User talk:Mikker/Archive002
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Mikker. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
 Archives |
|---|
|
Typo
Hi there. I think you have a typo on your userpage : "decent" rather than "descent". As I'm not sure what the WP etiquette is re: altering other users' userpages is, I've not corrected it. Cheers, --Plumbago 11:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Question
Not sure how busy you are, we're trying to rewrite the Psychology section of Human, if you have time I would like for you to take a look on the Talk page. Thanks! KillerChihuahua?!? 00:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I made the changes you suggested (with the exception of more footnoting in the history section, since that falls under the "multiple references" catagory), and was hoping you would change your vote on the FAC. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Can you look again? I added a number of footnotes, and other authors have made many improvements. Thanks. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your message Michael. I only occasionally participate in Wikipedia now. I'm still miffed about a silly edit war on Charles Darwin one year ago (I wanted to leave in the article the fact that Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were both born on 12 Feb 1809). Then I was really angered when this self-censored expletive noun insisted on revealing the murderer's identity in an article about a particularly clever murder mystery novel (I won't say which so as not to tempt you to go there).
Recent events in the middle east have forced me to remind myself why we should NOT expletive verb those another expletive noun back to the stone age. That's why I added a section on tolerating the intolerant in the article on tolerance, and then started reading up on Rawls related entries in Wiki.
You seem to be pretty up on Rawls (I haven't read all of AToJ yet) so you might be able to explain something to me. I've never understood why Rawls is loved by the liberal left but hated by the conservative right? His paramount value is individual liberty and he explicitly states that the welfare of society cannot come at the expense of the liberty of even one individual, which is why he rejects Utilitarianism. (I presume Rawls accepts prison and other institutions that on the face of it take liberty away.) So why is he the darling of the left and the nemesis of the right? Vincent 04:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, that clarifies it somewhat. Mind you, I might be naive, but the right's argument seems weak. The principle that "inequality is acceptable only if the lot of the worst off is improved" is similar to banning zero-sum games and ensuring win/win transactions, e.g. two parties would trade only if they both benefitted, otherwise the losing party would simply refrain from trading, effectively banning inequality that wouldn't leave the worst off a little better, even if the better off gains more. So couldn't you use Rawls to enshrine free trade :-) ? Or am I again being naive? Anyway thanks again for your answer. Vincent 03:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your suggestion that I try to fix the problem myself, please refer to the article talk page and page two of my user talk archive. I believe I have made a fair and good faith effort to do exactly that. Durova 20:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Apim
Thanks. It's gone again. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
On the "Steven Pinker" Page=
Thanks for the reference to the Pinker page. I don't think I can be much help in terms of editting, though, since I haven't read much from Steven Pinker. I have created a new page, though, that you might find interesting: evolutionary developmental psychology EPM 01:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
WP:AFD
Hi there,
This concerns Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Daisey, where you recently voiced an opinion. User:Calton has raised some significant objections, and I would like to ask if you wouldn't mind considering the ensuing discussion and changing or confirming your choice with respect to the article Mike Daisey. Sincerely ENCEPHALON 07:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Powell
With regard to Powell's views on abortion, it would help the article if you would add a source cite next to the claim. This might help the casual (yet careless) reader refrain from making an incorrect assumption. Cheers, Rklawton 21:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Great! In general, I'd like to see a lot more references used in these types of articles. While they won't stop vandalism, they'll set a more academic tone and perhaps influence those who would otherwise freely contribute their opinions rather than facts. Right now I'm shooting down the fellow who claims that no other VP since Burr has shot anyone either in or out of office. Given the number of military veterans, I think a list shouldn't be hard to start. Rklawton 21:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Evolution
No problem. As far as I can tell, what happened is that you reverted the page to fix the previous deletion. When you revert a page you don't get an edit conflict if someone has altered the page while you are doing the revert (as far as the sotware is concerned, you wanted to revert everything that was done since. More likely the deletion was related to the fact that I was trying to save the page at the same time (first I got an edit conflict, then once I managed to save the comment you deleted it! :p) Guettarda 22:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Of course, me calling myself black is something of a stretch, except in my own head (German & Indian, could pass for Spanish or Greek in colouring). It's hard to tell sometimes what may be culturally insensitive, so I thought it better to play it safe. Especially since you say that you are not culturally Afrikaaner, I don't know if you might be sick of being blamed for their misdeeds. Anyway - SA is high on my list of places that I would like to see - coming from a culturally mixed society, I am fascinated by things like that. Guettarda 22:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
My Quote
Thanks for your comment on your talk page. While I did know that the comment mean "There is no disputing taste" (thanks to Igor the Lion), I felt that opinion was an adequate substitute, and made a bit more sense with regards NPOV (a person's taste is unlikely to affect their edits, but their opinion may). Thanks anyway! smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 21:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
My RfA
SoothingR 20:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Revisions to the evolutionary psychology page
Hey Mikkerpikker! Well, I took your advice, and I was bold! I just finished a major revision to the theoretical section on the evolutionary psychology page. I also made a comment on the discussion page. I'd love to hear your feedback!
I also checked out the Steven Pinker page, and it looks good. I didn't really know that much about Pinker, and I learned a few things. He's been married and divorced twice and now has a new girlfriend, eh? Hmmmm...ironically, I wonder what an evolutionary psychologist would say about that! EPM 17:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Sexual Victimization of Native American Women
You voted to keep this article. It is still a very bad article. Since you obviously thought that it has merit, maybe you would be interested in bringing it in line with Wikipedia policy. If you are unwilling or unable to fix this article, maybe you should consider not voting to keep articles like this in future AfD votes. BrianGCrawfordMA 20:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Your involuntary wikibreak
Hope to see you back soon, Mikkerpikker. AvB ÷ talk 11:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
|
This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox. |
Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Hume
Sorry we could not conclude discussion about the Hume references. I have recovered what you deleted and am putting what you call the 'list' under Further Reading, which was I think, you preference. I have not added any text, for the reasons given in the talk page. Hope to hear from you soon. Fenton Robb 11:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Now have done some work on this bit. A new small section including short remarks putting the claim of each commentator in context. Removing some less important names and sorting out some of the references. I'd welcome comments. Fenton Robb 10:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Jesus article
I've just read your rewrite of the "contoversies" section of Evolution and was very impressed with how well your new verion reads whilst retaining all the important points. I guess you're a busy person but the Jesus article is working towards Featured Article status this week as part of the collaboration project. I should say here I'm an atheist and my interest in this article is the sense of a "job well done" - not to push any POV. I would appreciate any input you could make to this especially as you are an outsider and therefore will not be seen as having any axe to grind. Whist recently the Jesus article has not been too good a place to edit - in the last couple of weeks there has been a real push to improve the article with positive collaboration taking part between "rival" groups. Please feel no obligation to respond as we all have "real" lives to cope with too. SophiaTalkTCF 13:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 14:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I have put my opinion on the talk page. 84.193.3.47 20:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Deer Park and San Jacinto College
San Jacinto College Central Campus is in Pasadena. See SJC website. I've made the change to the Deer Park, Texas article. —ERcheck @ 21:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Main Page
I'm going to leave editing down to other admins, if that's ok, particularly since the version I have written is only 6 words longer than the version you suggest. It's best to add comments regarding the ITN template to either Template talk:In the news or Talk:Main page. Also, from reading Sweden Democrats#The Mohammed cartoon debate it seems that the cartoons in question were not the Jyllands-Posten ones but similar ones. -Splashtalk 22:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- I will, however, trim the wording just slightly since I didn't really like the "accusations of lying", being unable to verify that to my own satisfaction. -Splashtalk 22:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
There is another stawpoll on the disputed offensive image currently underway at Talk:Lolicon. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Cogito ergo sum
With regard to Cogito ergo sum (on Talk:Evolution). evidence from cognitive science leads me to believe that most of what humans think of as "I" is an illusion created by the human brain's nerve cells. So "I think, therefore something exists" is as sure as it gets, I think. Who knows, if "the the universe is a computer in another universe" people are correct, even the idea that "something exists" may be so twisted from actual reality that someone understanding actual reality would conclude that "something exists" as we understand that phrase/idea is more incorrect than correct. WAS 4.250 21:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
List of Test cricket records
Hello Mikkerpikker, A few users (myself included) are concerend that some of the recently added tables to the above are a bit obscure and possibly not necessary. As you added at least one of these, perhaps you'd like to make a comment on the articles talk page. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Darwin Award
Thanks very much for the nice barnstar, much appreciated. Hope everyone's content with the way evolution's evolving now. ...dave souza, talk 21:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I just realized my edit summary on reverting the redirect could be misinterpreted. I quoted what Brockert had stated in his summary earlier as that appeared to be an appropriate comment for the person who created the redirect. However, in the history for this article, it's right after yours so you could take it as meant for you. That was not my intent. Sorry for not being clearer! -- JLaTondre 03:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- No, I don't think it can be speedied. However, you might want to try WP:PROD. Since that redirect lasted over a year without anyone noticing, I'd doubt this would be controversial if you can provide a good rationale. -- JLaTondre 03:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- You might want to put a reason on that prod (via {{prod|reason to delete}}). It's always good to make it clear why you think something should be deleted as some people put the burden of proof on the person doing the nomination and will vote keep if reasons are not provided. -- JLaTondre 03:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Block
I can't find anything in the block log - are you blocked, or are you caught behind an IP block? If it's an IP block, I need to know the IP or who the user is who shares your IP. Guettarda 02:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Why you are deleting the topic?
I don't understand... why you keep deleting the topic Poizon Green Filthy 17:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Why you are deleting the topic?
The topic got changed. This time I opened it and it's not showing any vandalism any more i guess. You can compare it with the previous version. Even Abid Ahmed (the one who requested to delete the topic) commented that the new one is much better and standard now. So why keep deleting it? Filthy 17:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- what?? there are many smaller bangladeshi bands than Poizon Green, LIVING in Wikipedia. What do you say about that??? Filthy 17:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)