User talk:Dbergan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Archives by user


[edit] Thanks for the List

"Also, you might be interested in the ID wikiproject, a list of ID related sites I put together. If we ever get an ID community going, we would discuss things amongst ourselves there."

One book I am currently reading that you may want to consider including in the list is "Doubts about Darwin, a History of Intelligent Design" Woodward.

I would be interested in pursuing conversation with like minded fellows like yourself; thinking over ID issues, strenghts and weaknessess. but probably it would have to be some kind of forum by invitation only thing,

Finally I have been active in defending a stub on [Richard Sternberg] that needs to be monitored. I believe that his case may become central to the public debate on Darwinism as it exposes the kind of Bias at work against in dogmatic defense of darwinism.

I read through your creed, and would like to comment but probably I will use private email for that if you do not mind.

thanks again, fellow Idian, erasmocbc 07:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Ok - little things.

Messaging - usually you make your response on the other person's talk page. It would be customary for you to now go over to User_talk:Dbergan and make your reply there.

Reply: That means that our conversation will be open to the public, right?

Again, thank you for your advice. I will follow it as I can. I agree with you, and believe in principle in the wiki approach. So my main goal is for a fair presentation of both sides of the controversy. That is what I will strive for. Anyhow I do not have much time, so I will contribute very slowly and cautiously.

Thanks for your kind help. erasmocbc 17:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Similar Interests

Hey Dbergan. Congratulations on the upcoming wedding! I just got married myself on 6/18/05. Married life is quite nice, but does post its many challenges ;).

As for our similar interests, I would agree. I looked at your profile, and I'd say you sound like my Caucasian-clone ;) (or, I'm your Korean-clone...however you wanna see it..hehe).

Man, this wikipedia is exactly the same as any other bb I've posted on. It so easy for people to be so mean. And the thing about Dembski...Gosh, I don't think what I'm saying is that unreasonable. Oh well, we can only try.

You know, I'm new on this thing. Not exactly how to get messages through and stuff. Give me some time to get adjusted. Blessings.

Noweek 19:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Haha. I am Korean, but I live in Jersey. Been living here since I was 4. And I did play War Craft II in college, but Halo has occupied my life ever since about 3 years ago ;). And excellent responses! See you online. Noweek 03:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent Design as a Protoscience

I recently noticed that you started a project for Intelligent Design. I am interested in the idea that while some seek to call Intelligent Design a science and others would call it pseudoscience, it might be constructive to focus on those parts of Intelligent Design that can be viewed as being protoscience. If there is ever any Intelligent Design material that is rejected from wikipedia, please think about adding it to the Intelligent Design section of the Protoscience wikicity. --JWSchmidt 13:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical Inerrancy - your question on Talk:C.S. Lewis

From my perspective, there is absolutely no reason to believe in Biblical Inerrancy. As an Anglican, I consider the Bible to be inspired by God but passed on to us by fallible human beings. While the Bible gives us spiritual guidance and a history, of man's changing relationship with God over the centuries, it need not be considered to be a scientific trextbook or an absolutely accurate history of past events. Now because of this belief, I may burn in Hell, but that is the price of being created with what seems to me to be intelligence and a belief in a loving and merciful God, not the rather horrific God that others seem to believe in. Dabbler 15:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

While there have been statements that the Bible is without error and authoritative from some of the early Church fathers, e.g. Augustine, it was with the Reformation that the question of scriptural authority and inerrancy became more important for those Protestants who rejected the Roman Catholic view that doctrine was established under the authority of the Pope and the church hierarchy in council and claimed that the Bible was the sole source. However, I think that a more formal definition of inerrancy was formulated in the 19th century by some American threologians, Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge, A A Hodge, and B B Warfield from Princeton. By the way I read your Summa Bergania (after my first comment above) and I thought it very well thought out and I go along with much of it. Your fiancée seems a lovely lady and I wish the both of you every happiness in your life together. I have just celebrated my 20th anniversary last week. Dabbler 03:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent Design and your lack of a definition of "intelligence"

Continued from talk now archived:

Has free will been absolutely determined beyond a reasonable doubt? If there is no free will, then the most ridiculous thing in the world is to thank someone for passing the mustard. Choice is perhaps an axiom, but if you choose not to agree with it, then I choose not to continue the discussion. Unwrap that paradox. David Bergan 02:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
This is the traditional part of the conversation where ID proponents lose the respect of scientists, though it is often not seen from the angle of defining intelligence. To wit, the social convention proof offered by Mr. Bergan's mustard example dictates only a functional "free will" and is neither a proof nor an observation of free will's existence. This is, rather, an assumption that this particular social convention is a manifestation of something that actually exists in the world. (Noam Chomsky phrases the mystery as a question: "Why does the cockroach turn left?") To base a fundamental assumption about the natural universe on this external assumption is not scientific. Mr. Bergan has assumed that there is real choice and free will, but this is simply a rewording of the traditional ID proponent's assumption (and manifestly not an observed scientific fact) that the world is not deterministic. As seen before, Mr. Bergan's assumption of intelligence and indeed intelligent design itself is based on extra-scientific assumptions: here namely that there are agents which make "decisions" or "choices" which are entirely external to the laws of physics. (Apparently one's "choice" to pass the mustard is not something that is comprehensibly determinable nor is it based on mathematical probabilities of physical reality). As science is not based on such an assumption in its fundamental philosophy, this obviously makes the claims that the "designs" are "intelligent" entirely unscientific. Joshuaschroeder 23:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ad arguendo

Hi Dbergan, ad arguendo cannot be right. ad takes the accusative case, so "ad arguendum" would be at least grammatically correct, but it doesn't sound idiomatic. Could you check your source again? Best regards T.a.k. 22:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Warning against personal attacks

I've removed your personal attack from Talk:Intelligent design. You were wrong and disruptive in restoring the personal attack of Antandcharmi I removed, and I've again removed it, and any further personal attacks will be removed. Please read and abide by WP:NPA. FeloniousMonk 17:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your edit summary - actually, the subject of the attack is the person to remove them. It's really the call of the victim of the attack. Guettarda 18:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:FeloniousMonk:

  1. I still maintain that comments on editing patterns do not constitute a personal attack. If so, you comment on other people's editing patterns all the time when you call them POV warriors and/or disruptive. In which case I would indict you on hypocrisy.
  2. But if they are somehow construed as personal attacks... According to WP:NPA#Consequences, it is not recommended that personal attacks are removed, that the practice is controversial, and doing so is not in line with de jure wikipedia policy.
  3. According to Wikipedia:Remove_personal_attacks#Who_should_refactor?, it is strongly suggested that the victim of the attack should not remove the attacks.
  4. According to Wikipedia:Remove_personal_attacks#When_to_refactor?, it is strongly suggested that the comments should not be removed now while they are fresh.
  5. According to Wikipedia:Remove_personal_attacks#Refactoring_instead_of_banning, it is strongly suggested you go back and refactor/remove all instances where you commented on other people's editing patterns.
  6. According to Wikipedia:Remove_personal_attacks#How_to_refactor?, it is strongly suggested that the "attacks" aren't removed but refactored using [square brackets] to relate the same intent.
  7. According to Wikipedia:Remove_personal_attacks#Don't_destroy_context the context should be factually the same.

David Bergan 20:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of the policies on all points. FeloniousMonk 20:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
What grounds do you cite to justify your interpretation, since the ones I cited are word-for-word from the relevant wikipedia official and suggested policy pages. David Bergan 20:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
policies? oh gracious, my friend. policies need not apply here. FM and JS do what they feel, and their cronies defend them to the death. Ungtss 20:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
WP:NPA: "Many Wikipedians remove personal attacks on third parties on sight, and although this isn't policy it's often seen as an appropriate reaction to extreme personal abuse."
""third parties" - Official policy states the victim does not remove them himself. David Bergan 21:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Remove_personal_attacks#Who_should_refactor.3F: "Others respond that biased refactoring can always be reverted, just like biased edits on an article page. They feel that limiting the refactoring to uninvolved parties will make it so rare that in the few instances when it occurs, whoever does it will be attacked for meddling. They believe that if everyone can refactor personal attacks, those doing it will be justified by a widely accepted policy, and that bias can be kept at a minimum by using clear definitions and restrictions on what can be refactored." FeloniousMonk 20:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
And the part preceding your quote reads: Should a person directly involved in a personal attack, e.g. a victim or someone who has expressed strong support for his position on the same page, be allowed to refactor a personal attack? Some users are strongly opposed to that. They feel that allowing this to happen would make it very easy for personal bias to influence the refactoring process. Guideline: The victim refactoring --> biasing. David Bergan 21:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
WP:NPA is policy, Wikipedia:Remove_personal_attacks is a guideline. Removing personal attacks is within the bounds of policy. My removing personal attacks directed at me is within the bounds of both the guidelines and convention. FeloniousMonk 20:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
The balance of the policies and guidelines suggest your interpretation is inaccurate. And you left unaddressed the policy that states that such comments should not be refactored while they are still fresh (unless by the author himself). David Bergan 21:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
and the difference between a personal attack and an observation regarding poor behavior is what? perhaps nobody should ever tell the truth about what you do to articles? Ungtss 20:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
If it had simply been a factual observation it would still have been the wrong place for it, but not a huge deal. But it was not a factual observation, it was an attack, and as such did not belong there. As for the difference between policy and guidelines - removing personal attacks is the milder remedy - I prefer it to the alternative, which is blocking Ant. Guettarda 22:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anthropology Proves Otherwise

"Humans recognize an implicit standard of right and wrong."

Uh, no. There is no emprical evidence to support this claim. In fact, right and wrong are generally societal values (see ethics).

Jim62sch 03:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Summa Bergania

If you're going to treat Bergan as a Latin name it needs to be third declension and the title of your mini-opus should be "Summae Berganis", or "chief points of Bergan", although that doesn't mean too much. "Summa Opinionium Berganis" would be better.

Jim62sch 03:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Summa Bergania means "The highest Bergan-like things," where "Summa" is a substantive adjective in the nominative neuter plural and "Berganius, -a, -um," is a simple adjective meaning "Bergan-like." If this is the case, I see no error in Summa Bergania.
John Bergan 21:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Raw Toonage

Hope you'll find the edits to Raw Toonage to your liking. There's a new section indicating the release status of the whole series (none known), and 'Badly Animated Man' has been compressed into one paragraph, making it easy to add more Totally Tasteless Videos in the future, for those who remember them. Skybunny 16:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Karmafist/Wikipedians' Political Perspectives

Thanks for your idea there and for updating the metadata as well. Please let me know if there's anything I can help you with. karmafist 05:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jia-Wei-Gui-Pi-Tang

David, just wondering if you could order this herb direct from the link your provide on the PET page... or did you have to go through a practitioner?--Jamott 15:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Patulous Eustachian tube

Commendations on the work you've put into Patulous Eustachian tube. However, it does need to be modified (see my comments on the talk page. I've added a flag ("This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims. Please help Wikipedia by adding references") but wanted to mention it to you as you may be in the best position to find and add the references. Cheers, Singkong2005 14:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: What in particular would you like me to get a source for? The 5 external links pretty much cover everything I said.
In that case it mainly needs to be rewritten in a more appropriate style - are you able to do some of this? I'm pretty stretched. Anyway, if not, someone will find it because of the flag - but their editing may be less informed than yours.
When one of the points comes from a particular website, it can be good to put a reference in, like this[1]. Any such link should still be included under "External links." Cheers, Singkong2005 14:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination for Deletion of Socratic Club (University of Michigan)

Please note that I have nominated for deletion the article you created for Socratic Club (University of Michigan). After a search for the group on Yahoo!, less than 30 pages could be located to assert notability of this club, and most of those links were related to Wikipedia or advertisements. As such, per WP:N, they are a non-notable organization. You are welcome to dispute this vote at the current debate here [2]. Thank you. --Ataricodfish 05:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

To update, I also just found and nominated Socratic Club (Oregon State University) for the same reason, and noted that you authored that article. The debate for that nomination is here [3]. Thanks. --Ataricodfish 05:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't notice the spitting contest. I only read the article and noticed you were the first name as author of the other college pages, and wanted to bring them to your attention out of fairness so that you could have your opinion known. I agree that Oxford's page should be moved to the main page, getting rid of the disambig., and pending the results of the AfD's (which appear to be delete for both, so far), I'll move the page over. Thanks for your note! --Ataricodfish 22:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories in userspace

Hi! I noticed that in your scratchpad / draft / alternative article User:Dbergan/Stuff you have the categories still activated, so it's showing up in Category:Philosophy of science. Could I suggest that you deactivate it (by putting a colon before 'Category' in the link) until such time as the article is in the mainspace rather than the userspace? (As per WP:CG, "If you copy an article to your user namespace (for example, as a temporary draft or in response to an edit war) you should decategorize it".) Cheers, Ziggurat 21:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{bibleverse}}

I started a new discussion - I have been persuaded by some of the comments that an external source may be needed - however, I think that we should edit the template to make it more stable and direct to wikipedia where appropriate i.e. something like John 1:5 or better John 1:5(link) or something. I have started a discussion page at Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible - please edit the proposal to address your concerns. Thx - Trödel 22:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post hoc ergo propter hoc

I am posting here in an attempt to avoid an edit war. The example I put in this article relating to canabis and herion was the only example of this arguement that one might find in real life.

If you are very opposed to this specific example then you or I should find an example of this logical fallacy that is actually used by people. The examples that are there do explain the concept, but they are far reaching arguements that are not likely to be made by anybody.

Please think about this, I will too. I have made a post regarding this on the talk page of this article. HighInBC 23:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] De Chateau

The problem with the article is not the quality of it, but the notability of the subject. Ultimately this is a game map, and these generally are not considered notable enough to warrant their own Wikipedia article. I am sorry that you've put a lot of effort into the article. You are of course welcome to leave your own comments in the AfD discussion which is far from a foregone conclusion. Good luck, Gwernol 15:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason I noticed De Chateau is I was watching new page creations and came across this one. In a sense just dumb luck that I saw it. Wikipedia is so large now that its hard to systematically go through large swaths of articles, so you tend to see these isolated challenges to articles that are part of a larger series. Gwernol 16:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the heads up

Hi David, thanks for giving me the heads-up about the AfD nomination. If this continues, though, it might be in those who support the article's best interests to combine them into a smaller number of articles but without losing any content, and by adding redirects. For example have a "Counterstrike hostage rescue maps" article and then redirecting all the individual map names to that article. I don't neccesarily think that's the best way to organize the information but at least it'll cut down on the constant defense neccesary to keep the information on wikipedia. (I'm so glad that there are people out there willing to fight so hard to free up 3k on a server they don't even own... oh well) Tmorrisey 23:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What are-

Michael 22:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC) here.

What are NOR and OR policies? Michael 22:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Okay, Thanks for -

Okay, Thanks for the shoutback, David... That fills in the picture, I didn't know that before, seriously. Thanks again... Michael 23:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on AfD

Hi, please avoid making personal attacks on users ("dumb as a bag of hammers"), even if you feel provoked. Staying calm and remaining civil are important at Wikipedia. Thanks, Gwernol 14:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cs backalley

I have reverted this edit as the AfD was closed yesterday. Thanks and have a great day! Computerjoe's talk 18:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bulverism

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Bulverism, 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.barking-moonbat.com/God_in_the_Dock.html. As a copyright violation, Bulverism appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Bulverism has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

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 GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Bulverism. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Bulverism, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. --Slowking Man 12:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What are you doing?

[4], [5] Why are you doing sweeping reverts to really old versions of articles while using misleading edit summaries? I'm assuming you were looking at old versions of the articles and edited them by mistake, but please stop and be more careful with your edits. Thanks. - Bobet 12:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Seung Seop

The link to the article about the infant's death does not pertain to this man. I'd recommend linking to game addiction and put the link there. --- RockMFR 15:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why did you remove all the examples except for one in the "Genetic Fallacy" article?

They all seemed like pretty good examples to me, and no reasons were given for their removal. Maybe I'm missing something?

[edit] {{Red Herring Fallacy}}

I fail to see any reason whatsoever to keep these template separate:

  • They clearly link the exact same set of articles, and if they don't (I haven't double-checked yet), they obviously should.
  • It was created later than the other template.
  • The other template uses a format standardized by the philosophy wikiproject.

Circeus 06:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There might have some hunting to do. I think a few pages had both templates. Circeus 17:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I recently spotted that the Red Herring Fallacy template has been redirected to the Relevance fallacies template. I originally created the RHF because 1) it only contains fallacies (some of those on the new template are not fallacies) 2) it is better organised and 3) it has a consistent design. Can we have it back? I'm happy for changes to be made to it if you think they are necessary. Thanks Andeggs 15:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of historical figures in Civilization IV

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of historical figures in Civilization IV, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of List of historical figures in Civilization IV. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I will reply on the talk page of the article. David Bergan (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Please use edit summaries to explain to other editors the nature of and reason behind a change. Your recent edit to Pascal's Wager ([6]) removed paragraphs of content for no immediately obvious reason - this is a case where an edit summary would be helpful. Ilkali (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of historical figures in Civilization IV

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of historical figures in Civilization IV, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of historical figures in Civilization IV. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 11:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pascal's Wager

As by "Kennis Ontrafeld", by prof. dr. Erik Weber, prudentialists are people who advocate belief in a proposition based on the practical advantages this belief offers. You can find the word applied specifically to Pascal's Wager in

   "* Betting Against Pascal's Wager
   * Gregory Mougin and Elliott Sober
   * Noûs, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Sep., 1994), pp. 382-395   (article consists of 14 pages)
   * Published by: Blackwell Publishing"

You can find this article on JSTOR. Pascal's argument is repeatedly called prudentialist. Pascal and James are the most famous people who have used such reasonings - in particular to the existance of God. You cannot disallow the label prudentialism on the most famous prudentialist argument in history. DDSaeger (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the above, sure, we can allow the link... provided this information is added to the Prudentialism article. Kind regards, David Bergan (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to add the additional information to the prudentialism article, though I'm still looking for a definition of the word itself in an English source (rather than the mere application to Pascal's Wager). If I can't find it, I'll just write the article about prudentialism in the hope that other people source it later. (Finding explicit sources to such definitions can be a rather hard thing to do, I've found - I generally only find them in my course textbooks.) DDSaeger (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)