This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Swmeyer(talk | contribs) at 19:51, 6 October 2005(your revert on naturalism article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:51, 6 October 2005 by Swmeyer(talk | contribs)(your revert on naturalism article)
Hi CesarB, just to clarify since there's now some confusion there, did you mean to cast a vote or just post a comment? If you could clarify what you intended there it would help. Thanks either way. FeloniousMonk07:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A comment, of course, I even said so in the edit summary (in fact, it's more of a reply to Sam Spade's vote, and I formatted it in the same way replies are usually formatted on RFA discussions — and on almost all talk page discussions). I see no way anyone can confuse that for a vote. --cesarb13:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FuelWagon RfC
Wikipedians often sign both the originator's view or the respondent's view and an outside view. If you agree both with my comments and with FW's summary, I think you may sign both. Robert McClenon22:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't wish to badger you to death over this issue, but I do hope we can put the matter to rest. I remember that you were one of the most vocal opponents of the effort to keep the election endorsements/disendorsements from spinning out of control. While I understand the concerns about open discussion, many people feel the atmosphere that resulted was detrimental in a way that requests for adminship generally are not.
Let's suppose that the format and groundrules for publishing endorsements/disendorsements in the arbitration election had been developed and announced ahead of time, instead of being a hasty response to problems that had not been fully anticipated. Would you consider this a more acceptable solution? --Michael Snow05:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Michael, no problem, I understand the concern and the need for settling this matter now. I fully agree that the endorsements/disendorsements section of the last election was "out of control" and hence detrimental. I've always felt that this was directly due to the absence of rules and format. Any effort there, like that you mention, is bound to be an improvement I feel. Also, I'd suggest that early on interested parties in the community need to come together when drafting the ground rules and decide on an effective method for dealing with blatant personal attacks (as opposed to legitimately voiced concerns using the public record) in the endorsements/disendorsements section. I feel that with both of these things in place, effective ground rules and format, you can structure a solution that addresses the often conflicting demands for open discussion of candidates and civil discourse. That would get us back on track to the ideal solution, an election by the community. FeloniousMonk15:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to discuss this. I'm willing to consider our past disagreement settled. Having not observed much of your other work, I'm not sure that I'm prepared to support your adminship nomination, but I won't be opposing at any rate. Whether you become an admin or not this time around, I hope you'll continue your valuable contributions. --Michael Snow17:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FYI
I voted on your RFA as Neutral for the reasons I stated. I hope you understand. Since I know we've gotten into conflict in the past over SS, I thought this [[1]] might intrest you. Even if my tone isn't as sharp, the words are much harsher, atleast thats the way I read them.--Tznkai16:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Baby pix
Oh, baby...those are my kinds of pictures. She's a beaut! My 6.9 is still in the "beater" stage, but I'll definitely get some pictures back out your way. Body, engine, tranny and most of the interior are nice. The paint is so-so and the replacement seat upholstery is shot. For 99 bucks and not much more than some deferred maintenance it really came back to life. The rear hydropneumatic suspension spheres are on my short list since mine are blown, which locks the struts. Easy fix once I scrape some dough together for some parts. Thanks for sharing!! - Lucky 6.905:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for voting to support my RFA. I've been promoted, and I promise to wield the mop with good faith, patience, and fairness... except when I'm exterminating vandals with the M-16 recoilless nuclear Gatling mop. --malathiontalk08:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just briefly, two things: (1) I love the Nutritional Information, it's a work of genius; and (2) thank you very much for your support of my adminship nomination and your kinds words. I really appreciate them. I'm sure I'll see you around, but in the meantime, thanks again and happy editing. Slacspeak up!22:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WikiwiseowlAthena, goddess of wisdom, was often depicted to be attended by an owl. Since then, owls have often been associated with wisdom. Good to see you've got the buttons finally. :-) Use them wisely! Kim Bruning02:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on your elevation. I opposed your nomination, but only because I wanted some time for the SS dispute to simmer down. I'm sure you will do an excellent job. Best of luck. Rkevins8204:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the fuss and antics were illuminating (especially in shining a light on the character of one or two editors), and in the end the result was the right one. Welcome to the rack; prepare to be tormented. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)15:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
!מזל טוב (That's "mazal tov" for the non-Hebrew-readers) and may your Adminship be less contentious than your wickèd and drawn-out RFA. On the other hand, if you turn out to be as good an admin as I hope you'll be, you'll probably look back on your RFA as a sunshiny time :-P TomerTALK 06:06, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations, FM, for the adminship and for the repaired relationships. Use it all for the good. ;-D SlimVirgin(talk) 06:45, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Well, after all this, it's only appropriate to quote the fine words of Oliver Hardy: "That's another fine mess you've gotten me into."
Congratulations, and you're quite welcome! --Merovingian(t)(c) 17:04, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
me too - eh - I thought you were one already -- eh, congratulations! may you manage to keep disputes and admining firmly separated, always! dab(ᛏ)17:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just to repeat what seems to be the common theme here, thanks for supporting my RfA, I will do my very best to live up to your support! -Loren00:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for supporting my RfA, Felonious. That nutrition facts chart on your userpage is fantastic, BTW. If I was just a shade more shameless, I would blatantly steal it for my own userpage. See you around the Wiki. Fernando RizoT/C19:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FeloniousMonk. Sorry that you think I'm being dishonest. If you could, please define "pro-ID" for me and how you think you can get away saying that you aren't "anti-ID". David Bergan21:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to play games. You know exactly what I mean. I have little patience with those who'd waste the time of good faith contributors with disingenuous claims. FeloniousMonk22:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll say it for both of us. I'm pro-ID, and you're anti-ID. You claim to be somehow above the controversy, but every edit I've witnessed you make has been critical of ID or its proponents. And mine have been in their favor. David Bergan01:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for at least being honest about your own motives and biases, but it should have appeared at Talk:Antony Flew, not here after being called on it.
As for your personal opinion on my position regarding ID: As I've said before I am neither pro- nor anti- ID. You're entitled to your own opinion as whether or not that is true. Aside from your personal feelings about ID though, you shouldn't confuse opinion for fact. As far as I'm concerned ID is just like any other argument for the existence of God; it is an object-of-faith beyond verification, thus I don't waste time in either attacking or defending it. It's the actions of ID proponents though, their manipulating of facts, gaming of the social and political systems and conflation of religion and science that I document or excise from articles as accuracy and policy require. Since ID proponents have a well-established history of behaving thusly and wikipedia being a near constant target of their various efforts, I'm neither surprised by your admission, nor moved by your accusation. Please keep the pro- ID campaigning to your Talk pages and out of the articles and their Talk pages. Again, thanks for being honest about this. FeloniousMonk02:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I half-agree. For what it's worth, I would call myself pro-ID-theory/ID-movement-neutral, and from your claim I would call you anti-ID-movement/ID-theory-neutral. Your work suggest anti-both to me, since you seem intent on muddying up the theory with the politics, but that's probably because in your mind they are inseparable. And if you asked me about whether or not ID should be taught in high schools, I wouldn't jump up and down in favor of the idea. I think it's interesting, but I also think the Koran is interesting, and I wouldn't have a strong opinion on its inclusion.
Please keep the pro- ID campaigning to your Talk pages and out of the articles and their Talk pages. - The only agenda I am campaigning for is truth and accuracy in the articles. And the articles need both of us to be accurate. David Bergan07:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could you look in on the bottom of Talk:Holocaust denial? Bdell555 is looking for some admin other than Jpgordon and Jayjg to confirm that simple admins can't mess with article histories. Thanks. :-) TomerTALK 19:53, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's meant in no way to lessen or play with the fact that the real Red Brigades did some very nasty things, but I couldn't resist. Geogre23:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, any special friend of Sam Spade's is definitely worthy, in my opinion. :-) If Sam puts you in the same category as Bishonen, then you definitely deserve an award.
As for the oddness, I think that's listed on wp:an (where you may now go with immunity by right). Apparently Mr. I. decided to post that message on every administrator's user page, alphabetically. This is what the wp:an notice said. However, folks with d- admin names, f- admin names, and g-admin names (i.e. you and me) didn't get it. We are the happy few, it seems. No one's entirely sure what Mr. I. was going on about, but he had apparently intended to send a copy to every admin page rather than to simply put it up on the Village Pimp...er, Village Pump. Geogre19:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio
FM, I just thought I'd let you know that the Image:Forestfire4.jpg you have on your talk page is a copyright of National Geographic and is currently listed on the copyvio page. I tagged it two weeks ago, and I guess it's in the process of being cleared, but I thought you might like to know. I think you also have a copy on one of your archived pages. Kind regards—Encephalon | ζ 14:03:28, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, but unfortunately you're a bit off the mark. No one is edit warring except Sam Spade, who is flouting the consensus of the other participants in the discussion, two admins, Exploding Boy and myself. There is further discussion here: User_talk:Sam_Spade#Redirect_of_I_am. Sam's "evidence" for his insistance for repeatedly reverting is uncompelling. The stats are that almost the only people landing on this redirect are EB, SS, and myself. This article redirect is little used, adds nothing to wikipedia, and become a constant source of contention for Sam, it should be deleted. The consensus is that I am should not redirect to God, so I'm undoing Sam's revert once again and I'm adding the vfd template. FeloniousMonk15:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that you took it upon yourself to create an editorial out of the What the Bleep Do We Know article...
Quoth the Official Policy of Neutral Point of View, "If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. [...] Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section. [...] We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail."
Could you please fix the article? I tried to tone down the POV, and you made it quite worse. I think that with all the criticism in that article, it would also be necessary to include a Response section to balance things out. Yes that movie is loony, but no Wikipedia can't say that it is. --Berserk798 15:59, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Since you don't appear to have been watching my talkpage, I guess I'll move what I said over to your talkpage.
Is calling the experts "those that have been presented as experts" less POV? We're supposed to give a sympathetic view to both sides and assume that everything is at least plausible. We can't just say they're "presented as experts" as that's your point of view. There's a sizeable community that considers them to be experts in the field of quantum physics.
Your reinsertion of the sentence "The filmmakers assembled a panel favorable to their views to make their point (see below)." is redundant, as the next paragraph says "The film presents scientific experts to support the film's underlying philosophy, but, by and large, the scientists have previously been involved in promoting similar ideas. Arguably, their presence in the film represents the filmmaker's efforts to find scientists sympathetic to the film's ideas.", and it doesn't seem very neutral at all.
Saying that these chosen experts do not represent the scientific community is just stupid. There isn't one scientific community with one outlook on things. I suggest we change it back to may not.
Using words like "purported" and "alleged" is also a bad idea. I think "controversial" is much more neutral.
Please explain how each of these changes improved the article. Thanks! :) --Berserk798 16:18, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
I am unclear as to the best place for us to talk about FTU
Consider your statement: "... a creator of the universe with almost but not quite omnipotent powers?" By definition any being sufficiently powerful to create the universe will be omnipotent by any common understanding of the term. A "creator of the universe with almost but not quite omnipotent powers" is a definition that is so attenuated and ill-defined that it ceases to be meaningful. ID and the fine-tuned universe argument are inextricably linked; the fine-tuned universe argument implies Design, and ID makes explicit and essential use of the fine-tuned universe argument. FeloniousMonk 19:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
1. I deny "something that creates" MUST be a "being".
2. I deny that the ability to affect the constants of the universe necessitates "omnipotence". Maybe the lack of ability to go back in time restricts this creator. Maybe the lack of ability to add or subtract a spacial dimension restricts this creative force. Maybe there exists only the ability to create other universes with slightly altered constants by universes such as ours will become in a trillion years of evolution. Genes make random changes that as a whole make incremental improvements in the ability of life. It is a failure of imagination to pretend only ommipotence can do the job. It is the god of the gaps in yet another guise.
3. A fine tune universe implies design no more than evolution implies design. Maybe universes are created in numbers like the squid and only universes that produce life can evolve themselves to the point where they have the technology to create other universes. The point is not that this happens, but that it is logically possible, thus "fine-tuned" does not REQUIRE omni-anything. WAS 4.250 05:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Please understand that I am not trying to belittle your beliefs when I say that you denying these things is insufficient justification for their inclusion in the article. Without the claims being anymore significant than your opinion or that of a small number of others (I've yet to see otherwise), they fall in the realm of original research. They would need to be presented as arguments by a significant number of credible participants in the debate beyond wikipedia's pages to qualify as not being original research and hence warrant their inclusion in the article.
That a being sufficiently powerful to create the universe will be omnipotent by definition is something you do not find compelling also is not sufficient justification for us to dismiss the common understanding of omnipotent. The same is true for Design implying a Designer. Since you are the one making the assertion, the burden is on you to demonstrate how a universe could be created/fine-tuned without an intelligent agent such as The Designer (formerly known as God), after which you'd still have to show it's not an uncommon position to make it into the article. Again, your idea of a "creator of the universe with almost but not quite omnipotent powers" is a definition that is so attenuated and ill-defined that it ceases to be meaningful. Logic dictates that creation requires a creator. FeloniousMonk07:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blue Martini Revert?
Just wondering why you reverted my changes to the Blue Martini article. The article looked like it had been scraped directly from a Blue Martini Software web brochure - I have firsthand experience using the system and tried to present a more balanced view of its capabilities.
-Raskol20:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fine tuned universe
This message is in response to your comments on my userpage which accused me of obstructionism, and ad hominem comments. I will continue to improve the article regardless of the tactics that you employ. It is your attempts to paint fine-tuned universe theories as creationism that are sophistry, obstuctionist and transparently original research. The category "pseudoscience" is particularly abusive. --goethean ॐ 17:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That the fine tuning argument is a specific argument within the anthropic principle is not in question, nor is that it is an argument that the universe was created. The FTA asserts that the universe was created in particular way. Creationism claiming to be science is perforce pseudoscience. It is your assertion to the contrary that constitutes the personal research here. The real topic here is your behavior, and that needs to change, particularly now in light of the personal attacks on your user sub-page User:Goethean/Examples_of_sophistry. FeloniousMonk18:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
About Mel
You awarded Mel with a Rogue Moderator prize. Were you being sarcastic? If you weren't being sarcastic, perhaps you should join our resistance party against Mel. Either leave a message on my talk-page, or email me (see my user-page).
The user user:Adrigo who has been editing articles about atheism, agonisticism, and theism, is Donald Alford (AKA DotSix) who has been injoined by the Arb Committee from editing any page except the evidence page for his Arb Hearing [2] and his own user pages. Please revert EVERY edit he makes to any other page, including talk pages, with a simple comment that he is injoined. Please do not argue with him. Doing so just feeds a troll. Whether you agree with one of his edits doesn't matter: he is not allowed to edit. Revert it anyway and then, if you want, make a similar edit of your own. Thank you. --Nate Ladd22:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It took me only 3 minutes to find the moved article and fix the link. My view is that's what responsible wikipedians do when a link is broken. Either way, it's fixed now. FeloniousMonk02:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see the new link. How should I have done this given I didn't know the link? I thought to be accurate it should be deleted. I could not locate the article it referred to. Should I have left it and then mentioned it on the discussion page?--Swmeyer03:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the article's content to see who the broken link refered to (Pearcey), then I went to the homepage of the site that hosted the broken link and used their search function with Pearcey as the search term. The moved page was in the search results. If the hositing site does not have a search function you can use Google to search a particular site, see Google's "advanced search" page. Thanks for asking how to do this; it's good info to know here if you're going to contribute. BTW, it's not that I'm unfamiliar with the articles and tracts on the discovery.org site, it's that I don't find them credible enough to trump more neutral sources. FeloniousMonk02:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I think the Mel's issue was with unwikifying certain words in the infobox and some textual changes. However, there is nothing wrong with having the album covers in the chronology. It's currently being added to loads of other album articles by other users and is perfectly valid with wikipedia album article regulations. I've just re-instated them - minus the other changes I made before (which I still feel are valid as well, but I will relent on those issues since Mel is very obstinate). Could you please help me on those articles to make sure there are no more petty revisions on Mel's part? I'm sure you can agree that adding the album pics only adds to the quality of the articles...
Thanks for intervening, FM. With regard to the album covers, I've raised this at the Album project. It's not mentioned there, and I suspect that the new template has simply been created by an editor working solo. It's a bad edia, in that, first, it adds nothing useful but makes pages take longer to load, and (more importantly) it overuses "fair use" images, when we're trying to cut down on their use. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)22:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Did you get a chance to see my reponse to your sources in the Creationism talk page? I'd be interested to see how you respond to each of my points. I didn't see much weight to the sources you cited (one I could not get to). Please respond.
Swmeyer13:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FeloniousMonk,
While I can appreciate your warning, I am afraid that my views are supported by others individuals who have stopped in to question the neutral point of view and think the criticisms are unfair.
Hey, sorry to cause problems with the form. I didn't intend to--there was a problem with 2 windows being open. Hope you can revert without a problem. I tried to find how to do it, but I couldn't.
Swmeyer07:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ask to restore the 'bias' templates
Hello! I am a relatively new wikipedian and an appreciator of the band Einstürzende Neubauten. Would you please restore the 'bias' template in the articles Larvatus, Erin Zhu, Min Zhu, that I added and you removed. The reason is: these is particularly, a personal issue, and an only POV in the articles is a POV of Michael Zeleny, who is personally very involved into this story, both in private and business life.
So, I ask you to restore the 'bias' template in these three articles, for the reason that they provide only one POV from a very concerned person. Anyway - thank you in response. Alex ex08:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
