User talk:Colin 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome to Wikipedia and comments on The munchies 2 Answering your questions 3 Weak atheism 4 On secular ethics 5 Richard Stilwell 6 Possible Copy violationg 7 Re: the terrorist handbook 8 Pro-life/pro-choice

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia and comments on The munchies

You had a few questions on why your article was deleted and redirected. I thought I would address that here. Note that I had nothing to do with redirecting your edits. I only noticed your objection, and I hope to address that here.

• First of all, Welcome! New editors are great, and we all want you to get some experience at becoming a better editor. Learning the ropes here is an on-the-job process. All of us, every one, made some major mistakes as new editors, but we all get better through practice. Keep editing, keep learning, and perhaps I can help you understand why the changes to your first article happened.
• Wikipedia has some standards as to what kinds of articles end up getting accepted. Some policies and guidelines you might find helpful:
  • What Wikipedia is Not. This policy lists what kinds of articles are routinely rejected. Your article seemed to consist mostly of a dictionary defintion, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
  • No Original Research and Verifiability and Reliable Sources are policies about referencing your articles. Wikipedia is a place to condense information as it appears in other sources. Original Research is anything that only exists in the mind of its creator and on wikipedia. All information must verifiably exists outside of wikipedia before it appears here. There are ways to reference the information, and guidelines to help cite your sources may help you do this as well.
  • All articles must be from a neutral point of view Does not apply here, but still a cornerstone policy that deserves reading.
• Also, as your article contained information that was largely reduntant with information already found in the Cannabis article, it was redirected there. This is NOT to say that there is to never be an article on The Munchies. If a substantial, well referenced, article can be written on it, it will stand better on its own.

I hope that is of some help. You definately seem like a great editor, and we look forward to having you around at wikipedia. Use this as a learning experience, and know that we ALL went through experiences like this. If you have any other questions, click the "help" in the side bar over on the left, or feel free to ask me on my talk page. --Jayron32 07:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, your hooked. I recognize the symptoms. In 3 months they'll find you drooling by your computer mumbling vanispamicruftisement over and over. Ha! Well, again, welcome, and I look forward to seeing some of your edits. My last word of advice for now is to find good articles and click the edit button. You don't have to save any changes, but it will let you see how the markup works, and how to use the "unseen" stuff like "tags" and image imbedding and things like that. If you want to practice, you can create articles in your own "namespace" by starting the article title with "User:Colin 8/" and any title you want. It puts the article under your own userpage, and not in the main wikipedia, so you can play all you want and perfect the article before you move it to the mainspace. It will let you play around with stuff and no one will care. If you ever have any more questions, feel free to ask. Oh, and don't forget to sign your comments on talk pages by using four tilde's like this:~~~~ Happy editing!--Jayron32 03:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Answering your questions

Just going to answer your questions one-by-one:

• You Said:How do you ask for a citation, I am loath to run around changing articles but I do feel that many statements require a citation and don't have one, I did edit a page today that referred to American and European foreign adventures, I changed it to "wars and incursions" do you think this was reasonable?
  • If you think that a single statement in an article needs a reference to establish it as verifiable, add the tag {{fact}} after it. It puts a little flag on the article like this: ^{[citation needed]}. Don't use this more than one or two times in an article, it isn't designed to flag and entire ARTICLE as unreferenced, only single statements in an otherwise well referenced article. I have even used it in my OWN articles I have written if I know that something is true and verifiable, but I am unable to locate a source at the current time. If you find an entire article that needs to be referenced, instead place the tag {{unreferenced}} at the top of the article. It will create a banner like this:

.

• • Also, Be Bold is an official wikipedia policy. You really can't do any damage to wikipedia, any changes you make can be reverted or fixed. So dive right in and fix anything you think needs fixing. If you want it fixed, but don't know how, ask on the talk page. Or just go ahead and fix it as you think it should be done, then let everyone know your reasoning on the talk page. At least then people will know what you are trying to do, and can help you do it better if you wish. Assume Good Faith is another wikipedia policy. Other editors should always assume that you are trying to improve wikipedia with your edits, and if your early attempts are clumsy, then we should help you become better. Don't Bite The Newbies is another semi-official policy as well. That one is self explanatory.

• You Said: I Have been on several talk pages over the last few days for the first time, my question is actually several, is there a point in responding to a point made months ago?
  • Absolutely. Go ahead and respond on the ARTICLE talk page, since all discussions of improving an article should be made on the relevent ARTICLE'S page. If it is very old, you should also go to the USER talkpage of the user who wrote it, letting them know that you are responding to an old comment, as they may still be interested, but have forgotten and moved on to other things.

• You said: Also how far are you supposed to go regarding discussing the actual issue in the article rather than the article?, the line seems blurry.
  • Consider an article on the Canadian Football League (since you are Canadian). On the talk page, you COULD say "Hey, don't you think we should add more information about the most recent season" but you should never say "Hey, who do you all think will win the Grey Cup next season". See the difference? Discussions should center on how to improve the article, but not general discussions on the topic, with no mention of article improvement.

• You said: How in the world do you decide the importance of fancrup?, it seems like there is a lot of it and discussions on whats legit and whats not are kinda arbitrary, a good example would be character bio's on south park, I like these and many other things like them, but can see the need for limits. The question is what are they?.
  • Whew. That is one of the most contentious policy discussions on Wikipedia. On the one hand, information is readily availible and easily referenced. On the other, since it is usally from the ACTUAL WORK OF FICTION itself, may not count as a reliable source. The general rule of thumb is that if someone OUTSIDE of wikipedia and UNASSOCIATED with the topic at hand cared enough to publish information on it, than it belongs in wikipedia. Most editors generally ignore fancruft, though when it strays outside of "official canon" it gets squashed quickly. For example, an article about Randy Marsh from South Park is valid, since it covers an actual character. An article about Stan Marsh's Maternal Great-Grandparents is probably not valid, since the article is speculative, since the show never mentions them, and violates original research. A good guideline is WP:FICT, which deals with how to write articles on fiction. Check that one out.

• You said what is Esperanza, it seems like something I would like to involve myself in but perhaps I'm not experienced enough.
  • Wow again. Esperanza was/is a sub-community within wikipedia designed to improve community bonds among all wikipedia members, and additionally to reduce stress between wikipedia members, especially when contentious edit-wars break out, or one editor feels picked-on and undefended. Unfortunately for itself, it was HUGELY successful in that many members developed such strong bonds within the community that the rest of Wikipedia began to see Esperanza as isolationist and factional, which of course was DIRECTLY against its own charter. Esperanzans didn't see it that way, but accusations were raised recently that Esperanza's close internal ties between members meant that it was using its strength to push agendas, such as policy decisions and especially elections to Adminships and the Arbitrartion commitee and that sort of thing. Also, many members started to use the program as a way to chat with other members about off-topic and non-wikipedia issues, a definate no-no within wikipedia. The issue came to a head when the entire program was proposed for deletion. It survived, but reform was evidently needed. Esperanza is still operational, but we are in a state of transition as we reorganize and refocus ourselves onto improving wikipedia and not on social networking or politics. Under the prior charter, the only membership requirement was 150 article edits, which was a small but non-trivial number to insure that while open, the membership still included only active editors, and not people just hanging around to chat with other people. This is still the default membership requirement. We DEFINATELY would be glad to have you join, and invite you to do so, but please "pardon our mess" as we undergo some renovations. To visit the main Esperanza page, see us at Wikipedia:Esperanza.

As always, if you have any other questions, just ask! --Jayron32 22:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The short answer to your basic question is "no," one cannot be an Objectivist if one does not agree with all of Ayn Rand's philosophy (one can still be an Objectivist if one disagrees with her views on say, psychology. If you agree with many, but not all, of Ayn Rand's philosophic ideas, you might consider yourself Objectivism-influenced, but not an Objectivist. Incidentally, good fora for discussion of Objectivism can be found here [1] and here [2]. I'll respond to other parts of your question when I have more time; I am somewhat busy at the moment. Thanks! LaszloWalrus 21:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weak atheism

It's actually a pretty easy to understand yet oft misunderstood distinction. I'm not the best person to explain it (I think that would be User:Silence), but I'll give it a shot. Strong atheism is an affirmative belief that god does not exist, weak atheism is the lack of belief in god, and agnosticism is a judgment regarding the "knowability" of god's existence, weak agnosticism being the belief that god's current existence is unknown, and strong agnosticism being the belief that it is never possible for anyone to know. Andre (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On secular ethics

In my capacity as a Wikipedia editor: I don't really see what the point would be -- No original research. Wikipedia is a reference work, not a body of theological opinions. You're approaching it somewhat backward in assuming that if you write something, it can be cited; in point of fact, you need to find a source and then paraphrase it.

In my capacity as a secular humanist weak atheist: ethics are a mysterious sort of thing, and certainly there's a great deal of interesting discussion available on the secular ethics page itself and in the work of many philosophers. I'd rather not get into a debate at this point (try me in a few months), but it's pretty clear to me that you haven't heard all the arguments there are to hear on the topic and are probably speaking from relative ignorance. Wikipedia is a great resource, but it's no replacement for real study and primary sources. As for your actual question on ethics, I know myself that I would never rape, steal, or murder, but I don't need to rationalize why; I just know intuitively that these actions harm others and are wrong. By the same token, I know that helping out those in need is a good thing to do, but I don't have to prove it to myself; I just know. Also, I noticed that you asked another user about Objectivism, and although I appreciate many of the econo-political aspects of that philosophy, you should realize that Ayn Rand is pretty staunchly anti-charity, which conflicts with most major religious morality systems. I suggest you read the actual writings instead of relying on an intermediary. Andre (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have read your comments on my talk page, Colin, and while I want to validate your point, I must say that I agree a bit with what Andre says above. One of the basic principles of developing a Wikipedia article (again, one that all new users, myself included when I started, often miss) is to write from sources. What that means is one should FIRST find information in an independant, third-party reference and THEN develop or add to an article about it. While it is probably quite true that many of the points you make on the talk page were thought by someone before you (whether anyone ever has an original thought is, of course, a major philosophical question), making a statement first and then looking for sources second is putting the cart before the horse. I am not an ethicist, or even any kind of philosopher; most of what you mention on the talk page is really greek to me. But the principle I do understand is research. It seems you have some experience in the ideas of philosophy. Thus, you should have access to philosophical texts. Find the text first, and add the information to the article second. If you find references to add some points to the article in question, and need help with the technical aspects of citing sources here, please let me know and I will help you. Also, as always, if you have any other questions about Wikipedia, or need any help at all, I am always availible. Happy editing! --Jayron32 12:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Stilwell

Richard Stilwell wasn't a BLP issue; it was just two article topics with the same name which somebody didn't correctly disambiguate. I've fixed the matter you raised, but just so you know, the BLP noticeboard isn't really meant for issues like that — it's meant for issues like libel. Bearcat 20:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Copy violationg

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Harold Gilbert Miller, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.gg.ca/honours/search-recherche/honours-desc.asp?lang=e&TypeID=br&id=43212, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Harold Gilbert Miller and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Harold Gilbert Miller with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Harold Gilbert Miller.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:Harold Gilbert Miller/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:Harold Gilbert Miller saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! SGGH 21:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Colin, firstly, you haven't lost your work, it can easily be retrieved with a couple of clicks :). Let me first state that those copyvio forms are added when there is a query of copyright violation rather than a definite one. This is because some copyright violations can put wikipedia in dodgy legal situations, so we have to remove the content until the issue is checked out, I'm sure you understand that seeing as the large section of text in the article was copied from that site, I had to play it safe. If (as you say) the text is free to copy over, it will be shorted out quickly, as the article is reported to a copyright violation page where admins with copyright expertise quickly decide whether a violation has taken place or not. I'm sorry to worry you about the tag, but its just a precaution :) any questions just ask me :) SGGH 22:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: the terrorist handbook

Hi Colin, regarding this article that you are concerned about. With this kind of thing, where it isn't obvious as to whether it's a hoax or not, there are three things I can suggest as possibilites.

• Ask the author of the article User:Tony Sidaway if he can supply some references
• Tag the article by placing {{references}} in order to indicate that the article needs some sources
• Google the topic or search on amazon to see if it is real. If you look here you can see that it doesn't show up on amazon.

If you try these three things and still aren't satisfied with the authenticty of the article, you can place your concern on the talk page or place {{subst:prod|is this a hoax?}} on the article page to highlight it for deletion unless someone can come along and verify the content.

Obviously I've given a lot of options, not all are applicable to this particular article but I wanted you to have an idea of what to do in this situation in the future. Hope this helps! SGGH 07:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-life/pro-choice

Hi Colin, thanks for your question on my Talk page. Apologies for the delay in replying to it, I haven't logged on to Wikipedia lately. (I should have a notice up that I'm taking a wikibreak, and after replying to you, I will do so.)

I am pro-choice because I consider that women are human beings, with full human rights, which ought not be removed because a woman is pregnant. That is, at no point in a woman's pregnancy do I believe that she ought to have the right to make decisions about her own body removed from her.

I know some pro-lifers then argue that a pregnant woman does not have the right to make decisions about the life of the fetus. But this is effectively an argument that someone other than the pregnant woman ought to have a right to make decisions about her body: because it is not possible to make decisions about the welfare of a human fetus that do not involve making decisions about a woman's body.

The argument about exactly when a fetus "becomes human" is, I believe, a red herring. When making the case for being pro-choice on ethical or moral grounds, I stick to the point that the pregnant woman is human, not an incubator, and that removing her right to decide whether to terminate or continue her pregnancy is to treat her as an incubator, not a human being.

Pregnancy is an activity that requires immense effort and energy from most women. (Women who assert otherwise are in general in good health, not required to do manual labour during their pregnancy, and receiving adequate nourishment and nutrients for their pregnancy: they are not aware of the effort it entails because everything is made relatively easy for them.) The hormonal changes in pregnancy can cause some women extreme mental distress: the physical demands of pregnancy can cause some women temporary or permanent physical harm, or even kill. To argue that women ought to be forced through pregnancy regardless of mental or physical damage is an extreme violation of human rights.

The argument that fetuses ought to be protected seems stronger on the face of it, but if you remember that women are human beings, and not incubators or slaves, it's only sensible to accept that you cannot protect fetuses by harming pregnant women - and pragmatically, any nation that passes anti-choice legislation making it difficult or impossible for a woman to decide to have an abortion, will see an immense rise in the maternal morbidity rate, as well as (of course) an increase in women dying or being made sterile in illegal abortions.

A woman who does not want to be pregnant will seek out an abortion. (The abortion rate in the US did not change either up or down when abortion became legal in 1973.) The only choice the legislature can make is to ensure that a woman who wants an abortion can have one safely, legally, and as early as possible - or to ensure that women who want abortions will be compelled to have abortions more unsafely and more likely to be later in pregnancy, which raises the possibility (if the abortion occurs after the 15th week) that the fetus might be able to feel pain (prior to the 15th week of development, this is a physical impossibility).

In summary, I am pro-choice not because of any belief I have about when a fetus becomes human, but because I believe that a woman is human, pregnant or not. I am pro-choice because I believe all human beings have the right to decide for themselves about what they will do with their own bodies: I do not support forced blood transfusion, forced organ transfer, or forced pregnancy. People own their own bodies. They do not own anyone else's. Only a woman can decide what she will do when she becomes pregnant.

I hope this helps you understand the pro-choice position. Other people identifying as pro-choice might answer differently, of course: I don't pretend to be an ultimate authority. Yonmei 19:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)