User talk:Mdotley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Claiming an anonymous message

Another user responded to an edit I made while not logged in. Is there any way to "claim" that message for myself, so no one else using this computer has to deal with it?

[edit] Political status of Taiwan

Hello, I see you added a NPOV tag to that article for a section. I just wanted to let you know that for a section that is apparently not neutral, there is a separate tag for it. Something like sect-npov or something like that. Anyway, what was not neutral about the section? As a guideline, when one disputes something's neutrality, one is supposed to explain why on the article's talk page. Thanks. Ngchen 12:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship

Thank you for your attempts to improve Wikipedia. However, I would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not censored for minors, not even for profanity or pornography. You are welcome to remove clearly offensive material or inappropriate obscenities if they were added as vandalism, but please do not remove/censor profanities or remove/disclaim sexually explicit material or links that are relevant to the article. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! -Shannernanner 16:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The first link you cite is a warning, not a policy. It does not say that profanity should not be removed, just that the admins do not enforce such removal as policy. Please read it more carefully.
The Profanity guidelines add no support to your position, as far as I can tell. They specifically state that profanity is to be used if and only if necessary, which it is not in this case. Mdotley 16:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tyrannosaurus and minor edits

Actually, that edit was automatically marked minor because I used admin rollback, which is made specifically for reverting vandalism. You're right that reverts of good-faith, constructive edits are always major edits, which is part of why using admin rollback and auto-revert scripts like the one in popups in content disputes is discouraged, but vandalism reverts can and usually should be marked minor. -- Vary | Talk 18:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syndicalism

Hi Mdotley, nice work on rearranging this article. It looks much better to me. Cheers. --Bookandcoffee 20:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks -- I like adding organization to pages that have gradually gotten past stub status without headings breaking it up. Not only is it easier to read, it's a LOT easier to edit, and to monitor others' edits. Looking at your Talk page, I see you have much interest in trade unions; I'd wish you "Happy Labor Day", but it's a month late, and you're in the 'wrong' country.  :-) Mdotley 22:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C. S. Lewis GA nomination

Hi, I'm just letting contributors to the C. S. Lewis article know that its good article nomination is on hold until more references are added to the article. We have two weeks to bring the article up to the required GA standards. If you can spare some time, it'd be great if you could add some references to the article, and hopefully improve its chances of becoming a Good Article. If you know of any other editors who would be interested in helping out, please let them know. Cheers, Martin 19:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canon

Hi, I moved your explanation of Canon's name to Canon (company), as it was more appropriate there. Thanks for your edit! Fourohfour 13:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Circular" linking is not a problem

Hi there, I reverted your "correction" of the circular link in Canon. Circular links are only a problem if they themselves link directly back to the original article (e.g. if I click a link and it's just a redirect back to that article).

In the case of Canon/Cannon, this was not the case, and the bi-directional linking served a useful purpose as either spelling could be confused with the other. Fourohfour 12:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I only just noticed that you were the same person I left a message to above (on the same article); they have nothing to do with each other (Canon is on my watchlist, that's all). Fourohfour 12:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
You know, I stopped myself from making that mistake several times. Once too few, apparently. *sigh* Mdotley 00:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:WP:BEANS

Thanks. I thought it'd show how WP:DSBUYN worked while putting a humourous light on it. Have a good day, and happy editing, Cool Bluetalk to me 00:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re:preview

Yes, I know I tend not to employ that useful tool. But I have developed a pathological aversion to it, mainly because, as I tend to do a lot of editing in one sitting, I find it irritating that, after, say, half an hour of work, during which I may have completely rewritten an article from the ground up, one person's insertion of a semi-colon means that everything I've done can't be posted and I have to start all over again. Serendipodous 06:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ted Baehr

Ted Baehr is, by his own admission and axiomatically, a fundamentalist. I believe the change I made from his being referred to as "Christian" to "fundamentalist Christian" was valid and non-POV oriented. Do you discount all of the other Christian movements that are not considered fundamentalist? What about the Christian left, Christian anarchists, Christian libertarians, etc.? It's objectively verifiable and factual that Baehr is within the bracket of "fundamentalist Christianity". I understand there is a controversy over the use of the term, could we settle on saying his MOVIEGUIDE is of a conservative Christian perspective? If you read their reviews the Christian conservatism/fundamentalism is self-evident. I'd say it's POV to purport Baehr has an all out dominance of what Christendom is.

American Heritage Dictionary's definition of fundamentalism: "a usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism." That definition is concurrent with Baehr and his MOVIEGUIDE. June 30 2007

[edit] Um, hello

I think you posted your response to that comment on my talkpage. Whoever made that comment, I assure you it wasn't me. Serendipodous 07:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Ironic v. significant

The detail on the "...Caesar..." page (that Jesus didn't have a coin with him, but one of his questioners did) may be significant, but its exact significance is a subject of debate. Irony is one possible explanation or reaction, but not the only one. For instance, some folks think it's significant because they think it indicates Jesus's attitude to money (that he didn't carry any); others say it's significant because his questioners were carrying the idolotrous money, and so this helped discredit them, and so forth... Perhaps the article could be expanded to include the various interpretations of this detail, but I don't feel up to it at present. -Moorlock 19:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the objection is to "perhaps significant". Some of the many people who have interpreted this gospel passage have attached significance to this detail, though the interpretations have varied. That is to say, this detail is perhaps significant - perhaps it signifies something. The article might be improved by going into greater detail on this point, but until this happens, saying that the detail is "perhaps significant" is a meaningful (and, yes, encyclopedia-quality) placeholder. -Moorlock 20:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your erroneous deletion

Text you added to Arch of Titus has been reverted, due to probably being a copyright violation. It appears to be a direct copy from this page. If you are the author, or have permission to reproduce the content, feel free to document that and restore the text. Cheers! Mdotley 22:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No, quite to the contrary, text that I added at Arch of Titus in October 2004, quite recognizably in my style, has been appropriated at Essential-Architecture, where you will find other Wikipedia article used to describe Roman antiquities here. Look especially at the Wikipedia text at Esenntial-Architecture's Domus Aurea. If you have made other reverts on this mistake, you you go back and restore them? Thank you. --Wetman 23:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
You'll be amusedin this context to see that our just-completed article on Federico Brandani already appears at [http://yousurp.com/node/12604].--Wetman 10:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essential Architecture

Other than the fact that it is a cheapo link-farm site, whose style changes every page, gives no author or contact details, and is clearly ripping off multiple WP pages - every one I have tried so far bar one has been taken from WP - try Montmartre. Of course he should credit WP, but being a cheapo rip-off artist he doesn't. Johnbod 02:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial topics on Wikipedia

Thanks for your encouragement. Though I don't expect to stay around. On controversial topics especially, Wikipedia is a waste of time, and about the only way it can be helped is by publicly condemning it. My experience with Wikipedia (and its management) have convinced me of that. WalterR 13:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, none of the "open microphone" Internet discussion groups (or Wiki's for example) work well on controversial topics. There are too many kooks, cranks, trolls, and highly dedicated sophists who make it a waste of time. It is often worse than worthless, because it is misleading and mis-representative. Wikipedia especially deserves public condemnation, because it additionally pretends to be neutral. CreationWiki and ResearchID are both better, because they have taken some steps away from the open-microphone concept. WalterR 16:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Filioque Clause Revision

Your points are well taken about the structure having two main parts History and Theology.

History should come first since, as you mentioned, that is likely to be the most popular and helps put the theology in context.

I would probably structure the Theology section as follows:

THEOLOGY

  1. The Filioque Clause in the Theology of the Church Fathers (Change heading to "Historic Positions of the Church Fathers")
    1. The Filioque and the Doctrine of the Trinity
    2. Reconciling the Eastern and Western Traditions
  2. Recent discussions and joint statements

The following paragraph of the "Modern Positions, Eastern Orthodox Church," section would fit better under the Reconciling the Eastern and Western Traditions Section:

"In the recent past, however, several Orthodox theologians have considered the filioque anew, with a view to reconciliation of East and West. Theodore Stylianopoulos, for one, provides an extensive, scholarly overview of the contemporary discussion. Twenty years after first writing The Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia says that he has changed his mind; now, he considers the filioque dispute to be primarily semantic. Many faithful Orthodox consider that by degrading the importance of the filioque, Metropolitan Kallistos has accepted its heretical teaching, which is in flagrant contravention of the words of Christ in the Gospel, and has been specifically condemned by the Orthodox Church. For some Orthodox, then, but by no means all, the filioque, while still a matter of conflict, would not impede full communion of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches if other issues were resolved. For others, the filioque remains the fundamental heretical teaching which divides East and West."

This could could be placed onto the end of that section.

Feel free to trim down the Theology of the Church Fathers portion but just make sure to keep mention of the main points of contention between the Eastern and Western Fathers.

1. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son according to Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas (as stated in the filioque). 2. The Holy Spirit proceeds from Father alone as the source of Divinity, according to John of Damascus, Photius, and Gregory Palamas (Thus they see the filioque as an error in trinitarian theology). 3. East accuses West of introducing two sources of divinity, whereas in one God there can be only one source. 4. The West claims the divine nature is the source of divinity and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son as from one "principle." 5. The East says this subordinates the Holy Spirit or makes it less divine that the Father and Son. 6. The West (via Aquinas) defends their equality based on the common divine nature and sees the relationships of opposition as what distinguishes the Persons, thus making the filioque clause a necessity. 7. The East (via John of Damascus) sees what distinguishes the Persons as their unique "mode of origin," thus making the filioque clause a grave error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morologia (talk • contribs) 18:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sail plan felucca.svg

Ahh me hearty! 68.39.174.238 20:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hyksos

I am contacting you about a problem that has afflicted parts of Wikipedia--the phenomenon of people who have been banned from Wikipedia who then use Anonymous sockpuppets to bring back their fringe ideas or POV on a certain page. I have contacted Markh, a knowledgeable user about this--see the long discussion on title 'Hyksos' and 'Hyksos again' here about him[1]. Basically the person manipulating the Hyksos page from Germany was banned from contributing to Wikipedia for his atrocious behavious but he then started using anonymous sockpuppets to push his fringe POV ideas--for instance on the Hyksos page here. You block one anon IP which he uses and he uses another and reverts someone's edit--as he did to yours twice. Other users have tried to restore the changes but he keeps reverting their edits.

Do you know of a way to Automatically revert Anonymous IP user's contributions to the Hyksos web page...that way anyone who contributes here must first sign in and cannot hide in the shadows. This person's pattern is to consistently use different anonymous IPs to cram his ideas on a certain topic! No one seems to be able to stop him. Knowledgeable users know who he is but his use of ANON IP's lets him get away with it. Its pathethic--and sad--that Wikipedia users must put up with this. Perhaps, a better idea is to block the appearance of certain words like 'Armenian', Gamkrelidze or Hayk--an Armenian leader which this anonymous user keeps pushing on the Hyksos article. This person thinks Armenians ruled Egypt and that the Hyksos are really Armenians which is a non-starter with Egyptologists who accept that they were basically Semites from the Levant or Canaan region.

PS: You can also see my talk page: titles #36 and 37 on 'Hyksos' and 'Alleged Sockpuppet at Hyksos' on the matter. [2] As you can see, it is not only me who is disgusted about this person's behaviour. Any ideas? Leoboudv 10:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, did you see this interesting talk by Thanatosimi about the identity of the anonymous 'Armenian' IPer. [3] He is certainly Ararat Arev who was banned from Wikipedia months ago for bad behaviour. Its people like him who get banned and show up anonymously who give Wikipedia a bad reputation. Leoboudv 02:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I have a question that needs asking-How does one create a wiki-based site such as Galactiwiki, Lostpedia, Pilkipedia, etc. etc. I would absolutely love to know. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seabird111 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)