User talk:Benhocking/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Benhocking! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some pages to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Kukini hablame aqui 22:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Citing sources Neutral Point of View Describing points of view Attribution Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Etiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Resolving disputes Getting technical Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Tools Village pump

Holocaust analogy

What do do you think about Raymond ARritt's edit? I think he did a great job of keeping the content included, but paring down based on NPOV and notability issues. Zoomwsu 21:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a link to this version handy? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem

No problem. You will do great here! --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 22:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe I understand. I work in social sciences myself, but have utmost respect for the hard sciences. Great to have you on board. Let me know if I can be of any help as you move into the community. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 22:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I was gonna go but...

You mentioned Bush's definition of terror. I long to read that. Do you have access to it? I thought that the current administration had been intentionally NOT defining it for some reason. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 22:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Luckily, no. I can't imagine what definition of terror would allow one to declare that 9/11 was the first instance of it, but I'm certain that such a definition might distort my mind. Even if I did have access, I suspect that providing you with access to it could resort in allegations of terrorism directed toward me. :) Benhocking 23:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Darnit! OK...peace be unto you...and once again...welcome to the community!--Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 23:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, Benhocking. I noticed you popped in on the State Terrorism by... page, and i just wanted to say hi, and thanks for your contribution.

I'd also add that you've bumped in just at the "Post AfD Cleaning Attempt", which is roughly a semi-annual event over there. Basically, a few folks who really don't like the page regularly try to get it deleted. When their AfDs fail, typically one or two of them stick around the page and try to delete large sections of it. This is the first time conscientious editors have been numerous enough to fend off the deletion of large sections.

I agree with you, however, that the page could use a lot of cleaning up and re-working. For my part, i'd like to see it expanded with a little more speculation and rumination over the motives and geopolitics of State Terrorism; unfortunately contributors to the page have been held on a tight leash by Ultramarine, in particular (Ultramarine is his latest incarnation; previously he was NuclearUmpf, before that NuclearZero, and before that ZeroFaults; i think that's because of repeated bans). Basically, for the moment we are not allowed to introduce material unless it specifically uses some sort of wording that translates to "state terrorism by the United States", or is somehow a supporting document sourcing evidence in support of that thesis.

If you get interested, you are welcome. We can be pretty stiff over there, but when dealing with such issues it's better that way; just remember to keep a thick skin and quiet sense of humor.

Ciao Stone put to sky 06:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Rather than "expanding" it, I personally think that the best way to improve it would be to delete large sections of it. Or, rather, to move large sections of it to their own articles and link to those articles from that page. Right now it seems to ramble quite a bit. I'd fix it myself, but there's no way I'm stepping into that minefield!

As for Ultramarine, I feel it's best that I not try to read too much into his motives. Either his suggestions are good, or they're not, regardless of his particular motivations for suggesting them. Each suggestion can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Of course, I recognize that being new here, this might seem a bit idealistic to those who have hung around here quite a bit more. Benhocking 12:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries; i am quite content with disagreement, here, although we agree on more than it might first have appeared. I, also, think the article rambles a bit, and i, also, think that it would be better to siphon off some of this information into other articles, or sub-articles. Unfortunately, i don't think the opposition will allow us that luxury.

Also, by "expanding" i really meant something more like expanding the scope of its treatment, so that it could be more than merely a list of complaints against the United States.

As i keep harping on over there at the page: the direction this page has taken was largely set down a couple of years ago by the self-same people who are now complaining about the destination at which it has arrived. I warned, cajoled, and pleaded with them to adopt more reasonable standards for content, but my suggestions were rejected each time (and yeah, if you wanna check the history on that you'll see i'm not lying). ;-)

So i understand where you're coming from; i'll leave you in peace, now. I don't usually make a habit of popping in to people's private talk pages, but you seemed like you got bitten and scratched a bit, there, and i just wanted to give you some encouragement and let you know that regardless of the nonsense, some do value your presence.

I'd love to see a few more rational folks, even if they don't agree with me; any counter-balance to the insanity over there is pleasant to see. Stone put to sky 16:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Metaizing

Heh. Maybe you are making fun of me by using hyper-meta-satire. Serves me right. Anyway, I'm off for now. I'll look in on the discussion later today. Cheers, Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

DC Meetup notice

Greetings. There is going to be a Washington DC Wikipedia meetup on next Saturday, July 21st at 5pm in DC. Since you are listed in Category:Wikipedians_in_Virginia, I thought I'd invite you to come. I'm sorry about the short notice for the meeting. Hopefully we'll do somewhat better in that regard next time. If you can't come but want to make sure that you are informed of future meetings be sure to list yourself under "but let me know about future events", and if you don't want to get any future direct notices \(like this one\), you can list yourself under "I'm not interested in attending any others either" on the DC meetup page.--Gmaxwell 22:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologizes

I'm sorry about the confusion I generated on Talk: Eris (dwarf planet). Nobody accused me of anything. I was editing wikipedia whilst sleep deprived (not a good idea) and misread the edit summary. This is really embarrassing; I've made a few mistakes, but this just takes the cake. :/ Vsst 15:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I know how I'd feel if I thought I'd been accused of vandalism. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Question for any knowledgable Wikipedians who might be watching my talk page...

What is the purpose of all of those foreign language links at the bottom of the articles, and is there a way to verify they're right? For one thing, I was trying to figure out whether the "bs" in this change was legit, but I'm also just wondering in general... Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind! I just figured it out myself that it's the special "info box" on the extreme left hand side (at least with my configuration). I never noticed that there before! (And, "bs" is a legitimate language code.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

re: climate change edits

Hi Benhocking! I noticed a lot of good math-and-science work in your edit history--I hope you'll come by and check out our task force. Your education would be an asset to our project.

You are being recruited by the Environmental Record Task Force, a collaborative project committed to accurately and consistently representing the environmental impact of policymakers, corporations, and institutions throughout the encyclopedia. Join us!

Cyrusc 20:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

State terrorism by the United States

I've decided to stop "watching" this article, as it tends to lower my opinion of a certain crowd and I do not care to have my opinion lowered. There's a lot of petty bickering on both sides (and I'm sure I've contributed to it), although to my eyes I see more petty bickering from those who want to remove large chunks of it. I, too, would like to remove large chunks of it (or rather move large chunks of it - and I do think some of that comes close to "torture porn" as one person wrote and hence is not appropriate in an encyclopedic entry), but I know better than to get involved in what appears to have become a very complicated dance. I believe there are people with good intentions on both sides of this debate. However, many people seem to get so caught up with their "side" that they can't admit when they're obviously wrong. (E.g., Tbeatty's misrepresentation of Nescio.) Anyways, as this whole article seems to get my blood pressure up, I (a) can't be completely neutral, and (b) shouldn't be disturbing myself by paying too much attention to it. This decision is easier because I know that many well intentioned people on "both sides" (there are actually at least 3 sides here) will remain. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)}

Monitoring

Thanks for the note, and thank you especially for your intelligent input regarding the climate change denial page. I know what you mean about the stress.

Please keep the ERTF in mind if you're ever looking for articles to work on--there's always something interesting on the to-do list. Also, please let me know if you run into further disputes about environment articles.

Cheers,

Cyrusc 16:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review of [[Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg]]

Here is a notification that the deletion of [[Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg]] is being reviewed. The DrV may be found at this location. "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions. This includes appeals to restore pages that have been deleted..." In the DrV, users may discuss relevant issues in attempting to form consensus, as well as assert Uphold Deletion or Overturn Deletion, with a specific rationale for the stated conclusion. ... Kenosis 16:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

larger tax base question

If you take a look, here[1] and here[2], you can see the point they were making about the larger tax base. Admittedly, those are older notes, but the point remians. Brian Pearson 20:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. So, do you think they'll be in favor of keeping capital gains and/or estate taxes then? If so, do you think that's fair? If not, doesn't that need to be included in the tax base? I'm not anti-FairTax, but I do think there's a lot of BS coming from certain proponents of it. Tax base questions aside, if some people ending up paying less taxes, other people have to pay more taxes, or else it's not revenue neutral. I've never seen them address who actually ends up paying more taxes, and that sounds like typical politician-speak to me. I do like the idea of a simpler tax system, but very few people don't. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ben, I'll have to try and address your questions tomorrow as I'm running out the door. But I'll leave you with this to read quickly The Case for the 'FairTax'. Kotlikoff mentions the tax base effect and that the FairTax generates a goodly portion of its revenues by effectively taxing wealth, stating that it can afford to have a lower effective tax on wages. I also e-mailed AFFT to find out of the tax base study has been published anywhere. I think they were waiting for them to be published in the tax policy publications (like tax notes) before putting it on their site... but I asked. Morphh ^(talk) 21:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but the bottom of page 2 on that PDF set off my BS detector big time. It seems to imply that people will go from 50% to 30% on the same stuff, which definitely sounds non-revenue-neutral. Also, they inadvertently make an argument that the elderly (who have already paid income taxes on much of their savings) will be the ones hit harder by a move to the FairTax. I don't buy the supporters' arguments about the transition period in the current article. Saved money would end up getting taxes more heavily in the transition, unless there were specific provisions made to guard against it. It would not be magically canceled out by the reduction of employer taxes. Again, I'm not anti-FairTax, but I am anti-BS, and unfortunately, the number of politicians flocking to this cause are tracking BS all over the place. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarification, the wealthy elderly will be hit hardest, which is appropriate considering the generational shift and the tax burden we have to pay to afford the benefits they voted themselves. Yes, I'd say that savings (depending on where it is at) does not get the same benefit as wages during the trasition. Morphh ^(talk) 14:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A general complaint

Something I see from both people I agree with and people I disagree with far too much: deleting what you don't agree with, without at least putting an explanation on the Talk page.

1. If a link is broken, don't just remove the link just because you didn't like it anyway. If it bothers you enough to delete it, it should bother you enough to try to figure out how to fix it.
2. If you think a sentence doesn't belong somewhere, try to figure out where it might belong — even if you don't like what the sentence is saying.
3. If you think a sentence or section doesn't belong anywhere in the article, really consider taking it to the talk page first — especially if you don't like what it is saying.

People I respect as editors who agree or disagree with me are being far too heavy-handed with deletes. If the material is libelous or obscene, by all means delete first, ask questions later. Otherwise, what's the harm in leaving it up for a day or even a few hours while you discuss with others why you think it doesn't belong? I realize that this has been an arms-race type thing for a long time that I'm coming into the middle of (I really don't care who started it), but I really think that everyone can afford (in most cases) to step back and think before you delete. Please. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ben, this may be better suited for your user page. Sounds like your talking to yourself over here. There are also tags that can be used to address some of the thoughts you mention ({{fact}}, {{or}}), though Jimbo has said that he thinks they are overused.  :-) Morphh ^(talk) 12:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

My user page is too pretty for that. :) I would much rather have the template tags than have people edit warring — often over the most trivial stuff. (I suppose I'm going off topic from my original complaint on the trivia, though. I'm not necessarily advocating a talk page straw poll every time someone decides that "some" or "few" are weasel words or that "some" should say "few" or vice-versa. Edit warring over "some" or "few" seems a lot like WP:POINT, though. It really has very little impact on the information in the article. Again, I'm not singling any person or "side" out on this.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Your user page is nice, but you are just preaching-to-the-choir/talking-to-yourself here. As a side note, honestly, I don't know what most Wikipedians see in userboxes-- I really don't. Is it something you get with experiance? Revolutionaryluddite 01:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have to ask, you'll never get it. ;) OK, seriously, there are 3 factors involved in user boxes: (1) many of them automatically put you in categories that allow others with similar interests to find you (and vice-versa if they have them on their pages), (2) it provides many facts about you in a easy-to-access table format, and (3) vanity. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As for the preaching-to-the-choir/self bit, I didn't think that'd be any different if I put it on my user page, though, right? I figured a lot of people such as you and Morphh are like me in that you leave other's pages on your watchlist once you've interacted with them, and hence would be aware of comments on their talk pages. Anyways, I'm headed to bed now. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"Fundies"?

Do athiests use the term 'fundies' a lot? If so, who exactly is it supposed to apply to? Revolutionaryluddite 18:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the atheist. I tend to avoid the term. In general, I'd say it applies to a fundamentalist in any religion, although it usually is reserved for Christian fundamentalist. Some hardcore atheists might believe that being a Christian necessarily means you're a "fundie", but those folks are "nutters". Of course, I'm also necessarily going to be sympathetic to the Christian world-view as I was raised a Methodist, and most of my family is Christian. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's just that 'fundie' seems, well, cute rather than insulting. I suppose that it would be different if it was used in someone's face. As a Roman Catholic Christian, being called a 'fundamentalist' feels less 'offensive' and more like just 'mildly irritating'. Well, I'm not a Christian fundamentalist, so... it's like having someone say to me "What a stupid blue shirt! What's your problem, 'bluey'?" when I'm wearing a green shirt. Revolutionaryluddite 19:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, 'fundie' is meant to be an insult (whereas fundamentalist might not be), and those who throw around insults the most are typically insecure and not the sharpest tool in the toolbox. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"I'm also necessarily going to be sympathetic to the Christian world-view as I was raised a Methodist, and most of my family is Christian.": Forgive me for being so bold, but you sound less like an 'atheist' and more like someone who is just 'non-religious'. Do you mind my asking why you left Methodism? (I ask because I don't know that much about it.) Revolutionaryluddite 19:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm quite the atheist. I've struggled long and hard with my religious beliefs and didn't come to atheism lightly. I have nothing against Methodism per se, it's just that I don't believe in God. Rather, I believe that God does not exist. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, you typed "I don't believe in God" first-- as if you think He does exist, but you don't want to believe in Him. Please forgive my armchair psycoanaylizing, I know what you meant. I personally have incessent doubts about my Christianity and constantly debate the issues-- problem of pain, free will, and so on-- in mind. A lot of times I just think: "Who am I trying to kid with this God stuff?"

The primary reason I believe is that while most people get the spacey "Does it matter if I do this? Does my life matter at all? What is the meaning of existence?" feeling once a month or so, I get the feeling ever single morning of every single day of my entire life. Being a Christian means that I can say with some confidence: "Yes, this is important. This all matters for these specific reasons." If was not a Christian I would probably be in a mental instituiton. Revolutionaryluddite 20:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Which is why you'll never find me trying to "convert" anyone to atheism. (Not because I think it'll really make you crazy, but because I think that not believing often makes you a fundamentally sadder person.) As for the psychoanalyzing, it's more that I was trying to make clear the distinction between the two. At one point I was agnostic — not believing in God. Now I am an atheist — I believe He does not exist. Unlike many atheists, I will readily admit that this is, in fact, a belief. (Also, there's the fact that it's more common to say "I don't believe in X" than to say "I believe in not X".) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Just like there's a clear, distinct differance between atheism and agnosticism, there's also a clear distinction between atheism and anti-theism-- that is, someone who tries to 'convert' everyone they meet with a single conversation like Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins. [To be clear, my point was not that Christianity keeps me "a functional member of society" as a therapist would say, it's that I recognise that my life is like a game of Monopoly in which everything will go back in the box at the end. I think about it a lot. The other day someone with a small car just like mine got hit by a semi running at a close yellow and he was removed from the scene via helicoper. While watching this, I'm thinking "There but for the Grace of God go I."] Revolutionaryluddite 22:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Re I firmly believe these two categories are orthogonal to each other -- did you really mean orthogonal? •Jim62sch• 21:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I probably did (in the non-overlapping sense, probably), but I'll need a little context... Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, found the context (intelligent design vs. theistic evolution). Yes, I mean in the non-overlapping sense. In my mind, those are two completely different concepts. Intelligent design, to me, is about typical denialist tactics: misinformation and misdirection. Theistic evolution, to me, is an attempt to fit evolution into the scriptures. No doubt I believe this because I was raised in a manner compatible with theistic evolution (and one could arguably say I believed in theistic evolution), whereas I've always thought ID was pure nonsense. I.e., accept my statement as possibly/probably POV-influenced. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Your comments at the MfD

I've replied. Please be careful when criticising other users using emotive terms like "hypocrisy". --Dweller 13:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Duly chastised. I was frustrated by the lack of response to what I considered a very valid question and I showed that frustration somewhat inappropriately. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Your attitude is excellent. Are you interested in becoming an admin at some point? --Dweller 13:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. I no doubt spend too much time on Wikipedia as it is. :) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Your name

'Ashley' or 'Ashlie' are not necessarily 'wimpy' or 'girly' names. Revolutionaryluddite 03:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC) [I'm lucky to have a name that, while ambiguous, is mostly male].

Huh. Interestingly enough, he kinda looks like me, too — the blood all over the face bit, that is. ;) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Editing comments

Ben, please don't insert comments within my comments. Just quote and reply outside. It's no longer clear what I said and what you said. Please separate your comments. Thanks. Guettarda 17:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I had considered copying & pasting your sig below to make that clear, but I know some people don't like that, either. The problem with quoting and replying outside is that it makes for an even "larger" discussion. Perhaps it would have been the better solution in this case, however. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not do anything of the sort in the future. You have modified my comments, which is unacceptable. Among other things, it is impossible to continue the conversation. Guettarda 19:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not at all expect it to offend you. In fact, it seriously very much surprises me. As for continuing the conversation, why can't you quote and reply outside? What makes it any harder? If anything, I think that this method of editing makes it easier to continue the conversation, as you can respond below my own points. Look, if it really bothers you, just delete everything I wrote, OK? I'm not sensitive about that kind of thing, and will happily quote/reply in the area below. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda is right from both a policy and wikiquette standpoint. He's also right from a logic standpoint: it is difficult to follow the conversation and attribute the comments to the proper editor. One editor should never break up the integrity of another's comments. •Jim62sch• 22:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I won't pretend to understand the logic behind that particular convention (I'm guessing it's one of those "slippery slope" things), but I will abide by it. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I have now read the Talk page Wikiquette in more detail and see your point as the last bulleted item in that section. I'll accept this as one of those conventions that I just need to follow, regardless of how I actually feel about it. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment on 'Denialism' talk page

I've stopped editing the denialism page at the request of the other users. After reviewing the previous lines of arguement to try and get a sense as to why the posting became so heated, I noticed that you said "I think you should really assume good faith with RL. I really feel that he has earned it."

I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you didn't mean it that way, but your statement inspired me to ask myself the rehorical question: "Why does good faith have to be earned?" Looking at Wikipedia:Assume good faith, I just think that 'good faith' is something that should be assumed and sincerly believed in except in extreme circumstances. I know, I'm ridicously biased about this. Revolutionaryluddite 05:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, but I suppose what I was thinking about goes something like this (and I'm talking about human nature here and not how it should be): With respect to one another we each have individual "good faith bank accounts" (GFBA). Making constructive edits adds to that bank account and making destructive edits subtracts from that bank account. Of course, what we consider constructive or destructive can depend very much on our POV. Additionally, whether we're in the positive or negative territory in our GFBA also (unfortunately) determines how our edits will be considered (leading to a bit of a vicious cycle). It seems that some people gave you negative accounts very quickly, and from that point it seems to me practically impossible to dig yourself out (short of just giving in to their every whim). The AGF policy should, at the very least, dictate that you start off in positive territory in your GFBA so that you have to earn bad faith assumptions.

I'm seriously considering dropping out of the debates altogether in the climate change/global warming articles. They've really challenged my belief in my fellow Wikipedians — primarily those who I agree with. (Part of that is that it's hard for those I fundamentally disagree with to disappoint me.) I'll still make edits on astrophysics/computer science/neuroscience articles, where I have more experience anyway, but I'm just feeling really blah about the environmental articles — despite feeling very passionate about the need to do something to save our environment. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

(short of just giving in to their every whim) I did change my mind about several things because of the debates-- Intelligent Design as an ideology is pretty close to denialism in its methodology, though, I still strongly disagree that it "is as bad as holocaust denial" in a moral sense-- and I did try to compromise. Interestingly, looking at Wikipedia_talk:Assume_good_faith, I see that some of the posters there agree with the "more like guidelines than actual rules" interpretation. That seems like a recipe for disaster given, as you pointed out, how emotive the climate change/global warming article debates get.

Speaking of neuroscience, have you read the recent article by Scientific American called "The Myth of the Teen Brain"? [3] There's a detailed interview with the author at [4] What do you think? Revolutionaryluddite 15:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Guettarda's comments specifically on the actual section-- not on me personally-- I've noticed several things. My first sentence had a WP:SYN problem given that the source didn't link together the ideologies I had mentioned. Russian neo-nationalism [2] [3] and neo-Nazism, far-left Palestinian nationalism [4], and Islamism [5] have been closely linked to holocaust denial and the recycling of disproven anti-Semitic conspiracy theories such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion should have said "Neo-Nazism, types of Palestinian nationalism, and Islamism have been linked to holocaust denial and the recycling of disproven anti-Semitic conspiracy theories such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Radical Russian neo-nationalist beliefs such as the claim that 'Zionists collaborated with the Nazis' are not technically holocaust denial; I mis-applied [3] and inclusion of [2] was a simple mistake.

I could have found more sources for points [4] and [5], but I didn't thinking that I could do so later. I still consider the sources I cited to be reasonable. The fact is that Abu Mazen is the President of the Palestinian National Authority and served as Chairman of the PLO Executive Committee after Yasser Arafat's death. He represents Palestinian Nationalism as much as DNC Chairman Howard Dean represents American Liberalism. Islamism and Palestinian Nationalism, which are certianly related, have been linked to holocaust denial multiple times [5], [6] [7] and I can easily come up with more sources saying the same thing. As far as AIDS Reappraisal, my phrasing was a bit misleading as you also pointed out.

Regarding Creationism, I included quotes that represented actal examples of 'evolution denial' given that I believed a blanket condemnation of all creationism by a non-scientist was not a good source. In retrospect, I shouldn't have waited to add other specific examples by Jews, Christians, and other monotheists, but I didn't think that my intentions would be viewed so negatively. I have no freaking idea what Guettarda was talking about when s/he called the Foreign Affairs article "a joke". I was referred to the article by Jihad Watch [8]-- Robert Spencer says:

Thus this piece on stupid fatawa, as daring as it appears at first glance, given the hair-trigger rage the Islamic world has demonstrated on so many occasions in recent years, is actually just another example of the analytical myopia that prevents us from dealing realistically with the global challenge we're facing.

The article does indeed discuss Pokemon. It also discusses the death contract on Salman Rushdie as well as Polio vaccine denialism, which may lead to the deaths of 24,000 children. A laughing matter? Revolutionaryluddite 21:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I've reached the point on this article that it's "why bother". The article isn't really that important to me, and even my POV has now been questioned (on someone's talk page), which is really quite hilarious. OTOH, I have a hard time dropping an argument. Also, I'm not sure how your addition changes the tenor of the article — which is why I'm really confused by the harsh response to it. In all, it's been a huge disappointment to see how people who appear to be fairly educated can so quickly close their minds to alternative viewpoints, while claiming that others are "POV-pushing". Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm way past the "why bother" point myself given that I've been compared to a child trying to steal a cookie. I wish I hadn't of known the article existed. The "turning this article into a joke" comment in particular... well, they're children. And they might die. Due to that fatwa. Regardless, I've tried to drop the argument. I've taken the page off my watchlist and I don't care what's posted next. A side note, have you read my comment at User_talk:Benhocking#The_Myth_of_the_Teen_Brain? Revolutionaryluddite 22:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read it, but took it as a complete discussion, so I figured I'd let you have the last word. :) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly reccomend against posting again on the Talk Page. I think the only practical response to personal attacks is silence. Anyways, are you familiar with the MRI and EEG studies cited in the Scientific American article? I halfway suspect that the author is taking the quotes/paraphrases out of context. Revolutionaryluddite 05:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"I think the only practical response to personal attacks is silence." In this case, I think you're right. I was really, really trying to assume good faith with that pair, but it seems that I would have been better off letting their comments speak for themselves. I doubt they're fooling anyone but themselves. We all make mistakes, but it seems that only some of us can admit to them. As for the fMRI and EEG studies, I am not familiar with those particular studies (or studies dealing with adolescence in general). I don't think the author was necessarily taking the quotes/paraphrases out of context so much as ignoring a large body of work (presumably unintentionally) dealing with neurochemical dynamics. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The Myth of the Teen Brain

Well, I think it's a very unfortunate title, because although I agree with a lot of his sub-points, I disagree with his primary assertion. There is a teen brain, neurochemically speaking. This is true in all mammals. Now, take what I'm saying with a grain of salt, because my work is exclusively with the hippocampus (or hippocampal structure, sometimes), and primarily with the rat hippocampus. That said, he seems to be taking the approach of many psychologists, which is to draw conclusions off of behaviors and theories of behavior, rather than looking inside the brain (in his case, he takes a cursory look inside, but then discards that look). IMO, you need to do both. Inside the "teen brain", you'll find a brain that is rapidly changing as it accommodates all sorts of new information and hormones. So, what about his sub-points:

1. Teens are better off associating with adults (or at least with more adults) than with primarily other teens.
   • I'd have to agree with him (although this is not based off of anything inside the brain). However, I'd say this is largely true exactly because there is a teen brain.
2. Teens are capable of more responsibility than we usually give them.
   • Well, as a former public school teacher who was forced to take all kinds of education courses to get certified, this seems to be a generalization of the Pygmalion effect that we learn about.
3. Teens can learn more than they're usually taught in public schools.
   • Well, personal experience (as a student) teaches me that. Pygmalion effect, see also. :)

In general, he seems to take a valid point that putting a bunch of teenagers together only makes them act more immature and extracting the invalid point that there is no biological basis for their immaturity. He mentions other non-Western cultures not having our problems with teenagers. That's true, but I'm sure they have their own. In a perfect world, all kids would be home-schooled by well-educated parents, or taught in class sizes of 2-5. These kids would volunteer in various organizations that would help expose them to a variety of different adults (and younger children, too), as well as open up their minds to diversity, etc. One big problem with home-schooling is the possibility of intellectual inbreeding — especially if the parents doing the home-schooling were home-schooled themselves. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a 'gotcha' title, but hey, that's modern journalism for you [9]. I think his main point wasn't so much that the "teen brain" does not exist, but that the idea that "the immature brain... supposedly causes teen problems" is a myth. It's more of a sociological and/or psychological arguement, as you pointed out. I'm not familiar with the MRI and EEG studies he cited. I do agree with him that "it's dangerous to presume that snapshots of activity in certian regions of the brain necessarily provide useful information about the causes of thought, feeling, and behavior." No offense, I'm not saying that researching the affect of hormones on the hippocampus is a waste of time or that the findings are irrelevent. I'm saying that it's a horrible idea to explorate those findings to support public policy, especially in education. The Prussian model of child/teen education-- the idea that younger brains are like empty vases to be filled with information-- makes the normal process of brain development much worse. I know I'm quite biased as a believer in John Taylor Gatto-style [10] unschooling. Revolutionaryluddite 19:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania in Atlanta!

Hi! I noticed your involvement on U.S. South-related articles, categories and WikiProjects, and I wanted to let you know about a bid we're formulating to get next year's Wikimania held in Atlanta! If you would like to help, be sure to sign your name to the "In Atlanta" section of the Southeast team portion of the bid if you're in town, or to the "Outside Atlanta" section if you still want to help but don't live in the city or the suburbs. If you would like to contribute more, please write on my talk page, the talk page of the bid, or join us at the #wikimania-atlanta IRC chat on freenode.org. Have a great day!

P.S. While this is a template for maximum efficiency, I would appreciate a note on my talk page so I know you got the message, and what you think. This is time-sensitive, so your urgent cooperation is appreciated. :) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 09:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do respond quickly, it is rather time-sensitive. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 05:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see an "Outside Atlanta" section, and I'm not sure what you mean by "help". As an n^th year grad student, I have neither money nor significant time to spare. (That doesn't mean that I don't waste a lot of time that I shouldn't, but that's a different story.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You have to click on "Southeast team" and find "outside Atlanta," and by help, I mean people who would be interested in doing technical things in regards to the bid, or contacting people who would be interested and asking for their support, or helping us set up and run the actual event in July 2008. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 22:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC

After checking the Talk:Denialism page to find someone's user name, I noticed that Oddnature plans to place me into 'RFC'. What does that mean? Revolutionaryluddite 23:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC) (Yes, I broke my own rule not to ever post on anything at/on denialism, but only for a moment. I honestly don't care what's posted there next.)

Request for Comment, I believe. I wouldn't worry too much about it. Your actions speak for themselves. I've also noticed that some people who initially seemed somewhat hostile to you have softened up somewhat (I'm not naming names). I've got to say, after watching how you've been treated by some folks, it's changed my mind about some of the claims I was hearing from the "other side" when I first started editing. There is some significant heavy-handedness going on here. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

EU page

Hi, sorry to bring up the European Union article again, I know it can get tedious. Basically it is about the city table. Small point but we've been wanting to replace it, thus far Lear has been the only one wanting the old and has reverted any changes. A summery of options has been written up, I'd appreciate it if you'd give a comment. Don't mind what you pick as it will either help convince Lear to compromise for once or it will legitimise what he is doing (if he has support I don't mind, so long as it is not him alone). See here for the summery. If you could pop an opinion I'd be grateful before it turns into 3 pages of "standard content" vs "consensus" again. I understand if you don't want to or don't have time to. Thanks! - J Logan ^t: 13:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I added my 2 cents, which is probably all it's worth. :) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for contributions before. I wonder though if we could have another two cents off you? Everyone has wandered off again but no decision on number of cities, I've drawn up a summery of options. If you have time I'd be greatful if you could drop a comment. Thanks. - J Logan ^t: 07:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Larry Craig

Not at all. Though just being a bit homophobic usually isn't good enough, quite a lot of people are, regrettably. I can understand why he would want to keep his sexuality on the downlow, but voting against gay rights is just wrong - even Ted Haggard had the good grace to support civil unions. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Does the "not at all" refer to you not minding the comment, or to voting against gay rights being an insufficient reason for inclusion into the LGBT project? (I have not yet waded into any LGBT issues, other than Craig, on Wikipedia.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not yet waded into any LGBT issues... I recommend against that. Revolutionaryluddite 23:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC) (No offense whatsoever meant towards Dev920)

I confess that my own personal opinion is that Craig is innocent and he is what he says he is. It's not that I particularly like his policies or anything like that, I just don't think he's guilty. Revolutionaryluddite 23:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

While I respect your opinion, it's wrong. ;) There's no way he'd plead guilty just to get it behind him. The guy has a political science degree. He's not that stupid. (Twelve Angry Men is one of my favorite movies. That, and Gideon's Trumpet.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Larry Craig should not be part of the project because it's about a recent, and still current event. The article itself is mostly well written, well sourced, and NPOV. The link to the page Men who have sex with men, though, is mystifying. 'Men who have sex with men': Why does that article exist? What point does it serve?

In a related note, isn't "just being a bit homophobic" like "just being a bit pregnant"? You are or you aren't one. Revolutionaryluddite 01:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC) (Under the current definition used in the media, I guess I am one.)

He shouldn't be in the category (for libel reasons if no other), but I think his views on gay marriage alone are a valid reason for him to be in the LGBT project, as I understand it. I.e., even before the controversy there were valid reasons for him to be in the project. I disagree that one cannot be a little bit homophobic. That probably describes me, actually — not that I'm proud of it. I get the heebie-jeebies when I see guys kissing each other passionately, but as long as I'm not witnessing it, I don't care what they do. It's similar to being a little bit racist, which recent studies suggest that we all are (except for those who are very racist). As for the men who have sex with men article, I suppose it'll have to speak for itself. The article does mention how it is relevant and different from other topics. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that putting his article in the project has the same problems. He opposes same-sex marriage, as do the large majority of Americans. [11] As far as the hipocracy thing goes, I don't know. What if a Senator who said they were morally opposed to smoking and went on public crusades against 'Big Tobacco' was caught smoking himself? What if a executive offical notoriously supportive of the "war on drugs" is addicted to perscription medication? It's hipocracy and it's an inconsistency, but inconsistency is something all politicans have. It's also something most average Americans have-- Christians who like heavy metal, wealthy investors who support progressive taxation, et cetera. It's not that I don't condemn what Craig did if he's guilty; I just don't think it's as big of a deal as everyone else seems to think.

I don't know how I would react if I saw two guys kissing. I don't think it would register. I don't think I would really feel or think anything-- I would just keep walking past them. By 'homophobic' I am referring to 'morally opposed to homosexuality in principle'. I guess there might be a difference between the two things. Someone could strongly oppose cigarette smoking without ever making a face and shrieking "Put that out!" when they see someone doing it.

It's similar to being a little bit racist, which recent studies suggest that we all are What studies? Revolutionaryluddite 16:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As for hypocrisy, a quote from a novel (I think it was Stephenson's Diamond Age) really struck me once. Basically, it went something like: "in an age of moral relativism, hypocrisy is the only remaining sin". You can take this several ways, IMO. First off, I'm not a moral relativist, so don't think I'm advocating such. The way I take that is that the inherent hypocrisy in moral relativism is that it does find hypocrisy to be an unforgivable sin. And yes, your examples are fine.

As for the "little bit racist", it turns out there have been a lot of such studies recently, so I'm having a hard time find the best one to present to you. The experimental set up goes like this: There are two groups. The first group presses one button if an image is that of a black person or of a word with positive associations (black+good), and another button if an image is that of a white person or of a word with negative associations (white+bad). The other group has the same two buttons except that they press one button if an image is that of a white person or of a word with positive associations (white+good), and the other button if it's an image of a black person or of a word with negative associations (black+bad). These studies find that, almost without exception the group with the (white+good)/(black+bad) tasks are faster than the group with the (black+good)/(white+bad) tasks — even for black participants (although the black participants' results are smaller in difference). Here's one study that was looking at the amygdala's response in such tasks (although they only used white participants). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried the link and it didn't work. It sounds interesting.

As for hipocracy, my point is that people in general and most politicans specifically try to hold themselves to their own high moral standards (no smoking, no/very little drinking, faithful marriages, no profanity, et cetera). Time and time again they fail to meet their own standards, but, instead of abandoning them, they just move on. One comic book, I can't remember what it's called, said something like "There are no 'good people'. There are no 'better people'. There are only those who want to be forgiven." Revolutionaryluddite 20:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC) (So the best thing I can come up with is something from a comic book; I feel intellectually inadequate.)

I agree completely on the hypocrisy part. Here's a link for the implicit racism that shouldn't be blocked. (The first link is no doubt one that my university has a subscription to. I don't notice such things until other people can't access it.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Climate change denial

I've given up editing the article and posting on its talk page due to the constant personal attacks. Do you think I'm being too thin-skinned about this? Revolutionaryluddite 16:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Unfortunately, it seems that these attacks mainly drive out the moderates, as the fanatics (on either side) will continue regardless. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Revolutionaryluddite 18:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Just call me Don Quixote. ;) (I have a hard time even letting the little things go when I know I'm right.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fanatics on the other side? Nice. But I digress. This, while hardly containing the evil profanity of the comment that got ConfuciusOrnis erroneously blocked, is most certainly uncivil and smug: (→Proposal 3 - Trying to help OrangeMarlin out with preserving the numbering (and indentation))...(with a soto voce "cause he's too dumb to doit himself). "Fixing numbering" would have been somuch more civil, don't you think? •Jim62sch• 18:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh Jim, I didn't take it that way, because only "our side", you know the one that is "wrong", can lack civility. But I am dumb--didn't you know that?OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk about assuming bad faith. Look at the edit history. After OrangeMarlin spent a bit of effort fixing the numbering, Childhoodsend made an edit and it messed it up again. (Unintentionally, I'm sure.) My change and comment was meant as nothing more than an olive branch. Peace? Please? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a major passive-aggressive detector, so when I read the edit summary, I was extremely concerned. But if you're serious, then I'll take the olive branch. Still think you're completely and utterly wrong about climate change denialism, ist, ????. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That's OK, we can agree to disagree. Despite all of my arguing, it's really not that important of an issue to me. As I said up above, I have a hard time even letting the little arguments go. I'm trying to, however, with this particular argument on the climate change denial page. I'll probably respond to direct questions or comments directed at me, but otherwise, my intention is to drop it. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Denialism

Kinda of a separate thing: Where do you think it the conversation on denialism is going? --Blue Tie 19:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The same sort of place the recent conversation in climate change denial headed. I really don't want to get dragged into it, and so I decided to recuse myself early before getting invested any more heavily in it. That comment was not meant to be directed at any particular person, either. I'm just tired. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I was not trying to drag you into anything. I just was curious. Im not aware of these discussion. But I appreciate your desire to avoid bad feelings.--Blue Tie 19:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Global warming conspiracy lede

Thanks! I hope that it will start a healthy debate :) Unfortunately, I won't have much time to participate in that debate in the coming few days, though. I have a real article to finish :). I.m.o., it is very important to define the term the article is about as accurately as possible in the lead. Anyway, I'll just watch how this develops. I'll have more time in a week from now... Count Iblis 01:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Global warming and forcing

I don't want to get into on the talk page (as it's not relevant there), but you're no more of a subject matter expert than I am (based off your "about me" bit) and arguably are less so. Furthermore your statement

this forcing might cause cooling or warming or other climate responses

is false. Not even Michaels or Lindzen would argue that this forcing will not cause warming. Their arguments (of late) have been that it's uncertain that anthropogenic forcing is causing the majority of the warming. (Michaels has also argued that the increase in forcing will stop once we run out of fossil fuels.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? How many GCM runs have you personally made? How much GCM code of yours is currently running? In how many countries? How much do you know about the flux corrections and celestial mechanics in the models? Do you know Manabe personally? Care to tell me what you know about Dick Lindzen's private life and personal tastes? How many times have you had breakfast at Keeling's house? How many times have you been interviewed by the New York Times on this issue? How many times have you interviewed by Reuters and the AP on this topic? How well do you know Broecker and his work? How many publications in the Royal Society journals and in Nature and Science do you have on this issue? Have anything in Phil Trans on this do you? How about publication on Milankovitch comparisons and Dobson measurements? Do you know Sherry personally? I do not care if you are Hansen himself. I will put my record up against anyone else's, including yours. But it is unfair to engage in combat with an unarmed opponent.

Your attitude is exactly why I will respectfully decline to bother to try to improve these kinds of articles in the presence of people such as yourself. Have at it, since you are such a great expert. I am so impressed by what I have seen from you already. Enjoy yourself and I hope you feel good about driving out any expertise on this topic that might exist around this project.--Filll 20:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

BH is correct; and F's claims of expertise are spurious William M. Connolley 21:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Dream on. I decline to bother with such nonsense. --Filll 21:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

A post that refutes itself. Like your claims of expertise William M. Connolley 21:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Please remember civility and WP:AGF. I am sure you do not want an administrative action opened against you, do you? Thanks awfully Bill.--Filll 21:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You're not very good at declining to bother, are you? And your claims of expertise are backed up by nothing, as the above shameful nonsense about breakfst with Keeling, Milankovitch and Dobson makes clear, although its funny that you don't seem to realise it William M. Connolley 21:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop baiting me or deal with the consequences. Civility is important here, remember. --Filll 22:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop making vague threats. Come on, you promised to decline to bother with such nonsense - either withdraw the promise or fulfill it. Civility is indeed important, and I think you lack it William M. Connolley 22:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

What it boils down to Filll, is that William and I can both provide links to our published papers — although mine have nothing to do with climatology (and nor have I claimed they have). If you want to be anonymous, that's fine. However, to claim subject matter expertise while remaining anonymous and demonstrating a lack of knowledge in the subject invites critique of that claim. Next time you talk to "Dick", ask him whether or not he thinks CO₂ forcing will contribute to reduced temperatures. I don't claim to know him, but I have at least exchanged e-mails with the man and know a little bit about what he does and does not claim. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I note that you've dealt with AI, general relativity and black holes, and with space-time metrics, the last three of which are of great interest to me (in fact, I'll be reading your master's thesis today). But, what have they to do with the issue at hand? Umm, nothing?

As for the nonsense regarding anonymity, that really does belong in the who cares department. Most editors here are pseudonymous for a variety of personal reasons, generally life and career related. We each make our own choices as to whether it is prudent to use our real names. •Jim62sch• 12:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind reading your thesis as well if you post a link - this topic interest me as well. I also choose to be pseudonymous - I find that creating a record tied to your real identity online is a bad thing in a number of ways. Morphh ^(talk) 13:20, 09 September 2007 (UTC)

My thesis is linked to from my user page, but here is another link. As for being anonymous (or pseudonymous) I have no problem with that. However, Filll does not appear to have any expert knowledge about climatology, so absent any evidence that he is a "subject matter expert", I can only deal with the evidence at hand — which compels me to believe that he is no expert. This relates back to Jim's question about "what [my knowledge] has to do with the matter at hand". I am not a subject matter expert — thus my self-comparison to Filll.

I'll go a step further about what it takes to be a subject matter expert. Although I've published a thesis on alternative space-time metrics and done quite a bit of research into general relativity, I would not consider myself an expert in either. (For one thing, it's been 8 years since I've done any significant work with either.) I'm currently working on a Ph.D. in computer science studying neural network models of the hippocampus (and other brain regions). I would not (yet) consider myself to be a "subject matter expert" in either computer science or neuroscience, either. Of course, in all of these fields, I expect that I'll know more than someone I meet at random, but when I see evidence that someone is more knowledgeable than I, I do not pretend otherwise. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, I'll give it a read. In regard to your current work, that's great that your examining the aspects of the hippocampus in relation to neural networks. I found Jeff Hawkins' discussion of the Memory-prediction framework in his book On Intelligence to be facinating (I highly recommended it if you haven't read it). This form of research is greatly needed... wish I had time to dive into such things myself. Morphh ^(talk) 20:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've not yet read it, but I've been meaning to for far too long. Although I think my adviser believes Hawkins to be a bit over-rated, I'm quite excited by his research. Of course, my adviser is interested in brain research for the sake of understanding brains alone. Hawkins and I are interested in the AI potential as well. Of course, he's just a tad bit more successful than I am. In case you're wondering how in the world general relativity and AI are connected, it's through tensors. Shortly after getting my MS in physics/astronomy I read some research that was using tensors similar to the metrics in general relativity to map neural networks. After I get my Ph.D., I will probably pursue that further. (Right now, I'm just trying to graduate.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

People are free to be anonymous here, I believe. Or have the rules changed lately? Perhaps I am mistaken? Please provide a link to this new requirement. I think I have heard of some new wikis that have these kinds of rules. Have you ? --Filll 13:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh course they are. But if you want to retain any kind of credibility, you shouldn't make claims of expertise that you're not prepared to back up, either with paper credentials (which you can't if you wish to remain anon) or credible edits (which you don't seem to be capable of in the climate area; indeed your edits there demonstrate your lack of knowledge and your skeptic leanings) William M. Connolley 14:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so skepticism is bad. I hadn't realised that, I had assumed that skepticism was good...y'know, given Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Huxley, Einstein, Heisenberg, Witten, etc., all of whom were or are skeptical that the then prevailing answer was the correct one.

BTW, I sincerely hope I never see you block another user for incivility, seems to me your definition of civility is less than credible. Of course, I could be wrong. •Jim62sch• 19:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There is more than one sort of skeptic [12]. As for the rest: yes, you are wrong William M. Connolley 20:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Salut mon camarade!

		Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience
		Recently, someone responded to a question of yours in very harsh terms and I would have had a hard time not responding in kind. Your patience in the face of ignorance and arrogance is greatly appreciated and admired! Brusegadi 04:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure I deserve it, but it is appreciated. I try to practice mindfulness, but am not always successful. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps because of my age (hormones and all) I would have said something cryptically nasty. I have only flipped out once in wikipedia (I bet no one else would consider it flipping out since it was flipping out as measured by my very own weird standard) but I still feel that you did well. I also hope that we are all encouraged to be even better next time! Au revoir, Brusegadi 04:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

The message you sent on my talk page i didn't really understand! Thanks!Sergiogr 19:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just saying that if you're interested in combating vandalism (which seemed true from your comment on Kukini's talk page), then you might want to check out the WP:UW project. Also, I've only recently figured out how to help make sure the next stage (actual blocking) happens — by editing WP:AIV (specifically, the User-reported section). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh okay, cheers bud.Sergiogr 19:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to ask you something. Can a user like me ie non administrative use templates like the ones here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:User_block_templates? I mean the template will appear on the particular page but will it have any actual effect? Cheers. Sergiogr 19:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe so. I, too, am not an administrator. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It won't do anything (other than annoy people). They don't *do* anything if you are an admin - the blocking etc is separate William M. Connolley 14:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Worse... appearing to impersonate an admin can get you blocked! --Dweller 14:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Refs: thanks

I don't like or use the ref tags (long story) but thanks for cleaning them up William M. Connolley 14:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. It's one area where I feel quite competent, and so far it has not generated any animosity towards me (that I'm aware of). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

mgw sandbox

I had vaguely recalled that there was more evidence than the ice pits for global warming on Mars. Found an article today and put it in the sandbox version A. I also put placeholders for your own theory on orbital eccentricity (feel free to flesh that out) as well as the Solanski magnetic field stuff. I'm not a professional, nor is my professional reputation on the line so I will be slow on this. Are you monitoring the sandbox changes? How do we proceed once version A finishes getting fleshed out? TMLutas 20:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The sandbox is on my watchlist, although you're the only one who has contributed to it so far. If the others have no disputes with version B, then my idea is to try to examine closely the differences and see if we can either (a) find a version that captures both of the main points, or (b) convince one side or the other that the difference isn't that important.

I think that what is going on is that their political needs are being met with the version in the article's text right now and so they don't much care about the sandbox. It's not about the science otherwise they would have at least added the other warming case to their version B just as I'm cribbing some of their good stuff for version A. They think they understand how they can keep out a disambiguation page link on the top of the global warming article and so long as the text in Climate of Mars doesn't look like it can be credibly broken out into such an article, settling the actual article properly as per wikipedia guidelines loses urgency. TMLutas 16:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

For example, one could argue that "recent climatic change" does not imply that the changes are not local (if you can follow my double negative). My previous experience with a sandbox (only done it one other time) worked out very easily. I don't anticipate this one will be quite as easy, but I wouldn't have anticipated the previous one would be that easy, either. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I would say that an adjective really is necessary to settle whether we're talking about local or global climate change and the lack of same means that it's neutral, as I think it should be at this moment, the evidence certainly not being entirely in. So we're agreed. I don't think it's out of bounds to quote a credible scientist who opines it's global and I don't think it's out of bounds to quote a credible scientist who opines it's local. Neutrality doesn't mean a neutering of opinion but rather balance and recognition of all reasonable viewpoints. TMLutas 16:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Who's the "credible scientist who opines it's global"? Presumably it's in your sandbox somewhere but it's just too confusing to sort out. It's doubtless clear to you, because you wrote it, but coming in from the outside it's hard to tell what is changed from the current article, exactly where your two versions differ, etc. Raymond Arritt 16:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Plaut is the person I was referring to. I assume that my tax dollars aren't paying to staff JPL with fringers. TMLutas 02:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

User:The way, the truth, and the light

Re your edit here, proxy editing on behalf of blocked users is a big no-no. That edit is innocuous enough but I want to make sure you're aware of the policy so you don't accidentally get in trouble. Raymond Arritt 22:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Does that also cover talk pages and just making comments on their behalf? Obviously, I'm trying to act in good faith here, but I do realize the dangers inherent in letting people break rules when they "mean well" as we all know what the road to Hell is paved with. Which policy is this, by the way? (I'm not doubting you, I just want to get to know it in more detail.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where it's codified but I've seen people blocked for proxy editing, and it often figures in arbcom cases, e.g. [13] or more recently [14]. I think the safest approach is not to do anything for a blocked user that they're blocked from doing (which would include editing talk pages). Raymond Arritt 22:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the corollary to the old adage, "if you're unwilling to tell your mother about something, then you probably shouldn't do it." If you're unwilling to tell an admin, then maybe you should reconsider. Of course, I don't follow my own advice.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If I understand your point -- I didn't have the slightest suspicion whatsoever that Ben was trying to do anything underhanded (very much the opposite, he was just trying to be helpful), but wanted to make sure he was aware of the implications of proxy editing. Raymond Arritt 22:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've looked around, but couldn't find it. Still, I'll heed your warning, but if anyone can find the policy, I'd like to read it. Also, I think OrangeMarlin was just adding his 2 cents worth and didn't mean anything else by it. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think it smells bad, almost, but not quite, a well-intentioned meatpuppet. That's all. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say that WP:MEAT was the closest thing I could find to the policy. Unfortunately, it's a bit too vague for me. (Just to be clear, I mean "too vague for my tastes" and not "too vague for me to try to follow".) As a tech-head, I like clearly defined policies. It's easier for those who aren't well-intentioned to ignore the unwritten policies then the written ones. (Of course, this one might be written somewhere, and I'm just incapable of finding it.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I looked over the original edit and it seemed much closer to WP:RFC than WP:MEAT to me. The rules for this sort of thing need to take into account the possibility that one may fall in love with a topic even if you start off by being recruited to stop the godless commies over at Alger Hiss, etc. Is there any difference between WP:MEAT and WP:RFC beyond WP:RFCU new entrants have their own opinions that can be distinguished? Or do I have the relevant policies entirely wrong? TMLutas 16:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with RA: if blocked editors were supposed to be able to edit talk pages, they would be able to. I almost removed your comment because of this. I suppose I should add that I have no doubt that you were acting in good faith, and you're not in any danger for that one edit; only were you to do it repeatedly against advice would there be any problem William M. Connolley 20:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Owning the term -evolution issues

Just to say thanks for message and I've replied at my talk. --Memestream 21:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on deletion page

Hi there, this isn't really relevant to the matter in hand - if the article meets the criteria set out in deletion policy. I have asked the original nominator to remove this comment. Would you mind if I move the discussion about User:Memestream to the discussion page of this deletion discussion? Tim Vickers 22:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If the accusations of him being a POV warrior are removed, I have no problem with my defense of him being removed, either. I appreciate your calm voice of reason in this. (I assume by "move" you mean "remove". Otherwise, I think I don't understand exactly what you're asking.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about moving this discussion about the phrasing of the "deletion discussion" to the talk page of the "deletion discussion". Tim Vickers 22:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Clear as mud? :) Tim Vickers 22:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sure. I guess I never thought about it having its own talk page. I also have no objection if you want to remove it completely (again, on the understanding that the accusations are also removed). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to edit other user's comments. However, as a compromise I have moved the discussion to the talk page, warned the nominator about incivility and hidden the offending remark. Tim Vickers 23:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. Again, I appreciate the calm voice of reason. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to get angry with a purring kitten on your lap! (see user page for cute photo) Tim Vickers 23:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Darwinism

Thanks for trying to talk to Memestream/Lindosland about this, I've lost patience with him. Tim Vickers 05:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Consider this: although he's stubborn on this issue, he's reasonable, civil, and not engaging in edit wars. We all have our own things that we're stubborn about, and this is one of his. I suspect that if we were all in a pub together, we'd get along fabulously. It's easy for me to discuss this with him, because I really don't care about this particular sub-issue. Possibly like Memestream/Lindosland and yourself, I'll argue for the sake of arguing sometimes, as long as I feel it can be done in a friendly way, but that doesn't mean I'm really invested in the issue itself. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

True, could be worse. If you want the 2004 review on this topic that discusses the meanings of the terms I can e-mail it to you. It is both clear and unambiguous, but a bit technical in places. Tim Vickers 17:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for turning fuzz into fuss. Brusegadi 19:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. (Feel free to remove my comment from your talk page as well.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Pres. Elec

Thanks. Looks great. Turtlescrubber 20:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad you approve. I've gotten used to the idea that after someone reverts my changes, no matter how I word it, it will never be good enough. Thanks for proving that idea wrong. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Tags and policies

Ben,

I'm not going to edit war over the restoration of that content, however I would like to be clear on what is going on. 1) Tags are not policy though hopefully if they provide guidelines they will be inline with policy. 2) That said tags are only as good as their context, and in this case the context was a deleted entry and not an entry with retained content. The editor who created the entry, and didn't agree with the deletion took it upon himself not to wait for the DRV to finish or even to request temporary restoration but to simply copy the entire deleted entry from some saved file he had himself. He did this well after the DRV was requested and that tag was placed on the entry. That is clearly against procedure. Again, I'm not going to argue about this, and by all means tell me if I'm wrong, but I just can't imagine this type of stubborn rogue editing is condoned.PelleSmith 00:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Per comments on the DRV, the content of the article is helpful to other editors attempting to salvage bits of it into places where they feel it is appropriate. I'm assuming that the tag lines up with policy, or else the tag itself would not survive Wikipedia review. Under that tag, the context seems to imply to me that the article should be restored to its initial state—after all, how could one possibly blank a blank page?!? (The tag tells you not to blank that page, and is designed for DRV, where presumably many articles have already been deleted or previously blanked.) I don't suspect the article will be up that long, but in the mean time, other editors have specified that they find the content of possible use. Surely no great harm will come to Wikipedia by leaving the content up until the DRV is over, right? I would feel differently if this violated WP:BLP or some other serious breach. As it is, the need for immediate deletion are not at all obvious to me. In the spirit of full disclosure, I should also point out that I voted against deleting the article in the first place and made some attempts to improve it (including the addition of {{cn}} tags). Finally, I do want to commend you on handling this civilly. I suppose it shouldn't need to be said, but I've experienced quite a bit of uncivil behavior, so I appreciate civility when I encounter it. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

George Albert Smith

Hi Ben,

Please read this section of Wikipedia guidelines. Switching the links on George Albert Smith (disambiguation) so that they do not point to redirects was neither necessary nor helpful. I tell you this because I once wasted a lot of time doing the same thing on several articles, until I was told by another user that it went against the established guidelines.

I hope this helps,

Neelix 18:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I often indeed do this because I'm "worrying about performance". The reason I had changed it here, however, was because I almost added a George Albert Smith to the list only to realize that he was already in the list. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Linkspam

Ok fair enough, I admittedly didn't review the user's contribs. RyanLupin (^talk/_contribs) 16:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I respect your intentions towards assuming good faith as it's a very important policy to me. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

KocjoBot

Thanks for warning. Don't know, how could this happend, as I'm using standard Python bot for interwikis. Thanks again. Regards, --Klemen Kocjancic 13:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

User categories for discussion

I notice that you stated your intention "to write clearer nomination rationales" when you relist, as well as your complaint that they "devolved into philosophical debate on the relevance of User categories in general, rather than the merely the subcats of Category:Wikipedians by philosophy." In an effort to contribute to that clarity, I'd like to suggest that within your rationale itself, you are clear to distinguish how your rationale for deletion does not apply to "User categories in general". I notice you state that these particular categories are "either related to a single article, or are too broad for inclusion, or both". I'm not sure how a category can both relate to a single article and be too broad for inclusion, so clearing that up as well might help. Also, I did not notice any of them that only related to a single article, so maybe you can specify exactly what you mean by that, as well. The Wikipedia:Guidelines for user categories might help you make your case (or convince you not to make the case). Regardless, I agree wholeheartedly about the need for civility. Cheers! Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. (I have to say that it was a nice breath of fresh air in the midst of the last few days : )

I'll definitely take your comments to heart when writing up the new, hopefully more clear, rationales. At the moment, though I have a few ideas rolling about in my head, I welcome positive suggestions. Note that those historical guidelines don't necessarily apply. You may wish to check out Wikipedia:Userboxes, which has some sections concerning User categories.

Thanks again. - jc37 19:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears the most relevant section is Wikipedia:Userboxes#Naming_conventions_.28Wikipedian_sub-categories.29, where if there is a specific point you think supports your argument, referring to it would help your nomination. I actually found other sections of that more interesting (I hadn't read it before), although they're not germane to this particular conversation. I do think that being very specific about your nomination might reduce the incivility as when some people don't understand your reason, they can invent their own reasons for why you're doing something. (I say "might" because I've had far too many negative experiences myself to be too optimistic here.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right, you're right, and you're soooo right : ) - jc37 19:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

List of non-FEC persons on 2008 presidential candidate page

I can't find the list you mention posting at the talk page for 2008 presidential candidates, here. -- Yellowdesk 04:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Here was he "list" I was referring to. I decided to clarify that on the talk page, however, as I'm sure you weren't the only one confused. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar!

The Barnstar of Diligence - For actually doing the research as requested! Great work, and well deserved : ) Jc37 (Talk) - 15:20, 29 October 2007

Thanks! Although it seems we have different Wikipedia philosophies (I'm very much an inclusionist), I respect that you keep a calm head. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm very much an inclusionist and an eventualist too (believe it or not). And I respect it of you as well, btw. If you'd like to discuss the recent events at UCFD, here (or to question my sanity - grin), I'd be happy to discuss with you. - jc37 15:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, another thing I'm guilty of is making faulty assumptions. That's one reason why I try to keep my assumptions about editors from interfering with my analysis of their actual arguments. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Or, in other words, you WP:AGF, and read for content, not bias : )

You know, if you keep impressing me like this I may be tempted to nominate you for adminship (a dubious honour, that). - jc37 15:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother. I already have enough "enemies". :( Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

(confused look) - What do you mean? - jc37 16:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Several vocal editors have decided that I'm a POV pusher (ironically, the POV they think I push is almost exact opposite of the POV I have). I believe a few of them have come around, but I'm certain that a few are still convinced I'm a mole of some sort. I now avoid a few of the articles that they frequently edit in an attempt to diminish feelings of hostility. It's really funny, because other than Wiki-philosophy I agree with these editors almost completely. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds oddly familiar : )

Well, if you change your mind, please let me know (and be warned, I may offer the suggestion again in the near future. : ) - jc37 16:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Argumentative tangents

Re this, any response to such things only encourages them. Raymond Arritt 21:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You are obviously correct. I don't know why I fell for it. By the way, what's the John Cage reference? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Refers to Cage's use of silence to convey meaning; e.g., 4′33″. Raymond Arritt 21:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I have heard of this. Evidently, you got more meaning out of it than I did. :) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

To a point you made earlier

Somewhere in the recent past (but not recent enough as to be easily identifiable), you commented that I'm empathetic to climate change denialists-- which I am, given that I understand the clear and distinct difference between empathy and sympathy-- since I'm a conservative Republican. I just wanted to let you know that I've edited my user page to make my own biases absolutely clear. Revolutionaryluddite 04:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that was me? If I said that, it was probably only in the sense that, as a Republican, you share values with many of them. (I'm quite aware that there are many Republicans who are not only not denialists, but are active environmentalists. I feel confident in saying that most denialists are Republicans, or at least Libertarians who prefer Republicans to Democrats—but that does not mean that most Republicans are denialists.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It was here. I see that, by your use of the term 'appear' and your italics around "sympathetic", you're being ironic and not in any way, shape, or form making some kind of allegation. Revolutionaryluddite 01:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't being ironic, but merely stating that I wasn't sure exactly what your motivation was in supporting my point (as I'm no mind-reader). I knew that you didn't deny AGW, but your comment suggested (to me) that you didn't feel that the cited documentation supported the thesis that those denying AGW were active "denialists" (in the sense being used in that article). Whether or not you felt that they weren't denialists or simply that the assertion was unsupported by the documentation wasn't clear (and wasn't really important, other than that it leads to certain people who will remain nameless questioning your motives). Interestingly enough, in re-reading those comments, I think that I spoke (or wrote) poorly. I should have pointed out that Kim said very similar comments, and he has demonstrated quite strongly to these people (I would assume) that he is very much not sympathetic to these denialists. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

R&I – a new approach

R&I has been protected for a breather while we try to form some consensus as to the direction. In the interim we have set up a “sandbox” at: User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound. Moonriddengirl is a neutral admin who has set up the space where we can work on the text section by section; this allows us to have a talk page for the micro project. So far JJJamal, Futurebird and I have made suggested changes with additions in bold and deletions in strikeout. This section and its talk page is an experiment in trying to come together as a group on a focused area. If it works we’d like to approach Guy, the admin who has protected the page, to insert our work-product into the protected article and then take on another section. I would really like to get your feedback on this so that we can demonstrate a consensus. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 19:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Brights

Some discussion on the Deletion Review page may be of interest to you. -- Evertype·✆ 00:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just reading it, actually. I'm trying to frame my arguments in as clear a manner as possible. I thought I had done that with my previous keep vote, and since no one challenged those arguments, I thought I had done quite well until the delete decision. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you know to delete a user account?

After being threatened to be banned from Wikipedia for the second or third time, whatever, I'm pretty much certain that's really no point in doing more edits. It's not that I believe that I'm really going to be banned-- given that the ban request resulted from a misguided comment that I made defending another editor from personal attacks-- it's that I realize how completely pointless being one of Wikipedia's token Christian Democrats is. (It's bad enough being a William Safire-style token conservative, but Christian Democrats and other right-leaning indepedents are accused of pushing POVs that they do not actually have).

I'm wondering if you know how I could request a deletion of my account. Revolutionaryluddite 05:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for taking a while to respond. I don't know much, but I know that William M. Connolley will be able to help you.

I'm sorry that you're still getting harassed. Although I'm an atheist, I'll be presumptuous enough to give you some good, Christian advice. By this I mean, try to resist returning like with like, and I say this with full knowledge that I'm being slightly hypocritical. :)

I'm currently taking a break myself to allow my feelings to cool down after being very disappointed by a recent UCFD and DRV. It's not that I'm attached to the particular user category (I was never even a member of it) as much as I'm quite upset by a particular pattern of behavior that I'm witnessing. It seems that the deletionists are "winning". I'm striving to do two things: (1) Hope that eventualism will prevail and that once enough user categories are deleted (e.g., when Category:Christian Wikipedians is renominated, and it will be), the prevailing interpretation of policy that is being used will be clarified, at which point, numerous people will be able to demonstrate how the policy was being misused, and/or (2) I come to grips with the matter that it really just isn't that important. (Including a weak version of fatalism, perhaps.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for taking a while to respond. No worries.

I don't know much, but I know that William M. Connolley will be able to help you. Okay. I already found out how to delete my user page.

Including a weak version of fatalism, perhaps. Thank you for you words and for your contributions. I'm a bit of a fatalist given that I believe Wikipedia is hopeless right now and may become more relevent, five-ten years from now, when regular internet access becomes democratizied and gets opened up to the working class.

Hope that eventualism will prevail Don't we all... Revolutionaryluddite 18:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV

I struck through my comment...I commented on the wrong DRV. --Smashville^BONK! 03:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for letting me know. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who play Madden NFL games

I don't care about this specific user category, but I'd like to request that you expound on "the recent deletion of the Wikipedians by video game subcats", minimally by providing a link to a discussion that gave the reasons, but preferably by also giving a short mention about the most important reason as it applies to this category. (Naturally, cut & paste is fine if it's that easy.) I hope you don't feel like I'm harassing you, as it's not my intention. :) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. And by the way, such a request would be most appropriate at the discussion as well (and much preferrable to just commenting that the nom has no validity, as has been done by others of late). And btw, I don't think you're "harrassing" me. Though I still think you may misunderstand me - as I note by something else you posted on my talk page about concerns about my prevalence to deletions - Please realise that we very rarely nominate something for keeping. If the bushes need pruning then we nominate for deletion. I think I gave you a barnstar for noting my preferences... Feel free to check out my recent comments on AfD, if you're interested : ) - jc37 02:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt that I misunderstand you, but that's OK. Other than just being friendly (not that there's anything wrong with that), I don't necessarily need to understand you in order to comment on my opinions of your nominations. (Being human, I will naturally still try to understand you.) I try to be just as gentle/harsh with people who annoy me (you're not one of those) as with people I generally agree with. (I don't always succeed, naturally.) Of course, you're right that even on the discussion pages (as opposed to the delete pages) there's little reason to nominate for keep so there will be a selection bias as to what I see coming from you on those pages. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Editing only the introduction

It's actually not all that complex. First, click the "edit" link next to any section. The resulting url will conclude with "section=X", where X is the number of the section you're editing. To edit just the introduction, change X to 0 in the url. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It seems rather obvious in hindsight. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Topical index

Thanks for linking to the topical index of UCFD archives. That makes it much easier to cite (and link) precedent or related discussions. I'd been relying on my memory of previous discussions (which sometimes required a good deal of searching, like the pets categories discussion I cited in my most recent nomination). I had no idea that such a page existed. Horologium (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You have Black Falcon to thank for that. He and I (and jc37) have recently had some discussions about using precedence as a deletion rationale without linking to that rationale, and he decided to make it easier to do just that. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Neuro

I have a friend who does neuro. Sounds like fun (field for polymaths I call it...) Our only field medalist at Brown works in neuro (networking stuff...) Just saying hi, Brusegadi (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked, I had a cousin doing neuro at Brown. Matthew Harrison is his name. Also, one of the guys who worked in our lab is now there. Can't remember his name, although I'd recognize it. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Mayflower

I don't know where I read that. The Mayflower Society says "tens of millions".[15] I'm not really sure why the ethnicity categories are allowed to exist, so it's hard for me to translate that into in argument for keeping a lineage category. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 23:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, my value of half a million was based on a calculation starting with a population of 1, with each person having (on average) 2 children every 20 years. Since the Mayflower actually had 102 people, that'd end up changing half a million to 50 million. Of course, that also assumes that the 2 children were had with someone who wasn't themselves a Mayflower person—almost definitely not true for the first and probably second generations (so, divide by 4 to get a little over 10 million). Values from 5 million to 300 million (i.e., all Americans) are all plausible. (E.g., if each person had, on average, 3 children every 20 years, you end up with over a billion descendants from each Mayflower survivor, or 100 billion descendants overall. At that point, one must question the assumption about them not having children with each other, of course.)

Similar calculations for Charlemagne and Genghis Khan result in virtually everyone being descended from them (since more generations have passed). E.g., for 30 generations (600 years?), 2³⁰ is a little over 1 billion. Similarly, 40 generations leaves you with the highly improbable 1 trillion. (Again, one must examine the assumption about both parents not being descendants, of course.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:BITE

Please don't bite newcomers, even anons, such as you did here. And it is especially rude to delete their welcome message. Instead, try welcoming the user to the project and explain where the talk page is and how it should be used. It's not so difficult to see why someone might ask a question in a page labeled FAQ. At any rate, even though some new users of Wikipedia don't quite get the policies and guidelines down right away, it's best to just to let them know how to do things right, rather than scolding them right away. Thanks. ~ UBeR (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That message was from June 2006, and was a level 1 warning message ({{uw-test1}}). I deleted it per WP:UW. I would have given them leeway on the first FAQ edit (i.e., revert without calling it vandalism), but they did it a second time after the exact same material had been reverted. They're not a newcomer. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 05:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Climate change denial

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Climate change denial. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (4th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Frederik Belinfante has been accepted

Frederik Belinfante, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
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) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Template:User high school

Template:User high school, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User high school and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template:User high school during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Benhocking. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Benhocking. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Dock Fogleman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dock Fogleman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dock Fogleman until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Penale52 (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)