User talk:Ec5618

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome to my talk page. Please post new messages at the bottom, and use descriptive headlines when starting new topics.
I also prefer to contain discussions to a single Talk page. Thank you.

Multi-licensed with the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License versions 1.0 and 2.0
I agree to multi-license my text contributions, unless otherwise stated, under the GFDL and the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license version 1.0 and version 2.0. Please be aware that other contributors might not do the same, so if you want to use my contributions under the Creative Commons terms, please check the CC dual-license and Multi-licensing guides.

Contents

[edit] Archive

  1. /Human - Archive development and human interaction.
  2. /Technical - Where I keep all references to PUI, AFD, TFD, Stubs and the like.
  3. /Dan Watts - I was asked to discuss my beliefs.
  4. /Block - I was blocked.
  5. /Adminship - My request for Adminship failed.
de | fr | nl | it

[edit] Moving Topics

The organization structure of the D&D classes section is haphazard at best. To make it uniform there are only two choices... either put (Dungeons & Dragons) at the end of each topic, or take them all off... The second option isn't really an option because topics like Shaman, Cleric, Crusader, Monk, etc. already exist in Wikipedia... so I elected to move them all into one topic... If there's some sort of problem (which I don't see why there would be) with imposing uniformity then I'll have to rethink the structure...

Also, is there any reason to leave comments on talk pages that have either been addressed or are rendered meaningless by changes (or in one of the cases for which you reverted, was me deleting my own question that I figured out the answer for)... seems like unnecessary clutter

Thanks for the heads up though... --Laxrulz777 18:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your desire to create unity. And in this case, you have a definate point, as most of these topics are of interest only to people interested in Dungeons & Dragons related content. It is not policy, however. Consider that if it were to become policy to add 'Dungeons & Dragons' or 'Star Trek' to all relevant articles, an automated bot could quickly finish the job, 'pedia-wide. I again urge you to visit the Manual of Style. There are a large number of bots around, and finding one willing to help your project shouldn't be dificult, once policy reflects your views.
As for the comments on Talk pages, it is prefered to leave comments where they are, or to move them to an archive subpage. Adding a note explaining that the issue has been addressed is certainly useful, but removing comments can be confusing (as it forces interested users to check the history to see which comments were removed and why). In some way, all comments on the Talk pages are a part of the history of an article, and should be easily reviewable. -- Ec5618 18:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, though I didn't see anything in the Manual of Style specifically opining on which way was best (there's some discussion of when to use parentheticals but nothing specific). There discussions of avoiding "heirarchy" structures which this may be bordering on. I'll look more into it... Thanks for the input.
I'll be more careful with the comments. Thanks for that. --Laxrulz777 18:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: welcome/ DNA repair

Thanks for the warm welcome. I'll see what I can do on DNA repair pages. My first idea was to just copy-paste the introduction to my thesis there, but I doubt anybody would appreciate it :P (thirty-odd pages, 300+ scientific references). Some trimming down will be required haha. Groeten, Marvol 21:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Devolution

Hi Ec5618,

I want to make you acquainted with the WP:NPOV policy. Sentence one of this policy states: 'The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted.' I have the impression that we are dealing with conflicting views at the moment. The article Devolution (fallacy) is dealing with the theme started by Max Nordau. I am a socialist and don't agree with the devolution theory, still i think that the history of the thought on devolution should be included into this article.--Daanschr 13:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Devolution refers to a fallacy, in which biological evolution is seen as progresssion to an ultimately superior form. Degeneration, as used by Max Nordau, refers to decaying moral standards and decadence. This is not an issue of neutral poin of view, this is an issue of irrelevance. Max Nordau's views on civilisation are irrelevant when discussing biological evolution. -- Ec5618 13:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I will copy these discussion to the subsequent talk page.--Daanschr 13:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are we having fun yet?

You really walked into one of our high-bedlam periods on the ID, evolution and creation pages, eh? Glad to have your input because I was about to go crazy myself.  ;)

So have you become "acquainted" with NPOV yet? ROFL. •Jim62sch• 13:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I may have glanced at it at some point. Meaningless drivel, I'm sure. -- Ec5618 13:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. •Jim62sch• 14:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for archiving ID. Now we just need to see if the conversation rears it's ugly head again. •Jim62sch• 21:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, at one point, we will be able to resist explaining these things to people who refuse to ask real people. The archives are filled with people who seem unwilling to trust scientists. And according to polls, that includes just a few too many people for us to handle here. -- Ec5618 21:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I doubt it given that the first page many people turn to in the paper is their bloody horrorscope. •Jim62sch• 23:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe I'll try to find a typo in that last word. -- Ec5618 23:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Nope, I didn't fat-finger that one. Thanks for the tip on using <cite>! •Jim62sch• 16:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
So George speaks Spanish? (The grammar doesn't fit) Or better, manages his brain in Spanish? I'm beginning to think ID is a freak-magnet. Ugh. (BTW, thanks for moving that converstaion, it had degraded into the sublime) •Jim62sch• 23:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. What are your thoughts on the idea of moving such discussions to a user's talk page the moment they become long? I know some might object to being brushed off, but if we could make an effort to continue the dialogue on their talk page, we could keep the main Talk page clear of this sort of endless tripe. -- Ec5618 08:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Since the discussion was really becoming incoherent on Bob's part and wandering just a bit off-tiopic, I think moving it to the talk page was appropriate. We should probably consider doing that anytime a conversation/discussion resembles the one you moved. It's not really blowing the person off, it's granting them the ability to pontificate to another audience.  ;) •Jim62sch• 22:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Now we have to worry about what tack Bob takes next...and GeorgeFThompsom is simple friggin' insane, as in there are no ants at his picnic, his elevator is missing it's cable, two jokers do not a deck of cards make. •Jim62sch• 17:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
In my naiveté I always assume that people are sane. It's very distressing to discover they are not, but there is no other explanation for GeorgeFThompsom's behaviour. I can't understand such people. Why can't logic pierce their sense of self-satisfaction? How do these people justify lying to win a discussion? Still, no harm done, I guess. -- Ec5618 17:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
No harm if you own stock in Tylenol.  ;) I think George said he was developing a "new logic". Ought to be a pisser. •Jim62sch• 08:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primal Photos

I found a name-tagged nude picture of myself and would like to remove it from the site. Please do not reload it. Thanks.

[edit] Anus

I didn't add nonsense. It made complete sense. The anus clearly had small pieces of fecal matter from the center of the hole to the bottom of the gooch.

Leave my edits alone and I'll leave yours alone. Deal? Thanks.


B

Erm, that's not really how this works. You reduced the fontsize of the entire article, and added irrelevant (and disputable) text to a description of an image. Such edits deserve to be reviewed, and as such I will not leave your edits alone, no. -- Ec5618 20:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't change the font size and I added an observation, just like the current caption reads. "Unshaven" is an observation and also could be considered irrelavent due to the fact that most males don't shave their rectums. How is what I did wrong and the caption currently there be acceptable?

Please review your edit. You did change the fontsize. As for the 'unshaven' observation, that appears to be a relic from a time when an image of a shaven female anus appeared next to it.
Again, that you appear to 'clearly' see fecal matter, doesn't mean such is obvious. In fact, I still see no such thing. That is why your observation is contentious. -- Ec5618 20:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't not mean to or notice that I changed the font size, but I do know that the caption makes no sense and therefore I am going to remove the "shaven" part and leave the rest. Thanks.

I've taken the liberty of doing just that. Welcome to Wikipedia. -- Ec5618 20:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for listening and for the welcome. :)

[edit] Dungeons & Dragons

Hello, I seem to have a mild problem, or at least be setting myself up for one. I've made it a personal goal of mine to expand and add as many of the DnD prestige classes as possible and feasable to wikipedia, after looking at all the red links of the relivant page. This is mainly because I find them enjoyable to write and because the prestige classes have always interested me. Today I found out that there has been some debate over adding (Dungeons & Dragons) onto the ends of article titles. I've been doing this if the article already refered to something else (like when I wrote the Shifter article. Have I done anything wrong? It seems to fit in a neater style then having some be (game class) or (character type).

Also, since the character class template is so long, I was thinking of making a seperate template for prestige classes and leaving a link to it on the bottom of the current template. I'm worried that if I ever finish adding all the prestige classes I have than it will be miles too long. Sorry if this should be directed at somebody else, but I've had trouble finding anyone else interested in the prestige classes and don't want to have to deal with an angry mob at some point in the future; it also seemed common courtisy to run the idea past the author of the current class template. Morgrim 14:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. The base class template has the potential of becoming quite long by itself, so removing the Prestige Classes seems like a good idea. We have a list of Prestige Classes in the List of Prestige Classes article, so I don't think we really need a template to list them. Still, a lot of those Prestige Classes don't have articles, so it's a good thing that you're creating such articles.
As for the naming, recently a number of Dungeons & Dragons related articles have been renamed to include the words Dungeons & Dragons in parentheses, but there is no rule governing this. The Manual of Style suggests that article titles should only contain parentheses to disambiguate, but there's nothing wrong with adding them. So, either way of naming the articles is technically fine. Personally, I prefer the simpler name, without the parentheses. -- Ec5618 15:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I got bored with article writing and clean-up tonight and decided to try my hand at template writing. Any oppinions? I'm not sure I'm game enough to ever put it anywhere other than my user page, but I suppose at the very least I can use it to keep myself organised. I just think that the List of Prestige Classes is perhaps a bit long and redlinked-ish for most people.Morgrim 14:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
It looks nice, though I still feel that there really isn't a need for this type of template. I've edited it to include noinclude tags, so that it can be used in articles. (Mainly so we can easily see what it would look like in an article. All text between the noinclude tags is effectively hidden when the template is used elsewhere.)
As for being bored, I'm not surprised. Can you imagine ever creating anything like a comprehensive set of articles on this subject? The encyclopedic value of such articles may also be debated. Perhaps you should focus on Dungeon Master's Guide prestige classes, and perhaps classes from the main additional sourcebooks. Still, keep it up. -- Ec5618 16:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

My only problem is that I don't find most of the unwritten classes in the Dungeon Master's Guide very interesting, and the Masters of the Wild is the only other source book I own (as opposed to reading one at a friend's house). I just hate seeing a long page full of red links. Besides, the being bored was bored of typo and format cruising, not article writing. I'll get there...eventually. Thanks for the advice. Morgrim 08:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear power as a renewable energy source

Have you been following Talk:Renewable energy? I don't have time to keep up this fight against the people who want to remove all mention of it from the article. See my post on the Village pump. — Omegatron 21:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Energy portal

Hi! As a contributor to WikiProject Energy development, I thought you might like to be aware of the opportunity to contribute to the new Energy Portal, now that there is one... No need to reply. Gralo 17:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your name

I'm curious where your name, ec5618, came from. Thanks! Taborgate 07:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creation-science peer review

Ec, I appreciated your edit summary stating that "peer review' does not consist of asking any scientist whether he agrees with you." That was indeed one of the things I found most offensive about the peer-review aspects of the teach the controversy issue in the sphere of ID, and the "petition" or "statement" they circulated. ... Kenosis 17:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

What excludes The Creation Research Society publication from being what they say it is (peer reviewed research)? Dan Watts 21:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Dan Watts, you are arguing semantics. I hope you already know that a system of socalled peer review that completely violates the basic principles of peer review while superficially adhering to a dictionary definition completely invalidates any scientific value of the 'peer review'. True Scotsman fallacy aside, CRS Quarterly does not do peer review in the traditionally accepted scientific sense. Peer review is a well established practice, which serves to get authors to meet the standards of their discipline and of science generally. The peer reviewer is selected by a publication, ideally to be an impartial but qualified judge of the scientific validity of the work. Generally, if an article would have failed peer review by any reviewer ouside of a small group of philosophically aligned people, the article should not be considered as having been peer reviewed. For example, any article that states in its summary that "Only a designing creator can create the visual systems capable of seeing and interpreting the information contained in the light that He created."[1] has not been properly peer reviewed.
As an aside, the aforementioned article seems to do little more than suggest that scrambling the pixels in an image somehow removes most of the information from an image (hardly a brilliant deduction), concluding from this that, since the neural connections between the optical receptors in the eye and the brain are not jumbled, the eye must have been created. "Today’s scientific research on visual systems shows that we are fearfully and wonderfully made." Hardly the kind of article that would successfully pass peer review by a publication such as Science.
I also came across this little gem in one other so peer reviewed article, proudly displayed on the website as a selected article: "It is unnecessary and unreasonable to resort to unknown and unlikely processes, such as mutations, as the sources of variation that could change simple cells into all we see alive today."[2] I'm sure I don't have to point out that mutation is in fact very likely.
Another quote, to illustrate the mindset of these scientists, and to hopefully make it clear that the motives of these scientists are at least suspect: "Although there are variations in both the evolutionist and the creationist camps, the controversy can be simplified to state that either evolution is true or creation is true. To eliminate one is to confirm the other." -- Ec5618 03:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
True, mutation is a likely occurence. It is debatable that mutation can fuel the microbe-to-man construct. Dan Watts 22:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Which is why it is odd that the article states that mutation is an "unknown and unlikely" process.
It appears that the use of "unknown and unlikely" is in regard to the putative grand scope of evolution.
As for the comment you included in your edit summary, but not in your post here ("So 'any reviewer' can prove the failure? Sounds like an appeal to the masses."), I hope you are not honestly suggesting that the examples I gave were the exception, and that most such commentary is removed after 'peer review'. Scientific research does not, and will not ever show "that we are fearfully and wonderfully made", and any publication willing to print that it does is not committed to honest science. I would hope we can agree that CRS Quarterly is very much motivated by religious doctrine, and that it is willing to publish almost anything that speaks of the glory of god in seemingly scientific terms. In fact, I would make that my main argument, and ask you whether we can, in fact, agree. -- Ec5618 00:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
So you mean this institutions is not committed to honest science. [3] It must make life simpler to have such a litmus test. Dan Watts 13:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Please, there's an obvious difference between an article about the fact of religion and an article that assumed there must be a god. Is this the defense of CRS you can muster? -- Ec5618 16:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't choose the quote. The plain meaning of the author's words affirms it.
How can you state with certainty "Scientific research does not, and will not ever show "'that we are fearfully and wonderfully made?'" Do you:
  • have a "No True Scientist" definition which would preclude such conclusion?
  • have unassailable knowledge of the total scope (past, present and future) of scientific research?
  • make a wild guess?
I assume your unflattering "seemingly scientific" follows from one of the above reasons. If not, please educate me. As Wikipedia states

Scientists are free to use whatever resources they have — their own creativity, ideas from other fields, induction, Bayesian inference, and so on — to imagine possible explanations for a phenomenon under study.

[1] Dan Watts 02:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
You're quite right in suggesting that I am not the ultimate authority on truth, and it bears pointing out, I'm sure. But I fail to see the point of arguing that CRS Quarterly is a valid scientific journal. Even if the evidence, in this case a brief look at neural connections and an oversimplified calculation, were to show that humanity was undoubtedly created, it would in no way validate the statement that we were "fearfully" made. As for your list, I am not trying to insult your intelligence. Please don't insult mine. You could have removed all but one of the supposed options on your list, and I had attempted to address that point already. No true Scotsman. I am tired of this game.
Nevertheless, around and around we go. If I define a book to be a collection of sheets of paper, bound together in some form, someone can easily construct an object that matches that definition while clearly not being a book. The same could be said of any definition. Once you define something, it becomes easy to emulate. Intelligent design is attempting to do just that by emulating science. By offering doctoral titles to somehow prove to non-scientifically trained people that their points are valid but unjustly ignored. By using websites to advertise directly to the public, rather than to the scientific community. By proudly boasting about the one article that was accepted for publication, ignoring that it was retracted or even suggesting that a conspiracy of unyielding scientists is keeping the information from gaining acceptance.
Intelligent design is a wolf in poorly made sheeps clothing, but very few people know enough about sheep (or wolves) to spot the difference. And its proponents are directly fueling this ignorance, rather than spending time doing actual research.
Your move. What's your point? -- Ec5618 03:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rapid-decay theory

You placed a clean-up tag on this article. Please explain on the talk page what needs cleaning. I am removing the tag because it seems perfectly balanced to me - it describes the theory and then gives a rubbuttal reference. BlueValour 03:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Balance? I added a cleanup tag. Perhaps the cleanup tag isn't sufficient, but it is certainly valid.
The 'theory' is poorly described in any case. "It is based on the assumption that God created Earth out of water, with all of the molecules' spins aligned creating a substantial magnetic field." So, the Earth is water? And why am is it not explained that the point of this 'theory' is to explain the gradual decrease of the Earth's magnetic field, not the presence of that field? -- Ec5618 03:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I have added further rebuttal text that might meet your concerns. BlueValour 03:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
O my. I'm sorry, but that's hardly an inprovement. A factual statement about the age of the Earth, in an article about an alternate 'theory' just won't do. -- Ec5618 03:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, please fix it - there is nothing on the takh page that outlines your concerns. BlueValour 04:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Which is why I only added a cleanup tag. I am not in any way an authority on this subject. What I do know is that the current article is incomplete (which is acceptable) and comfusing (which is not). Finally, please re-read my last point in the previous post. -- Ec5618 04:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
My appologies, it's getting late here in the UK so I didn't read your comment carefully enough. Please see what I Have done and check that it meets your concerns. BlueValour 04:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marriage for men and women only?

The short answer to your question on the talk page is that it says that because we got another vandal. I think it's an American thing - didn't Bush try to get that put into the American constitution? - and, well, it seems he has some support. If you see it again, please feel free to revert it. Adam Cuerden talk 19:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

it has nothing to do with Bush (and if you're associating me with that, i'll point out in advance that i was a volunteer for the Howard Dean campaign and even introduced the governor to a town hall meeting during the New Hampshire primary in 2004), it has nothing to do with "an American thing", it has to do with the definition of marriage as shown in Webster and the OED and what 90% or 95% of the world's population understand what marriage commonly is. WP gets to reflect reality as it is, not what any one POV wishes reality to be.
don't take me for a vandal, i am here to clean up POV, even politically correct POV. r b-j 19:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Please take this somewhere else. Webster or no, this page is not the place to define marriage. -- Ec5618 03:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent design

On the article Intelligent design, I noticed you reverted some changes made by a new user without discussion. Granted, the changes were stupid, but we're talking about a newbie, and newbies are generally stupid, and occasionally add weird commentary to articles. Per WP:BITE, if it's at all questionable, it's advised not to revert without giving an explanation in the edit summary, or leaving a message on the users talk page, unless it's straight-out blatant vandalism (see WP:REVERT). Thanks. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 09:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palikar Publications

Defunct magazine, lapsed copyright. Do you have reason to beleive that is has not lapsed? Are you the Mr. Publications of Palikar Publications? If that article isn't public domain I'll eat my shoe! The Copyright office doesn't even have a record for Palikar, much less this article. It's a forgotten relic. A forgotten, public domain relic. Now that you've gotten my article in trouble, maybe you'd like to get it out of trouble.

[edit] Cons

See, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). Sea lion should be at the lowercase since it is about a genus. --Peta 10:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting without discussion or reasoning

Ec5618. You reverted my edit without any form of reasoning or discussion. Whats the matter? Can't you be bothered? Liontherock 09:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologise. It happens often that a new account is used to make a single odd edit, and then goes silent. Bothering to explain why every such edit is odd, especially when the edit was hardly discussed or explained, is not something I enjoy spending time on.
Now, the reason I reverted your edit is that it suggests that only the example of the iriducible complexity of flagella has been disproven, when in fact, all such examples have been shown to be wrong. Evolutionary pathways that lead to the formation of the eye, the blood clotting mechanism, and such, have all been proposed. But this article is not the place to into such details. Intelligent design proponents claim these things are irriducibly complex. The article on irreducible complexity shows why they are not, and in fact, the evolution of the eye has its own article, as does the evolution of flagella. -- Ec5618 09:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Relevance is the point here. Intelligent design arguments hinge upon those very colourful images of magical god given flagellae. The parts operate on their own though according to research. In the ID article, there should be an image or a description of how the parts can operate or can be evolved on their own. Its a crucial example. Liontherock 10:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
If you bring this up on the Talk page of the article I'm sure someone will either agree with you and make your point clear in the article, or explain to you why it isn't necessary. In any case, the article on irreducible complexity deals with irriducible complexity. The article on design, at this point, lists irreducible complexity merely as an example of arguments used by intelligent design proponents. -- Ec5618 10:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks much. I'll discuss more next time. Liontherock 04:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/c/5/User_talk%7EEc5618_ab71.html"