User talk:Kenosis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] ID

Yeah, I know...but I figure very little or no will calm the masses for the time-being.  :) Jim62sch 18:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[Regarding my change re:"overwhelming majority"] "The language of the article was arrived at by consensus after lengthy and detailed debate and discussion. It is in keeping with..." That may be, but, with all due respect, reverting my revision is absolutely indefensible. My reasons for the revision are inarguably true, and the resulting language is inarguably more accurate, so why revert it? Smitty1276 04:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The wording has been hashed out at length. How is it "indefensible" to revert an edit which has been discussed and rejected over and over? Guettarda 05:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Reverting your revision is entirely defensible -- your revision is inaccurate. •Jim62sch• 21:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teleo arg

Sorry, I didn't realise it was you. -- infinity0 14:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem of evil

I've written down some notes in Talk:Problem of evil. You should be able to find it, it's somewhere near the bottom. -- infinity0 16:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) You seem to know a lot about the history of such things, could you expand the relevant section please? -- infinity0 00:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience revert

Once again, I ask why you've reverted my change to the intro of pseudoscience. Is there any particular reason?

Thanks. (left unsigned by Phywum)

Insofar as this question is not signed, I needed to look it up. I reverted it because it was too factually debatable as a summary in the introduction, because it was visibly apologetic, and most importantly because it was a bit too lengthy for the introduction, at least in light of the brevity of the first sentence.. The intro is not the place for detailed analyses of the methods by which an adherent counterattacks, at least in my judgment. Although there are a few ways of saying it, I do not believe the one presented was consistent with the talk discussion or the intent of the brief introductory paragraph. I also did not see your original explanation of why you included the additional language and chose the changes to the earlier language. I agree it could have been said better than it was.Kenosis 20:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origins

Thanks for your comment and for clarifying the sentence in origins of the concept of ID. I'd normally put ideas up for discussion, but the talk page has been a bit cluttered lately. I think these changes go some way to covering those who'd like their position to be called intelligent design, but have had the meaning twisted by our well publicised friends...dave souza, talk 15:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific Method

I just wanted to say that I love what your doing to that article. Keep up the good work. JoshuaZ 04:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

The Mediation Cabal

You are a disputant in a case listed under Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. We invite you to be a mediator in a different case. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
~~~~

--Fasten 12:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Process of Notice of Dispute(s)

Thanks very much for the heads-up on my page. Isn't formal notice the normal expectation for parties to a dispute? I had no idea; who on earth decides these things around here? Kenosis 16:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Formal notice for informal mediation? No. Somebody filed a mediation case and mentioned your name. If you weren't aware of it the mediation probably hasn't yet begun. --Fasten 17:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again Fasten...Kenosis 17:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If it quacks like an empiric ...

JA: Yes, but not till after The Deils's awa wi th' Exciseman. Jon Awbrey 22:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: Who writes this stuff? We, the pebbles. Jon Awbrey 22:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intersubjective Verifiability (IV)

Kenosis, I see from your edits that you share my concern about empiricism, objectivity, science, etc. However, I did not understand your edit of IV. I don't doubt that it needs clean up; as the creator of the page I knew it was just a beginning and needed to be developed and edited by others. If I could see what was needed, I would have written it differently and/or edited it already. So, your view of what needs to be changed is something I need to understnd. But could you be more specific, as the generic clean up tag gives me no clue as to what you think specificially needs work.


Also, I don't think "intersubjective" in IV = "objective." Objectivity (which as you aptly realize is THE goal of IV) is only obtained by subjectivities engaging in the intersubjective process of comparing their descriptions and observations, i.e., by IV (meaning the whole term, not just the I part). I think you are getting at something but I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to clarify. Kriegman 12:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


Hello: you make an excellent and very important point more readily grasped by those with a firm handle on the core philosophy issue than among those just familiarizing themselves for the first time. It is indeed only roughly akin to "objective verifiability" in that the expectation is for a set of terms that can be readily shared without constant confusion and wrangling over the meaning of terms for which a standard is required to be meaningful. Since I linked to the IV article from the Pseudoscience article, my concern was creating further confusion upon possible half-understanding or partial understanding (the old "know enough to get into trouble but not enough to get out of it" problem)-- hence the cleanup tag. I agree the tag's debatable and will remove it. Thanks for being in touch...Kenosis 14:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


I will take a shot at integrating the material in the IV article for more accessibility in the opening sentence or two of the article as soon as I get a chance; at that point it may be helpful to review it and determine if it is properly explanatory for all the needed slants, including those who only quickly pass through without dwelling in the Sartrean barbershop mirrors or the Cartesian-type solipsism--honestly, as you must know from your practice, folks do get lost in this stuff upon cursory analysis...Kenosis 14:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falsifiability

Thanks. I'm glad to know someone else is reading the article! Banno 09:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perception as abduction

JA: Still travelling, and a little bit scattered, but it was starting to seem like the 2-way street remark was out of place in the empiricism article, and I know how misleading it can be without all the proper hedges in place, so I'm thinking maybe to put it in with scientific method or some other offchute article. Jon Awbrey 04:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falsifiability and mathematics

Hi Kenosis,

Saw your note to CSTAR. I think there's a big omission here. Mathematical systems taken as a whole (from the point of view of "confirmational holism", or maybe more to the point "disconfirmational holism"), are indeed falsifiable. For example, they might prove inconsistent; I don't say that's the only way they can be falsified but it's certainly the clearest.

Maybe the canonical example is large cardinal axioms. The consistency of stronger axioms cannot be proved from weaker axioms. In my view they fit the Popper criterion for scientific hypotheses. Unfortunately I don't really know whom to cite for this. --Trovatore 05:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Your point is indeed Imre Lakatos' position on the matter, and is obvious only to mathematicians and their friends, which was why I asked CSTAR first. I happen to think the point can be said far more straightforwardly than it currently is in that article. Very much appreciate your reply...Kenosis 13:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't be skeptic...

There was no argument at all! I had only slotted in a link to the spelling differences page (where everything is duly explained)---all articles with titles that can be spelled in different ways have one. I believe that Jon Awbrey had just some kind of technical problems, see the talk page. Best, JackLumber 22:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info... ;-) ...Kenosis 22:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Empiricism page and tabula rasa

Hi there,

Could you please comment on the empiricism talk page about the reversion you made? Thanks. Lucidish 20:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

A homeopathic solution is often diluted 1:10 something like 26 times. That gives a total dilution of about 1:10^26, which is a lot. Hope that clears up the confusion. Jefffire 17:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge discussion

Kenosis, my apologies to you for not detailing my reasons for asking about a merge in the coherentism articles. I was distracted by work mid-edit, and have only now returned to the problem. Banno 16:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware of this[1] discussion? Banno 21:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tarski

JA: It's been a while since I looked at that article, and there's this STM buffer overflow problem ... I can't recall putting that in there, but can't swear that I didn't, either. If I did, I would have had chapter and verse in mind at the time. Actually, it depends which Tarski you mean, Tarski (mathematician) or Tarski (philosopher). Tmath is, like any other day-job mathematico, an in-∨-out-of-the-closet Platonist — those who aren't simply don't maintain their sanity or uberty for very long. Tphil is, like a host of mid-1900s latenight talk-show guest philosophicos, a card-carrying nominalist. It was the McCarthy era you see, and many the closet Platonist lived in abject fear of being found out. Plus, he smoked like a fiend, which does not say much for his general good sense. Will look it up later, and see what I can find. Jon Awbrey 17:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience

Kenosis, your edits on the psuedosciene page are unacceptable. Your edit summary Revert factually incorrect POV pushing. To say the boundaries of science are disputed is incorrect without the statement about the "precise" boundaries, is also incorrect in logical terms. Removal of the qualifer "precise" does not achieve what you claim. You then edited the page MORE THAN TWENTY TIMES!!! I gave up counting. This is going way beyond what is acceptable, in my view. If other editors feel the same they can say so. Please take this in good faith, I am only trying to explain to you that your behaviour makes it much harder to work together to create an excellent article which I assume we both desire. You may also like to check my Editing principles for pseudoscience articles. I'm always keen to talk and try to reach consensus. Mccready 12:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And we're not finished editing either. All but three of these edits were in direct response to Jim Butler's demands for citation. Judging by the comments since I added these latest citations, Jim Butler has a different opinion about the issue. I will now proceed to move the rest of this discussion over to the relevant Talk page. Appreciate your feedback..Kenosis 15:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Up your alley

Would you mind vetting this edit and fixing or rv'ing if it's inaccurate [2] Thanks. FeloniousMonk 05:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PA system

Hi, I added those 2 links to the PA article page, which you called spam and removed. The PA systems primer, from Yorkville, explains how to plug in and set up a basic PA system. You stated that the article is supposed to provide the info, but in this case, these guides are very "how-to" and practical, more detailed info than you'd want in an encyclopedia. So I think that the link to the PDF document is helpful. I'm going to check what the wikipedia policy is, as far as what qualifies as spam, and what is legit.--ThanksNatMor 18:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Hi again, I had a similar discussion on the bass amplification page, and so I posted this note to Lightcurrent (an editor); he responded by sending a policy quote:

Leave out the adverts [left unsigned 19:10, 12 July 2006 by 198.103.196.130 ]

The article is about bass amplification, and the specific subsection is about amplifying the upright bass. Including the names of manufacturers seems reasonable. I believe an article about sports cars, specifically Italian sports cars would list the names Lambourghini, Ferrari, etc. There is even more justification in the bass amplification/upright bass preamp example, because whereas Lambourghini and Ferrari are well-known names, even to those outside the field of sports cars, the names of manufacturers of impedance-matching preamplifiers are probably unknown to most non-upright bassists.NatMor 02:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Links to the manufacturers are at the bottom of the page. I believe this is the acceptable place to put them, not in the body of the article.8-|--Light current 02:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy quote: Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for a proposal on corporate notability. ....The policy quote indicates that external links to commercial organizations are acceptable -- and yet in my case, I wasn't even trying to link to the PA company's website, only to a PDF primer on PA systems.NatMor 19:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Re: you called the PA systems primer a "commercial spam "info" links". Did you look at the document? It explains how to set up a PA system, get the levels right, plug in your cables, etc. This would be helpful information for readers trying to set up a basic system. .. As well, if you look at the Wikipedia policy, an editor could evcn put a link right to major PA system companies. However, I chose not to do that...instead, I just picked a .pdf document from the site...NatMor 14:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi NatMor: I already responded some time ago on the relevant talk page. The Yorkville primer is reasonable because it is primarily informational and applies not only to this manufacturer's products (with ample display of the Yorkville name of course). The Sweetwater link at Introduction to PA Speakers, courtesy of Sweetwater is a commercial vender's info-mercial pure and simple, and should under no circumstances be included in such an article. In any event, I've moved this discussion over to the article's talk page, and appreciate your feedback (;-)) on it. ... Kenosis 16:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Socks

Ken, Admins do not as a rule have Checkuser privileges, for obvious privacy reasons. Nor do I think that there is sufficient difficulty caused by these apparent meatpuppets to justify the check at this stage - see meta:CheckUser Policy. Best to assume good faith and see what happens. Banno 12:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Truth

No problem. The Truth page has gotten way too technical for me to understand anyway. Rick Norwood 07:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I don't feel you are treating my edits in an appropriate manner. In intelligent design your simply reverted instead of improving the changes according to their purpose. (I am sorry that English is not my native language and I make many mistakes. I'm improving, but it's a slow process! I hope you can understand that.) In Naturalism (philosophy) You did not disclose alleged "significant factual inaccuracies" and simpyl reverted, too. What causes this hostile attitude towards me? I would appreciate if you could work in a more cooperative manner. --Rtc 04:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, but you've appeared on my watchlist in rapid succession on four articles directly related to the "defining intelligent design as science" section in intelligent design. You weren't satisfied with the long consensused language in that article which was thoroughly, intensively, and expertly researched by numerous editors both pro and con. So you've apparently started attempting to change the definition of methodological naturalism, epistemology, and inductive reasoning to fit your preferred version. I reverted your second version in intelligent design because you had a reasonable alternative definition the first time. So I reverted you back to your first version, and put the disputed version on the talk page. Same with Naturalism (philosophy), where you put a counterargument which was a very questionable interpretation of Karl Popper's stance right in the introductory paragraph, rather than in the already existing section on "criticisms", and I put that stuff on the talk page for discussion too. This is not hostility, though the accusation of hostility is offensive, particularly in light of the fact that you apparently are expecting me to be your teacher in ESL, scientific method, philosophy of science, epistemology, and a reasonably correct interpretation of Karl Popper without getting compensated for it. Now, if you wouldn't mind, please take this to the relevant talk pages. Good day, and thanks for the feedback... Kenosis 05:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objectivity in the midst of heated discussions

Thank you for your recognition of my efforts here. I am indeed trying to bring some of these heated discussions back to the cool, sometimes even bracing, verifiable (or at least citeable) facts, which I do believe can unite the partisan views. Hgilbert 00:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Science

OK, I tried to reduce the redundancy (and go from the largest category to the smallest, big picture to details, perhaps a mistake here). Let's try to build up a picture of the introduction, however; how do you see it?Hgilbert 02:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support

Perhaps you should consider Wikipedia:Third opinion; but if the problem is with more than one editor, then Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts might be a better option; if nothing else helps, the next step woudl be Wikipedia:Requests for comment on either the article or the other authors. If you feel obliged to go to an RFC, you will need to give a good account of the problems, and attempts you have made to solve them. Best wishes. Banno 07:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience category

Hi Kenosis! Your work on the Pseudoscience page is excellent, and you might want to take a look at Category_talk:Pseudoscience. I'm trying to develop consensus on the criteria for populating the category. In theory, the category page provides a definition and WP:CG suggests avoiding adding topics to a cat unless the categorization is "self-evident and uncontroversial". In practice, topics seem to get categorized as PS because a reliable source has applied the label, even though the source's definition of PS may be broader than WP's, and even if other equally reliable sources (mainstream scientists) disagree. Your input would be highly valued if you've got the time. Best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 19:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice job

Hey, I've been away for two months, but I see you've finally overhauled the Problem of Evil article. Nice job! :D -- infinity0 22:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tabula rasa

The point about tabula rasa has been noted by other commentators, like Steven Pinker in "The Blank Slate" (where I first learned of it). Just an interesting historical quirk I suppose. Lucidish 19:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Communicating the Truth

Jon's quote from Cool Hand Luke is quite apropos re the difficulties on the Truth article, especially the talk page. While I very much enjoy Jon's writing, finding it a breath of fresh air in the murky world that passes for English these days, I think many find it off-putting. Perhaps, since you and he seem to get along quite well, you might suggest that he tone it down a bit for the average reader. (Yes, this violates my principle that one should never write doiwn to the audience but rather raise the audience up to one's level, but since the talk page is less formal than the article itself, an exception could be made). Take care. •Jim62sch• 09:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed regarding the technical obscurities and the rest of it, although some of the wordplay is rather clever, I suppose. On the other hand, I've only read snippets of his writing whereas you've seen the entirety of it. Looks like you end up trying to clean-up and clarify.
He's on a roll with the "Pragmatic theory of truth" section -- and you are essentially correct: very few readers will understand what he wrote. Maybe it's just me, but it seems that he's become more obtuse lately. (Funny -- I write on a post-graduate level in work, given the approriate audience, of course, but I try to at least nudge it back down to Junior or Senior year of college for articles.) •Jim62sch• 17:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent design

Kenosis, please note that my recent edits to Intelligent design are essentially just a routine copyedit, and are largely stylistic and minor. I made no real content changes in any of my edits; I am afraid you have been misled by an error resulting from an already-present ambiguity/mistake in the article (which implied that irreducible complexity was in usage outside of the intelligent design movement) being brought to light by my clarifying the wording, which I corrected in the most recent version of the article (though the original, subtler problem is still present in the article now that it's been reverted).

If you have any objections to any aspect of the changes I made, feel free to simply say so and I'll gladly discuss them. With the exception of the IC mixup and an ongoing discussion regarding template placement, no user has yet specifically objected to any aspect of any change I have actually made to the article in question, which is the only reason I haven't been able to discuss the matter on the Talk page—there's no one to discuss it with! If you have any problems with my edit, feel free to start such a discussion. I welcome collaboration and open-minded idea exchange; I certainly prefer it to the dismissive, edit-warring style I've been met with so far. -Silence 16:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Re. your comment about cooperation and consensus: Me too. It would be helpful if you made changes one point at a time with effective edit summary justifying each. Editors have accepted such point-by-point changes many times in that article, and will again. Please understand that if your changes get inadvertently caught up in a POV war in such a controversial subject, it will likely get successfully sorted out in the end. Good regards. ... Kenosis 16:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Making copyedit changes one point at a time would literally take weeks. It's easier (on all sides, since other users would have to read my ultra-detailed summaries!) to simply make the changes, since they're largely very minor ones, then to discuss whichever ones anyone objects to—I'm not psychic, I can't foresee which minor edits are going to be problematic before I've even made them! I did, however, deliberately take the time to make my edits gradually and methodically, and over the course of a number of edits, so that anyone who wanted to could very easily compare the differences in each version. For example, I waited an extra edit to move an out-of-place paragraph from one section to another, and add a new image, because I knew that doing so in the same edit I made my copyedit would mask what specific change I'd made to the article from users who were non-manually comparing the two versions, which I didn't want.
  • In any case, thanks for the kind comment; you've given me renewed faith in humanity. :) I apologize for any confusion that was caused by my hasty edits; although at the time I made them they were quite minor, I realize that over the course of a number of minor edits, the accumulation can make them seem like one huge, major edit. :) -Silence 16:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Understood. These things take time, and should take time, especially in controversial subject areas. ... Kenosis 16:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure. I just hope to get some constructive, workable responses to my edits in the future. I'm fully willing to compromise and rework any of my changes that are not acceptable—it's just hard to do that when the only criticism you get is, essentially, bein' a dirty stinkin' rotten scoundrel. @_@ Not as specific as I'd like. But I'll try to be patient; thanks for the advice! -Silence 17:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the end of your recent comment at Talk:Intelligent design (I'd post this response there along with the rest of my reply, but I'm sure that if I make my reply any longer I'll be attacked and ignored for being too verbose, so I'll just respond here): I'm aware that these are not the changes that attracted the attention. That's why I suggested focusing on the controversial edits (so far, there are only two, neither having anything to do with the textual copyedit: the template placement, and the image placement), not rehashing dozens of edits nobody's objected to. But Felonious found that strategy unacceptable, so, I'll do whatever's necessary to make the fixes.
I don't find your advice about making smaller, one-at-a-time edits very useful or practical at all. Note that if I'd made these edits one or two at a time, it would have resulted in hundreds of tiny edits scrolling away the edit history, which would have made it more difficult, not less, to compare edit histories (and it also would have taken hours instead of minutes to implement). When making a major copyedit, it is necessary to reach a balance between making the changes in too many edits, and making them in too few. I carefully avoided both extremes in my initial edits, as you will see if you recheck them; for the most part, I only edited a section at a time, I was very careful to avoid moving paragraphs or adding spaces at the same time I was making a text edit lest the move hide the textual changes, etc. -Silence 13:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand. Mass edits tend to be rejected in a controversial article like that. If you look through the edit history 500 at a time, you'll see that after being rejected on a couple of issues, I began on 1 March 2006 making edits one at a time. I made no more than six or seven individually small, specific edits a day. Most of them were accepted, a few were reverted. If I had tried them all at once I'd have been blown right out of the water, so to speak. And, some of the specific proposals I made were rejected by consensus. There is good cause for editors of a controversial article such as that one, to reject mass edits completely, but that's a dynamic that is too much to analyze fully at the moment. ... Kenosis 13:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for being understanding. By the way, would you mind if I move the last four comments in the "In-depth copyedit analysis and discussion, part 1: Lead section" section of Talk:Intelligent design to our Talk pages, where they'll be more out of the way of the main discussion about the proposed copyedits? I'll leave the comments there if you prefer, but I'm worried they will distract from the topic at hand and possibly prevent people from noticing the comment I made at 12:58, since they take up a page of space. Since it seems to just be a misunderstanding, do you mind? -Silence 14:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd prefer to remove them from the page, because that'd ensure that they don't get in the way of more people responding to the section's topic so we can develop a consensus, but if you'd prefer strikeouts, then that's OK by me. -Silence 16:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientism

Thanks for your comments on the Scientism article and your intervention at Nature. Both articles are in need of major work: Scientism is little more than a stub listing definitions. I've begun by trying to write a lead sentence. As to Nature, that is an important article and a Core topic for Wikipedia 1.0. As I said on the talk page, it has a long way to go. Sunray 19:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of edits

Sir.

Regarding your removal of my edits from the Intelligent design article, I am curious as to the reason you reverted to a previous version. Being a Wikipedia newbie, I certainly concede to more experienced users, however, I feel it appropriate to defend my edit.

"Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for evolution. This stands in opposition to conventional biological science, which relies on experimentation to explain the natural world through observed physical processes such as mutation and natural selection..."

The preceding quote is the reason for my edit. The following statement, "which relies on experimentation to explain the natural world through observed physical processes" seems to imply that "conventional biology" has evidence that living cells can evolve from non-living elements, when in fact, no such evidence exists. Laboratory experiments involving the "accidental" creation of an amino acid are a long way from demonstrating spontaneous generation of living cells, and so the claim that evolution-supporting biologists rely on experimentation and observed physical processes is misleading. If only observed physical processes were considered, then evolution would have to be excluded from viability as spontaneous cellular generation has never been observed.

And so it seemed appropriate to add the following:

", although ID proponents and critics of evolutionary theory have cited a complete absence of observable phenomena demonstrating abiogenesis (which is needed for the evolutionary model to be viable)."

If my manner, or positioning of the edit was flawed, I apologize, but I stand by the edit. I believe it has value as a balance for the paragraph.

Thank you,

202.173.128.90 07:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)W. Jones

I've reproduced your comments on the ID talk page and responded there. Responses thus far are as follows. ... Kenosis 15:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear Mr.or Ms. Jones: Actually your edits had already been removed by two other editors. I reverted to the last known consensused version, then re-implemented an edit that Dave Souza apparently considered reasonable. I believe your edits started here and went through here, then were sequentially reverted by Scienceman123 and Dave Souza. I might speculate that the content you added was reverted because the framework of evolution does not necessarily address the question of abiogenesis, just as, for example, the study of expansion_of_the_cosmos might not directly address the question of the dynamics of the Big bang. But I would prefer to hear from Scienceman and Dave Souza to know better about their reasons. If I had noticed it, though, I too would have reverted the changes you made. Regards, and thank you for the note. ... Kenosis 07:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I've responded at inordinate length to a similar comment on my talk page, and have no particular problem with "conventional" instead of "mainstream". dave souza, talk 08:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
There are, of course, semantic differences between the two words, but probably not significant enough to raise a major ruckus over. Abiogenesis is, however, a separate issue. •Jim62sch• 09:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brilliant

I'm not sure who else appreciated it, but this was brilliant. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] god of the gaps

thanks for the revert, good explaination... what can I say, I screwed up, thanks for catching it. Somerset219 03:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nature

Not having been able to spend much time on Wikipedia for the last few days, I was delighted to see the progress you have made with the Nature article. I think you have taken it a considerable distance from the "start" article it was. Great work! Sunray 20:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You may also be interested to know that Nature has been nominated for the Wikipedia 1.0 Core Topics Collaboration of the fortnight. If you would like to get some editorial assistance, you might wish to vote for it. Sunray 20:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] mythology

WTF.... blind reverting back to someone else's blind revert against consensus THREE SECONDS after an edit was made? Whatever you are trying to do here, it's sheer madness for intelligent editing an encyclopedia and needs to stop. 172.144.20.69 19:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All ID proponents from the Discover Institute

Hi, I was about to alter the ID article concerning "All Proponents from the discovery institute" to "many" when I read the comment in the article...I found your section on the talk page and posted a couple of questions and am waiting for a response, so if you have a moment, I'd appreciate a response.

I think saying "all" probably goes too far. While it may be true for academics there are numerous columnists and other authors that have supported ID and I think it unlikely that everyone is associated with the DI.

I noticed a reference to further discussion in "archives"...I'm not familiar with how to find these archives, perhaps you could post links on the ID talk page or maybye copy and paste those discussions into the talk page for people's review when this question comes up. Thanks. AbstractClass 13:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi AbstractClass. I couldn't believe it was possible at first, but it is quite true. All of the leading proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute. Amazing. ... Kenosis 13:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I thank you for your reply. I was curious specifically about Lee Strobel (the author of The Case for Christ) who advocated for ID in The Case for a Creator. Is he affiliated with DI?
Also, and I didn't ask specifically about this person, but there is also, apparently a columnist for the "National Review" (Online) named George Gilder who had a recent article advocating ID. He may be more obscure as I only know his name from a column I read. I guess the question may also stretch into what is a "leading proponent". At any rate if you have any information on these, particularly Lee Strobel, who is well known, I would appreciate it. Thanks. - AbstractClass 14:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
LOL, apprently George Gilder was a co-founder of DI, as I just found out. So that leaves Lee Strobel and then I suppose that will be the extent of my challenges at this point.  :p - AbstractClass 14:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The citation is in the article. If the situation changes, the wording and citation will change accordingly. I'm now moving this exchange over to the relevant talk page. Thanks for getting in touch. ... Kenosis 14:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exclusion of perspective on ID

When reverting my latest change to Intelligent design, you wrote:

  • What is going on here? "in other words... [POV follows]" "Indeed, ...[POV follows]" Please stop these POV entries into already consensused material

I'm not sure what this means. Are you saying that what I added was an example of "point of view editing" in violation of some policy?

Allow me to call your attention to the following:

It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view. Arbcom link)
Unexplained deletions of portions of controversial articles are unacceptable.
The Wikipedia policy of editing from a neutral point of view, a central and non-negotiable principle of Wikipedia, applies to situations where there are conflicting viewpoints and contemplates that significant viewpoints regarding such situations all be included in as fair a manner as possible.

My addition points out a significant reason that supports and critics of ID are in conflict. So my addition was relevant to the article and not a violation of policy.

Please reassure me that you did not mean to accuse me of violating policy. --Uncle Ed 18:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This could easily be construed as bullying and badgering behavior, Ed. You know there was no consensus for your edits and you have a "history" at this article. Give it a rest. FeloniousMonk 20:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Your addition pointed out nothing but an overly-simplistic, grasping-at-straws opinion that has very little (if anything) to do with the ID issue. I can just see you moderating the debate between the heliocentic and geocentric versions of the solar system: "it just depends on perspective, that's all". To second and amplify FM, give it a rest and stop trolling. •Jim62sch• 00:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Geez, guys, I don't know what to say. ... Kenosis 01:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Truth

Seriously, no need for snotty comments in your edit summaries (to be fair, I've been guilty of the same thing, though). That said, thanks for your contributions. -Smahoney 01:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Seth, the issue I had actually was with another editor about the attribution to Ecclesiastes that quite obviously was fabricated by Baudrillard to make a point. That editor already had made it clear the tendency was going to be to resist requests for citations and attempts to get this stuff right. Apparently you noticed the action and were reverting a correction I made about it with an edit note that I'll be back in a minute with a citation. When I came back with the citation a few minutes later and it came up as an edit conflict I couldn't believe it (though I actually figured it was another editor who already had demonstrated some willingness to be a bit fast and loose with the facts in other recent edits). So I'm inclined to stand by my edit summary, which was: "The people that believe this stuff. It's unbelievable sometimes." That's not snotty, but a comment about reverting a correction of very erroneous statement. Remember, this was a premise for the movie "The Matrix". Sorry if you saw it that way. Take care, OK?. ... Kenosis 02:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] edits to ID page

why did you revert my edits? the text was on the talk page for ages, and nobody objected to it. the distinction between Aquinas and Paley is critical: Thomists do not have a problem with evolution, those with Paley's ideas are creationists. Sillygrin 13:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not see any agreement on the talk page for these edits. There were some significant modifications to the consensused text and the sectioning in an article that has a history of being controversial. What the re-sectioning attmpeted to do was separate out "precursors" to the teleological argument from "historical" teleological arguments. This is an arbitrary distinction. ... Kenosis 13:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
there was also no disagreement, which is significant on a controversial page.
it is not arbitrary: Aquinas in particular, and Aristotelianism in general, are not the origin or precursors of intelligent design:
    1. Aquinas' five ways and Paley's watchmaker argument are actually quite different (for instance, in their consequences - the acceptance or rejection of evolution), though I don't think I brought this out well.
    2. Thomists in particular, and Catholics in general (the Catholic Church is still heavily influenced by scholasticism) do not go in for creationism.
    3. evangelical and free-church protestants, who are the vast majority of creationists, are not influenced by Aristotelianism, and certainly not Thomism - the reformation generally followed the Renaisance in repudiating scholasticism.
i.e., creationism does not follow from Thomism in general or Aquinas' 5 ways in particular.
the page is not about teleological arguments for the existence of God, but ID, which is a rather special and distinct case. ID pretty specifically accepts the premise that "if evolution is true, atheism is true." this premise contains the erroneous one that atheism (and theism) are empirically falsifiable hypotheses. this is one of the important sources of ID. the other one is so blindingly obvious I do not understand why it is not explicitly explained (although editors do touch on it from time to time) - the protestant (sola scriptura) literalist interpretation of scripture. they are apparantly forced to interpret Genesis as a biology lesson (even though there are plenty of other allegories in scripture - Christ's parables, for instance). if Genesis is a biology lesson (in an otherwise religious text), then evolution necessarily contradicts scripture, and more or less disproves their religion.
I think I am not the only editor with the vain hope that Wikipedia can do something about doing away with the opposition to evolution. stuff needs to be properly explained for that.
to recap, it seems to me that:
    1. it is a historical and philosophical error to regard Thomism as a precursor or source of ID
    2. the real sources of ID, which should be brought out a bit on the page, is a kind of scientism (believing that theism and atheism are empirically falsifiable hypotheses (i.e., regarding empirical science as unlimited in scope or competence)), and dogmatic scriptural literalism.
Sillygrin 12:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I appreciate you comments. I have pasted them on the ID talk page so all interested editors have an opportunity to weigh in in it. ... Kenosis 14:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
cool. Sillygrin 12:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations in nihilism

Hi - thanks a lot for the much-needed citations in nihilism. Do you by any chance have the full citations for the references you mention? -Smahoney 23:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Seth. Full cites were already given. I put in links to two of the three I added to the intro. FN#1 does not have an online link. ... Kenosis 23:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The citations you gave in one of the footnotes, though certainly complete, seem sort of roundabout. What I was hoping for was an expansion of:
For some examples of the view that postmodernity is a nihilistic epoch see Toynbee (1963); Mills (1959); Bell (1976); and Baudrillard (1993) and (1994). For examples of the view that postmodernism is a nihilistic mode of thought, see Rose (1984); Carr (1988); and Pope John-Paul II (1995).
I realize that it is a quotation from an article, but it would be more useful if the actual sources mentioned in the quotation were expanded into full citations and then followed with a "referenced in..." bit. Either way, though, thanks again for the contributions. -Smahoney 23:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, done. ... Kenosis 23:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Full citation is:
  • For some examples of the view that postmodernity is a nihilistic epoch see Toynbee, Arnold (1963) A Study of History vols. VIII and IX; Mills, C. Wright (1959) The Sociological Imagination; Bell, Daniel (1976) The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism; and Baudrillard, Jean (1993) "Game with Vestiges" in Baudrillard Live, ed. Mike Gane and (1994) "On Nihilism" in Simulacra and Simulation, trans. Sheila Faria Glasser. For examples of the view that postmodernism is a nihilistic mode of thought, see Rose, Gillian (1984) Dialectic of Nihilism; Carr, Karen L. (1988) The Banalization of Nihilism; and Pope John-Paul II (1995), Evangelium vitae: Il valore e l’inviolabilita delta vita umana. Milan: Paoline Editoriale Libri.", all cited in Woodward, Ashley: NIHILISM AND THE POSTMODERN IN VATTIMO'S NIETZSCHE, ISSN 1393-614X Minerva - An Internet Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 6, 2002, fn 1. [3] ... 23:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Beautiful work! Thanks again. -Smahoney 00:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent Design

Please explain your objection to the discussion of Second Law of Thermodynamics in "Intelligent Design." It's one of the oft-quoted arguments of ID theory. I think I presented both sides with no spin, and with citation to sources. It's certainly in the same ballpark as the preceding points, which I used as a model. If you'll tell me what the problem is, I'll fix it. Or you're welcome to edit it as well. (But just removing it is rather rude, isn't it?) Thanks. Boundlessly

Actually, if you look at the edit summary, please note that it read as follows: Edit summary: here ... Kenosis 00:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC) The edit summary read:(Rmv mass of completely irrelevant material: violates (1)WP:VER, (2)WP:NOR, as well as rampling personal POV about entropy), and the material read as follows:
===Intelligent beings as an exception to the Second Law of Thermodynamics===
-
- Intelligent Design theorists argue that intelligence must have intervened, because only intelligence can violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics to arrive at more-ordered systems. Specifically, highly-ordered humans could not have evolved from disordered hydrogen atoms. Mr. Dembski's blog explains, "The layman’s expression relating to this is you can’t unbake a cake. The reason why you can’t unbake it is it would violate 2LoT [the Second Law of Thermodynamics]. However, that’s not quite right because a sufficiently advanced intelligence can unbake a cake. Intelligence can accomplish things that nature cannot and that includes violating 2LoT in relation to information entropy." www.uncommondescent.com, March 5, 2006.
-
- The scientific community responds by showing that intelligence necessarily follows the Second Law. To consider the layman's example, if an intelligent being (e.g. a human) attempted to "unbake a cake" by converting it back to flour, water, etc., the process would increase entropy by converting chemicals used in the "unbaking" process to disordered waste products. Further, the intelligent being would expend energy and create entropy merely by thinking, totally aside from the mechanical expenditure of energy to reorganize the hydrocarbon atoms (compare the food ingested by the human to the waste products expended by the human). The two increases in entropy would be more than the reduction in entropy gained by "unbaking." In other words, if one considers all the inputs and outputs to a closed system, rather than drawing the boundary of the "closed system" around only the cake, to exclude the "sufficiently advanced intelligence" performing the "entropy reduction" on the cake, it is seen that intelligent beings observe the Second Law. The scientific analysis is that a random process can produce local reductions in entropy, but such local reductions will be accompanied by global increases.
-
- More academically, Leo Szilard's 1929 paper, “On the Decrease of Entropy in a Thermodynamic System by the Intervention of Intelligent Beings,” Zeitschrift fur Physik 53, 840 (1929), showed that no being, intelligent or not, can violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Szilard showed that any measurement or observation made by the being must involve expenditure of more energy - and thus creation of more entropy - than is gained by whatever "entropy reduction" can be acheived by that being. Later papers by Claude Shannon and Rolf Landauer[1] showed that any change in information content that is either irreversable or that occurs in a finite physical memory - essentially, the exercise of intelligent information processing - necessarily involves the expenditure of energy and increase in entropy.

Your edit history is essentially a form letter that raises many questons and answers none - no individual point of your edit note is applicable to the paragraph you reverted. My entry is not "irrelevant" - it addresses one of the top five arguments for ID (not one directly advanced in the Kitzmiller case, but one you'll find in nearly every discussion of ID). It is verifiable - both sides are drawn directly from the sources cited in my original. I gave a full cite to Szilard's paper. I haven't read it in the original German, but bits and pieces of it exist in translation all over (it's the paper that resolved the "Maxwell's Demon" paradox). Claude Shannon wrote the dozen or so papers that defined what we now call "information theory" in the 1940's and 1950's - if you deal with Information Theory (I took the seminal course at MIT, and use it fairly regularly professionally), Claude Shannon is a "household name" to specialists, and Google gives hundreds of hits for his work. I cited Rolf Landauer, another seminal paper known to everyone in the field (and I added a full cite to the above). In what sense "rambling?" My second paragraph presents the issues at a layman's level - essential in an escoteric area like the interface between information theory and thermodynamics. My third paragraph addresses the information theory/entropy/thermodynamics relationship that is key to an advanced deep understanding of the topic - a bit of theory known to specialists in information theory but not to many others, and that is key to fully understanding the flaw in the ID "entropy" argument. It is slightly oversimplified and therefore a little bit wrong (but has been fixed up a bit in the above), but an absolutely correct discussion would simply be too long (but can be found at the Landauer's Principle page). What's the "POV" that you find objectionable - what do you think my POV is, and which sentence is not clearly attributed to one of the two sides? My entry only presents the two arguments as they are commonly made, without expressing my opinion on either side. Please identify the "original research?" I took a direct quote from the www.uncommondescent.com for the ID side, and condensed the responsive arguments, and pulled together a few ideas from the main scientific papers in the area for the responsive side.

I'll ask again. Please identify the particular features to which you object. We can't cooperate if you only communicate in form letters that do not connect to the particular facts at issue. Thanks. User:Boundlessly(talk)

I have placed this discussion on Talk:Intelligent design, where it belongs. ... Kenosis 04:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protoscience

Hi Kenosis -- Kevin Mccready, the same user who wanted to delete this article in May b/c he thought it to be a dicdef has now added the dicdef template again. It was removed a couple times by other editors (bad Wikiquette; they should have let it stay and then commented on talk). Kevin twice reverted the removals, but I thought it a good idea to change the template's date since it hadn't been up for much of that five-day period five days. See talk page over there and weigh in if interested. And thanks as always for your excellent work on philosophy-of-science-related articles. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 16:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] category:pseudoscience

Hi Kenosis. There is discussion on Category_talk:Pseudoscience over how to populate the category, and whether a category is even appropriate for handing pseudoscience; both concerns are reflected in WP:CG's comments on applying NPOV to the category namespace. E.g., "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." Other editors besides myself have raised these concerns. My understanding is that dispute-tags are an appropriate form of WP:DR, meant to attract further edits. Do you think that the original Template:cleancat might be better, to that end? Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 18:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jim: I left a note on the category:Pseudoscience talk page. Seems to me the dispute is actually the province of individual articles that link to this page. ... Kenosis 18:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate your feedback! best, Jim Butler(talk) 05:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relationship between religion and science

i'm stil here.--Pixel ;-) 05:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

it has a reputable source,and i passed it in my spell cheker.The second is an article of wikipedia that is whell sourced.The last ,i now they exist,but i didn't find one yet,so i just mensioned they exist.I don't see why you took it out?--Pixel ;-) 06:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You were reported for a 3RR violation on the article Ontotheology. I would like to advise you that the report was found to be bogus, and you have not been blocked at this time. However, you do seem to be reverting quite a lot on that article, and I recommend discussion as opposed to sterile revert wars. Stifle (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

True about a lot of reverting on that article the past two days, Stifle. Thanks. ... Kenosis 22:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion and science

Not a bad influence, I think, to include some prose on the scientific studies of religiosity. You're absolutely correct that the paragraph as written was not NPOV. I tried to make it moreso while including the more popularly known studies regarding the effectiveness of prayer. I think an entirely new section on "Scientific/naturalistic explanations/speculations of religion and spirtuality" might be appropriate. If I recall correctly, Daniel Dennett just wrote a book on the subject. --ScienceApologist 13:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Prof. Daniel Dennett of Tufts? Last time I saw him, he was nothing but a brain in a vat, wired to a computer. I saved him by pressing the button on the remote control that switched his consciousness from the computer (where he was held prisoner) back to his physical body. (Or did I swap in the impersonator, and send him to prison?) --Uncle Ed 13:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Heh! I suppose any author willing to title a book Consciousness Explained must know what he's talking about, right? ... Kenosis 14:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
A good point, SA, and an increasingly well studied subject today. Like trying to pin down a quantum particle at times, but those studies worth mentioning I should think. ... Kenosis 13:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from User talk:Hillman

Hi Hillman: Just wanted to point out recent goings-on at Relationship between religion and science. I definitely didn't want to deal with the current irrationality singlehandedly, and no one else is attentive at the moment. Thought you might like to think about quickly checking in there. ... Kenosis 02:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Kenosis, I am moving this discussion here because I am trying to clear my talk page to avoid distractions during my negotiation with User:David.Mestel. I don't really have the heart right now to check in with Relationship between religion and science, and if it involves User:Haisch-Bernard Haisch in any way, I'd recuse myself from editing the article itself, although I suppose I could leave a talk page comment if I find energy to study recent edits to this article. However, even leaving a comment might be inflammatory since Haisch seems to insist upon believing that I was not acting in good faith regarding my encounter with him a few months ago in this article and at other places where I had noticed him editing anonymously in a manner suggesting that he was in some sense "promoting" his new book without acknowledging his personal connection with that book, which showed poor judgement on his part. See User:Hillman/Digging and User:Hillman/Dig/Haisch.
My experience at Wikipedia has been almost entirely limited to the sci/math pages; I am not sure what to call this article; maybe "Science and society"? My best guess on where to find help in dealing with bad edits to this article would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Good luck!---CH 19:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Hillman, got it covered for now. That page still needs a bit further work, though it has come a long way in the last year. ... Kenosis 19:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block evasion by User:Lucaas

Hi Stifle: Got a question. How does a user evade a block? ... Kenosis 18:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

When the admin says he's going to block him and manages to forget to do so. >_< Stifle (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I understand better now; thanks Stifle. ... Kenosis 23:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email (please read ASAP)

I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 04:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Core topics COTF

 You showed support for Boat at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF. This article was selected as our collaboration. Hope you can help.
Maurreen 15:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements to the article. I see JoshuaZ reverted back a bit too far; glad you caught it. But you should have seen the article at this diff here. Good regards,

Thank you. Yes I got a good look at the article before it was reverted. (I had just left a message on the Nature talk page.) Nice work by the way, on the page. :-) — RJH (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism on Universe page

Hi, thanks for the correction on Universe, missed that bit! MarkThomas 21:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some advice, if you have time

Hi Kenosis. You previously mentioned that I had been accusing or inferring stuff on other editors. (" and overlaying it with tendentious judgments of myself and other Wikipedia users. I would be remiss if I failed to warn KrishnaVindaloo that there are potential sanctions for habitual display of these kinds of behavior on Wikipedia"). To be sure, I have no idea what you were talking about, and I'd like to see if what you said was something I should take into account. I know we may not see eye to eye on some matters, but you seem to be a very constructive editor on the whole.

My main goal at the moment is to make the article more specific, and to deal with long term censorship issues. Of course, the specific concept-in-field solution seems to be working, but there will always be problems with the regular objectors. (I'm not urging you to join me btw,:). Anyway, a bit of feedback from you wouldn't do me any harm, if you have time for a line or two. Cheers KrishnaVindaloo 10:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, also, I was considering making the ID, creation science examples into a grouping. The one specific PS concept I found was "Argument from design", which I believe are specific to ID and Creation science. There is also a teleological argument in Christian science to explain the effect of praying on healing which would also place it in that group. Just looking for verification. I may be wrong on this so I'm checking with others first. KrishnaVindaloo 10:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent design

I agree with your change for the better with this edit. However, sources are needed for such a statement or it can be seen as weasel wording. Cheers, Ansell 22:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ken, you've shown an interest in the theological meanderings of Patrick Edward Dove: I've tried to get to grips with it a bit, and thought that rather than discussing it in depth on ID talk it would be a useful addition to the biog, which needed some attention anyway. If you can find time to have a look at it your comments would be most welcome. ...dave souza, talk 00:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggesting an one month community ban for Mccready on all pseudoscience articles

I'm suggesting a one month community ban of Mccready from all pseudoscience articles. [4] He could edit the talk pages but not the article. Please make your thoughts known on AN/I. FloNight 17:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR

Hi...try to not violate the three revert rul in editing as I see you have several on the Monad article. If possible, try to engage the edits on the discussion page. Thanks.--MONGO 18:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks MONGO, I know what the rule is. Fact is, I have one yesterday and one today on Monad, along with some increasingly detailed discussion on the talk page. This issue at hand is about LoveMonkey's removing valid disambiguations from the page as part of an apparent pattern of removing "heresies" from theologically related topics. That's not a discussion I intend to give up on very easily. Either way, one revert per day on two successive days is hardly in danger of violating the rule, and I reserve the right to use up to two more if I feel strongly about the issue (which is not often). Thanks just the same. ... Kenosis 18:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent Design Talk

I do not want to muddy the waters over at the Intelligent Design Talk section where ive requested a change in the article by bringing up past debates. So I thought i'd ask you here. Since LegalTimes.com describes John Umana as, "As an aside, Umana is also a leading proponent of intelligent design, the belief that evolution involves the direct intervention of a supernatural being." and as far as I can tell has no connections with the Discovery Institute, what does this mean to the claim by the article that all leading proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute?Bagginator 12:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC) John Umana is a senior trial and appellate lawyer in Washington, DC with a Ph.D. in analytic philosophy from Michigan. In 2005, Umana authored the book, “Creation: Towards a Theory of All Things.” This book was the source of the Legal Times statement in its May 22, 2006 issue that he is a leading proponent of intelligent design. He is both a biological evolutionist and intelligent design theorist, and not affiliated with Discovery Institute or any group. He argues that the debate on evolution suffers from confusion from the failure of some to distinguish two different senses of the term ‘evolution.’ MEANING NO. 1: In one sense, evolution means that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor (and that different species share common ancestors, such as for example the hippopotamus, dolphin and whale share a common ancestor). It maintains that all organisms on earth are descended from a common ancestor. Umana argues that Dr. Darwin’s theory that living things evolved or descended from common ancestors is true and proved by the convergence of the sciences. MEANING NO. 2: But ‘evolution’ in Dr. Darwin’s full-blown sense is taken to mean that a new species originates as a result of "natural selection," random incremental mutations over millions of years. In this biological and Darwinian sense, the term ‘evolution’ means a process whereby life emerged from non-living matter and subsequently new species emerged and developed entirely from natural means. Darwin’s theory is that all complex species and organs such as the eye and animal instincts “evolved by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations ….” (1859, p. 459) This latter thesis is impeached by modern microbiology and is bad science, Umana argues. The book maintains that the evidence (including Big Bang analysis from NASA’s spacecraft studying the Big Bang's background microwave radiation) points to a cause external to the physical universe as responsible for the biodiversity that exists on this planet and on other worlds. Umana’s theory predicts that there is no other life and never has been life elsewhere in this solar system – an empirically verifiable theory that will be tested up or down in the near future with life-searching NASA landers (e.g., the Phoenix lander and the Astrobiology Field Laboratory) set to explore Mars. At the same time, he argues in his chapter 8 that the universe is teeming with life and with intelligent life. Umana maintains that science and exploration offer the best hope of answering these questions.

[edit] Thanks...

Truly cannot adequately thank you for coming to the Talk:Entropy page AND Entropy article itself -- It has been an incredible scene with SC acting as the owner (although he quit for two months when I personally emailed him for clarification of his remarkable educational record [I have an ex-student who is a distinguish prof in engineering at UMich who reported no such.]. To your very kind '88 comment', I wanted to say something like "did not know LC unlike 'Sadi Carnot', but felt I must be 'gentlemanly'.

ESPECIALLY appreciate your comment to PAR, BUT for my and Wikipedia's benefit (and PAR's), I would like to have our differences adjudicated -- so I have sent the bundle of our last three off-list calm and reasonable data/idea exchanges to Harvey Leff, world-class math physicist and friend, for his analysis. I'll report it to the Talk:Entropy page tomorrow (He's usually very prompt in our back and forths, if he is in town -- 6 miles away!) FrankLambert 06:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inacceptable

I gave the source. It is inacceptable to respresent Poppers position in the false way. --Rtc 06:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience

Would you please talk to me? Why are you deleting sourced statements from the article? --Rtc 06:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Ed Poor is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or set of articles by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive editing, such as edit warring, original research, and POV forking. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 13:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dating creation

Hello, I agree that the Big Bang is something recent which traces out the age of the Universe, but this misses the point of my argument. The Big Bang is not a historical culture. Look at some of the other entries in that section: Traditional Catholics, Puranic Hinduism, Maya civilization....hopefully you can see how these are different from the Big Bang. I don't think that requires explanation. That's the basis I have for removing it from that list. I will wait for your reply and hopefully we can come to an understanding on this. Thank you.UberCryxic 03:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi UberCryxic. I just left a couple of relevant comments on the talk page of that article. Thanks. ... Kenosis 03:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Due Process

Thanks for putting the due process page into better format. Regarding the Amar quote, I think it's important. One of the main arguments against using the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause to incorporate the Bill of Rights against the states is that it would render the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause superfluous. Amar concisely addresses this point, by showing that the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause would not be superfluous at all. So, I'd like to keep that quote in there, if possible. (I'll copy this comment in the due process discussion.) 69.183.187.206 07:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Andrew

[edit] Wikipedia:Assume good faith

Kenosis, hi. You reverted an edit I made to WP:AGF, giving an interesting reason for one part of the revert. I thought the rest of the edit was worthwhile, did you disagree? I really don't understand why we would have to have an official meaning for "even if they're jerks" - it's just an explanation of an idea, not a law book, right? I really think it's better to phrase the policy with less use of the imperative and of words such as "should", but if I'm in the minority on that point, I'll shuffle along and keep quiet. -GTBacchus(talk) 10:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prepositions in titles

Kenosis, you said: "(diff) (hist) . . Intelligent design; 17:37 . . Kenosis (Talk | contribs) (ÆReligion and leading proponents - following up on Cognita, the "Between" is capitalized in the title of Dembski's book)"

I appreciate being told the reason for a change, but the standard practice when citing titles is to let the part of speech dictate a cap or l.c. initial. (Style books do vary. In American Psychological Association style, the length of a preposition counts, too.) The way Dembski's cover or title page handled the word makes no difference; not sure that's what you meant.

Citation styles in the ID article are probably all over the map--and off its edges. I noticed some inconsistencies when going over the text. I imagine many people supplied references for this kind of article, and they did it differently. Making the style uniform would be a daunting task unless I had a paper copy that showed everything at once. Cognita 02:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Cognita, we generally handle quotes and book titles as they're presented by the author/publisher. With respect to the particular title you were referring to, please see this rendering. ... Kenosis 04:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but the policy here seems strange. (What happens when a book designer uses all caps for the title?) Traditional publishers do it as below:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780830823147&z=y
Cognita 04:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Cognita, I'm moving this to the relevant talk page, so that those more familiar with WP policy, of which several are involved in the ID article, can assess and comment if they wish. My understanding is that when we quote to someone else, we're to quote verbatim, and mark accordingly any alterations with the appropriate markers, e.g. "[ ]", " ... ", or whatever other markers might be in accepted use, including "[sic]" if the WP editors think it's important to note. ... Kenosis 04:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re "re-"

I don't like to fight, but I do want to say that refactor without a hyphen is actually correct. In any case, when it appears twice in an article, it should be hyphenated either both times or neither time. And the word isn't all that technical: it's only from math, like recalculate.

Re- is in a large class of prefixes, along with anti-, non-, un-, pro-, supra-, infra-, semi-, dis-, and sub-, that form solid compounds unless (1) the second element is capitalized or consists of more than one word or (2) an unsightly or confusing string of vowels would result.

From the American Heritage Dictionary, 1969, s.v. re-:

"Many compounds other than those entered here may be formed with re-. In forming compounds re- is normally joined with the second element without space or hyphen: reopen. If the second element begins with e, it is preferable to separate it with a hyphen: re-entry. However, such compounds may often be found written solid and are indicated here as fully acceptable variants. If a compound that resembles a familiar word is intended in a special sense, the hyphen is necessary to make the distinction: re-creation . . ."

The paragraph has a bigger problem than that, though, which is that it doesn't say exactly where Dembski's going with these numbers of his. I suppose he uses them for some form of "What exists is so unlikely that it wouldn't be here without divine intervention" – but that isn't explicit.

I appreciate your attention to detail, even when we disagree. Cognita 06:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course the writer is permitted to make a "re-" verb out of any verb without hyphenating. That wasn't the issue there. If the "re-" form of the verb is not on the short list of such verbs provided by most dictionaries, plainly it's the writer's option. Here, we had past tense and present continuous forms of a mathematical verb, which increased the incentive to hyphenate for clarity. The words "refactored" and "refactoring" aren't in most dictionaries, while the word "factored" and "factoring" are in virtually all of them. ... Kenosis 16:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The AHD's note tells whether to hyphenate when you create a word by adding re-. Every re- word in dictionaries was written for the first time by someone. True, refactor isn't in dictionaries, but neither is re-factor. Ah, never mind – I can see that "delete and close up" is a lost cause.

Another point in the same passage. "This value, one-in-10120, represents a re-factoring of his original formula, which set the value of the universal probability bound at one-in-10150." "One" really should be "1," and no hyphens because the whole formula is used here as a substantive. From the Amer. Psychological Assn. publication manual, which isn't eccentric on this issue but is representative of prevailing style for numerals: "Use figures [i.e., arabic numerals] to express: all numbers 10 and above. . . . all numbers below 10 that are grouped for comparison with numbers 10 and above (and appear in the same paragraph). . . . numbers that represent statistical or mathematical functions, fractional or decimal quantities, percentages, ratios, and percentiles and quartiles" (italics added). Cognita 19:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Cognita, insofar as the APA style manual advocates the numeric rather than written form for single-digit integers below ten where a statistical function is represented: I say go for it if you prefer it that way. Happy editing. ... Kenosis 22:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Your reply is a relief. The ID article has many bodyguards, and I expected a subtext of "Well, Jesus in a jelly jar, who is this newbie who shows up with no credentials and starts changing everything in sight?" I'll make the changes. My preference doesn't govern; what I'm aiming for is to make the article look more professionally written. Numerals in formulas conform to standard styles for academic journals and textbooks. Cognita 01:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD

A redirect is probably OK (not like anybody is likely to search for it anyway) - nobody suggested that at AFD. You can always take it to WP:RFD if you think it isn't. Thanks for letting me know anyway. Yomanganitalk 15:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy: copy edit of copy edit of copy edit of . . .

It's still wrongedy-wrong! For the history of these changes, please see Jim62's talk page. The original problem was that the section calls ID a theory. That problem has persisted through today's revisions. Cognita 07:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, my only contribution was to change it to third-person singular, from the earlier incorrect plural. I have no problem with changing "theory" to "concept" or another more suitable term. ... Kenosis 14:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] [edit] Disturbed at Distortion

Regarding (1) my: I made some changes to the first 3 paras. I find that in most of this, that too much of the "results of" and/or "the management of" science, it's experiments and it' "useful paradigms and expectations" (e.g. that hypotheses will get broader, more accurate, etc., or that they must be made by the "rules of logic" which themselves have yet to have a fully acceptable foundation, as is the same with math, that measurement is indirect "obervations usually based on a theory", etc., etc., is all only an observation that hypotheses agglomerate into theories, that these so very often are expressed in math terms, that so much of physics can be based on Lagrangians, etc., etc. I vote to keep it to the bare 3 steps. Any more is as yet untested, unhypothesized "observations" on our proceedings to date with the three steps. We may call much of it meta scientific method or emerging philosophy and separate, but not all that is put forth here is really needed, or I believe really is in sci meth. 129.24.141.64 23:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Leslie B. Dean

And further regarding (2) your: I changed it back to the earlier approach, arrived at by consensus of a number of editors in the Spring of 2006. The consensus is not inflexible, but should be discussed interactively before making any major changes to the approach. ... Kenosis 03:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientific_method"

And further regarding (3) my post/discussion under "Science" as follows:

[edit] Practical Pulic Useable Sciences Definitions Advised

I made additions and changes today, Nov 25, '06 in the early paragraphs. I maintain that althoough everything written so far is true, it is not the whole truth and is too "abstract, impractical and "windy", a term my stuedents use, not meant to be pejorative by either them or me. I am making these changes based on "a need for this knowledge in the form they want it". It may not meet the full verifiablity requirements; but, in not so doing it meets my student's "windylessness" requirement.

I am not bragging and have no personal need for it; but for where I am coming from it is imortant that I credentialize a bit: I have done 30+ years of full Ph.D RDT&E in black and white industry, military and civilian applications, and have taught science and math at K through grad school levels. Most of what I am writing here, came from those experiences in fighting "bad science and pedagogy" as my ultimate students and customers ALL finally agreed. The most important of these to me was teaching masters level science and math for rural teachers of 10+ classroom yars of experience and WHO WERE GOING BACK TO THE CLASSROOM, in a manner that they themseleves callled reinvigorated science and math understanding.

I agree with most everything said above as truth. But, not having the scientific method right there within the definition and similar things, defeats what "the students say they need!"LekLiberty 20:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Leslie B. Dean, Ph.D.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Science"

Kenosis--I do feel strongly about both my "Disturbed at Distortions" and what I feel is part of the same "problem" my "Practical Pulic Useable Sciences Definitions Advised" submission issues, both provided above, and do want to "debate/discuss it interactively as you suggest".

But, I'm very new to Wikipedia and I don't know how. To me this and assorted other sections are "wrong enuf" to be "bad definitions" and very much need to be strongly re-debated. I do accept that the above refernced submissions are not the complete description of "my problems" with these definitions. If a cold re-start is needed, WILCO!

Perhaps also I am reacting to your requirement for "validations". If that means something akin to a literature search, I'm sure I'll object. In any case, I do want to understand.

Please advise me how to proceed to begin such. Thanks!LekLiberty 23:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Leslie B. Dean


LekLiberty 22:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Leslie B. Dean, Ph.D.

[edit] Input request

There has been a suggestion that Objectivity (philosophy) be merged with Objectivity (science). The later article is new, started by the editor that attempted Objectivity (philosophy) previously and failed. On the Objectivity disambig page Objectivity (science) was previously was linked to scientific method. I think that Objectivity (science) should either be merged with scientific method, or deleted as duplicating another material in another article. Your input would be appreciated at Talk:Objectivity (philosophy). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amerindianarts (talk • contribs) 16:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] <p> tags

Hi Kenosis, I noted that you tend to use HTML-Tags in Wikimarkup. That is rarely necessary. In particular, a blank line will have the same effect as a <p> tag, and looks nicer in the source. --Stephan Schulz 22:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nature

RJ, are you the one responsible for having cleaned up the last paragraph of "Matter and energy" (thereby likely saving it from permanent elimination)? ... Kenosis 02:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm not completely sure. I know I made some changes to that section, but I don't know if it is the revision to which you refer. Was there something you had in mind? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue's already been addressed-- I don't remember taking the last chunk of Platonic philosophy out completely. But it's gone now and closer to the point of the section than it was before. And thanks for your repeated and diligent attention to the article. ... Kenosis 16:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh sure thing. I know you've contributed quite a bit to that article, so I think you deserve much more of the credit. All I'm trying to do is get it up to GA. Thanks. — RJH (talk)

[edit] Your edits to WP:AGF

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Translation: "Don't mess with my preferred edits." Thanks for reminding me about WP policies and guidelines. ... Kenosis 02:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Remember to assume good faith. :) Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
OK then; see ya' on the talk page. ;-)... Kenosis 02:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks for changing the spelling back on Consumer; I couldn't do it myself without violating 3RR. I try not to sweat the small stuff, but I have to admit that it irked me to have someone who did not edit/add content to the article come in and impose their spelling preference. Trying to resolve the issue on talk pages was getting me nowhere, so thank you.--Kubigula (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

Why are you reverting my edits back to a regional Spelling (North American), I was not aware that articles had to be in North Maerican English as opposed to the more popular standard English usage ise NOT ize please. "Snorkel | Talk" 10:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a lie! "Ize" spelling way more popular - you can use Google to check that. Furthermore, PLEASE READ WP:MOS! Spelling of first major article contributor should be maintained! TestPilot 16:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Distribution of first-language native English speakers by country (Crystal 1997)
Distribution of first-language native English speakers by country (Crystal 1997)
Unfortunately it's not universally agreed how to tally the numbers. "British English" is used by about 60 million in the UK today. This is as compared to over 300 million, who use what's typically termed "North American English". Of these, nearly 250 million with internet access appear to use North American English, versus roughly 40 million using British English as a first language.

Crystal's figures, in the illustration, present it a little bit differently but lead to a similar conclusion. By Crystal's numbers, about 75%, roughly three out of four, persons who use English as a first language use the North American convention.

There are, in addition, several hundreds of millions using several variations of British English conventions worldwide as a second language, compared to many, many hundreds of millions, perhaps over a billion, using the North American English conventions as a second language. Although there is wide debate about the numbers, it is clear that the general trend worldwide somewhat favors the North American conventions, with a very wide audience for the UK OED (Oxford English Dictionary) style as well. (See, e.g., [5].) The latter uses "..ize" as opposed to "..ise" with respect to words such as "realize", "synthesize", "popularize", etc.. So, while the worldwide preferences are debatable, it is clear that the "..ise" spelling is a minority view limited mainly to the British Isles proper. ... Kenosis 17:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Kenosis, I just saw that note on Snozzer's talk page and wanted to extend my compliments - very nicely done. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alienus

Yes, there is much evidence that it is Alienus. His sockpuppets (of which there are quite a few) are known for introducing outright vandalism. He intentionally adds nonsense to articles like Patrecia Scott, and has a history of stalking other editors he doesn't like (such as me) and reverting their edits. This specific anon editor already is a confirmed vandal, as evidenced by his talk page. LaszloWalrus 06:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. That is unfortunate, as I recall seeing some seemingly well considered edits earlier in 2006. Take care. ... Kenosis 07:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

AvB ÷ talk 23:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks, I try

I will learn and appreciate the encouragement. --Kenneth M Burke 20:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Analytic Philosophy

Thanks for your kind remarks. Nothing too major in my edits, just thinking out loud. Banno 03:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


Hello. In your edit here, you say that "Characteristically it [analytic philosophy] rejects sweeping philosophical systems in favour of close attention to detail".

Nothing wrong with that, but

(1) It is in the wrong place. The original second sentence was "Initially defined by a reaction to British Hegelianism …" should stay where it is, the sentence you added should be one of the list of features identified in the following part. I have altered it so the structure is more logical.

(2) Next question, is the rejection of 'sweeping philosophical systems' characteristic of analytic philosophy? Do you have the exact reference to hand (Encyclopedia of philosophy).

(3) There is an implied contrast between 'sweeping philosophical systems' and 'close attention to detail', but of course there isn't really one. By 'sweeping philosophical system' do you mean an excessively generalistic one? That is implied by 'sweeping', but the problem is that 'philosophical systems' can be very detailed, e.g. that of Aristotle.

Let's discuss. First, I'd really like to see the exact words of the encyclopedia you were quoting. Thanks for your help.Dbuckner 16:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I gave the exact reference with page numbers. And I wasn't quoting, but rather was backing up User:Banno's offering with a supporting source. I cannot quote the entire EOP article for you. The Macmillan EOP article characterizes analytic philosophy as generally A) dualist as opposed to idealist and monist, B) reductionist and highly specific as opposed to broad and sweeping in its observations (generalist, as you say above). The article starts with Russell, then G.E. Moore, and on to logical positism generally, then discusses the later rejection of logical positivism and "analysis", including by Wittgenstein in his later years. ... Kenosis 17:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure you gave the reference, but I don't have the source to hand. Wasn't expecting wholesale quote, but your brief notes help a bit. The sentence is a bit awkward as it stands but I'll try and tidy up. I think you are right that analytics are suspicious of grand systematic philosophy, but it's a question of phrasing. Dbuckner 18:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Noumenon

Please explain which specific editorial policies you were referring to in your decision to revert.1Z 13:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

'Noumenon ... is "defined" as "thing-in-itself"'.

Do you have a source for that?1Z 13:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


"Placing section on Noumena and the Thing-in-itself under criticisms with an OR tag)"

1. Its not criticism, it is explanation.

2 If you can source it, it isn't OR, and you know that I can source it, because there were many citations of primary source material in the version you reverted. I notice that you have still made no effort to source any of your stated opinions on the subject.

"Kant's usage is why the word is in our lexicon today".

I know. I stated so in my revision of the lead which you reverted. That Kant was not using "noumenon" in the classical sense was criticism made by Schopenhauer, as the article states. Kant himself aludes to the fact that he is using it to mean "not sensible" rather than "inteligible":

"If we are pleased to name this object noumenon for the reason that its representation is not sensible,.."

You attitude is most unhelpful. Your changes do not have editorial justification as AFAICS.

1Z 18:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? What !Z attempted to apply to the article is original-research-based analysis of Kant, attempting to argue, based upon Kant's Critique, that "Ding-an-sich" (thing in itself) is not what Kant meant. I don't have time to give a lesson in Kant, but the assertion shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the context and influence of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. It's original research, and that's why I placed it under "criticisms" and put up an "original research" tag. That has nothing to do with "attitude" as you say here.

Briefly, why I reverted the newly written lead earlier on was that it started with an etymology rather than a definition. Currently the reads fairly reasonably again (after your last edits), so this time I left it as it stands. I removed the sentence alleging that "thing-in-itself" is a controversial interpretation, and as I said, placed the subsection on the same issue under criticisms with an OR tag, pending further discussion and analysis. ... Kenosis 18:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

One more thing for the moment. I did not assert that noumenon is defined as "thing-in-itself". Many editors have had their hands on this, and I support changing that to a more appropriate definition. The current definition is a reasonable choice in my estimation. ... Kenosis 18:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:DRV

Hi. Just a heads up that you seem to have got your dates mixed up on your post at the DRV for Category:Articles with unsourced statements. At the moment part of the first line reads "it was deleted in July 2007, but unilaterally reinstated in September 2007" (which really would make the DRV backwards!). Hope that helps- I thought it would be a bit rude to actually edit you post. WjBscribe 12:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The category was unilaterally reinstated by User:Dragons flight on September 9 here with a talk post here and a follow-up here. ... Kenosis 12:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
You missed my point. These events happened in 2006 not 2007. WjBscribe 13:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh duhh, OK, thank you!!... Kenosis 13:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to your query on my talk page... DRV's job is to figure out whether process has been followed correctly during deletions, in situations where it matters, and to figure out what to do next in situations like this one where it's got confused. Filing a CfD during the DRV would normally only be done in situations where it was quite clear that the consensus was to relist. You can !vote relist in a DRV to suggest that 'it would be best if there was another opportunity for people to voice their opinions about whether the article/category/whatever is needed, because I think it might be different now more information's come out/more people know about the situation/whatever', which seems to be quite close to the view you've expressed on my talk page. If the consensus is to relist, a procedural CfD will be started as the DRV is closed. I hope that helps! --ais523 17:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense; guess we'll see what the thinking is, then. Appreciate it ais523. ... Kenosis 18:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles lacking sources and Articles with unsourced statements

I have now parellelized these so that neither category includes the other. Rather the header of each simply provides a link to the other. Oh, and to clarify a confusion, Articles lacking sources independently has >40000 entries from the use of {{unreferenced}} and the like. You have seemed to think that unsourced is much larger when in fact they are of comparable size. Dragons flight 19:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi DF. Thanks for the info. I had assumed that the higher-level category Category:Articles lacking sources naturally had due to the inclusion of the this category. I think this may help uncomplicate matters somewhat as to the DRV and, if applicable, the CfD. Thanks, I'll get back to noting it in the DRV a bit later, so as to avoid any further unnecessary confusion by those reading it. ... Kenosis 20:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kenosis=Sysyphus? (revert incorrect and mindless dating of tag by User:SmackBot)

Dude, it's a bot! ("Mindless", hee hee). 1Z 00:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Was that Sysyphus? or Sisyphus ;-) You should see the debate over this bot and category at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_20. My objection is it's intrusive and highly inaccurate, and editors are entitled to make article-by-article decisions what their "citation-needed" policies will be. Now all of them, or virtually all of them, are labeled "February 2007". In addition, the whole thing involved an administrative override of an earlier community decision to do away with the category out of which the bot operates. Anyway, nice work recently; my compliments!. ... Kenosis 01:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It's innocent date tagging so people know how long it has been an uncited fact. ~ Rollo44 00:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. See above. ... Kenosis 01:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smackbot

I have a few articles on my watchlist that keep being edited by Smackbot, and then you come along and revert the bot's edits. This has been going on for a few days, and the bot is going to keep doing what it is doing because that is how it is programmed. If you have a problem with the bot's edits, please take it up on the bot's talk page. Posting on the bot's talk page will stop the bot from working until the issue has been addressed by the programmer. If you don't do this, the bot will keep finding fact tags and adding the current month.-Andrew c 01:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The status of this bot and category is currently being hashed out at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_20. My objection is it's intrusive and highly inaccurate, and editors are entitled to make article-by-article decisions what their "citation-needed" policies will be. Now all of them on the wiki, or virtually all of them, are labeled "February 2007". In addition, the whole thing involved an administrative override of an earlier community decision to do away with the category out of which the bot operates.. ... Kenosis 01:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SmackBot Kevinkor2

To: Rich Farmbrough, Kenosis

Cc: Template talk:Fact

From: Kevinkor2

Currently, Rich, your bot is expanding {{fact}} by adding the current month, resulting in {{Fact|date=February 2007}}.

Kenosis, whenever you see this on the Truth, Pragmatism, and a few other articles, you revert it. As you noted at User talk:Rich Farmbrough#Automated fact-tag tagging, it would be useful to have fact dating/nondating under control of an article's editors.

I suggest we adopt one of three possible compromises:

  1. Manually change {{fact}} to {{fact|date=}} for facts where we do not know an accurate date.
  2. Add {{nobots}} to the top of the article.
  3. Research the page history for the first appearance of the {{fact}} tag to give it the correct date.

I recommmend the first alternative. --Kevinkor2 17:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed in general, Kevinkor2. The existence of the category Category:Articles with unsourced statements, out of which this function of the bot arises, is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 20. I'm on the road right now and only have a minute. Talk later. ... Kenosis 20:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Noumenon (2)

All the tags where you've removed "February" as wrong were added in February. The one by "causal loop" where you've left the date of February was added on the 26th of January. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 00:15 24 February 2007 (GMT).

Hi Rich. Yes I noticed the more recent ones too. As I mentioned, the whole issue of whether this dating thing should be automatic from here forward is a legitimate one that appears to need broader discussion about the various issues that are involved. Among them are standardization, editor discretion, administrative actions vs. consensus, and a few others. Thanks also for calling to my attention the {{Nobots}} template. Many approaches have been proposed thus far that I hadn't heard before, and that particular discussion, as it relates to Category:Articles with unsourced statements, appears like it'll probably play out over the next week to ten days or so. My point of view you already know to some degree. Thanks. ... Kenosis 00:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barrett v. Rosenthal

I think your observations are very astute. Have you seen this page? AvB ÷ talk 14:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kenosis, I was just about to suggest the same thing. It appears that the ArbCom is close to instituting a ban of some sort on User:Fyslee, which would be a serious loss to WP, as he is one of the best scientific skeptical editors we've got. Here are a couple of good things Fyslee has done: [6], [7]. best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 18:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discovery Institute

Why did you revert my edit? It is only a minor clarification, after all. Also I think it is good to make clear right from the beginning that this is basically a US phenomenon. --KarlFrei 09:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Karl: While it is true that the Discovery Institute is American, it's also true that the entire "intelligent design" issue is American, specifically a response to the US Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguilard. As to the placement of the word "American" in the first paragraph, if you look through the talk page of that article, you'll see that it's been quite a task going over very little word in the article, especially in the lead section. If you want, I'll go ask on the talk page if the participating editors want it there or not.. ... Kenosis 11:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I just read your latest entry on that talk page. A minor point: the Dutch minister who suggested looking at intelligent design did not lose her job because of this. She was laughed at and withdrew her suggestion. After the elections in 2007, she became minister of the economy. I don't know whether this switch has anything to do with that two-year-old affair, but I doubt it! --KarlFrei 15:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks man.

- Atfyfe 06:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peirce

As far as I can tell it's currently on your last version, but I don't really know enough to be sure, I'm not familiar with the content. Jayjg (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of pseudoscience in Scientific data archiving

Kenosis, you agreed on the Pseudoscience Talk page that data withholding is a practice that cannot be called science - "no wizards behind the curtain." However, you went to the Scientific data archiving article and deleted the comment about Pseudoscience saying that there is no equivalence. I agree that the two are not equivalent. Data withholding is only one example of a practice that must be described as pseudoscience. Presenting and making fraudulent data (in the belief it will never be tested) is also pseudoscience. Because the term pseudoscience is often used to describe a field like "astrology," some people think that it can only be applied to fields. This is not true as the Pseudoscience article points out in the first sentence. Since we both agree that data withholding and pseudoscience are not equivalent and we both agree that data withholding is not science but pseudoscience, can you help me to find a way to explain to readers that the practice of data withholding is pseudoscience without making it sound like it is equivalent? Thanks!RonCram 14:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Data withholding is one thing; failure to archive all data points is another. ... Kenosis 03:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The article never claimed failure to archive was the same as data withholding. I have tried to clarify the Intro. William reverted in less time than it would take to read it. In fact, I was not even done with the formatting. The best version of the article IMHO, can be found here.[8] Please take a look.RonCram 13:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent design

It should probably be clear why I archived the old vote now. Needed to so I could put in the new, hopefully more consensus-building vote structure.

I kind of feel responsible for making sure things move forwards, given I protected the page, and I'm the one who foolishly unprotected it last time causing all the discussion that was going on to suddenly die off. Adam Cuerden talk 05:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick questions... My thought was that Abstain meant that no specific judgment was made. Perhaps I should remove the others as well... thoughts? Morphh (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PIE

Á la mode. ;)

Cherry ice cream
Cherry ice cream

•Jim62sch• 18:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, but where's the PIE? ... Kenosis 21:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice work!

The Editor's Barnstar
For tireless, and truly excellent work in doing what I could not: Getting the Intelligent design lead into a well-written state worthy of the rest of the article, I award you this Editor's Barnstar. Adam Cuerden talk 21:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multiverses

RE Kenosis' statement:

  • But, we can't observe any other universes so as to develop a genuine statistical analysis of it, such as to be able to say, for instance. "in universe X the balance is 1-in-1050, only one "σ " (one "sigma", or "standard deviation") from the average or expected value of the sample taken in this study of various universes, and look how it collapsed". Like it or not, we only have a sample of 1 (which is the only universe we presently know of).
So what about the multiverse theory? I have seen studies of a distribution of universes? Do you feel it is invalid? ProtoCat 12:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Like it or not, we can't seem to find 'em to double check any of the other theorized universes, to date at least. Heck, to date we seem fairly overwhelmed by the vastness of the one we know of, the one that gave rise to us. Empirical study of it should keep us busy for awhile, I'd think. ...

Not that I mind folks theorizing or speculating about it. But, we already know we're on a relatively moderate-size planet in a relatively moderate-size solar system (not a dwarf, not a giant), not too hot, not too cold on the average (kinda like the three bears story, though I suppose global warming may change my mind about this in due time), etc. Point being, quibble as one might, conditions necessary for life were and are present on Earth. But to date, we have no way of developing an emprirically verifiable statistical analysis of what the probabilities are against this occurring"randomly", or "by accident" (read that: "without guidance or intentionality of some kind"), because it's the only universe we know of. This longstanding conceptual problem appears, in part at least, to motivate some of the discussions about other hypothetical universes.

Given a sufficiently diverse universe within certain paramaters not all of which are identified to date, Earth turns out to be a "hit" so to speak, and "poof", here we are (well, not exactly "poof", of course, as it's taken some four billion years to get from the primordial soup to the present form of things). So it doesn't bother me to see speculation that essentially hypothesizes "if enough universes exist, one or more of them, within a speculated range of specific parameters, might give rise to sustained self-replicating, evolving life." We still end up thinking in terms of a range of parameters. But I think we're actually somewhat behind the learning curve as to just how difficult it is to visualize. As Stephen Hawking said, asking what happened before the Big Bang is rather like asking what lies north of the North Pole. Similarly, asking what lies beyond the singularity runs into this difficulty. ... Kenosis 15:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ProtoCat

I don't want to cause a newbie problems because of their initial foolishness. Though I'm not sure, from ProtoCat's response, if they actually agree that there's foolishness to hide. Think they're foreign?

This message is brought to you by the gender-neutral singular "they". Because nothing else works!(tm) Adam Cuerden talk 19:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, god. I just looked at their talk page. They asked me for my opinion on what they were doing... Okay, this gender-neutral they is getting over-the top itself. *flips coin* Tails. She asked my opinion on what she was doing wrong, so I told her, then she accuses me of being foreign and having no reading comprehension skill. Time to stop feeding the troll, I think. Adam Cuerden talk 19:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
This is turning into a bit of a train wreck. For the record I have no problem with anyone striking any Talk or User Talk comments in an effort to move on without animosity. SheffieldSteel 20:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Gender-neutral_pronoun#Neologisms :) •Jim62sch• 22:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
That is hilarious. I think I'll stick with (s)he and her/him, despite fear of the Linguistics Enforcment Department (LED) forbidding the use of the slash. .... Kenosis 23:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The troll was recently banned for being the fourth sockpuppet incarnation of VacuousPoet. Just watch the style and pattern of edits. A fifth sockpuppet will show up in a couple of weeks. Orangemarlin 06:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ID

If you want that information second thing in the article, then we have to move thing s around so we don't repeat things. I've rearranged paragraphs as best I may to try and get it there. It's not a perfect flow, but then, it's no worse than the old version in that respect. ---- 16:35, 19 May 2007 Adam Cuerden

I disagree with harping on the DI's main talking point, which they'd just love people to believe, repeatedly and without appropriate bringing in of the other views. It's like free advertising for them. Anyway, the way you were doing it doesn't work very well - them claiming it's a scientific theory has very little to do with it being the teleological argument. You could possibly attach it to the first sentence, but the first sentence is supposed to be able to stand alone according to guidelines, and it's dodgy enough already with its almost pro-DI content. Adam Cuerden talk 19:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, but I'd think it has the potential to concisely express the contradiction in one sentence: Claimed to be a scientific theory but actually a teleological argument. Anyway, no sweat about it. ... Kenosis 19:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's a good idea, but I'm not really sure that most readers could identify the teleological argument as not being science without some prompting. After all, creation science wasn't dropped because the public didn't like it. Adam Cuerden talk 19:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

I just feel I have to elabourately defend anything I do on ID of late, because if I don't I have Jim throuwing all sorts of personal attacks at me. And then, if I do try to defend it, he throws attacks at me. Can't win with that fellow. Has he actually done any work on the ID article besides a lot of reverting? Adam Cuerden talk 21:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

He's fixed a good deal of godawful syntax, grammar and linguistic usage, including some gaffes of my own. He doesn't hesitate to correct me if he thinks he sees a need. Thrown some barbs at me on occasion too; occasionally I'll throw one at him-- we still get along quite OK. ... Kenosis 22:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, well. I shouldn't be annoyed. He just seemed to be sniping anything I did for a while in rather nasty language. I think it's blown over now. Adam Cuerden talk 06:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent design

You know, Dembski keeps highlighting those poor souls on Wikipedia, banned, just because they support ID.

...One wonders if we aren't getting creationist trolls hoping to be martyrs for the cause. Adam Cuerden talk 23:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've yet to hear of any user that was banned for supporting ID. AFAIK, several have been banned for incessantly violating the WP rules. The ID article makes no judgments about ID. It explains the topic and reports what the reliable sources have to say about it, in keeping with the rules of WP. If some people can't tolerate that, well-- I don't think there's anything I can say that would help the situation of those persons. ... Kenosis 23:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, of course "just because they suppot ID" means constant injection of POV, personal attacks on evolutionists, etc, etc. But there were a few recent examples of twisting bans into that sort of propaganda. Adam Cuerden talk 06:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
No doubt. Incidentally, on a personal note, hope you've gotten rested up and are feeling chipper again. ... Kenosis 12:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, more or less. Certainly, I've been getting some things done, which is a start, and am getting out a lot. Sleeping more than I should, though. Adam Cuerden talk 15:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ID reversion

Fair enough, but I thought the third paragraph had changed into the history of ID, not just the legal standing? Anyway, worth an experiment to see how hard it was to make work. Adam Cuerden talk 16:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

NP Adam. I appreciate the explanation. Take care for now. ... Kenosis 16:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, the results seem to be "probably doable, but harder than it looks". It'd take a fair bit of editing to really make the "associtated with" section fit in smoothly, and the returns for it are.... probably not that great. Slightly stronger language in the first paragraph in exchange for a slightly weaker third. Let's leave it for now. Adam Cuerden talk 16:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus Myth hypothesis

Dear Kenosis, could you please have a look at my reply at the section Redundancy. I believe the wrangling around Josephus is a big misunderstanding. Maybe you agree. Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 17:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we're close to a solution there. I left a couple of relevant comments on the talk page. I still, though, would like to see some form of a little summary paragraph referencing Josephus, Tacitus and Seutonius, such as the one you've said is redundant but perhaps phrased in a way to better integrate it. Good regards, Kenosis 18:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] facts

I wonder if you might give an opinion of the article fact. 22:44, 10 June 2007 Banno (Talk)

Banno, this article runs directly across central problems of epistemology, and certain theories of truth, especially correspondence, constructivist and pragmatic. It's on my watchlist and my to-do list now. Offhand I'd put it on a timeline of maybe a month or more to pull together into some workable form. ... Kenosis 00:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits. My interest was mainly in bringing it into line with truth, knowledge, belief and the epistemology article - which itself now suffers from wikirot. Some sign of improvement today, but there is still a large section on philosophy that makes little sense. Banno 07:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

Dear Kenosis, any suggestion of how to fix the first sentence of the Description section? Sounds already pretty critical and thus not appropriate for this section.

By promoting a false perception that evolution is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community,

The description also would benefit from a mention about the affiliation issue, since it will come in length in the criticism section. I already pointed out that deceased individuals are kept on the list. This will make the list artificially long with time. But my edits were reverted. Most of my edits were reverted and I am seen by one editor as a troll, so I gave up for the time being. Northfox 23:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

My apologies for causing you grief. Because I use permanent links to archive, the old material only now exists on the old difs. The simplest solution might be to copy-&-paste the text you want to comment on to the talk page, with an appropriate note explaining its origin. Banno 06:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

NP Banno, no grief at all. Only trying to figure out how the latest set of relevant procedures work. Thanks. ... Kenosis 06:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The process I used is found at Help:Archiving a talk page#Permanent link archives method where the problem you discovered is mentioned. I prefer it because it uses less server resources, and is simple to do. Banno 06:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Sorry about removing my posts from the discussion. It would have messed with the flow. Look forward to hearing from you. I really just need a few days off to relax. I'm meant to be on holidays. Editing on that page was tough. I'll probably work on some simpler topics and talk to you again later. --Comaze 13:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference format at intelligent design

Hi, I thought it would improve the readability of the article. I didn't delete any of the references. No need to get hysterical. Silly rabbit 00:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Kenosis, please read and abide by WP:OWN. You are not the gatekeeper for article improvements. You also appear to be operating under the misconception that edits to featured articles which you have worked on require your permission before they may be applied to the article. This is in error. Please see, for instance, the featured-article banner at the top of Talk:Intelligent design, which explicitly invites direct contributions under WP:BOLD. --FOo 00:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noting this; I think I'll go remove it now. ... Kenosis 01:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Existence

Please leave this article alone if you don't know how to improve it. I can show in detail why the edits you made over the last few days are weak and poorly written. Otherwise, please leave it alone. edward (buckner) 16:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, I just began this cleanup process an hour or so ago, and hadn't finished, nor finished rounding up citations. Secondly, I find the attitude here and in Dbuckner's edit summary to be quite unwelcome here or anywhere, and his marching orders quite unenforceable, at least in the end. Thirdly, this is an article that's been a complete conceptual mess for some time now and in dire need of help. I wonder what is the great attachment to the utter mess that constitutes the article lead at present. Not even a mention of ontology, but it's merely an epistemological problem? as expressed in the introduction of the article as "that existence is what is asserted by statements of first-order logic of the form "for some x Fx". This agrees with the simple and commonsensical view that, in uttering "There is a bridge across the Thames at Hammersmith", or "A bridge crosses the Thames at Hammersmith", one asserts the existence of a bridge across the Thames at Hammersmith. The word "existence", in this view, is a simple way of describing the logical form of an ordinary "subject-predicate" sentence." I could easily imagine I'm dealing with a pompous arse from the analytic school who hasn't the foggiest idea how to write an encyclopedia article or work cooperatively, but that would be speculation so I won't assert such a thing. Have a nice day. I'll deal with this later. ... Kenosis 16:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Science

Your edit [9] did much more than "Some basic cleanup in the lead, per talk". You also put in the TotallyDisputed tag back in there, removing it again three edits later, stating "Removing 'totally-disputed' tag, which vastly overstated the case about the section on scientific method." It seems you basically undid these edits. This is somehow confusing. Are these changes deliberate? --rtc 05:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article Review: Intelligent design

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --FOo 09:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Existence

I said I would be happy to discuss the problems with your edit. You wrote

Problems with the concept of existence involve several issues in philosophy. Among the main problems involves the use of the verb "to be" (is, was, and its various other forms). The verb "to be", "is", "was", "will be", "has been", etc., may refer to concepts that have no known counterpart in the real world, such as gnomes or goblins, as well as to things that are accepted to be facts that actually exist beyond being a mere concept of mind.

The first sentence is clumsy. The third is incorrect. The verb 'is' does not refer to anything. And gnomes and goblins are not concepts, though the concept of gnomes is a concept, likewise the concept of goblins. Does that help?

If you think the structure of the current article is a complete mess, say way (on the talk page). Don't write clumsy and inaccurate things in the main article. edward (buckner) 15:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gerund

I'm not sure it was a good idea to remove the "limitedgeographicscope" template from the page about the gerund. That page used to give the incorrect impression that the gerund works in all languages in the same way as it does in English. The addition of the first sentence fixed the incorrectness of the page's perspective, but not its limitedness: the body of the page still focuses exclusively on the gerund in English. In contrast, the pages about other grammatical terms usually discuss the subject across languages, in addition to English specifics. Following that standard, it seems that the limitedgeographicscope template should be reinstated on the gerund page for the time being. 87.13.254.25 15:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (The) scientific method

Hi there! Thanks for your note. I don't really feel competent to get involved with the primary issue of the existence or otherwise of "the scientifc method", but I think, purely as a matter of language, we can use "scientific method", without an article, as a direct replacement. Your statement that we can because "scientific method" is an abstract noun and/or a collective noun doesn't seem to give us an accurate test - there are some abstract collective nouns that can't be used in this way. For example, it would be incorrect to say "The school teaches curriculum" or "Literary critisism establishes corpus". I can't immediately think of a test that gives clear results, even for words with very similar meanings: compare "Wikipedia is run by committee" (perfectly standard usage), "Wikipedia is run by cabal" (not obviously wrong, but decidedly unnatural - most native speakers would put the article in), and "Wikipedia is run by coterie" (completely unidiomatic - this sentence needs "a" or "the" to work as English). Again, I'm not disputing your claim that "the scientific method" doesn't exist; I just don't feel that your proposed sentence ("Empirical science uses scientific method") is good English. Tevildo 11:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

While the preferred technical usage is "scientific method", the popular usage remains "the scientific method". That's all I was saying on the ID talk page. It seems it's a maintenance headache that likely is not worth keeping up with, on the whole, because frequently folks come along, see the term "scientific method" without the "the" attached, and plop it right in there, repeatedly. So unless the regular particpants agree to maintain it, as has been done at scientific method, the popular usage will prevail. But my note on your talk page had more to do with settling the issue of the words "empirical science" by finding sourcing for the words, or a suitable alternative. ... Kenosis 15:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC) ... Kenosis 13:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spellcheck

Noted your comment. Just thought I would offer that I use http://www.iespell.com (free) when using IE based browsers. Firefox has a nice feature that will underline misspelled words. Morphh (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What happened

To lead to this edit summary? I had just started editing. I don't think it's hopeless at all. Marskell 16:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the opinions in the FAR are all over the map, so to speak. I don't think it serves the goal of honest reporting on a controversial topic to be playing around with so many varying interpretations of the FA criteria. It's in the nature of a controversial, complex topic such as ID. ... Kenosis 16:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
What happens on these controversial reviews is a forest-for-the-trees problem. People have their POVs on the particular subject, the nature of FAs themselves then becomes an issue, there's much shouting and carrying on...and all of the little stuff gets forgotten about. So fix the small prose issues brought up (as you did with Tony's comment), audit for clunky language, make the refs consistent, and you'll ultimately have a better page. Marskell 16:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed that's the goal. Thanks much. ... Kenosis 17:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why arn't you an administrator yet?

You have been around the traps long enough! Would you accept nomination? Banno 22:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

From my talk page:

Banno, I'm not sure I've gotten adequately involved to go that route quite yet. On the other hand, it would be nice to be of further assistance in moving the philosophy articles forward. I'd like some time to consider whether I'd be able to devote adequate time and attention to the necessary tasks. Will talk later, thanks. ... Kenosis 16:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. The process can be a bit arduous, since they will drag up any deep, dark secrets from your Wiki past, so you need to be prepared. Have a think about how you would answer the standard questions from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship:

  1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
  2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
  3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

Your edit history from WanabeKate looks good to me: [10]

If any passers-by would support this nomination for a nomination, perhaps they could say so on this talk page?

Otherwise, just let me know when you would like to have a go. Banno 22:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did I think you were already an admin? I need to keep up with these things. Orangemarlin 05:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ID FAR

Me too. It's plodding work, but the refs'll be in shape eventually. Best, Marskell 06:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis, I just wanted to say I appreciate how you've maintained civility throughout. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To be clear

As you have asked in a couple of different ways about the FAR process, note that there is a procedure detailed on the main review page. It asks that we not !vote for the first to two to three week review period, to allow ample time for comment. Consensus won't be ignored, to be sure. And if FAR regulars appear to be "conducting" things, do consider the opposite perspective: that someone fresh to the article finds hostility from page regulars. That's what I'm seeing. I'm presently having my good faith impugned by Filll and Jim and it's not particularly fun. I mention it to you because you have maintained civility. Marskell 12:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


I'll drop an email to Jim and Filll regarding the assumption of good faith, asking that they not confuse tendentious opponents of the article with reviewers and others who may have advice, comments, preferences about the article, etc. As to conducting things in the FAR, and alleged hostility to newcomers by page regulars, these are two entirely separate issues that should IMO not even be in the same sentence, other than, say, to illustrate a range of problems that one may confront. FOo's beliefs, which s/he stated both explicitly and implicitly, unfortunately are simply incorrect. The resentment began after FOo's preferences for the article were refused by longer-term participants, including myself, and allegations of WP:OWN (against a very amorphous group no less) began to be alleged. This came with other snipes arising out of FOo's failure to gain consensus, and attempts to browbeat various participants both on the talk page (characterized as "you", meaning "people who edit this article") along with a set of individual gambits such as that posted on my own talk page. As I said on the FAR page, I thought it was a bit overly self-centered to expect the results s/he sought based upon the length of time between initial proposal (several days) and the unilateral outcry about WP:OWN rendered against the collective participants in the article and individually on their talk pages and elsewhere. But, I don't want to spend the time to collect this information into one place unless it appears important to do so, and would prefer that FOo merely begin to see that there is a momentum involved in WP articles, and sometimes one's newly introduced preferences simply don't succeed in persuading the "regulars" that they're an improvement. I'm afraid it goes part and parcel with WP:Consensus. Incidentally, Marskell, I appreciate your note about my having "maintained civility"--to be sure, this can take extra effort at times. ;-) ... Kenosis 17:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Marksell, where did I impugn your "good faith"? Also, if you have a problem, don't bitvch to Kenosis, talk to me. I have no particular feeling against you. You've been wiling to tackle the references issue, and that's some you are to be commended on (and something I'd prefer not to touch with a ten meter cattle prod). •Jim62sch• 22:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, in going over the FAR, it seems that Marksell may have inferred something I did not imply. Unless I state your name in a post that follows another by someone else, don't assume that I'm talking about you. Filll's point about gold stars was not what I was agreeing with. Rather, "However, this process is not without cost. All the effort being made to defend the article from assorted sniping on both this page and the talk page would be far better spent in careful proofreading of the article itself and fact-checking" was what I was agreeing with. •Jim62sch• 22:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I as well am amazed to find out that Marksell feels I was attacking him or her. I certainly did not lump them in with the POV warriors which have to be constantly beaten back, on the regular talk page or the FAR page. I also tip my hat to Marksell for undertaking the thankless task of fixing the references. I have done this on other articles in the past, and it is quite unpleasant. My role on intelligent design is mainly to offer my advice, and to try to help combat the vandals and trolls. I do not write much of that article at all. It is just too difficult to do so. I spend my article writing efforts on other articles that are not so difficult to work with.--Filll 21:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


Kenosis, just noticed your remarks about sandy this and the other. Having lived in the general area for a while, I'm always reminded of Sandy, Beds, which sounds like the sort of thing that happens when you're staying at the seaside ;) .. dave souza, talk 23:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, I imagine you mean my use of Sandy Springs and Sandy Hook as examples of non-controversial-articles-to-which-it-is-not-feasible-to-compare-the-one-that-was-then-under-review. A number of seaside places so named -- I wonder why. ;-) ... Kenosis 01:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't tell Sandy I said this, but I've never really seen a problem with the ID FAR apart from the incivility. The consensus was keep and close, and the FAR was closed and the status kept. DrKiernan 18:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, ultimately it was closed as recommended by the dominant majority of commentators. I'm a bit disturbed by the perception of several in the FA community that it somehow was not properly brought to a conclusion, when in fact it was properly brought to a conclusion by closing it as a keep, thus respecting a clear consensus. But it's not really my bailiwick, so my observations were limited to attempting to identify the tensions and potential sources of confusion. Plainly the position of some is that the procedure is fine the way it is. To me it seems clear that the ground rules are quite unclear and the stance among some is basically, "it's fine; just let us decide on an as-needed basis because we know what's best from experience". So I disagree; NP. Thanks for the note, DrKeirnan. ... Kenosis 18:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard d'Abrera

I would appreciate it if you scanned my article on this gentleman for potential problems. I created it in connection with A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. Thanks.--Filll 22:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll go have a look-see. Incidentally, thanks for the expansion of Clergy Letter Project. ... Kenosis 20:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I have also improved (hopefully) Project Steve, A Scientific Support for Darwinism, Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity and Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism. I want all these articles to be at least better than stubs.--Filll 20:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Sorry you got chased out of the discussion at Non-free content. I'm sure I had more than zero part of your leaving, so I apologize for the discussion environment that had developed. It's probably a good idea for me to step away for a bit as well. Maybe write about Pogs or something a little more light-hearted :-). Sancho 18:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the note. Talk later. ... Kenosis 18:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Preview button

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. --Abu badali (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this recommendation, Abu badali. A recent revew of Abu badali's talk submissions also indicates that this funtion could be of use there as well. Myself, I reserve the right to return after the basic thrust of a talk page comment is posted in order to clean up remaining typos, grammatical and syntax issues, and such. ... Kenosis 15:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Please, don't take that personally. It was intended as a helpful advice. --Abu badali (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I think Kenosis' style of editing is fine...no, beyond fine -- it is an excellent and highly productive way to get the thoughts out there; it is then proofed by Kenosis afterwards. In other words, I see no problems. •Jim62sch• 16:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Wundt-research-group.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wundt-research-group.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

tagged •Jim62sch• 20:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Figh2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Figh2.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


tagged •Jim62sch• 20:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Einstein images

In the recent debate, I didn't bring up this issue, but I'd be interested in your opinion on it. Carcharoth 09:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, this is quite understandable, and does not by any stretch of imagination mean that all public-domain photographs of Einstein cannot be freely used by the public. I am still in the process of looking into it further, though. Einstein left his estate to Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Einstein had actively supported the university during his life and this support continues with the royalties received from licensing activities. It appears that Hebrew University of Jerusalem entered into a contract with the Roger Richman Agency to license the commercial use of the name "Albert Einstein" and associated imagery and likenesses of Einstein (celebrity rights essentially), as agent for the Hebrew University. As head licensee the agency can control commercial usage of Einstein's name (e.g., when Albert Einstein's name is used in a trademark or commercial advertisement). In May, 2005, the Roger Richman Agency was acquired by Corbis. ... Kenosis 14:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tendentious argumentation

On Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content you mentioned "very subjective NFCC#8 and overly broad interpretations of NFCC#2." I am undergoing one on the commons. [[11] I had already uploaded a new version to en:Wikipedia so this discussion doesn't matter. Image:FloppyRom_Magazine.jpg With so many images with obvious copyright problems I don't know why the "copyright police" dig in on marginal issues. -- SWTPC6800 03:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] European Union

Well, technically it's the European Economic Area. Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein also have to implement EU directives on copyright. Haukur 18:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'm OK with whatever particular wording that is appropriate to describe the additional nations that've signed onto the EU directives. I understand Finland is hedging on it due to the free-speech/fair-dealing issues. Anyway, there are multiple wikiipedians involved-- whatever is chosen will, I hope, turn out to reasonably express it so it's both simple and accurate. .... Kenosis 18:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Truth

Time Saving Truth from Falsehood and Envy, François Lemoyne, 1737
Time Saving Truth from Falsehood and Envy, François Lemoyne, 1737

The Islandic Wikipedia, which is the only one with a featured Truth article, uses the painting in the lead. Isn't it better to follow the Manual of Style than to run from vandals? What were the other pictures removed? I am astonished that such paintings can represent any point of view with regard to a particular theory -- how exactly is that possible? ←BenB4 08:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Two additional issues bayond what I left on your talk page: First WP:MOS never trumps local consensus. Second, believe it or not, La Verite was taken to be an icon of correspondence theory, and the users who maintained that position had a point, IMO. There were raucous POV disputes in that article, and for a very long time it was regarded as a tar pit until we stabilized it with a great deal of work. The topic is difficult enough for many people without dealing with unnecessary censorship arguments. If someone can find an effectuve image that can stand up front without ridiculous controversy, then great--please upload it; I feel sure everyone who participated in the article will be delighted to put it in the lead. Thanks. ... Kenosis 08:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I found Truth Leaving the Well which I love, but she's holding the same mirror that La Verite has, so I found Time Saving Truth from Falsehood and Envy which is even better (right.) ←BenB4 11:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus myth hypothesis

I noted your comment on the article above about how the article had gone through the renaming question already. Personally, as suggested on the talk page there, I personally think "Historical Jesus as myth" might be the best title, as it helps indicate that the subject is the allegedly (probably, in my eyes) historical Jesus, and it indicates that the content about the other "myths" about Jesus (travels to Egypt, India, Central America, probably Mars and lord knows where else, etc., ad nauseum) would probably best fit in to fall within the scope of a separate article. Also, from what little I've seen of you that I can remember, I think you'd probably be a good admin too. Thanks for all your work, and for your little "history lesson" on the talk page above. John Carter 14:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images listed for deletion

[edit] Image:Oneill.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Oneill.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Figh2.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Figh2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Time_evolution_wars.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Time_evolution_wars.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Time evolution wars.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Time evolution wars.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. —Angr 23:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

For reverting the vandalism to my user page I just noticed today. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 16:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wesley R. Elsberry and WP:3RR

Hi, Kenosis. Are you Wesley R. Elsberry? I ask because of the attribution information on Image:Dembski head shot 2.jpg.

As a side note, about your comment on my talk page about WP:3RR, please carefully check the facts. I had reverted the page only twice. And the policy says you can get blocked for reverting a page "more than three times". --Abu badali (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Abu badali. Someone puts an image in] and Abu badali removes it, that's a revert; someone else puts it back in and Abu badali reverts again, that's another revert; yet someone else puts an image in and Abu badali reverts yet again, that's three in less than one day. And, it's tendentious edit warring with neither discussion on the talk page nor reasoned attempt to gain consensus.

As to Wesley Elsberry, the original license is at Image:Wad by wre 20060317 2972.JPG. I'll go make a note on the image page. ... Kenosis 16:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a very minor thing to contact Wesley R. Elsberry at User: Wesley R. Elsberry. I will also note that you can be blocked for reverting only twice, depending on circumstances.--Filll 16:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the problem with the picture? --Wesley R. Elsberry 19:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem at all AFAIK, except that image police are presently investigating w.r.t. intelligent design (a quite reasonable investigation, I should note). I cropped your image to get a head shot that would work in place of the previously used image. If you object to the crop, please leave a note on Talk:intelligent design. And thanks for granting a free license for the image. ... Kenosis 19:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the explanation. I wasn't sure what was going on. I don't have a problem with cropping, as long as the grant of rights from the original carries over to any derivative works. --Wesley R. Elsberry 20:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Got it covered. Thanks for providing the image. ... Kenosis 20:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book covers

Just a heads-up - I disputed the fair-use rationale for the three book covers in Intelligent design. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi - can you point me to the discussion where consensus was achieved on inclusion of the book covers in Intelligent design? Videmus Omnia Talk 19:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It's either on the current talk page or in the most recent archive. ... Kenosis 19:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Just to confirm - is this the discussion? Videmus Omnia Talk 20:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe the discussion started here, and proceeded for several sections. ... Kenosis 20:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'll read through them. Videmus Omnia Talk 20:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time magazine cover

Hey, Kenosis. In a recent edit at Intelligent design, you deleted a mention of the Time magazine cover from the lead of the article, and your edit comment said:

Removing the reference to the specific Time Magazine issue from the lead. The cover image stands on its own as fair-use because it illustrates the public dimension of the controversy at its height

I really hope you are right about that. I think you ought to be right about that. But for reasons that are totally opaque to me, there seems to be some urgent drive to get rid of perfectly sensible fair use of such images, by nit picking over the wording of guidelines and taking things to the most extreme possible interpretation with a view to deleting anything not a completely free use image. It looks like some strange kind of position of principle that is being held of even greater importance that the actual useful content of the encyclopedia. I really don't get it.

But in the meantime, I want to be sure that we provide a very obvious and clear basis for any ruling administrator of the value of this image to the article. I think it does provide significant value with real content, not merely better presentation. If the anti-fair-use-of-non-free-images campaign has followers even amongst the administrators who rule on deletion motions, then this becomes even more important. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 15:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it needs to be mentioned in the article, it can be integrated into the Controversy section, with a brief mention of other examples of major exposure too, such as the NY Times, etc. But its valid fair use does not hinge on being an illustration of text already in the article, because it's a self-standing illustration of the public dimension of the controversy. Also, WP does not require a textual reference to the specific work, but rather, this is the position of regularly active "only free content" advocates and image-deletion advocates. ... Kenosis 15:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Anrie's post

Hi, Kenosis, I'm not sure what you were thinking of at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 August 21, but I have reverted your edit. While of course it's not technically a vote, still, if we refer to it as such for reasons of convenience, then that post that you tampered with was Anrie's only vote on the subject. There was no duplicate that I could see; yet you changed it from Remove as proposed to Response. In any case, it would be much better, if you think that a vote is invalid for some reason, to put a comment underneath it, pointing that out, and to leave a note for the user concerned, asking them to go back and make whatever modifications are necessary. People can get very angry if they think someone is tampering with their vote. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting it! I had Anrie confused with Angr. ... Kenosis 15:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template fixed

I fixed the template for fair use of the time magazine cover about five minutes before you tried making various modifications... :-) It was unmatched brackets for an internal link. History will show the diff. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 17:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images for deletion

Some images you uploaded have been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussions to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. The images were:

Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrights and expirations

Greetings. We've had our disagreements in some image deletion debates, and you don't seem to think very highly of me. I find this unfortunate because your knowledge and experience with copyright renewals is very valuable. I'd really like to discuss some details about this sort of thing with you, regarding how we can know whether a given image is copyrighted or not, but I'd also like to avoid opening myself up to accusations of bad motives or the like. Would you be willing to work with me to assemble some easy-to-follow information about copyright renewal, so that these sorts of debates can be resolved more quickly? I'm thinking something along the lines of this, but specifying how to look for renewals, rules of thumb, etc. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Quadell, your opening sentence appears to me to surmise the possiblity that I would not think highly of you because we disagree, or perhaps alternately that I would think highly of you because we agree on the issues related to low-resolution facsimiles of still-images such as 70+ year-old photographs. (For the purposes of this response, I will avoid any analysis of what the words "think highly of [a given person]" might actually mean either in theory or practice.) The statement you just made above, specifically "[Kenosis]... you don't seem to think very highly of me", even if it were true, which it is not because I hadn't even thought of it till now, has nothing to do with anything that I really care about as far as issues are concernced in WP. It is true that I am presently (extra emphasis on the word "presently") angry about certain approaches that the community of image-deletion advocates appear to me to have taken of late. And, I readily admit I am angry about your implementation of administrative discretion in the IfD at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_18#Image:Oneill.jpg. And, so what if I'm angry about it at the moment?

As to the issues that have visibly manifested within the last week or so w.r.t. image deletion practice, yes Quadell, as you said, "We've had our disagreements in some image deletion debates." Myself, I don't have a clue how these debates will fall "at the end of the day", so to speak, or where the related issues might lead from there. But I most certainly am interested in discussing these issues much further, as my time may permit. I believe there are multiple interacting issues that contribute unnecessarily to disagreements about what's valid WP content and what's not valid WP content. So, let's keep in touch about this. As I said, as time permits, I'm more than willing to attempt to identify the problematic issues w.r.t. permissible images. Other media, frankly, I don't care about, because they run right into the teeth of modern copyright law. IMO, once the issues related to still images are reasonably well identified, those involved in this particular set of arguments about 50 to 100 year-old photographs can, I surely hope, move onto another hopefully productive set of issues. But, for the moment, maybe we can keep the issue of the low-resolution still images in our sights. ... Kenosis 05:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Although you've probably seen it elsewhere, I wanted to point you to Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Images_probably_in_the_public_domain, to ask if you could comment there. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nobel photos

I added a comment here about the Nobel photos. Hope you can shed some light on what that all means! Carcharoth 04:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The plot thickens. . . The Nobel Foundation wrote me back. Here is the entire text of their response:
In Swden, there is a law regarding copyright which says that the copyright expires 70 years after that the photographer has died. According to that law, we do distribute the historical photos of Alfed Nobel, dynamite, his houses and his family to the press. Regarding the portrait photos of the Lauretaes we do not give permission to reprint due to copyright considerations. Photos from the Nobel Prize Award Ceremony and Banquet have been taken by our photographer, exclusively for the website. We recommend for people to purchase similar photos from one of the photo agencies represented in the photo pool accredited by the Nobel Foundation, such as Reuters, Associated Press or Agence France Presse. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact our legal counsel ms Lanner at erika.lanner@nobel.se
I note several things about this reply. (1) I had explicitly and unambiguously requested that they specify whether they claim copyright on any Laureate images. They did not directly answer. The statement "Photos: Copyright © The Nobel Foundation" on their website certainly seems unambiguous, but they affix this statement to images that are obviously PD. Does their statement "due to copyright considerations" mean they don't hold the copyright? (2) According to current law, Swedish copyright does expire 70 years after the death of the author; however, this law went only into effect in 1969. All photos first published in Sweden (and nowhere else) before 1969 are in the public domain. Either the person who wrote back doesn't understand Swedish copyright law, or she was deliberately obscuring the situation to make it appear that they hold copyright to images they do not.
To muddy the waters even more, their "copyright" page states:
Permission to use an image or a photo of a Nobel Prize medal is only granted if. . . [blah blah blah]. . . For uses of photos, other than those of a Nobel Laureate, permission from the Nobel Foundation or Nobel Web AB, and in certain cases, from the photographer, is required.
No information about photos of laureates is given. The PDF version of the "terms and conditions" is the same, but it omits the "other than those of a Nobel Laureate" clause. What do I make of this? My conclusion is that, despite the "Photos: Copyright © The Nobel Foundation" statement on each page, the Nobel Foundation is not making a clear claim of copyright on the photos. I still don't know how to treat the photos though. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think we've been quite cautious here. Among the images that have been at issue recently, nothing is called public domain that isn't public domain on its face. Nothing post-1937. If they can show that they attributed the photographer in their public copyright claims prior to the expiration of 70 years, then the public domain assertion will be promptly removed and a case made for fair use of the web-resolution images of these historically important persons. And, it also appears on its face that they're PD in the US for all images prior to 1963, But I haven't addressed the ones between 1937 and 1963, because they involve a separate set of issues, as you know already. Nice research, Quadell. ... Kenosis 15:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1978-1989

Hello again. We have a tag, {{PD-Pre1978}}, that can be used for images that are in the public domain because they were first published in the U.S. without a copyright notice before 1978. (It should probably be changed to {{PD-US-Pre1978}}.) As I'm sure you're aware, images first published between 1/1/1978 and 3/1/1989 in the U.S. without a copyright notice are also PD if the author failed to subsequently register the copyright (and I assume that if they didn't bother to add a © when they published it, they usually didn't bother to register the copyright either). This can be checked at http://www.copyright.gov/records/cohm.html since that claims to a complete record of copyright registrations of all types from 1978 on.

So. . . do you think we ought to have a {{PD-US-1978-1989}} tag or something similar? I'm not sure the best name, obviously. Do you see any errors in my reasoning here? I figure if you and I actually agree, then we're probably right. :-) – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with this additional template, as it's an important class of images. Please also see Wikipedia_talk:Public_domain#Yet_another_PD_template_added and Template:PD-Pre1964. I was about to give you and some others the heads-up, but you beat me to it. ... Kenosis 22:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Related: I noticed Fantastic Universe is a recently Featured Article about a 1950s magazine whose main image was tagged as non-free. After doing five minutes worth of armchair research, I concluded that the image is actually PD. This would probably be a good candidate for the new {{PD-Pre1964}} tag, now that I think about it. Unless I missed a digit somewhere, it looks like any photo, book, magazine, etc. published between 1/1/1950 and 12/31/1963 is PD, unless you can find it renewed at the comprehensive online search here. (For anything before 1950, you'd have to use other searches, and I haven't studied those for completeness.) I'd like to get the word out about this, since it seems like there are lots of great possibilities here. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Haukurth has pointed out to me that there's already a template in place called {{PD-US-not renewed}} with Category:PD US not renewed. Since only a small percentage of material published 1923-1963 was renewed, it represents a vast pool of public domain material, and as such I would think non-renewed images created in this time period will have the potential to be an important source of images for WP in the future. ... Kenosis 17:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jim62sch's talk page

It would be appreciated if you did not revert changes that are made to conform to Wikipedia guidelines, especially with such a revert summary. ELIMINATORJR 18:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If the assertion is that certain material does not belong on a user talk page, please bring the issue up in an appropriate forum such as a Request for Comment rather than deleting from that user's page. If it's that far off base, then a broader group of participants will make an appropriate decision one way or another. ... Kenosis 18:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
There's no need to start an RFC for every inappropriate thing anyone could put in user space. Polemical statements on user pages are expressly covered by WP:USER; there's even a quote from Jimbo about it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks CBM. It occurs to me there's also an administrator's noticeboard that could serve to arbit such a dispute fairly expediently. Thanks. ... Kenosis 18:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It's been suggested that WP:AN is an appropriate venue. Deleting a factual statement without prior discussion is a good way to annoy a productive user, and the question of whether it's a polemic is arguable. .. dave souza, talk 19:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:FredThomsonFBO.jpg

In the IFD discussion about this image you stated the image is public domain, but offered none of your usual helpful research to support that. Have you done any research on this? If you can provide evidence that the image is PD then the image can stay with no issue as far as copyright. Thanks -Nv8200p talk 19:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Nv8200p. Yes, I quickly researched the history of FBO and RKOs acquisition and also looked in the US Copyright Office online records to see if there were any renewals under RKO in the early fifties. I've posted it somewhere, and will try to find it and post it at the IfD. ... Kenosis 19:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction to intelligent design

I decided to try to scratch down some early ideas on what this might look like. I think that something simple, but not too simple, might be helpful. Something for people that are maybe at about the grade 8 (or 13 year old) reading level in English. You can see the basically blank page at User:Filll/Introduction to Intelligent Design draft. If you want to throw down some ideas too, you are welcome. --Filll 20:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Query

How do you feel about my referencing your research statement (the one that now appears on the Fred Thomson image page) in blockquote format as appropriate for RKO image pages currently tagged as FU but actually PD, as you've demonstrated?

Also, I've added Template:PD-Pre1964 to Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Public domain. All the best, Dan.—DCGeist 21:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Dan, no objection at all, as long as it faithfully represents the best available information on progeny of images image(s) originating from FBO/RKO. ... Kenosis 21:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Follow-up to your comment on the Public Domain talk page

I posted what I found about Minnesota law and the booking photo issue. My rather lengthy message is posted under Update: applicability of PD or non-free image tag for Sen. Craig mugshot. →Lwalt ♦ talk 19:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the in-depth research, Lwalt. Very useful resources you provided for us to draw upon. ... Kenosis 00:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Computers unrelated to evo-bio

I'd really disagree that you can dismiss computer science as unrelated to evo bio. Even on our CS page [[12]] a minor connection is made.

I'm just really asking for a citation at Rosalind Picard to avoid WP:SYNTH. If an establish link can't be made through citations between Picard and Brayton's comments, they really can't be included in the article to maintain WP:NOR.--ZayZayEM 07:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

NP ZayZayEM. Computer science being unrelated to evolutionary biology was not the specific assertion, IMO. The assertion had to do with credentials and expertise of the person practicing the field, which was cited in multiple locations on the page. ... Kenosis 16:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irreducible complexity

If you disagree with my decision that the book cover is not fair use in the article, please take the issue to Wikipedia:Fair use review or some other forum. Do not just revert the image back in. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 21:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Nv, as you know, it's already been decided by the local consensus, and has something close to a clear consensus in the IfDs, which you unilaterally overrode. ... Kenosis 21:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I've seen the policy on use of non-free book covers override local consensus many times. That is why this issue needs to go to a different forum if you disagree. -Nv8200p talk 21:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Nv, the issue has already been raised at two separate IfDs, here and here. The overwhelming consensus at both IfDs was that both images were appropriate under the NFCCs for use in intelligent design and irreducible complexity. As I said, Phillip E. Johnson I havent' followed, but if the consensus supports its use there, I go with the consensus. On the other side of the ledger, with respect to both images, there were roughly six regular "anti-fair-use" advocates who voted the other way, with largely non-substantive commentary at that. In other words, you unilaterally overruled the consensus that the use of the image in these articles was valid in accordance with the NFCCs. ... Kenosis 22:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Irreducible complexity

You recently made an edit in the ongoing dispute over the appropriateness of Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg on this page. Please join debate at Image talk:Darwinsblackbox.jpg#Use of this image in Irreducible complexity. Rossami (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. ... Kenosis 01:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policies and guidelines

Does my rewrite of the essay section address your concerns? --Kevin Murray 20:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I surely would not want to be overly influential in the decision. Perhaps a note on User talk:Father Goose and User talk:SmokeyJoe would be appropriate before deciding. ... Kenosis 20:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I've responded on POL's talk page. Thanks! >Radiant< 09:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration request

A request for arbitration involving you has been filed here. Please view the request, and add any statements you feel are necessary for the ArbCom to consider in deciding whether to hear the dispute. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Videmus. ... Kenosis 03:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minimal use (comment on Image talk:Darwinsblackbox.jpg)

At least two other people have also pointed out to you on WT:NONFREE that the word "minimal" in our policy is meant to be taken very literally and is not related to fair use law. [13] [14] Our nonfree use policies are only marginally related to fair use law, so arguing that an image use is acceptable per fair use law does not help establish that the use is acceptable on Wikipedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Nor does it necessarily mean "only in the article on the book per se". And at least two other people have pointed out to you and other deletion advocates that the WP use of "minimal" to mean "only one" is an arbitrary distinction. Three articles is still minimal use, and is entirely defensible because the use is in articles directly related to the book. ... Kenosis 14:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image deletion noficiations vs. spam

If you ask Betacommand about why the bot doesn't notify more widely, I am confident he'll be glad to explain. He has repeatedly expressed his willingness to modify the bot to notify in the most convenient manner. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I imagine there are solutions to all of this. As we've seen, the discussions can be contentious. But I think there are less divisive solutions that will still meet the March 2008 deadline and remain significantly stricter than the Board's EDP resolution calls for. ... Kenosis 15:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image problem

Hi Kenosis, this is with ref to the new image you've posted at Josephine Bakhita. I was really glad to see another image in place since I had to delete the original I uploaded, but I'm afraid I'm pretty sure we can't use the one you've provided: I think that's a new painting commissioned by the Holy See for her canonization in 2000. As such, the PD templates are not right. Unfortunately I don't think the 1931 image I had deleted would be legal under those templates either: the 1931 publication was definitely attributed, not anonymous :-( We might be able to use the original under the "US not renewed" template, what do you think? ~ Veledan • T 18:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent information, and thank you for lettimg me know. I'll go attend to it right now. If it's a 1931 image with an author attribution published in a European Union nation, the copyright must also be respected in the United States, in keeping with the Berne Convention and the URAA. That standard is 95 years after the death of the author, and even under a more liberal interpretation of the relevant laws, it's 70 years after the death of the author. Either way it's copyrighted in the US if your informatioin is correct. ... Kenosis 18:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, information corrected with an appropriate template. If any new information comes in, e.g., from the order she belonged to, with respect to either this image or the other one, kindly let me know. Thanks. ... Kenosis 18:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, Veledan. If the original goes back to 1931, or perhaps even before that (I believe a much earlier publication date was mentioned for the image, it may well be in the public domain. But we'd need to have credible information that the photograph or painting itself is unattributed. The author of the photograph or painting is the photographer or painter, not the author of the book. ... Kenosis 19:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please Advise on Procedural Irregularity

Hi Kenosis,

I'm unclear how to deal with a troubling procedural irregularity on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Moulton.

Please go to the history page for that RfC and find these three entries:

  1. (cur) (last) 07:51, September 5, 2007 Moulton (Talk | contribs) (38,311 bytes) (→Response) (undo)
  2. (cur) (last) 07:37, September 5, 2007 ConfuciusOrnis (Talk | contribs) (28,896 bytes) (→Response - rm repost of personal emails) (undo)
  3. (cur) (last) 07:20, September 5, 2007 ConfuciusOrnis (Talk | contribs) (32,890 bytes) (→Response - repost moulton's response minus the colourful formating) (undo)

In the two edits by ConfuciousOrnis, you will see that he twice edited the Response section, and inserted my signature line into the otherwise vacant approval/endorsement slot at the bottom. I immediately removed the bogus signature line in the approval/endorsement section, without comment, other than this one where I politely asked Ornis not to tamper with my Response.

I don't quite know how to properly raise this issue, but part of the controversy is the practice of gratuitously affixing someone's signature to an altered version of a document they never signed. Whether it's an augmented version or an abridged or redacted version, the unauthorized insertion of someone else's signature could be viewed as an inappropriate tampering of an evidentiary record in a formal/official proceeding that seeks to affect the status or standing of someone within a community.

Moulton 11:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll drop him a note informing him that the convention is different on those pages than on talk pages and WP:XfD pages. ... Kenosis 14:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC) ... I just looked at the [history of that RfC, and I can't find the edits you're referring to. Perhaps you're referring to a different page. ... Kenosis 14:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is the URL as it appears in my browser window...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Moulton&diff=prev&oldid=155824612
I had not posted anything at all in the public RfC page at that point. Ornis took an unsigned rehearsal draft from Filll's private userspace, moved it to the public RfC page and gratuitously added a signature mark in the otherwise vacant "approval" section that made it look like I had signed the "approval" section. Ornis then made a further edit to abridge or redact portions of what he had initially copied over. As soon as I discovered that, I removed the bogus signature line from the RfC, as I had not yet approved anything for public release on the actual (public) RfC. I hadn't even finished crafting my response at that stage.
If you look at versions of the RfC just before and just after Ornis publicly posted that unfinished draft, you can see what I'm talking about.
I have no idea how to address this issue.
Moulton 19:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a bit more effort and you could have resolved this. CO reposted this [15], which you had put on the unfinished RFC, as follows:
(cur) (last) 07:21, 5 September 2007 Moulton (Talk | contribs) (26,828 bytes) (→Response - Commentary from Jim62sch) (undo)
(cur) (last) 07:04, 5 September 2007 Moulton' (Talk | contribs) (26,157 bytes) (→Response - Republication Request from Mike Sweeney) (undo)
(cur) (last) 06:46, 5 September 2007 Moulton (Talk | contribs) (25,188 bytes) (→Response - Leon D'Souza Comment) (undo)
(cur) (last) 06:28, 5 September 2007 Moulton (Talk | contribs) (23,232 bytes) (→Response from Ken Chang) (undo)
(cur) (last) 05:48, 5 September 2007 Moulton (Talk | contribs) (21,915 bytes) (→Response - First item of response - Call for a Functional Social Contract to avoid recurring Liminal Social Drama.) (undo)
Enjoy. •Jim62sch• 19:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Kenosis, you should now be able to see both the original material that I had begun to assemble on User:Filll's private rehearsal area, the subset of it which User:ConfuciusOrnis (who is an adversarial editor) unilaterally transferred to the public RfC page, and the signature mark which Ornis relocated into the otherwise vacant "approval" section of the public RfC page. I take exception to an adversarial editor usurping my role by posting selected excerpts from an unfinished rehearsal page and affixing my signature to the "approval" section at the bottom of the Response section. Moulton 20:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Moulton, your preference for ConfuciusOrnis to not have done this is fair enough. If this happened to me, I would just remove it and make a note that I'm removing material placed by that user. It would appear s/he may have thought the collectively worked-on material should go in. If you don't want something there associated with your name, just remove it. If CO still thinks it should be included, s/he will need to quote you, provide a link or diff, or some other method to make it clear that you signed somewhere else but didn't necessarily intend for it to go into the RfC. ... Kenosis 20:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for that, Kenosis. I'm still troubled by the practice of adversarial parties selecting material to contribute to both sides of an RfC. As to what anybody thought, I don't have enough evidence to construct a reliable theory of mind of any of the other parties here. I have enough trouble making up my own mind in the wake of a confusing miasma of evidence. I'm prepared to let this one go as a sign of good will. Moulton 21:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
You're right, it's all a plot crafted by editors who find you to be a tendentious git. Me, I just think you're a bit, well, crazed. OK, no really, what happened is very easy to discern, you posted on Fill's draft (not his "private playground") and I'm betting that CO assumed that you wanted that posted on the real RFC. No evil intent, no malice aforethought, nothing more than reposting. All of which is irrelevant as you reposted it yourself: [16]
How do you know CO reposted unilaterally. I'm sure he types with two hands.  :) •Jim62sch• 20:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Generally yes. Moulton also rather neatly omits to mention the part where after he reposted the material, an admin removed it[17], and explained at length to him, why reposting private emails without specific permission is a no-no[18], or that they are in any case completely irrelevant[19]. ornis (t) 02:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't object to User:KillerChihuahua's interventions because he/she remained neutral, evenhandedly correcting miscues on both sides, and did not sign an endorsement on either side. Moulton 03:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Climate change denial discussion

As I appear to have generated a lot of ill-will on that talk page (not from you, as far as I know), I'd like to ask you to look into making sure that the sentence is edited correctly when it finally happens. Some of the things I mean by "correctly" include making sure that the sources support the sentence (note that Kim whittled the 5 sources down to 3) and that the sentence is as accurate as possible. I really don't want anything else to do with that article. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. If it's agreed to be put in there with a reasonably strong consensus, which it has, I'll do my best to make sure it reflects the consensus. I do wish the repetitious and tendentious arguments would stop and allow folks to do more productive things, though. ... Kenosis 19:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Btw, at the risk of being repetitive (but I'll risk it here, because I don't think it'll be taken the wrong way) consider what happens to the proposed sentence:

Media sources and others have described it as a form of denialism.

when you replace the "it" with what it is referring to:

Media sources and others have described climate change denial as a form of denialism.

If you still think that's meaningful, then you have my blessing to change it (for as little as that's worth). Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Obviously it should be worded and syntaxed acccording to its placement in the article. If the sentence(s) before makes clear what "it" is, then "it" is adequate. If not, then it's not. ... Kenosis 19:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that it actually be replaced — I was merely commenting on its meaning. I'm guessing that you quite understand its meaning, and I was definitely not meaning to insult your intelligence on that. If it came off that way, I apologize. Furthermore, I will not be insulted at all if you want to delete any of my comments from your talk page. I just didn't want to contribute anymore to the cluttering on the climate change denial talk page. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, understood about the meaning of the sentence. I was referring only to the use of the word "it". The use of the word denialism, in keeping with the present consensus at that page, which is in turn based upon a reasonable amount of reliable sourcing, makes clear that there is a broader class of "denials", so to speak, called "denialism", that tend to have certain kinds of strategies and other tendencies in common. Sure it could be better worded, but the consensus there is that it deserves mention in the lead of the article. ... Kenosis 20:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] trophy

Thanks for chiming in. "With respect to the question by Dweller about the footballer holding the trophy, of course such an image can be free-licensed." How? --Dweller 04:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The author, the photographer, merely needs to give explicit permission to upload it under one of the free licenses. I think that's what Videmus Omnia was working on or suggesting a course of action to accomplish that if the photographer is willing to do so. Currently available free-license tags for WP uploads are shown at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Free_licenses ... Kenosis 15:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
This is probably a bit off-topic and is rather over my head, but just wondered if you'd been watching Groklaw lately. .. dave souza, talk 14:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Likewise

Thank you for enlightening me—and, I imagine, many others—on this domain of copyright history. It's clear that it will prove a very valuable resource for maintaining and improving the quality of the encyclopedia, especially as the exercise of our free use rights is increasingly restricted, to some degree by policy, to a much greater one in practice. In respect of your efforts in this area, I consider you among the most productive contributors to the project I've come across. Best, Dan.—DCGeist 02:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pregnancy

No problem about the crossed reverts. We have a vandal here. He has repeatedly edited and deleted my talk page comments. He is edit-warring, and driving other users nuts. Do you have experience with this kind of thing? What would you recommend?Ferrylodge 18:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on the article talk page. It's time for that user to cut the crap, per WP:Point, WP:Consensus, WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, etc. ... Kenosis 18:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking block for disruption if this keeps up, myself. I may ask another admin to take a look. I've been off most of the day, I hadn't checked history and didn't know about the talk page violations. That's completely unacceptable. Puppy is losing patience. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cover art & 'critical commentary' in Intelligent design

Hi, as you've restored one of these images, could you take a look at my ideas in Talk:Intelligent design#Sample 'critical commentary' boxes. As I'm not edit-warring anybody (unlike the image-deletion-warriors, I'm not so quixotic as to think that doing so against the consensus actually achieves anything), it seems I'm flying under everybody's radar at the moment. If we can get these warriors out of our hair in a manner that also improves the article, then I'm all for it. Hrafn42TalkStalk 04:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Critical commentary is not required. The WP:NFCC policy, as written in the wake of the March 2007 Wikimedia Board resoulution, states: "3(a) Minimal number of uses. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary. 3(b) Minimal extent of use. The entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/sample length is used (especially where the original could be used for piracy). This rule also applies to the copy in the Image: namespace." The demand of several users focused on image deletion for "critical commentary" arises out of WP:NFC, which is a guideline, not a policy, and cannot trump the local consensus. Either way, though, the article is filled with critical commentary as it is. Please do not change the language for this reason only, unless you had already wanted to propose this new language-- if that's the case, it can be discussed on its own merits. Personally I don't think it's needed. ... Kenosis 04:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The article has no critical commentary about the books themselves, which I think is the main reason that so many people have said the use is not in agreement with the nonfree image policy. It's true that the premise of adding text to justify an image is odd. That's because most articles begin with the text and then gain the images as appropriate. In this case, several editors are beginning with the premise that the images belong and worrying about how to shoehorn their use into our image policy. I don't have anything against that as long as the article is brought into agreement with policy relatively soon. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
As I just pointed out, CBM, WP:NFCC is the policy, and WP:NFC project page, is a guideline. The "critical commentary" that you and several others have asserted is required is a guideline that never trumps the local consensus. Moreover, the history of both the NFCC and the WP:NFC project page shows that both the policy and the asscoiated guideline are "shifting goalposts" that have changed numerous times in fairly rapid succession. Either way, in this case it is a matter for the local consensus among participants in the article. ... Kenosis 15:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
In my experience, "local consensus" is a phrase used most often when a group of editors who have been editing a page don't want to follow broader consensus on an issue when that consensus is brought to their attention. I invite you to discuss these images (again) on WT:NONFREE if you think that the use on intelligent design meets WP:NFCC. I have been watching the policy discussion there quite closely, and watching practice as images are removed from various articles for not satisfying the policy requirements, but it's certainly possible for me to be wrong. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The application of CBM's experience to this situation mysteriously neglects the 16-5 weight of opinion in the IfD and the ongoing consensus in the article, along with the other various attempts at image deletion that I pointed out at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Question_about_Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg, all of which have failed. (The administrative override of consensus in the IfDs was discussed at Administrators' noticeboard and the result of that discussion made plain the implications of the administrative override as well as the questionable strategy of bringing the IfDs in the first place.) The overwhelming consensus at the intelligent design article page has been that the uses are valid and in keeping with current NFCC. In addition, there appears to be a strong consensus at that article and an increasing number of other articles that the NFC and NFCC are in dire need of attention and correction, both as to the current language and as to the current manner of implementation. Thus the "sword cuts both ways" here. Two things have happened along the way. 1) Many users have simply left in response to this type of interference by rovers into articles previously left to participants willing to become intimately familiar with the topic, rather than just participating at the article to pursue a single WP:Point without becoming familiar with the article content. 2) A few have decided to continue being involved in the project and participate in the policy discussion, which is how it needs to be in order to prevent an increasingly steep pyramid from developing, here in WP and most other places in the "real world". Myself, I'm somewhat on the fence at this point. I think the concept of consensus may be in the process of being rendered obsolete-- if so, one of the reasons for my interest in the project is rapidly being whittled away for lack of adequately broad participation in the policy discussion and/or by overly rapid implementation of new policy by a few. I'm reminded of the WP:A fiasco, where the policy was implemented, then rapidly rejected after being put into play. Here, the speed at which the reaction is occurring is slower, but I sense the implications for process on the wiki are far more consequential. ... Kenosis 17:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guidelines

Thanks. Guidelines should not be imposed against local consensus. That should probably be said more clearly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Order of comments

Hello, thanks for bring that to my attention. I would have probably missed that if you didn't. Beside the people who you've already mentioned, there has also been input from recieved from User:Dhaluza, User:Slrubenstein, User:IanMSpencer, User:Jmabel, User:WAS 4.250, User:Jacob Haller, User:Coppertwig, User:inasbeede, User:Wikidemo, User:Kim Bruning and User:Lyrl, just within the last 500 comments on the talk page, which only goes back to through the last week of discussions. Going back even further, to when I first started providing input on the subject, I think on Aug 22, there's been around 2,000 edits, and it looks like the discussion was going on fairly actively even before then. wbfergus Talk 23:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Bot requirements

This is an interesting requirement, how often would the list need to be updated? Rich Farmbrough, 12:32 22 September 2007 (GMT).

If you want I can have that script update daily to a page on wikipedia, its not that big of a deal. (No one asked before about doing that) :) βcommand 15:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Great. I like the idea. I also still would like to talk further about a small group of trusted bot designers working together on this. Any further thoughts about that? ... Kenosis 16:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NOR

I appreciate your recent comments on the talk page. I'd like to know what you think of my proposed rewrite of the explanation for the policy (at the top of the talk page). If you think it is a good idea, I invite you to make any edits you think appropriate and constructive, and comment. I think when people lose the historical context it frees them to invent explanations for the policy that too often are used to justify nullifying major elements of it. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll go have a look. Where is it located? ... Kenosis 18:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The proposal is section 1 of the current talk page. The poll and discussion is sections 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.1.2, and 1.1.3 - top of the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Needless to say, if you don't like it I would appreciate your telling me why - or if you think it can be improved, how. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't, could you vote and comment on the proposal in section 1? Thansk, Slrubenstein | Talk 08:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

here (voting beneath it) Slrubenstein | Talk 11:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC) About source - thanks for your comment. I put a revised version at the bottom of the talk page, in which I tried to address this.

I need to think about that one a couple of days. It's a fairly long addition to a policy page, and I think maybe it should be linked-to and made available from the policy page, but not necessarily part of it. ... Kenosis 12:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for putting into words over the last few days, many of my concerns over change to Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my talk page, Slrubenstein | Talk 08:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ATT

You said at Wikipedia talk:No original research: "That is flat-out incorrect. It achieved a consensus among the participants in the proposed policy page. Then it was rejected when exposed to a much wider consensus upon being put into play." Actually, WP:ATT did not achieve consensus among the participants. Although it was claimed that there was consensus, there were a number of objections expressed and these concerns were largely ignored, rather than being discussed with the aim of achieving mutual understanding or compromise. --Coppertwig 23:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

My evidence says differently, and so do many others' recollections of that now-somewhat-notorious fiasco. Though it's true that there were objectors at WT:ATT, around January 2007 the weight of opinion among the participants in that discussion turned very substantially in favor of implementing it. I would suggest cautiously avoiding a similar occurrence at WT:NOR if at all possible. And, truth be told, I think the day is probably not very far away when the method of affecting, changing, and/or implementing core WP policy will need to be tightened up and perhaps lengthened in the expected time from proposal to implementation, so that vocal opponents of current policy do not too quickly hold sway over long-developed and established consensus. Consensus is inherently flexible, but experience and continuity are also important for most users at the grass roots, local article level. Another thing: "consensus or compromise" is not the applicable standard. If it were, any small group could make radical proposals, even irrational and unfounded proposals, and then demand "compromise". Perhaps the wiki is, in some respects, too quickly outgrowing itself, so to speak. I certainly do not want to make a full-time task of repeatedly explaining and defending longstanding consensus and the justifications that gave rise to the current core policies established by the WP founderIs), and I doubt that many others do either. C'est la vie, I suppose. ... Kenosis 23:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Kenosis' recollection is accurate. •Jim62sch• 14:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
...As is his reply. •Jim62sch• 14:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kenosis means

Isn't this the greek word used.. I think in Phillipians to refer to Jesus pouring himself out or emptying himself? How did you come to take the name? --Blue Tie 17:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a long story. Literally it means "emptying". Maybe it's has something to do with the use in Philippians, maybe something to do with the "kenotic ethic", maybe something to do with emptying some accumulated knowledge onto the wiki without expectation of quid-pro-quo compensation. Or, maybe I was just a bit empty headed at the time. ;-) ... Kenosis 00:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a thought

"Any use of primary-source material involving significant analytic or evaluative expansions of the plain meaning of the primary source requires a secondary source" would seem to mean that it is ok to use secondary-source material to create a significant analytic or evaluative expansion of the plain meaning of that secondary source. Surely we don't want that. Surely we want editors to stick to the plain meaning of any source they use. WAS 4.250 06:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe best to remove the additional sentence ... Kenosis 13:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent design.

Majorly's edits are valid. They are minor, but still improve the article. I suggest you don't keep reverting him, not only because of the article improvements, but also because of WP:3RR, which is a blockable offense. He got a warning as well, and I strongly suggest you discuss this on the talk page, rather than revert each other. I realize that you have contributed much to that article, and are eagerly awaiting for October 12th, but Majorly has just as much right to copyedit that article as anyone else, and after all, that's the reason why articles are put on the main page: not for show, for improvement. Please accept improvements, since nothing is perfect (not even WP:MOS--it can always be re-written). · AndonicO Talk 00:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take it to the article talk page. What Majorly did was remove a several images and reformat the quotations, all at once, with a misleading edit summary. I reverted twice, then bowed out and left it to others to express consensus which has been to include those images. The formatting Majorly changed to on the quotations is reasonable, and I have no objection to that approach (so long as the quotations are not surrounded by a solid border line). And, actually, not only am I not "eagerly awaiting" main page placement of that article, I personally think it's a pain in the neck and personally would just as soon not have a controversial topic like this on the main page. You'd need to speak with the FA people about that decision. ... Kenosis 00:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC) ... As to the hint about 3RR, I suggest you look closely at my edits, which amount to two reverts, with an intermediate undo of the quotation format. Moreover, Majorly's removal of the "semi-protect" template was erroneous and would merit as many reverts as I might have chosen to implement in order to keep it accurate. Thank you for the good-faith note about this. ... Kenosis 00:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I'm sorry, I didn't notice the copyediting he did was to quotations; I apologize then. And you should "eagerly await" the article's spot on the main page; they're usually improved (and vandalized :P). · AndonicO Talk 13:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am guessing the poll will be there for good, because IDers think it helps there cause. Personally I think it looks terrible for IDers to put in fake polls, there are plenty of real polls that show many people believe (which does not demonstrate any validity of the idea) so putting in the fraudulent one just makes the DI look dishonest. Rather than waste space on the ID page it should be moved to the DI page, but I won't bother pushing it. I'm assuming that the admin who reverted my change just didn't bother to check that the reverted link was correct, no harm done. Sad mouse 04:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Time evolution wars.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Time evolution wars.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. GRBerry 02:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Thanks for the heads-up. I've now explained myself on the article Talk page. Best, Johntex\talk 16:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re Book --> Magazine

Thanks for letting me know; I edited my message accordingly. — xDanielx T/C 03:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Intelligent Design

I took it to Talk. Nobody's taken the bait just yet. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Bait"? I hadn't thought of your preferences for the article quite that way. But the talk page is the appropriate place to express them -- thanks for letting me know. ... Kenosis 20:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I found vulgarity

I don't know how to report this...but check out the section on The Philidelphia Campaingn.

There is a reference to licking one's anatomy.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Howe%2C_5th_Viscount_Howe

Thanks,

joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noquitjoe (talk • contribs)

I corrected the situation [here]. ... Kenosis 03:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Missed a bit. [20]. – ornis⚙ 04:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. ... Kenosis 04:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
No worries. – ornis⚙ 04:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad link on the Science article

While reverting my edit of adding a link related to Science Projects for kids, you have commented that it was a bad link, would you care to explain, Why?

Vig vimarsh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vig vimarsh (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts using four tildes (on the upper-left corner of your keyboard, simultaneously using the "shift" key, in order to allow other WP users to directly tie into "user talk", "user page" and "conributions").
As to the question: The link (1) substituted an existing link to science projects for kids for another without justification, and (2) didn't link to any site at all. Here is the link that was improperly substituted for the previous link, to which I reverted: At least as of 23 October 2007 this link did not work properly. ... Kenosis 04:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, I did check the link when I put it, and I do believe it is a much better link then the existing link, but unfortunately it has exactly the same title!

Thanks for the help about identifying, I have been using four tides but the use of shift key is new for me. Let me try it for the forst time, here itself. Vig vimarsh 15:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I disagree with your

assessement of the definition of ID. You seem to think that those who want to have ID taught in schools are unethical for their efforts to use politics to obtain their goals. I think the US is still a free country where people can use legal means to change laws. And I believe you are misdefining the term ID to promote your own agendas. Please stop the POV pushing and OR. Dontletmedown 20:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I imagine you're referring to the talk thread from Talk:Intelligent design as it existed on October 30 that was "userfied" and moved to User_talk:Dontletmedown#I_see_problems_here. No comment -- maybe go back and read what I said again. ... Kenosis 05:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
You must be kidding. Intelligent design has been found by a United States Federal court to be nothing more than an attempt to teach religion in school, which violates the anti-establishment clause of the United States Constitution (you must know that document...do you?). The only POV pushing is by Dontletmedown. Thank you for your consideration. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting the decision and using OR. They never said that. Read it. Dontletmedown 21:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. This conversation has passed the expiration date of usefulness. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy notice

I have mentioned your username in evidence presented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Your contributions were mentioned as one of many participants in an edit war. GRBerry 01:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe the quoted passage from the linked-to arbitration reads as follows: "An edit war ensues, in which Mr. Hoffman is reverted by FeloniousMonk twice, reverted in substance with some other improvements to the article by Kenosis once and is reverted again by Filll. Some talk occurs at this time, but not much. Mr. Hoffman gets blocked for the 3RR violation by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves).". Thank you for the heads-up just the same. ... Kenosis 01:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
That is indeed what I said, and all I currently anticipate saying regarding you. GRBerry 04:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again for the clarification. ... Kenosis 04:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 00:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, Cogden. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] rewording at NOR

I like some of your latest changes. Maybe we will actually get somewhere after all. DGG (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More NOR

Hi Kenosis. At times it seems like we may have been 'combatants' on the NOR talk page, especially when you first arrived there a couple months or so ago. However, It was only to try and get clarification on several (numerous?) points or aspects of the myraid comments floating around. Anyway, my take on more recent developments there seem like we are still divided in two 'extreme camps', with most participants somewhere in the middle. One 'side' seems like the best bet is to move PSTS somewhere, so further diversions like the 'Journal articles' discussions don't get drawn into NOR, that's a completely separate issue totally unrelated to NOR. I think I can honsetly say that this is where I generally tend to fall. On the other end, there appears to be a position that NOR simply cannot be defined or enforced without defining PSTS, which I think is where you generally fall (correct me if I'm wrong). Anyway, we both seem to occasionally come out of our respective 'sides' occasionally to discuss issues and provide input. It seems like reaching any kind of consensus about PSTS is beyond they capability of either 'side', so the status quo prevails. In the meantime, we still have occasions like the 'Journal article' discussion that will keep cropping up. So to address this problem, as I think it's the only really viable alternative, do you have any ideas on how we (the participants) can clarify this section so almost any Wikipedian can read the page and clearly understand what it means and how should be implemented so that they can readily get back to their productive editing? I don't think we should expect every Wikipedian that winds up coming to the policy, or the talk page with a specific problem, to spend several hours digesting all of its various nuances and interpretations or spend days (or more) away from productive editing before getting either a clear understanding or a clear, definitive answer to their question/problem. Can you think of anything we can do to alleviate this? I ask you, since you seem to have an inside ear on the position of those on your 'side' and seem more than willing to participate in discussions. You also seem to be acceptable most of the time to parties on either 'side', similar to Vassyana, but now mainly coming from the other 'side' in concensus building. Thanks. wbfergus Talk 17:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Evaluating sources

Would you lend a hand or comment on this idea? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bergson-Nobel-photo.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bergson-Nobel-photo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BJBot

My bot does not decide to tag images for deletion, it only lists images other have tagged for deletion but failed to list properly. The sudden amount is because I haven't run it in a while. BJTalk 22:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 04:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 04:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

…1:35 p.m.e.s.t. this is cool this is so far the second time i have enterd a message with the season greetings attachment oops it is also coolthe terming Kenosis preity good , Kenosis Theol. the doctrine that Christ relinquished His devine attributes so as to experience human suffering [1835-45; < Gk kenosis an emptying (Keno-, var . s. of kenosis to emptyout, drain + -sis-SIS)]. adj.. i was just currently doing research on the tree of jesus and ofcourse every now and again i go to church , now my thought cosists of Christ the word that is being i just came from the topic oops well it cosisted of two words one perhaps the second ,Domain, here it is a thought concerning Jesus it is true he was perhaps born Jesus Christ though my thought now is was it Jesus of Christ Jesus within Christ well as much as there is on the issue it is mostly for sure Jesus Christ my option here in thought is if he was for sure the ruler of kings and or King of Kings to rule then all good and the same though the roughness to accept one to be and be proclaimed as such would then have to recognize that Christ is of teaching and perhaps by now it is the name jesus wich means the same perhaps though dsoftly as when it is to be first or in front of it stabilizing Christ in a Domain carrector though aswell leaving the teaching to the pertaining vertue,hope that wasn't confusing this is just my personal expresion"Short But Deadly" d.e.a.d.l.y. Desired evry awareness disireing you meaning the end [you] you oughto understand, "But" Beauty Understands Togetherness,ed in desired establishing {the} understanding wich is now posibly a end wich then pertains to a begining; i supose pertaining to where one is to teach a far away place perhaps. 1:52 P.M. E.S.T.David George DeLancey (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Science and Positivism

To Kenosis: You have replaced the SCIENCE edits of myself and Ryan Paris with the "long standing lead".

This is much better. The introduction is now entirely neutral on realism and positivism.

It is inappropriate to talk about "understanding" and "explanation" in Science without a balancing definition which allows the positivist point of view (and even a discussion of the schism). These should perhaps go elsewhere in the article.

I completely agree with the intro as it stands today. Thanks, Keithbowden (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:Eins1.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Eins1.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Gary King (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] G'day Kenosis

I thought I'd come and say hello - and also wanted to run an idea past you. First, I should say that we've crossed paths in the past in my previous user incarnations (User:Petesmiles, I think, and maybe User:Purples - both me, and I recognise that it's a bit silly that you need an almanac to keep track of folk nowadays!) - I have always been thoroughly impressed with your contributions to article content, and collaboration, and it's with that in mind that I thought I'd see if you were possibly interested in joining a 'real world' discussion about some of the issues surrounding the current unfortunate troubles surrounding 'ID' and the 'ID Project' editors.

I've been working hard (as has User:Filll, and others) to promote a project called 'Not The Wikipedia Weekly' - which is basically regular conversations over Skype on any and all wiki related issues. If you are at all interested or available to engage in this way, then I think that would be fantastic! - we can also 'plug you in' via a regular telephone if that works better, or offer some technical advice should you find that helpful.

Regardless of your response - thanks heaps for your huge contributions to the project, and do feel free to get in touch if you've got any further questions about all of this! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review help for Anekantavada

I can see that you have a substantial interest and understanding of Philosophy and are a major contributor of this area. Hence I request your assistance to make this article as a featured article. Users, Alastair Haines (talk · contribs), Qmwne235 (talk · contribs) Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) have made a lot of improvements, but I still need more assistance which would be appreciated. Anekantavada is the most important principle of Jain philosophy and I hope it will be the first article on Jainism to qualify as FA. Thanks. --Anish (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)