User talk:Rossnixon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

You can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages or add a question to the village pump.

Archived Discussions: page 1

Contents

[edit] Re: Jesus - sprotect or protect

The protection level of the article Jesus was changed from semi to full; however, the semi-protected tag was not changed to fully protected. I merely corrected the tag. I did not change the protection level. —Wayward Talk 09:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus

I can protect pages, but in the case of Jesus I was not the one who initially protected it. Someone else did, with a low level of protection. Still, a POV warrior went against consensus and reverted a sensible revert. So I upped the level of protection. Then the internet place I was at (I am in Ecuador doing fieldwork) blacked out so I coudln{t change the tag of the protection. I generally do not like to see any page protected but once more than one person starts imposing a non-consensus view, I generally think people need some time to discuss. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Noah's Ark

Ross, in the Noah's Ark article, I find this sentence at the top of the section on literal interpretations of the story: "Many Orthodox Jews and conservative Christians are believers in Biblical inerrancy, the concept that the Bible, as the word of God, is without error, but must be interpreted using the historical-grammatical method in order to be understood correctly whenever there is no clear reason for any other reading." When I click the link to 'historical-grammatical method' I find that what's described is not what I understand as a literal interpretation of the Bible - one based on the idea that God's word does not deceive, and that texts should be taken literally unless some other meaning (poetic, allegoric, etc) is clearly intended. You're far more able than me to judge - would you like to take a look at the sentence and see if this erference to historical-grammatical is justified? Thanks PiCo 04:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The historical-grammatical article exaggerates the difference between "literal" and "historical-grammatical". A person who is a "literalist" does not believe that Jesus is a door when he said "I am the door". A literalist *does* look at context. A literalist looks at the "plain meaning" of the text; the meaning which is obvious. I would describe the "historical-grammatical" method as the literalist method plus scholarly research and conjecture (i.e. sometimes they go too far with their imaginations, reinterpreting the Bible to fit with other so-called evidence). rossnixon 02:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
So I take it you're happy with that sentence? Ok, I'll leave it alone then. Thanks. PiCo 08:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's a good blog about this, http://michaelpahl.blogspot.com/2006/06/meeting-god-in-crowded-room.html

[edit] Pastafarianism

Sorry about that, you're quite right. I forgot that there are two separate articles. yandman 09:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noah's Ark again

Thanks for the link to the NZ site - it made me smile.

Had a thought abt the original Ark while in the bath: Creation was vegetarian from the beginning up till the animals got off the Ark, which means that Noah didn't have to worry about providing, e.g., mice for the 2 cats - which is just as well, as that would have broken the "only-2-of-each" rule. On the other hand, it raises the interesting question of just what the cats did eat? An idle thought. All the best. PiCo 07:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Noah was vegetarian. But I believe the animals became omnivorous shortly after "the fall".

The cats (and all other animals) would have been fed vegetable-based food on the ark. I don't discount that Noah could have had supplies of dried-meat as well. There is no problems feeding vegetables to cats, as lions were fed vegetables in London Zoo during WWII when there was a shortage of meat. rossnixon 00:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Firefox 2.0

Regarding [1] what does Firefox have to do with anything? JoshuaZ 03:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"Religous" jumped out at me as an error while I was reading the article. I just wish more people used a browser/editor with real-time spell-checking, then fewer misspellings would be entered. rossnixon 04:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Really? Hmm, I'll have to upgrade. JoshuaZ 04:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
A few websites require IE (e.g. Windows/Microsoft Update). For these, I use an add-on "IE Tab" which renders the page inside Firefox using IE. rossnixon 05:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, to clarify; the spellchecking is in "forms", not with normal viewing. rossnixon 05:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. JoshuaZ 05:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and abortion

I noticed you changed the text "a woman's right to control her pregnancy" to "a woman's right to kill her baby" at the Abortion debate article. And I noticed that you also were reverted for a claimed NPOV violation. I agree completely with the revert, and am contacting you personally in case you would like to discuss this further. Hopefully this was just a lapse of judgement. If not, feel free to contact me, or start a discussion thread at Talk:Abortion debate. Here's a little hint, baby and fetus are only synonymous to a certain POV, kill is very POV, and your version ignores the 'choice' aspect, where the pro-choice movement supports a woman's right to terminate or carry to term (at least on paper), thus making 'control' a much more accurate word.--Andrew c 01:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope the revert holds. Is this Ross Nixon going to help finance, educate, and provide health care for any of the "babies" he wants to cause to be born? If the mothers are unmarried, can he help them find husbands (if they want a husband, but maybe Ross Nixon does not care about that point.) Carrionluggage 07:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Please try to discuss content, instead of making personal attacks. I don't care if Ross Nixon is Pro-choice or Pro-life, and I am not going to attack his personal life, or question his motivations or personal behavior outside of wikipedia. Your comment is not helpful, and has nothing to do with the disputed content. --Andrew c 15:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think it is relevant. My wife and I adopted babies born out of wedlock, and so did some friends of ours. Sometimes when we encountered people with "Adopt, don't Abort" bumper stickers entering or leaving their cars in a parking lot, we'd say how nice that was and ask them how many children they had adopted. The answer was invariably "none." It is hypocritical to urge the banning of abortion without any plan or effort to deal with the consequences. I was pointing out that responsible action to prevent abortion places an onus on the activist to make some plan to deal with the pregnancy and birth. Good medical care should be provided, some kind of financial and perhaps counseling aid for the new mother, and sometimes they try to trace the father and make him help support the baby (a low-yielding effort, however). Carrionluggage 09:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of blog as a source

Regarding [2] Blogs are not generally regarded as reliable sources-do you have some other source that backs this up? (I'm wondering because this isn't a solution I've heard before and the older translations I've glanced at such as the Vulgatus don't seem to be very consistent with this translation). JoshuaZ 01:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I was hesitant because it was a blog, but included it due to the apparent academic flavour of most of the posts, and the fact that many sources were given that apparently were favourable to this "variant translation". rossnixon 00:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
To be blunt it doesn't look very academic to me, it looks like a standard apologetic blog. I don't have the time but I'd tentatively suggest looking up one of the sources that the blogger cites and citing that instead. JoshuaZ 03:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. rossnixon 08:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] addition of causes of death cat to abortion

I disagree with including the article in that category. I've outlined my reasons at Talk:Abortion#Category:Causes_of_death.3F. If you would respond to what I've written there, I'd appreciate it. I won't add or remove the article from the category until we discuss it. Thanks!--Kchase T 10:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Rossnixon, you haven't participated in any of the conversation at Talk:Abortion but continue to add the article into cat:causes of death. Please take part in the discussion and don't revert other's edits repeatedly. Edit warring just fills the article's history with reversions and never establishes a consensus. To make it worse, people could get blocked for 3RR violations. Please join the dialogue.--Kchase T 04:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Have joined the discussion already; and I only reverted the category once. rossnixon 04:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help Prevent Article Deletion: Religious Perspectives on Dinosaurs

Hello, I'm leaving you this message because I notice you've made at least one significant edit to the Wikipedia article Religious perspectives on dinosaurs. The article has recently been nominated for deletion from Wikipedia, and there is considerable support for that position.

I'm hoping you'll help me support the continued existence of the Religious perspectives on dinosaurs article by registering a keep vote on the article's request for deletion page. The article contains some good information, and represents an unobtrusive way to present notable minority viewpoints about dinosaurs that cannot reasonably be elaborated on in the parent article. It shouldn't be deleted simply because the viewpoints it presents aren't "scientific."

Thanks! Killdevil 03:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attention-seekers and mythomanes

Ross, I'm willing to let your deletion of that phrase (in the ark-search section of Naoh's Ark) stand, but you might be interested thast I lifted it almost word-for-word from the ICR site which is quoted in the section - it's their phrase, not mine! (Well, ok, the attention-sekers bit is their phrase; "mythomane is a word I've ben fond of since I first heard from a Frenchman, and I was thinking of Ron Wyatt - it means someone who makes up his own story, no matter how far it might be at varience from reality, and then quite honestly believes it - that's Ron). PiCo 14:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Auckland Meetup 2 Scheduled - Feb 10 2007

You are invited to Auckland Meetup 2 on the afternoon of Saturday February 10th 2007 at Galbraith's Ale House in Mt Eden. Please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland 2 for details. You can also bookmark Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland to be informed of future NZ meetups. - SimonLyall 06:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speciation

Interested in your comment re speciation. To what level to creationists believe that speciation is possible? To genus, family, or order level? just curious --Michael Johnson 02:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You may have heard that lion/tiger/lion/leopard/jaguar/leopard can interbreed. And sometimes the offspring are fertile. A creationist quote: "There is enough genetic variability within the Felidae, however, to account for a fair amount of the diversity seen in today’s cat populations since the creation." This would equate to the "Family" level. I had seen previous quotes mentioning speciation to the "genus" level. rossnixon 08:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rapture; help with uncited and/or original research

Hi, I see you have posted to Rapture. If you are interested in this article you may wish to help with providing sources and citations where possible and helping delete original or uncited research where citations cant be found. See [|rapture discussion] "Original research not for Wikipedia" for more specific information. SmithBlue 03:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religous Perspectives on Dinosaurs: Kinds disagreement

OrangeMarlin and Rossnixon. I would like the two of your to file a RfC (Request for Comment) over your ongoing mini revert war. [Requests_for_comment] explains what is necessary. This article need work done on it. The revert war is draining scare resources. My guess is that a RfC will lead to a quick resolution. SmithBlue 03:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Good to see the two of you communicating - I suggeszt that in future you both limit yourselves to 1 revert and then discuss or request comment. SmithBlue 03:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR

You have now made the same revert to an edit over three times in the article Religious perspectives on dinosaurs. I would suggest that you don't make an another revert to your edit. It's in the discussion page, everyone is discussing it. If there is consensus, which there is not, I will agree to your changes. But right now, you are on a one-man (or woman) revert war, and I won't personally participate. Let's come to a consensus, which is much more acceptable to the community. Orangemarlin 17:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

And how many times did you revert my edit? At least I had a "ref". But what do you think of linking "kinds" to Baraminology. I think it's a helpful solution. rossnixon 01:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Not to get into an argument with you, but twice. Others reverted your edit, and no one, but you, reverted those. That kind of indicates there is a lack of consensus to your position. That's kind of small with respect to the huge changes you just made. Orangemarlin 02:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Answers in Genesis – A Devil’s Chaplain

(I’m the i.p. address 82.47.208.4. I wasn’t logged in at the time) Why is the quote from the book “irrelevant” to that section of the article? It explains exactly what happened! Plus its Dawkins own testimony. If it is too long, than can it be reduced in size, leaving only the vital details?

I take it, that from your other messages here, that you’re a proponent of creationism? (And probably not a big fan of Dawkins too!) I think that its only fair to leave that quote in that explains exactly what happens with no pov bias (since it comes straight from Dawkins himself) Simpsons contributor 01:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is about Answers in Genesis. What you are including is discussion of a "news" item. An encyclopedia is not a newspaper or magazine. It is fine to mention the controversy, with a link - but the details should not be extensively quoted. That's my opinion, you may want to see what others think. rossnixon 00:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal remarks

Ross, I'm sure no offense was meant, but I would appreciate it if you did not make personal remarks directed at me.Trishm 09:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edit at the Abortion article

Hi, you recently deleted some info in the Abortion article about the POV of a footnoted pro-life source. I agree with you that the article should not have POV info about pro-life sources, without POV info about pro-choice sources. Both should be included, whene relevant. I've started a Request for Comments about it, here, in case you're interested.Ferrylodge 02:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/s/User_talk%7ERossnixon_14dc.html"