User talk:Illythr: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:16, 27 April 2006 editKnowledge Seeker (talk \| contribs)10,201 edits Re: Creationism← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:20, 27 April 2006 edit undoKnowledge Seeker (talk \| contribs)10,201 edits →Re: Creationism: repltNext edit →
Line 20:		Line 20:

	''(cross-posted from my talk page)'' Thanks for your support, MrMonkey! Yes, I agree that his behavior has been quite disappointing, especially his more recent ones. But I am still confident that he can continue as a productive editor. I'm not ready to brand him a troll, although of course his recent behavior crossed the line into trolling. But I don't recall him ever vandalizising articles, though he has certainly made edits with which I disagree. Of course, I could easily have missed them, but resorting to vandalism doesn't seem like something Scorpionman would do. If it's something recent, then as Illythr mentions I certainly would appreciate a link; if not, I think we can let it go. I think it ''is'' actually useful to have different viewpoints around. Unfortunately, Scorpionman's comments so far have been largely unhelpful, mainly criticizing various scientific theories using a web site whose purpose is to " the authority of the Bible" and which states "The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs." He may be correct and all appearances to the contrary, today's life forms may have been created separately ''ex nihilio'', but such speculation hardly belongs in a science article as if it were somehow approaching the matter from a scientific perspective or as if there problems with science beyond its perceived conflict with some religious ideas. Perhaps he will understand this with time, perhaps not; my purpose is not to change his religious beliefs but to show that arguing them on article talk pages is not appropriate. — ] ] 03:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)		''(cross-posted from my talk page)'' Thanks for your support, MrMonkey! Yes, I agree that his behavior has been quite disappointing, especially his more recent ones. But I am still confident that he can continue as a productive editor. I'm not ready to brand him a troll, although of course his recent behavior crossed the line into trolling. But I don't recall him ever vandalizising articles, though he has certainly made edits with which I disagree. Of course, I could easily have missed them, but resorting to vandalism doesn't seem like something Scorpionman would do. If it's something recent, then as Illythr mentions I certainly would appreciate a link; if not, I think we can let it go. I think it ''is'' actually useful to have different viewpoints around. Unfortunately, Scorpionman's comments so far have been largely unhelpful, mainly criticizing various scientific theories using a web site whose purpose is to " the authority of the Bible" and which states "The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs." He may be correct and all appearances to the contrary, today's life forms may have been created separately ''ex nihilio'', but such speculation hardly belongs in a science article as if it were somehow approaching the matter from a scientific perspective or as if there problems with science beyond its perceived conflict with some religious ideas. Perhaps he will understand this with time, perhaps not; my purpose is not to change his religious beliefs but to show that arguing them on article talk pages is not appropriate. — ] ] 03:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

			Thank you, Illythr, for your kind words. I shall preserve them on my user page. I believe that we can accomplish most through courtesy, logic, and reason. Of course, I have no desire to change anyone's religious beliefs—reading a religious text is certainly a possible way of learning about the world—although science has been far more successful than any religion in explaining the mechanics of how the world works. — ] ] 04:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:20, 27 April 2006

Welcome!

Hello, Illythr, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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 have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! RJFJR 01:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm not a bot (for one thing, bots don't go on wiki-sickleave). Welcome to the wikipedia. We're a friendly bunch here. RJFJR 01:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Romanian

Do you speak romanian? I see that you come from Chisinau. --Chisinau 16:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Erm, too late, I guess... On a very basic level. --Illythr 18:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Creationism

(cross-posted from my talk page) Thanks for your support, MrMonkey! Yes, I agree that his behavior has been quite disappointing, especially his more recent ones. But I am still confident that he can continue as a productive editor. I'm not ready to brand him a troll, although of course his recent behavior crossed the line into trolling. But I don't recall him ever vandalizising articles, though he has certainly made edits with which I disagree. Of course, I could easily have missed them, but resorting to vandalism doesn't seem like something Scorpionman would do. If it's something recent, then as Illythr mentions I certainly would appreciate a link; if not, I think we can let it go. I think it is actually useful to have different viewpoints around. Unfortunately, Scorpionman's comments so far have been largely unhelpful, mainly criticizing various scientific theories using a web site whose purpose is to " the authority of the Bible" and which states "The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs." He may be correct and all appearances to the contrary, today's life forms may have been created separately ex nihilio, but such speculation hardly belongs in a science article as if it were somehow approaching the matter from a scientific perspective or as if there problems with science beyond its perceived conflict with some religious ideas. Perhaps he will understand this with time, perhaps not; my purpose is not to change his religious beliefs but to show that arguing them on article talk pages is not appropriate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Illythr, for your kind words. I shall preserve them on my user page. I believe that we can accomplish most through courtesy, logic, and reason. Of course, I have no desire to change anyone's religious beliefs—reading a religious text is certainly a possible way of learning about the world—although science has been far more successful than any religion in explaining the mechanics of how the world works. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)