- 1 Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
- 2 PNC Debate
- 3 Copy of Matrixism
- 4 PORNBIO
- 5 Thanks...
- 6 WP:POINT
- 7 A note re: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review
- 8 Response
- 9 Super-root
- 10 Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll
- 11 Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll
- 12 Buddhism and Baha'is Faith
- 13 Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll
- 14 ArbCom elections are now open!
Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
Mike, You voted delete at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc, but you expressed some optimism for a better version of the template, with a consensus at WP:N. I pushed this template really hard in order to generate some discussion. My experience is that unless something shows up in the actual text it just doesn't get real attention at the talk pages. The text as written is not specifically to my liking, but I feel that we now have the momentum to reach a consensus on the language, if we can preserve the concept of the template past this deletion process. Can we get your support for continued existence of the template by a Keep vote, or at least a neutral? Thanks! --Kevin Murray 03:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I voted a weak delete. I wasn't quite sure, I didn't like the current version. mike4ty4 23:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- I revoked the vote I put up just now, to neutral, with a leaning towards an extremely weak keep. It's the consensus that's the rub. mike4ty4 23:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
If you would like to see a copy of the deleted article for your reference, I can temporarily userfy it for you, provided of course that you understand it would be a temporary copy to be deleted once you've reviewed it to your satisfaction. Would this work for you? Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it would. mike4ty4 20:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
You proposed merging PORNBIO into BIO. Nothing has progressed on this. Shall we move ahead? --Kevin Murray 13:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe, but it should get consensus support first. mike4ty4 20:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Appreciate your input here.
I think it improves the article from a physicists viewpoint on QM, but I was citing the use of the the Copenhagen Interpretation by proponents as an analogy, that analogy is made in the context of a "Consciousness causes collapse" interpretation.
The so-called "copenhagen interpretation" is not a single viewpoint, and CCC is a subset system within the larger set of interpretations.
So. if you don't mind, I'd like to cite CCC in addition to CI and restore the conscious observer language as such...
- Ah, alright, but it needs to be clarified that it is indeed referring to that "use by proponents", not asserting things about QM that are not accepted by the entire scientific community. Since it seemed to be declaring that QM was that way, I felt it needed a change. mike4ty4 (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks...In addition to being a gentleman and a scholar, you are also 100% correct here. I can see how your changes to my original wording were entirely warranted. I will make it clear that I am attributing the use of this analogy to the proponents, and make sure that it does not imply that the CCC "interpretation" is either the same as, or is the primary "Copenhagen Interpretation". riverguy42 (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I responded to some of your comments on the talk page. I believe you have a valid objection to the passage on 'refusal to understand a point'. Please comment. --C S (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
A note re: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review
Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xenotalk 14:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Where did you mention which "category" you put my viewpoint in? There is a lot of material on those pages... mike4ty4 (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Further to the above, we would appreciate if you could briefly take the time to place yourself below one of the suggested statements here. If none of these statements represents your current position, please compose your own or simply sign "Not applicable" under "Other quick clarifications". Likewise sign as N/A if you do not want to participate further in this debate. If you choose not to respond then you will likely not be counted with respect to further consensus-determining efforts. –xenotalk 14:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
It was an observation that the deletion was occurring precisely because we didn't like it, the essay to the contrary notwithstanding. I'm always amazed by how many people trot out that essay but nevertheless contravene its spirit. And just wanted to point that out because it's an essay not holy writ and we were contravening that, and the world hasn't come to an end... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- So what is the real point of the essay? If anything, it should be "not liked" based on real objective reasons and/or agreed policy, not upon subjective criteria. In other words, could you give a real policy reason why it should be deleted and/or evidence why those were "harmful"? mike4ty4 (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
As you have contributed to both the article and the article's talk page, and seem to have enough knowledge on the subject to make a fair judgement on whether it's notable or not, you may have an opinion of its suggested merge with tetration. If you do please discuss it here, as the consensus currently seems to be in deadlock, and this is causing a large edit war across both articles. Robo37 (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Buddhism and Baha'is Faith
I know it's been a while and I'm not ready to jump into it big time but I thought you might find this addition to a bibliographical compilation I've been slowly growing particularly useful. Sort of just an fyi -  --Smkolins (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, however I'm not really sure what to do with that project now. The original idea was to try to include other viewpoints than just a Baha'i viewpoint about relations between the Baha'i Faith and Buddhism, to make it more WP:NPOV and to make it similar to the other comparative-religion articles here on WP. This would mean I'd probably need sources other than Baha'i ones about the issue, ones which have less of a close connection to the subject matter. However, I am also not sure how much it can be made like those, e.g. it would not appear possible to tabulate similarities and differences between Baha'i and Buddhism, because although there are sources describing each, to make such a tabulation based on that would constitute an original synthesis unless such a tabulation itself could be sourced to outside sources. mike4ty4 (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)