User talk:Trilemma/Archive 1

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 21:14, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

basketball palyers

Could you wikify and categorize the article you create? Cheers, --R.Koot 19:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did Loren Woods as an example. You can see the differences here [1]. --R.Koot 19:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Devil in a Blue Dress

I did soem expansion and style changes on the Devil in a Blue Dress article that you created. Note the stub tags, and the inital bold mention of the title. Please follow this format, and use proepr stub tags when you create articles in future (obviously stub tags only on short stub articles). See WP:STUB and Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types for more on stub tags. Note also the template used for standardized links to teh IMDB. Thanks for adding articles DES ^(talk) 21:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig link in The Hours (novel)

Hi. I've decided to start dropping notes to folks who inadvertently link to disambig pages - not that I've never done it myself, but just as a helpful reminder. In The Hours (novel), you linked to "Oscar", when you were thinking of Academy Award. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 04:21, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

"Darwinism"

Please take a moment to consider that the term "Darwinism" is itself POV, and hence likely part of the reason why you perceive articles that describe ID neutrally to be POV.

"Darwinism" is a bogeyman created by professional creationists; there is no such thing as "Darwinism," except in their minds. The science of evolutionary biology is based on Darwin's insight, but there is no "ism" in the "advocacy for" sense of the suffix. Rather, there is a long history of increasingly accurate observation and increasingly detailed controlled laboratory experiments that supports the conclusion that natural selection really does what Darwin claimed it does. Some creationists are fond of using the term "Darwinism" because it sounds like a belief, rather than an observation. No scientist "believes in" Darwin as such, because Darwin did not propose a prescriptive set of behaviors, only descriptive observations.

I hope this helps you understand the community's response to rejecting NPOV claims when they are made using terms like "Darwinism" and "Darwinists." FeloniousMonk 09:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FM, please, stop claiming that laboratory research has reproduced speciation. This is a lie. If I am mistaken and you meant that something else was done in the laboratory, that "something else" does not support what Darwin called "natural selection".

Descending into semantics, I'll try to explain why the term "Darwinism" was coined. We have good reason to believe things evolved, because you can get a good picture of a "tree of life" from looking at organisms and their DNA; at any rate, it's a good explanation for vestigial body parts, and some aspects of the fossil record (e.g. simpler organisms being found in earlier periods in the fossil record). Darwin claimed that this happened in a series of small steps governed by natural selection. People who take this approach we call darwinists. Look here for a list of things Darwinists believe in. At some point in the past there were Lamarckists who believed in Lamarckism as an explanation for evolution. This is nothing to have your feelings hurt over. The fact is, if you believe in natural selection as the mode of evolution, you are a Darwinist, you adhere to Darwinism, sorry. So, sage FM, what do you think Darwinism is? --chad 05:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a good idea to make a table of terms, and describe how science supporters and religion advocates use or view each term. I recall that "Evolutionist" in particular grates on the nerves of evolution supporters - possibly because it reduces their "recognition of a fact" to mere "advocacy of a POV". FM, is this the reason? Uncle Ed 03:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Ed, I'm not taking the bait, which I thought was a bit beneath you anyay. FeloniousMonk 04:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

Just a few thoughts on consensus: If consensus is against anyone's personal position, his position doesn't at that point matter (harsh and slightly innacurate way of putting it) and the same goes for me, and you, and anyone else. The basic situation on ID is that you have stated there is bias, and immediately moved to suggest a solution. A more appropriate series of events is: You state there is bias, and cite a clear example, with logical reasoning why that example is biased. Then everyone who wants to put in their $.02 does so. There follows some discussion (sometimes a horrendous amount) until consensus is reached. Then if a suggestion to correct bias is indicated by consensus, you make it. More discussion, etc. In less potentially POV articles (like bat,) it is frequently "Hey, looks like this line is POV, I suggest changing it to (alt text), anyone object? comments?" and after a day or two when no one has an objection, the change is made. I assure you that on an article with 18 archives of Talk page, a major change such as you suggest will require some patience to achieve consensus. Read WP:CON for more details. I hope this helps! KillerChihuahua 18:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your post on my talk page is addressing the position you hold as regards what changes you feel the page needs. This is more productively addressed on the article's talk page. The subject I am attempting to address here is the process, and does not address anything more than this: before making a significant change, you need consensus. You have not gained it, and in your original re-org suggestion had not even attempted to gain it. And gaining concensus is the aim of all of us - its a group effort. Don't look at it as trying to win an argument. Be prepared to listen as well as speak. KillerChihuahua 00:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, my apologies! If I implied that I thought you weren't willing to listen, I erred. I meant it as a gentle heads-up that there will probably be a lot of text, and patience is called for. Perhaps it would be better to say "Be prepared to listen. And listen... and listen. Because there will be a lot of discussion." The discussion that I warned is "sometimes a horrendous amount" in my first post here, above.

As far as you thinking you are right, well of course you do! Kindof silly to say "Well, I think this is wrong, but its my opinion, and I'm going to try to get you to see things this way!" I'd worry about you if you didn't think you were right! *grin*

KillerChihuahua 01:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages

To create a subpage, all you have to do is create a link something like this:

User:Trilemma/ID

You can also just add that to the url at the top of the page, changing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Trilemma to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Trilemma/ID

Finally, you can create a subpage of a given page simply by creating the link within the page /ID - the danger in this case though is if you move this page (e.g., to User talk:Trilemma/Archive - many people archive their talk pages through page moves), the link will change from pointing to User talk:Trilemma/ID to User talk:Trilemma/Archive/ID which will, of course, then become a broken page. If you are done with a subpage and no longer want it around, you can tag it with a speedy delete tag and someone will delete it for you. Guettarda 18:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page - you can delete this section

ID Straw Poll you might be interested in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design/Marshills_NPOV_objections#Strawpoll I don't know if you still follow the article, but you may want to vote. Trilemma 02:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Trilemma - very kind of you. I look in every day but would have missed it due to lack of time. Much appreciated. ant 14:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Knock off the ad hominems

Felonious, since you seem to have no regard for my comments, I will remove yours. You and the rest of the anti-ID idealogues have frequently engaged in ad hominem attacks, calling people trolls, spammers, etc. Pointing out clear bias as it pertains to the article, pointing out a difference of qualifications, etc. is not ad hominem. I can not say the same for some of your actions. If you disagree, feel free to take the matter to arbitration.Trilemma 00:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to delete my warning [2], but not to ignore it. FeloniousMonk 00:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will not discontinue my participation in the ID article nor eviscerate my own points in the face of threats. If you object to what I am saying, you're free to seek arbitration, which the current situation may in time lead to. Hopefully it can be worked out along the way, but it certainly doesn't appear that way, especially in the wake of this threat. Trilemma 00:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how your deletion of an admin's warning and your tone here will look then... FeloniousMonk 00:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to see, the means are available to you. I have no issue with it going before arbitration or any milder form of review. Trilemma 00:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather get back to getting on as we did before, given a choice. Let's call a truce and go back to focusing on the issues, shall we? 01:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

TL, take a break, cool off. Then reconsider FM's comments -- they were advice, not a threat. Jim62sch 01:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I originally had a reply here but after three pre-edits, I'll leave it off (people keep beating me to the punch, reply wise). I don't wish to continue squabbling on this page, either. Trilemma 01:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research?

Tilemma, this statement looks like OR, and to me, looks to be incorrect: "However, modern developments of Cosmology (for example string theory), and emic studies in phenomenological Anthropology are designed to do just that.". The incorrectness of the statement is especially the case with the reference to Cosmology and String Theory. Jim62sch 01:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was someone else expanding on a previous comment by me--so I plead the 5th ;). Seriously though, I don't have extensive expertise in the area, but I have read some material by Michio Kaku. His theories deal mainly in the theoretical, borderline philosophical, and from what I've read, are not falsifiable. Kaku, btw, is a professor of astronomy (at NYSC), like our friend Bill. Trilemma 01:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Nanostubs"

Hi! Can you add something to those new articles beyond "X is a former cast member if Saturday Night Live?" Trouble is, those types of articles are speedy deletion candidates for lack of content. Thanks for the contribs and happy new year! - Lucky 6.9 04:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom candidate userbox

Greetings. I've made a new userbox for arbcom candidates to show on their userpages so that visiters will know they're running.

{{User arbcom nom}}

If you'd like to place it on your userpage, feel free. Regards, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 02:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assistance. If I wasn't doing so terribly in the voting I'd make use of it :o).

Franken after 13 Seasons on SNL

It's an uninteresting and non-encyclopedic tidbit of information. Furthermore, making the claim that it was said IN THIS BOOK isn't a proper citation. I'm sure there are far more interesting things that can be said about Franken than that. It is dead weight in the article. Seriously - think about it. --AStanhope 03:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Hello, what part of Democratic Republic of the Congo#Politics do you reckon is erroneous. --Ezeu 21:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lindsay possible Copy Vio

An article that you created, Mark Lindsay (history · last edit),may be a possible copy right violation of from allmusic.com. Please refer to the article's talk page and the copyright vio page for April 8, 2006. Thanks. -JCarriker 06:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dembski

Please explain your drive-by tagging of the article. You can't just tag an article without first making an attempt to get the changes you desire made. Guettarda 03:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your recent edit warring along with this edit summary [3] are more than a bit out of line. Consider stepping back, the changes you're trying to force are not supported by the evidence. FeloniousMonk 15:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content disputes

Threatening to take a content dispute to arbitration is not generally considered a constructive course of action. Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution; not the first step. Please try to remain civil, and work out any content disputes on the article talk page. Thanks! KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Kos suggestion

When referring to Daily Kos it may be beneficial to refer to it as dKos instead of Kos, or if referring to the community at large Kossacks may be appropriate. By using Kos you are making it appear that your comments are aimed at Markos Moulitsas. Might help to resolve some of the confusion. --Bobblehead 19:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll heed that suggestion. I see how the syntax could be confusing. Trilemma 19:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. Wouldn't be so confusing if Markos wasn't using kos as his username on the site, but since he is, here we are. --Bobblehead 19:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re Stratford Career Institute

Ah, this was too much like an attack page, so I deleted it. If you want to write a more balanced article that would be OK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 03:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Misleading Smear? (re: Mary Landrieu page comment)

Why was the comment about the terror act applying to citizens misleading? If someone is detained under the act, how are they supposed to prove that they are a US citizen without the ability to file a writ of habeas corpus? DanielZimmerman 20:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is addressed by the Justice Department before the person is apprehended. There have been no native born US citizens affected by this measure. Trilemma 23:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out that while there may currently be no native born US citizens that have been effected by this measure, I fail to see the legal remedy in the law that would allow a u.s. citizen wrongly detained under this measure to declare his citizenship and assert his right to file a writ of habeas corpus. If you where captured tomorrow under this, what could you do to prove that you are being wrongly detained? What check and balance exists? DanielZimmerman 15:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you're doing, however, is speculating and editorializing. When you find a documented example of that type of use with the law, then it becomes relevant to the article on the bill itself, but even then, it is questionable to include it in her article (does every senator's page include every possible outcome of every bill?). Trilemma 21:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Titus North

A tag has been placed on Titus North, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. GreenJoe 01:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of sunniest places in the world

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on List of sunniest places in the world, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because List of sunniest places in the world fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Source is no good. Please delete until proper sources of rankings are found.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting List of sunniest places in the world, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 21:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.R. Koch

Please confirm the information therein per WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for edit warring and 3RR violation.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently reviewing other editors' contributions on that page, and will block any other editor who has violated the 3RR as well. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working together on Wright

Since we've recently had some problems with edit warring on Jeremiah Wright controversy, I've made a post about working together constructively at Talk:Jeremiah Wright controversy#Working together. I'd appreciate it if you could add any thoughts you have there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trilemma, I'm afraid that I've been called away from my regular Wikipedia work, including the work on the Obama-related pages. My mother is in the hospital, and it's pretty serious. I don't know when I'll have the time or energy to work seriously on Wikipedia. I hope that if the problems continue you'll be able to call on other admins for help. I hope to work with you in the future, but right now Wikipedia can't be a priority for me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CyberAnth Wikiquette

Hi Trilemma, I noticed that User:CyberAnth personally attacked you, as well as Veritas Agent and myself at the Wright talk page. Well, for those actions and others, I have listed the user at the Wikiquette alert page. I though you may be interested to comment: here. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way the sockpuppets of User:CyberAnth that you reported to WP:ANI, they have been confirmed by a checkuser and blocked. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 22:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WQA on User: Daimerej

Any concerns you have about sockpuppetry should be voiced at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets, or to the administrator's noticeboard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]