do. BTW, most of the ID editors share your core belief, including me and FW.--ghost 30 June 2005 20:26 (UTC)

Yeah, my faith brought me to view of Creation (oops! I said a naughty word.  ;-] ) as a Tapestry about 10years ago. This Tapestry helps me understand the concept of all things being interconnected. What's funny is that this fits nicely into String theory & M-Theory. And since I'm also an astrophysics nut, that's just way kool. BTW, feel free to email me.--ghost 30 June 2005 21:30 (UTC)

Belated thanks

Thanks for your kind words of support on my RFA nearly a month ago. I appreciated the compliment you left, and I am trying to keep living up to it in my dealings with other editors. Unfortunately a sad event occurred at that time in my family, and I have not been able to participate in Wikipedia as much as I would like. I hope to get back to active contribution soon. Thanks again! FreplySpang (talk) 01:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of the intro on the Intelligent Design article

I was wondering what exactly you objected to in my revised intro for the intelligent design article. You deleted the whole thing, when I'm sure there were some parts that even you could have seen as accurate (especially on the philosophy of science, etc.)

Micah Fitch 28 June 2005 19:53 (UTC)

trinity thingee

ok then, if it doesnt go there, where DOES it go?

i think it should go wherei put it because it has some relevencey to where the notion comes from. Gabrielsimon 3 July 2005 03:57 (UTC)

Re: Warning.

Thanks. It wasn't really revert, more like step-by-step removal. But I get your point, perhaps I should have just reverted once. I am sure you will agree as you seem fair in your edits so far. Thanks for warning me though. Anonymous editor July 3, 2005 04:32 (UTC)

ID

Not only would it be beyond boring if we always agreed with each other, but little would be accomplished as well I think. It's by challenging each other that arrive at the best articles, don't you agree? Big thanks for all your hard work and keeping a cool head on a genuine hot-button topic. Lesser editors would have descended into rants long ago... And a genuine heart-felt thanks for the kind words left on my talk page, that was absolutely uncalled for... and I do so appreciate it. Thanks again. FeloniousMonk 4 July 2005 02:32 (UTC)

Talk:Homosexuality

Did you eat my comment deliberatly? And RPA makes me very nervous.--Tznkai 5 July 2005 05:29 (UTC)

Yes, I ate the comment because it was a reference to the personal attacks that I deleted. Remove one, remove another. I know a lot of people don't like RPA but honestly I don't know a better way to keep crap off the talk page and keep discussion focussed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 06:26 (UTC)

Sorry I inadvertently put this on your user page. You can make this kind of thing less likely to happen if you put a talk link into your signature. Enter Tznkai]]|[[User talk:Tznkai|Talk into Nickname in preferences. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 12:16 (UTC)

Redirect

I deleted a redirect you created that went from article space to your userspace. They're generally discouraged. Best wishes and happy editing, Meelar (talk) July 6, 2005 15:56 (UTC)

The article was Tznkai/playground, and it redirected to User:Tznkai/playground. Best, Meelar (talk) July 6, 2005 16:03 (UTC)

No problem. Yours, Meelar (talk) July 6, 2005 16:15 (UTC)

ID and the design argument

I appreciate your suggestions. FW reverts everything I do. I agree, the article is not about the design argument, so why is it introduced as Aquinas's fifth proof? That's what I was trying to change. Can you just change the language rather than a full revert? David Bergan 6 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much how I read Dembski on this. I'm making another run at it, and keeping the Aquinas reference. This should be more in line with the comments you raised. David Bergan 6 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)

ID and philosophy of science

I agree, this is getting to be a lot more fun since you and started seeing eye-to-eye. Maybe we should hash some issues out on our talk pages or through email where there is less noise. It sure is interesting stuff once you get past this mentality FW expresses where he doesn't seem to want to give ID a gram of credibility. We wields concepts like observation/intuition/repeatability/a priori/etc around without fully thinking how they apply to other things in science. The claim that natural selection gave rise to different phylums is not observable or repeatable, but most would consider it scientific. Again, it seems more like forensic science to me, though, and the rules are slightly different.

Or consider the term "irreducible complexity". FW says it's an a priori concept. And it is... you make the definition and then see what things fall into that category. But the term "mammal" is also an a priori concept. You make the def and then apply it to monkeys, porcupines, kangaroos, and platipi. Either way you make up the classification first.

Anyway, I would love to discuss these philosophy of science issues if you're interested. David Bergan 7 July 2005 21:17 (UTC)

once you get past this mentality FW expresses where he doesn't seem to want to give ID a gram of credibility. Most of the scientific community doesn't give ID a gram of credibility, but somehow my mentality is the problem. Whatever. FuelWagon 7 July 2005 23:28 (UTC)

He wields concepts like observation/intuition/repeatability/a priori/etc around without fully thinking how they apply to other things in science. I would be so happy if you could, at some point in the future, actually grasp the concept of what it means to know something. When you talk about knowing something, you talk about a religious, dogmatic, absolute meaning of "knowing" something. And then you talk about the scientific community says it "knows" something as if they mean they know it absolutely. This is a religious version of science, and it isn't science. Until you get the distinction, we will forever be butting heads. FuelWagon 7 July 2005 23:28 (UTC)

it seems more like forensic science to me, though, and the rules are slightly different. Read the ID article again. It says ID is attempting to redefine NATURAL SCIENCE. Then go look up the wikipedia entry for natural science. There are many different flavors of science. evolution and similar theories are in the realm of natural science. Not all science is natural science. But natural science is specifically defined as a posteriori, observation only, science. because of this, natural science is filled mostly with hypothesis and theories, and very few hard laws. ID attempts to redefine natural science to include a priori ideas that have no direct observation to back them up. learn the difference between natural science (a posteriori, observation only) and other sciences such as mathematics, which are a priori and no observation. FuelWagon 7 July 2005 23:28 (UTC)

FW, you are formally to stop this discussion here. This is not your place to debate other people's ideas. Do that in your own talk space.--Tznkai 8 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)

As far as I know, it isn't bad manners to take part in a thread on someone else's talk page, especially if you happen to be the topic of conversation/flame/slam. Nor is it a breach of wiki-policy that I know of. But I have no problem honoring your request that I not post on your talk page. Consider it done. FuelWagon 8 July 2005 17:19 (UTC)

RE: This is the last time...

Re:

Alright. This is the last time I'll say it (today anyway) but you have got to start being more civil on talk:intelligent design People who disagree are not the enemy. Wikipedians are not the enemy. I'm not going to bother with wikipolcies or guidelines, if you keep this up, you will lose sympathy, and you and the article will suffer because of it.

Its not what your opinions are, its how you express them that matters. You definatly owe goethan an apology for the internet equivlent of yelling, and probably one to dbergan as well.--Tznkai 7 July 2005 22:43 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FuelWagon"

If you and David Bergan want to start secret correspondence about ID, fine. If the two of you want to discuss how moronic I am, go for it. I see you've already started some of it above. Whatever. But if you're going to make the article suffer because you don't like my tone, then you have lost sight of the point. Articles must be useful and informative. Everything else is secondary. Goethean was being a righteous ass, and his question that is answered in the article showed he was ubstructing for no valid reason other than to be right. he also changed the intro and put "critics claim" in front of facts four times.[1][2][3][4] and then he reports me for 3rr violation [5]. Apparently he feels he can violate 3RR, but I can't. He then refutes facts with "that's your opinion" [6] apparently his opinion is simply right and logic doesn't matter. he quotes the last half of a sentence, ignoring that the first half completely changes the meaning [7] and gets in my face about it. And you want me to apologize to him? Nice to see you being "neutral" in the midst of the storm. FuelWagon 7 July 2005 23:12 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

I remain surprised that you object to my behavior. It is FuelWagon who feels no responsibility to respond to anyone in an adult manner, and until that changes, I see no reason to show him any more respect than he does to others. --goethean ॐ 8 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)

Talk:Homosexuality - NPOV dispute

I've tried to be very specific with him now, let's hope he can be pinned down to something concrete. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 17:52 (UTC)

Homosexuality Dispute

You might want to read what Haiduc recently posted about you and the debate in Homosexuality on the Wikipedia:LGBT notice board: aside from the insulting description, he's also mobilizing the base for action (i.e., the local LGBT posse which attempts to control articles on these subjects). For his edit, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ALGBT_notice_board&diff=18575293&oldid=18508904