User talk:Nathan Ladd
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!
Here are some tips to help you get started:
- Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
- If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
- 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!
P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (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).
Contents |
[edit] RFC on DotSix
I have filed a request for comment on DotSix's conduct. It is available at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DotSix. Since you are involved in this dispute, you may want to certify the RFC or add your own comments. Thanks. Rhobite 01:57, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "This page intentionally left blank"
What would you call this phrase? I know it is not exactly self-contradictory, but it does falsify itself by its very existence. So.. what is that called? -- BRIAN0918 23:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Would you consider this phrase an example of a strange loop? -- BRIAN0918 04:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. I don't find the definition of it very clear. I can't see a common denominator in the examples. But it appears to be a tongue-in-cheek thing anyway.
[edit] DotSix
If he makes one more wrong move... I will block, and I shall not be merciful. Thus decreeth the Sasquatch =) happy editing. Sasquatch讲看 06:16, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
- see [1]. Sasquatch讲看 07:35, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the background. -- JamesTeterenko 06:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure what a "leadoff batter"[2] is, but I wanted to express my appreciation - and astonishment - at the time and effort you have put into Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/DotSix/Evidence. Also, welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy. It will be interesting to see what progress we can make once this silly business is finished. Banno 10:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you!
Nate - For your extraordinary work in the recent affair, I award you the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar. We all owe you a lot for your efforts! --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:55, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Article on truth
Would you care to explain how in the world the self-evident truths (axioms) belong in the justification article? They are the most basic truths and should be mentioned in the truth article because they are the basis for distinguishing between truth and falsehood.
Also, what references to Rand are you talking about? I did not add any references to Rand in the Truth article. I merely mentioned her because she has "discovered" some self-evident truths in creating her philosophy, and that is what I was talking about. I was going to add a short note on mathematical axioms, as soon as I get my hands on the literature. I will revert your reversion. Source 18:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] He's Baaaack
The user user:Adrigo is the injoined user Donald Alford AKA DotSix. He is up to his old tricks. (See his contribution history.) Please revert anything he does on any page (except his arbitration evidence page) with a simple edit notation to the effect that he is enjoined.
- I'm convinced. Please post details on WP:AN/I so that an uninvolved admin can block him. Rhobite 22:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for telling me, Nate. I added a testimony. I'm not that familiar with trolling, I'll be more wary next time and try not to be that sensitive. Jules LT 07:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Ehrlich
I have blocked the account indefinitely, pending the Arbitrators' decision. See WP:AN/I. Thanks. -Splashtalk 15:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
A new one: 66.42.43.82 (talk • contribs)--chris.lawson 21:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yep. I added that a few hours ago to the identfication part of his Arb Commm page: [3]. --Nate Ladd 21:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Understood
Thank you for clearing that up for me (the Mark Richardson / Donald fiasco)
[edit] Final decision
The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DotSix case. →Raul654 01:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] RFA/Banno
You are invited to cast your vote at WP:RFA on Banno's candidacy. Regards, --Ancheta Wis 02:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Philosophy portal
Pleas read my rationale for removing this template or, if you like, participate in the discussion at User talk:R.Koot#Philosophy portal. —Ruud 10:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Belated thanks
I now have a few extra tabs at the top of my Wikipedia pages. Thanks for your support. Banno 08:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] An edit of mine you reverted
This is the article before I changed it:
Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth or falsity of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God or gods—is unknown, unknowable, or incoherent. Some agnostics infer from this that these claims are irrelevant to the meaning of life.
The term and the related agnostic were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869, and are also used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well as other matters of religion. The word agnostic comes from the Greek a (without) and gnosis (knowledge). Agnosticism, focusing on what can be known, is an epistemological position (dealing with the nature and limits of human knowledge); while atheism and theism are ontological positions (a branch of metaphysics that deals with what types of entities exist). Agnosticism is not to be confused with a view specifically opposing the doctrine of gnosis and Gnosticism—these are religious concepts that are not generally related to agnosticism.
Agnostics may claim that it isn't possible to have absolute or certain spiritual knowledge or, alternatively, that while certainty may be possible, they personally have no such knowledge. In both cases, agnosticism involves some form of skepticism towards religious statements. This is different from the simple irreligion of those who give no thought to the subject.
The term agnostic is also used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well as other matters of religion. Agnosticism, focusing on what can be known, is an epistemological position (dealing with the nature and limits of human knowledge); while atheism and theism are ontological positions (a branch of metaphysics that deals with what types of entities exist). Agnosticism is not to be confused with a view specifically opposing the doctrine of gnosis and Gnosticism—these are religious concepts that are not generally related to agnosticism.
Agnosticism is distinct from strong atheism (also called positive atheism or dogmatic atheism), which denies the existence of any deities. However, the more general variety of atheism, weak atheism (also called negative atheism, and sometimes neutral atheism), professes only a lack of belief in a god or gods, which is not equivalent to but is compatible with agnosticism. Critical atheism admits that a god or gods are meaningful concepts but the evidence for them is not in hand, so a default position of not believing in them must be taken in the interim.
As you can see there are two identical peices of text. All I did was remove the second copy of the statement and merged the remaineder of that paragraph with the one above it. Thus what removed did repeat what was left. I think you were incorrect to revert my change, somebody else has come along and changed it again. I figured I would point out your mistake and avoid any reverting battles. Guardian 03:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Truth
Nathan, please take it to talk. Banno 05:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
