Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:35, 20 July 2005

vandalism

click here to report vandalism in progress ] Click once, and then you'll have to wait a few seconds. It takes a while.

wikipedia links

The wikipedia Help page is here

The wikipedia FAQ is here

How to archive a talk page is explained here

Apology request form

Full instructions for this subsection of my talk page are explained here.

Place your requests for an apology here. It should generally be something of the form: you said/did this . it ticked me off (or describe your alternate personal reaction). I want you to do this (insert explanation) to make things right between us.

Simple accusations, entertaining as they can be, will be deleted on sight, since I will not know what you want me to do to make it right. Do not bring me a problem without figuring out what the solution for you would be. Yes, that means you're gonna have to think a little bit. Sorry, that's the way this works. Whether I grant your proposed solution or counter-offer some other solution will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

Misplaced Pages rules prohibiting personal attacks are suspended within this "apology request form" subsection. So if in the course of describing the problem or the proposed solution you need to make some reference to the word "ass" or something similar, go for it.

Put your requests in their own subheader (i.e. three equal signs) so I can keep it all straight. And keep all requests below this line. Have at it. FuelWagon 22:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

line break

This section is a marker to separate the "request for apology" form above from the rest of the text below. Don't actually edit this section. FuelWagon 22:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This marks the end of the apology request form. Misplaced Pages rules for no personal attacks apply here. FuelWagon 22:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo

You have the patience of a saint, my friend. You're an inspiration. I have a far lower frustration threshhold than you apparently do. Keep up the good work. --AStanhope 21:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, FuelWagon, for reformatting my Let's go sentence by sentence post. Given the size the talk page now is, that'll sure make any contributions easier for the users. Duckecho 16:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

The request for mediation on the Terri Schiavo article is here.

I've been asked by ghost to step in as Mediator. How do you feel about that? And where (if anywhere) shall we discuss all this? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:02, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Please meet me at Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 00:22, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

"Removed my name|it's too silly" was the edit summary by one of the Mediation editors. I'm dumbstruck. That takes real work. The self-centered, naked arrogance.... I'm going to bed.--ghost 03:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

NCdave

RFC on NCdave

I have filed a request for comment on NCdave. You can visit the page by going here. I have left this message on your talk page since you have been involved in the dispute resolution process regarding his edits in the past. Mike H 11:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Editor comments on NCdave

I will now commence chuckling and knee-slapping Just wanted to let you know that I am officially appropriating the phrase "Whack-a-Mole logic game" for my own use, that is excellent. Been trying to think of a succint way to describe NCdave's style of debate for a while now.
Fox1 08:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(And the "whack-a-mole logic game" is brilliant.)Mia-Cle 01:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mediator's Announcement

You are invited to participate in the Mediation regarding the Terry Schiavo article. Initial discussion is beginning at Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

I admit to my own POV on Intelligent Design (I'm neo-Pagan), so having another Wikipedian that I know telling me when I'm being stupid would be very helpful. I respect your work on all things Terri Schiavo, and hope I can enlist your help.--ghost 21:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

In the future, refrain from deleting my comments. --goethean ॐ 04:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear option

I'm sorry to say the usefulness of that article has decreased since the recent edits of User:Hbomb and User:Ed Poor (beginning around May 12). It is confusing, and it seems to intentionally obscure the basic facts of the maneuver. --CSTAR 20:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I'll take a look at it. I found some good stuff on the reaction to "THE DEAL" made on Monday, and I'll add it at some point. Dave (talk) 04:46, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Fuel, double-checking before I jump in. Did you get my response? Is the invite still open, or should we discuss it further?--ghost 15:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FW, "I'm goin in Maverick..."--ghost 18:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stuff from my talk page moved by Uncle Ed

Stuff from my talk page moved by Uncle Ed to /block

Note from Neurosurgeon

Fuel, I awarded you something I feel you deserve. In re the current block, I hope it's not permanent, and I also hope you don't take things too much to heart. This is only an online encyclopaedia and community, after all. All the best.~ Neuroscientist | T | C ? 06:21, July 13, 2005 (UTC) Oh, and dude. You gotta tone down the cussin. Lol.~ Neuroscientist | T | C ? 06:23, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. FuelWagon 06:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

polite

You wrote:

There seems to be no imperative coming from Misplaced Pages to "Bear No False Witness" against fellow editors, to "Honor your word", or to "Edit With Integrity".

Being polite is objectively verifyable, costs nothing, and is a great help in promoting the difficult to objectively verify but valuable goals you listed. You'll be pleased to know that your new skills in politness will serve you well in your other endevors with us humans. Harsh language has a way of preventing the other person from hearing anything else we say. Slimvirgin is currently deaf when it comes to hearing anything critisizing her edits or her attitude or her judgement. Harsh words didn't help, but there is something else causing this deafness that can only be guessed at across the abyss of virtualness. One more thing. Try being OVERPOLITE. Sarcasm is allowed. Cheers. 4.250.33.21 06:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Vote - I am tiring of mediation, and hope we fix the problem soon: This may work

Vote - I am tiring of mediation, and hope we fix the problem soon: This may work'

• Generic Updates Message to other participants: I have imitated Uncle Ed's Q & A method and tried to augment it, and I have declared a tentative (minor) success on the first of seven questions I've presented, thanks to teamwork of many of you in the past, some named in that question. Most of all of other six "Vote on these" items are valid concerns, shared by all, even if we don't agree to the answers. So, I'm asking you all to review and vote on the lingering issues. Also, Wagon has suggested we get both guidelines and examples (role model was the term he used). We all know the rules, but I found one example of a controversial topic that simply shared the facts in a cold, dry method: The Slavery article neither supports nor opposes slavery: It is "just the facts." Thus, I hope the answers I gave to the questions I proposed were correct and just the facts, without an appearance of POV. "Have faith in me," I say (imitating Uncle Ed's similar claim), and I haven't failed yet -the one time I tried: In the http://en.wikiquote.org/Talk:Abortion and http://en.wikiquote.org/Abortion, I brought peace, so I expect my method will work here too. So, get on over to The Mediation Voting Center, and vote, for Gordon's sake: I have voted, and so can you.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

kai su teknon

Hi FW. Yeah... Sorry about my comments on the RfC thing. We did have a much better conversation with the Contact scenario, but when SlimVirgin had me look at the her situation it brought the sting back from our earlier conflict. That, and I've been pretty wiki-grumpy lately. Raging against the machine because it seems like any edit I make gets reverted in under 5 minutes. You, Monk, and Ian have been doing it the most... usually citing that my edits make ID sound too reasonable, therefore breaking NPOV. So I've come to the point where I feel like I'm worthless here.

I actually tried to take down my comments against you. I wrote them on Saturday, logged off, and then after some more thinking I tried to go back Sunday to remove them... but the page completely vanished (history and all). So I'm surprised that you even saw them. Anyway, I figured that we had just let our emotions get the best of us, and I know that I too stepped below a level appropriate for scientists/philosophers. It's easier to be rude when you aren't face-to-face.

Forgive and forget. I'll tell you that the harsh language doesn't bother me all that much. If a man wants to cuss, I say let him cuss. The things that ticked me off were when you would immediately revert (non-vandalism) changes, and when you would accuse me of making logical fallicies (ie. playing word games) without actually pointing out the fallacy. You will probably find that I am more willing to admit being wrong than most people... when I am wrong. But it does me no good to hear that my logic is fallacious without the fallacy being explicitly laid out. And if my logic's right on a thing as stupid and insignificant as bicycles... it wouldn't kill you to agree.

Anyway, take these things into account and I don't think there will be any problems down the road. I'm sure there are things that I do to get under your skin, and I would like to hear them. But either way, don't be surprised if my involvement starts dwindling. I've spent the better part of two months just muscling in one paragraph to the intro. And when I read it now, it has about 5% of what I intended. Yeah I expected it to change... that's wikipedia. But I didn't expect it to be sliced, diluted, choked, blurred, and eroded. And since I haven't really heard any new points of view on the talk page, and no one else seems interested in discussing my critiques of their POV... it's futile to expect any learning to go on.

That's where I'm at. Write back if you would like. David Bergan 06:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey Fuel. Where'd the RfC on SlimVirgin go, anyway? Proto t c 08:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I never quite understood why folks needed to prove via ID that god created us, except that it allows them to teach it in schools. And if that's the case, then they're making public schools into "missionaries" to save the unconverted. Granted most (probably a vast majority) of folks think of it that way... but not me. I could care less if ID was in the public high school or not. I only care if it is true. Is it true when addressing bicycles? True when addressing radio signals? True when addressing the human eye or the first living cell? "I prefer nothing unless it is true." (Socrates)

My edits are made not to push an agenda, but to give ID the strongest ideas in the strongest language possible. Some concepts when put forth in their strongest ideas and strongest language remain absurd (ie. flat earth theories). But ID does seem to have some legitimacy, at least apart from biology. And it does have limitations. I think we both agree on that... so why are edits made to polish up ID (so that it seems more legitimate) being reverted in the name of NPOV?

No one can use science to disprove religion. And no one can use religion to disprove science. Well, not without misrepresenting the truth about science or religion. Have to disagree here. If anthropologists found Jesus's bones, that would pretty much deep-six mainstream Christianity. Similarly, the reason I am not a Mormon is because there is no scientific/historical evidence (ie. no gold plates) for Smith's claims. And the reason I do not believe in 6-day creationism is because the physicists triangulate the oldest stars to be over 10 billion light years away. Thus, if atheistic evolution is true, beyond a reasonable doubt... then to believe in a creator at all is absurd. Faith must be grounded in reason. David Bergan 17:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, if they found Jesus's bones, then the story of the resurrection isn't true. But that doesn't deep-six an entire religion. The story of Genesis is pretty much accepted to be untrue from a literal standpoint, yet Christianity still has validity as a religion. There is a sense of spirituality that is behind Christianity that is separate from whether the stories in the bible are literally or figuratively true.

If you want to look at ID purely scientifically, then your faith cannot be affected at all by whether or not ID is legitimate or not. I don't know if that's the case for you or not. But the two are wholly separate for me. Science does not suppress my religious beliefs.

If you're exploring ID purely for whatever scientific merits it may have, then maybe you need to find someone who is trained as an evolutionary bioligist who would have a conversation with you. Get the opposing point of view from someone who isn't editing wikipedia. Have them explain how they define what natural science is, and why they say ID is not that. Then you're at least getting the information from someone who doesn't happen to be reverting your edits 5 minutes after you put them in. I know science, but I'm not neccessarily a good teacher. If you're really serious, find a nearby university with a big biology department and see if you can pick some PHd's brain. Tell him/her you're working on an online article about ID and evolution and need some background. Technically, the whole concept of "knowledge" is really nailed down in the Philosophy department, but my experience has always been they can't put it into plain enough language for anyone but another philosophy professor to read. FuelWagon 18:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Diction

BTW, my hat is off to you on your recent efforts to make yourself heard without using *ehm* colorful language. I just hope you realize that you're likely to infuriate even more people, because now they'll have to deal with your logic, rather than dismiss you out of hand... Good.--ghost 15:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)