User talk:Macgruder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Macgruder, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Arbor 11:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] R&I

Hey Macgruder, thanks for the many good questions you ask about the R&I article. Everytime a newcomer comes and bugs us (intelligently and politely), the article improves, so please stay around. I urge you to read up on the collective statements linked at the bottom of the page (these are as good a representation of the consensus as you are likely to find), and the entire PPPL issue that includes not only the Rushton–Jensen paper (which is a truly great paper, no matter what your own position is) but also the counterpoints in the same issue. We need science-oriented people on this article (as on other WP stuff). Most of us working on the R&I article approached the subject like you do (with horrified scepticism), but have come to accept that, as terrible as it is, R&I research is right. I have come to the conviction that the "creationists" in this context are those that say that race does not exist or that intelligence is not a genetically determined trait.

But no matter on which side of the issue you come out (after some reading!), please stay around. Arbor 16:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Capitalization

I will try to give a hand there later. I was thinking right now about BoA or Utada Hikaru's, so it may take time. -- ReyBrujo 15:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on Dokdo Page

Hey Macgruder, I just thought you might want to know you should put new comments on the bottom of the talk page. Maybe you were in a hurry or something. I moved them for you, just wanted to let you know why. Davidpdx 12:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommended reading. There is a huge used book store in Portland. I'll have to put it on my list of books. If you want to read a really good book about Korea, pick up Micheal Breen's The Koreans. Davidpdx 08:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tags

There are (were) two tags on there. The one that you removed said in part that the title was not neutral (or the body, but only the title is in question here). Perhaps one tag is enough, just based on your comment I wasn't sure if you had seen that part. It's no big deal, but if you add the other tag, it places the article in the "disputed neutrality" (for titles or articles) category that some might check. If we have to pick one tag, I'm not sure which is the better one, but I would be leaning to agree with you since this one focuses solely on the title. Komdori 14:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I moved your comment

Hey MacGruder, sorry I moved your comments.

I designated that section to outline & clarify opinions & to make assertions, not to debate & argue. Yeah. Thanks. P.S. So far, you've mostly added deconstructive comments against other people's opinions or previous polls, etc. How about adding some constructive comments on your theory? (Wikimachine 17:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

Destructive comments?? Only myself and Komdori are arguing using Wikipedia Policy. The fact that finally people are actually reading the naming policy as laid down by Wikipedia is proof of a constructive outcome. Wikipedia requires the name that is used in English, and I've given multiple instances that Liancourt Rocks is that name. Regarding the previous poll. Obviously, since almost all the comments were not by Wikipedia policy I'm going to criticize that. Look carefully and you'll see that I've quoting a Korean scholar who states that Liancourt Rocks is the internationally accepted name, it's the name used in major encyclopedias etc. , and that Dokdo or Takeshima are essentially never used alone in respected sources. How much more do you need? Macgruder 17:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No offense. Deconstructive. That is... your arguments are shaped as if they were alternate or possible reflection of the current status. What you did just now was perfect. Constructive as in shaping your arguments with your own theories, ideas that support each other. (Wikimachine 18:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC))
Oops, sorry. Need to sleep. Macgruder 18:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Google search Liancourt Rocks as well...Kingj123 20:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] !

there is a difference between administration and occupation, but currently, Japan has no Jurisdiction over Takeshima... Odst 23:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What word do you suggest? I can't think of any right now... Disputed by? Claimed by? I just can't help but think that the word administration gets annoying... Odst 23:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Graham Bell

Thanks for your contributions to the discourse but the article in question has emerged from a long process of rewrite and revision to the present form. The earlier Invention of the telephone article is not well-researched and certainly cannot be considered definitive in challenging the tone and focus of an essentially biographical record. The telephone debate was taken to the courts and over 800 lawsuits resulted. the Bell patent was never rescinded and his role in developing the technology and scientific concepts underlying the communication device is not in dispute. If you wish to continue the discussion as to the invention and inventors' claims, take it to the other article talk page. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

...and as much as I enjoy conspiracy theories, they lack a certain lustre when they are simply supposition and inuendo. Whenever there is a widespread academic and scientific support for a view or stance, inevitably, the naysayers and revisionists marshall up with their own theories. Nice to hear, but hardly substantive. FWIW, see Kennedy assassination, Global warming, Amelia Earhart disappearance, ad nauseum... Bzuk (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC).
Take the time and read the edit history of the Bell article and note all the use of reference sources. I do not wish to revisit the Meucci claims. It is clear in the reference note: Bruce 1990, p. 271-272. Note: Meucci had a "tin-can on a string" telephone that could never have been patented as it was not an original invention. Bell's lawyer, William Sorrow later wrote: "Meucci is the silliest and weakest imposter who has ever turned up against the patent." FWIW Bzuk (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC).
The invention of the telphone controversy is provided in the article and has been exhaustively argued back and forth for decades right up to modern times. It is given due weight appropriate to the amount of information that exists about Bell and his life's work. Read earlier drafts to see the different versions that previously were in play. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Hi

I was wondering how you came up with this edit ([1])? --Dweller (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Really pleased to hear from you! Please see the thread at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics#Standard_deviations_and_probabilities, where there's some disagreement with the figures. I don't understand the maths, but I do understand the need for us to cite claims from RS. I'll need to be able to link to a table or something that backs up the stats. --Dweller (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)