User talk:Fyrius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please accept this editor's barnstar for your courageous purge of OR and speculation in the Xen entry -Jackel 15:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Thanks for the welcome and the links.  :) Some of them might prove useful in the future. Fyrius 20:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Green bug?

I'm more concerned about the green hue it leaves on the rest of the discussion page. O_o You probably forgot to add a closing line of code or something. Do you know how to limit the hue to the welcome message? I'm not angry about this or anything, it just bugs me a bit. Other than that, thanks a lot for the welcome, ElectricEye. ^_^ I appreciate your intentions. Fyrius 20:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fyrius! :) Thank you for the communications. I am not getting the same phenomenon on my computer so I am unaware of it. It could be I left out a closing tag in the code or something like that. Thank you for pointing this out to me, I'll debug it after I investigate the problem. I know it's a lot to ask, but if you could send a screenshot it would help me to figure out what is happening. Waikiki!!! --ElectricEye 20:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'll upload a screenshot. On my comp it looks like this: http://img319.imageshack.us/img319/3426/screenshot8tv.jpg But I see you've found out what the problem was already. Whatever you did on my discussion page, it worked.  :) Again, thanks for the welcome. Fyrius 20:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Did the green hue go away? Please let me know Fyrius. Waikiki!!! ^_^ --ElectricEye 20:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it did. Thanks.  :) And again, thanks for the welcome. Fyrius 20:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Fyrius, thank you for helping me avoid a problem on many many people's talk pages. --ElectricEye 21:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

And thank you for fixing it. Fyrius 21:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Ashtar_Sheran.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ashtar_Sheran.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Aspergian Wikipedians

Category:Aspergian Wikipedians which you have included on your user page has been proposed for deletion you can comment at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Wikipedians by mental condition. The is also a proposal to create an association to meet the needs of users with mental health conditions. --Salix alba (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xen

(note: I moved some of the following comments from 'Aspergian Wikipedians' for the sake of order. Only the last two comments were originally posted here. - Fyrius)

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content (as you did on Xen (Half-Life). Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! Steve-o 11:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't wipe the entire article blank. It's still here. Your link doesn't work because you forgot the last bracket. ;)

I did delete large parts of the article, though, that's right. But I had a good reason for that. See the bottom of the talk page about it.

Ah, sorry man. Sometimes I get caught up in the VandalFighting! Happy editing! Steve-o 11:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I see. That's alright then. - Fyrius 11:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Jian.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jian.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The source has been specified now. Fyrius 18:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your "random rants" section

Evolutionists often say that Creationists "just ignore what's right in front of their face, they don't know what they are talking about at all, etc, etc." Many base these ideas on the beliefs of the common Catholic, and put no research into the matter themselves. People interested in the scientific belief of Evolution do much research. They frequently expect Christians to do the same. Unfortunately, most Christians hardly know anything about what they believe, and what they do they received orally.

You can ask a person "do you believe in the battle at Normandy, D-day?" and they will say "of course, it really happened." But what if you asked them "What happened in that battle?" several might not be able to answer; only a person educated about it could. Some might be able to tell you "well, it had to do with these landing crafts that they used to invade these beaches" but that's all.

The same goes for Evolution and Creationism. Most everyone believes in one or the other. People on both sides can tell you a few lines like "Oh, the big bang, radiation, carbon dating, skeletons," or "Genesis that, John this." However, a person only versed in a few aspects of something can't possibly carry on an argument with someone who knows the full spectrum of that subject.

Naturally, then, a person moderately versed in Evolution will always come off the winner against the average Joe who is offended by the suggestion of Evolution. Just because one person who believes something loses an argument doesn't mean that what he believes in is wrong. And there are a lot more people who think Creation really happened than people who think Evolution did; and a lot more Creationists are unversed in their own teachings than Evolutionists in percentage.

That's obviously the reason why you can't find people to give a decent argument about Creationism. There are many out there who can, however, if you're still looking for a chat. Hmm, maybe it doesn't interest you, but you seem the type that enjoys a good philosophical debate. --Salty Morton 21:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for reacting. I really hadn't expected anyone to take the time to read this page and actually react, but I'm glad you did. :D

Coming to what you said: you're probably right about not all creationists being close-minded and unreasonable. And looking at it now, I think I was actually ranting against the notion that evolution and creationism are equally plausible scientific theories (and that both should be taught at schools and stuff), rather than that all people believing in Intelligent Design are unreasonable by nature.

You're saying that Creationist people often lose arguments because they know little of their own beliefs, whereas most people who believe in evolution know pretty well what that theory is about. Which makes sense, but is not really relevant to what I meant when I said they are bad at arguing. What I was annoyed about was that they seem prone to twist logic and ignore counterarguments just to avoid the risk of being wrong; that they enter a debate with the purpose of converting people rather than actually listening to what someone else thinks (sadly, this goes for many types of people, not just for those overzealous missionaries). People like that literally can't argue, because they aren't prepared to respect the rules of debate. Fyrius 22:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Although, I would have to say that both sides of the argument demonstrate a frustrating degree of smugness and presumptuousness. But perhaps you couldn't really say those kind of people are on anyone's "side" as much as they are in their own little world :)--Salty Morton 07:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not really a matter of sides at all, it's a matter of unreasonable individuals that could be on either side of the debate.

In the rant, though, I was reasoning that religious people are easier compelled to do anything to keep their own views, because religious beliefs are not supposed to be open for debate in the first place. Beliefs are by definiton unquestionable, and believers are generally very determined to keep their views. As opposed to scientists, whose job it is to question everything and constantly adapt their theories, and who would easily abandon them if they turn out ot be flawed.

However, the followers of science (i.e. the people who actually do the debating) aren't necessarily that flexible and open-minded either, and might in practice be just as unreasonable. And although I would expect any random Creationist to have more chance of being a close-minded missionary than any random Evolutionist, I can only speculate about that. Fyrius 13:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MA Userbox

Today, there was a merger of Category:Martial Artist Wikipedians into Category:Wikipedian martial artists. This resulted in a userbox {{User:TonyTheTiger/Userboxes/Martialartist}} being added to the category. This userbox is available to you. TonyTheTiger 20:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I see. Cool. Fyrius 14:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)