User talk:Digitalican/Archive 10-6-2012

Welcome!

Hello, Digitalican, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Rklawton 16:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a list of people, each entry needs to reference a Wikipedia:Reliable source that states that the person lived in Chapel Hill. Go on news.google.com and you can type the person's name + "Chapel Hill" and get a reference. To cite sources please read Wikipedia:Citing sources - As for the one entry I left, she needs a page number. (or another source that says the same thing) - The reason why I removed much of the list was because the list contains living people, and as per Wikipedia:BLP we should not have unsourced information about living people floating around. In unreferenced lists it is easy for people to slip in false information. We need to have the lists be well-referenced so the reader can rely on the content. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that then the readers will have to check the Wikipedia articles to see if they really are referenced, and that adds work for the reader. We want the reader to easily verify the information in the article, so the references all need to be attached to the list. In fact featured lists all have references. Adding additional references for these lists will not clog the articles containing the lists. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Protection

No problem! Feel free to call on me whenever you need help of any kind. :) Keep up the great work, Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 21:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection only stops IP addresses and non-autoconfirmed users from editing pages. SatanHelper666's account was autoconfirmed, so they were able to edit the page. Apologies for not blocking them sooner! Master of Puppets 12:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mary Baker Eddy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. ClubOranje^T 10:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page Lock

For Several months this war has been taking place on the Mary Baker Eddy page. Our IP address is that of all US Service Members in Kuwait. Can't you or someone semi-lock the page so vandals whom are unregistered cant make edits.

I went to do some work on a page this morning when I found out the IP was blocked for half a year!!

I took the morning to read the entire page, it's history and it's discussion page. I have no opinion whatsoever on the article however, it's completly biased, and managed by a flock of Christain Science Crusaders (SpinningSpark) WHO EVEN DELETED DISCUSSION FROM THE TALK PAGE??? Is that not vandalisim of another sort! No more free discussion?

Again, in no way advocation for the trolls, but when the page is so 1 sided, I can see why!

I'll have you know I will sign up today for my own accout (which is still linked to this IP) and will be blocked when the IP gets blocked again.

I was going to donate to Wiki-- But certainly not now.

Thanks, I'll be sending you my unblock requests once my account gets shut down. You can judge me by my edit history linked to my personal account.

I have no stock in the Mary Baker Eddy page. It's obvious her keepers wont even allow discusion. Fine! let them have the page! Just lock it so un-registered users from this IP can't edit it.

Thank you, Martin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.81.248.53 (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Local" Papers

Hey there... Hope all is well. I took News & Observer off of the Durham page. Since it is not published there, it isn't a local paper. It might have a bureau but it is still not published there. Q-Notes has a physical presence in Durham, Raleigh and Chapel Hill as well, as it is printed there and physical delivery is done by a circulation manager who lives and works in the area. Regardless, Q-Notes, like N&O, isn't published in Durham, therefore not a local paper. Matt (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peppermint Spring Farm

Peppermint Spring Farm has (a) a Chapel Hill Address and (b) is not iconic to Carrboro. While I realize the owner has had a legal dispute with the town of Carrboro and thus it is not in Carrboro, it still lacks significance for the town. Obviously if we include pictures of everything that is in Carrboro it will be impossible to find text. :) Digitalican (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Local farms and their products are iconic to Carrboro. The photo at the top of Carrboro's page is the Carrboro Farmer's Market, should that be deleted too? There is a website dedicated to preserving Carrboro farms, including Peppermint Spring Farm (I have no affiliation with the website, www.savecarrborosfarms.com). But my point is, farms and local businesses are significant to the town of Carrboro. And the Carrboro Wikipedia page doesn't have a problem with having too many photos (there are only three). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.69.167.207 (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your minidispute on the newly added phrase in the article on Christian Science

Hi, The presence or absence of the phrase in dispute I think is a small point. On the one hand, the phrase recently added could be taken to mean that the court ruling itself is a POV, and therefore the new phrase makes it NPOV. However, where the courts of the land have made a ruling, and this has been stated as a court ruling by the editor, then the phrase becomes a citation, and so is NPOV. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael J. Mullany (talk • contribs)

Hi

Hi Digitalican, as I am not in the USA, I may have misinterpreted this. However, what you may not know about the other editor is that (s)he is actually a supporter of Christian Science, possibly even a Christian Scientist: or so someone with that ISP Address claimed. I therefore think that you guys probably could reach an agreement, as I notice that you were raised in CS yourself.

I am somewhat more concerned about someone who has started editing the CS article, who was previously discredited as a vandal. However, the few changes (s)he made seem little more than cosmetic. As I know you take an ongoing interest in the CS article, perhaps you could join me in watching what this user might do to it in the future.

All the best. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 10:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point of view

I can't quarrel with that! All the best, Michael J. Mullany (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Digitalican. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last Edit by MJM

I seem to be missing something regarding my last edit. Would you give me more detail as to why you thought that my last edit was out of order? After all, I added nothing. I merely rearranged what was there.

If you think that we should go back to the last edit, how do we get rid of the 'who?' tag? I agree that the original word 'Some' could be taken as a weasel word.

November 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ElKevbo (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Science: The Hereafter

Hi Digitallican. Many thanks for your constructive critique.

When judging what is encyclopedic, I try to evaluate things from the perspective of a reader who is new to the topic. I believe that the editor has a job to do to relate the new material as a continuance or as a complement to what the reader probably already knows; a well-known procedure in education. It is highly likely that users who look up Christian Science have heard more about near-death experiences than they have about Christian Science. My aim here is to establish the nexus between the two, and so to open up the topic more effectively to the enquirer.

While I agree with your analysis of the term 'hereafter' and the Christian Science view of it, I note 1) that the reader will understand this term; and 2) that Christian Scientists often use terms which contraindicate their own beliefs. For example, the lesson sermon entitled, 'Probabtion after Death', when there is no death; class instruction on how to handle 'mortal mind', when mortal mind is a non-existent illusion; testimonies on how people were cured of certain illnesses when there is no illness; discussions of how to handle error, when error is an illusion, and so on. It can be argued that Christian Science hastens to show that these things are illusiory and to be seen through. However, the starting point is always on what the newcomer is likely to know and relate to, even if it is countermanded in the following discussion.

My mild objection to what the previous edits tried to do was also based on an apparent attempt to 'purge' from the article, non-Christian Science literature. That certainly would not be encyclopedic.

A more encyclopedic title than 'The Hereafter' might be, 'Beliefs in relation to Death', or something similar. What do you think?

:)Michael J. Mullany (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Observations

Gads, man, chill on this. Glad you pointed me here (I could make a career out of the possibilities for publication) but it really is a tempest in a teapot -- a somewhat large teapot, but nevertheless a teapot. Remember that the autocracy of the emperor is inversely proportional to the size of the empire and have a beer. I've only been looking for a day but have some observations on my "home" page which I'll keep adding to. Heh! They have and article on Gerry but not on Amos. For shame. Observator Simiae (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Found Amos. He needs some work. I'm sure he'd be laughing at me or with me. Observator Simiae (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]