User talk:Mentalhead

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Welcome...

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

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username 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 ask your question there. Again, welcome! ~EdGl 01:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] List of Christian punk bands

Hey, I made a semi-revert of your (pretty major) edit to List of Christian punk bands. I just wanted to explain my edits and make sure there are no hard feelings. You removed bands from the list that are punk, or at least pop punk, like Slick Shoes... if they're not punk (or pop-punk) I don't know what is. You also removed bands who are no longer really punk/pop-punk but whose first albums were definitely punkish, like Ace Troubleshooter and Relient K. Removing bands like Hawk Nelson I'd agree with, but they do have some element of pop-punk in their music, albeit very faint. See the discussion I started on the the talk page of the article. I removed No Innocent Victim because I'd consider them hardcore (am I wrong?), but kept xLooking Forwardx. Oh, and I also removed the bands you added that I have never heard of, which I apologize for, I probably shouldn't have done that, sorry for the inconvenience. You can add them back as long as they're not some tiny local band or anything. You can reply here, my talk, or the article's talk page. Let's work it through band-by-band! ~EdGl 14:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for keeping Hawk Nelson and Slick Shoes. Hawk Nelson isn't strict punk per say, but they definitely some kind of punk-pop. Slick Shoes on the other hand is no questions punk. Saksjn (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Mentalhead, since you're the "hardcore expert" here and I'm not, please take a look at the most recent edits to the list... an anon posted some hxc(/metal?) bands. Thanks ~EdGl (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I undid all that user's edits. There was one band that might have been punk (Priests of Punk), that was also recently added but I undid that edit too, since a Google search didn't come up with a single result for the band.Mentalhead (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution

G'day Mentalhead, I noticed your comments on the Evolution talk page. I suggest you have a read of Evolution as theory and fact which may explain some things?--Sting au Buzz Me... 01:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


I read it, and I don't agree with it but that's kind of beside the point. I mean the way the evolution article is written sounds like it is definite truth instead of something that hasn't been proven. I think any article about any theory that hasn't been completely proven, no matter how widely accepted it is, should be clear that it is only a theory and not fact (and I mean "theory" and "fact" in the normal, commonly known terms). Anything else can be very misleading. Mentalhead (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I really suggest you read over the evolution FAQ page. It covers almost all the points you bring up in a very concise and well written manner. -- MacAddct  1984 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A scientific theory cannot be "completely proven", to do that you would have to check every possible place in the universe that the theory could apply to, this is impossible. The closest that science can come to completely proving something is when all available evidence supports it, all the available evidence supports evolution, so it as close to being proven as possible. All the supposed evidence "against evolution" that creationists produce is lies, misrepresentations of facts and arguments that sound good but don't hold up to scientific investigation.121.217.83.218 (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't tell me what is and isn't lies. So many people are so full of their own opinions on here that it really seems ridiculous that this is actually supposed to be a professional-quality encyclopedia. The lousy evidence they have come up with for evolution makes me laugh. Science isn't God. Some things can be "proven" without science, and should not be discredited because of it. We use our brains and common sense too, which has nothing to do with science. If everyone got rid of their biases this would be a better world for us all... Mentalhead (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, what things do you feel can be proven without science? Also, what do you consider is "lousy evidence" for evolution? -- MacAddct  1984 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Macaddct1984, Science is only able to prove limited physical things. It has nothing to do with the mental or spiritual.21:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Mentalhead, you have been lied to by unscrupulous men claiming to be men of God. thx1138 (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

121.217.83.218, I am a catastrophist/creationist, therefore believing in the perspective of creation. But I do NOT shove down peoples' throat what is true and what isn't! To do so would be wrong. You cannot say what is lies and what isn't. To do so would be like saying that there is no other side!! Who needs "scientific investigation", when we already have God's Word to prove that the earth was created all at one time by one Person, and it HAS NOT CHANGED over thousands of years? I can't force you to believe that, but it has to be considered as a probability! --HomeschooledGenius (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


Global Warming

I'm looking for contributors who are willing to help me with a Criticism section on the Global Warming page. We need to first do a plethora of research to gather together reputable and qualified scientists who take issue with some (or all) of the tenets of global warming. This article is one of the only pages that doesn't have a criticism section and it is sorely lacking in that regard. I have already gathered a great deal of reference material, and a good friend of mine is an atmospheric physicist willing to help. Please let me know on my talk page if you are willing to help.Supertheman (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page comments

Hi there! In the future, please try to avoid editing even your own talk page comments except right as you are constructing them. Here [1] you edited something you said after someone else had replied to it. In this case I don't see any real problems, but this can be problematic if someone has specifically replied to the part you delete or change. If you'd like to change something you said, please strike it out but surrounding it with <s> (strike this text) </s> tags. See the talk page guidelines for more details. Thanks for contributing, and please consider this a friendly FYI. - Enuja (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uh Oh!

Looks like you got blocked... what did you get blocked for, and how can I help? Saksjn (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

He wasn't blocked, a vandal IP dropped the block template on his userpage, and as part of my subst work, I substed it thinking it was one of the 2700 other unsubsted block templates. Mentalhead did nothing wrong, was never blocked. MBisanz talk 08:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)