User talk:FriendlyRiverOtter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, FriendlyRiverOtter, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  TimVickers 22:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Talk:Evolution

Did you mean to post that new section at the top of the talk page, rather than at the bottom - in date order? People look for new stuff at the end of the page, not at the top. Shenme 05:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


Thanks Shenme. I'm still learning. I may not have done it right. I'm used to yahoo groups where the most recent post is on the top of the list.

I think, at this point, I'll let it finish about a week where it is and then switch it to the bottom of the list. Yeah, I did put some time into the piece and I kind of want to get some attention and discussion out of it. FriendlyRiverOtter 20:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk pages

Hello! I notice that you seem rather new to Wikipedia, and thus might not be aware of the purpose behind talk pages. Talk pages are meant for the discussion of improvements to an article, as explained in the talk page guidelines. They aren't meant or designed for discussion of the topic itself; doing so just promotes the inclusion of original research in the article, and makes it more difficult for editors to use the talk page for its intended purpose. For Talk:Schrödinger's cat, the talk page had become extremely unwieldy due to off-topic discussion. There are far better places to discuss physics if that is what you want to do. --Philosophus T 04:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Seconding this for Flying Spaghetti Monster. This is not merely a suggestion for use; it's a rule. Please follow it in future. Chris Cunningham 07:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Why cannot we discuss the topic of the article with a view toward possibly making a good article even better? FriendlyRiverOtter 22:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
This is the problem: "with a view towards"? Either talk content is pertinent to making an article better or it isn't. Wikipedia articles must use reliable sources for information contained within, so any conclusions or insights gained from talk discussion would be invalid anyway. As Philosophus pointed out above, talk content which is not centered around the editing process itself interferes with the provided purpose of the page and additionally leads to increased bandwidth and processing costs for the project's hosts. Chris Cunningham 10:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk pages (different subject)

Hi, I saw a comment of yours on the Schrödinger’s cat Talk page. Then I read your user page, then I read some more comments. You’re cool, I like you. But you seem to want Wikipedia to be something it’s WP:NOT—you want it to be better. While I agree that Wikipedia could and should be better than it is, frankly I don’t think it’s likely to happen. So if you ever find something that does what this site does better than this site does it, could you do me a big favor and let me know? Thanks. —Frungi 23:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Frungi, thank you very much for your kind words! It’s nice to know that my efforts are sometimes appreciated. And about the content, all the individual decisions that are made and have to be made, we certainly do not need to always agree on that. For example, I would love to see Schrodinger’s Cat become much longer and used as a starting point for quantum physics in much broader terms, including current theory right now in 2007, much like a case study in medical school or school law can be skillfully used to move from the specific to the general. Now, some other people might think that such a broad article would be going too far afield. And you yourself might think that, and that would be okay. Just help me where and when you’re able. And I will try and return the favor. Just let me if you have articles you’re working on and would like some help with, and I’ll help where and when I’m able.
And yes, I would like wikipedia to become better, I would like to help, and I do realize it’s a debate. And I will endeavor to stay good-natured. FriendlyRiverOtter 02:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Utilitarianism?

From your posts on the discussion page about Utilitarianism am I to believe that you a believer in this doctrine?

I only ask because I am interested in meeting others who share this view :)

I hope I do not offend by asking.

James - curuxz--Curuxz 23:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've told you about adding your own opinion pieces to articles before, FRO. Your addition here is nothing but your personal opinion on a matter, one you are expressing by inserting it into an important ethics article on the world's most visible encyclopedia. Stop doing it. Richard001 (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Richard, I am aware that I push the envelope. However, I strive to do so in a respectful way.
On population size, by saying that the ‘answer’ is somewhere in the middle, I feel I am merely pointing out the obvious, am setting the stage so to speak, so that someone else might make progress.
On the ‘dilemma-fication’ of ethics, I don’t feel I did that part as well, but it’s the same goal: setting the stage so that someone else might make progress.
Since Parfit published Reasons and Persons in 1984, has there been any progress regarding average vs. total welfare?
And I ask you to please reread your post to me. In part, in part, you spoke to me as if I were a child or social inferior.
And I would suggest a pause. When I post something that in your judgment detracts from the article, please pause and see if anyone else deletes it. If you find that you’re the only person deleting my postings (which is merely one possible future situation) that would not be a positive situation. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
You're not pushing the enveolope, you're breaking the rules. You've been told that Wikipedia is not for original research before, but you childishly refuse to accept that. If you feel something is genuinely obvious from basic reasoning I can understand why you might feel you are justified in adding it. I've made similar additions to the article which I don't feel are disputable, but others still might dispute them in future.
That an 'optimum' population size is somewhere 'in between' that required by average and total utilitarianism is certainly not obvious to me. It seems more like an appeal to moderation than a false dilemma to me. I can see why you might think it best to maximize average or total welfare, but maximizing 'something in between' seems to me only an option one would take if one couldn't determine which was desirable. I don't think there is any answer to the problem that we can arrive at by reasoning or evidence, if there is indeed any answer at all.
From what you are typing it is clear that you want Wikipedia to be a place where new theories are synthesized on talk pages and presented on article pages. It is neither of those things. If philosophy has made no progress on an issue it is not for us to start developing new ideas here.
I have no doubt that others will be similarly concerned about the nature of your edits, as people have mentioned here before. In truth, I think someone needs to carefully go through all that you have contributed (especially to philosophy articles) and probably do a lot of deleting. Richard001 (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)