User talk:Sapphic/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] ID

There is a long and ongoing debate over the first part of the first sentence that states that "ID is an argument for the existence of God". Many of us feel that this is not a factual statement as written as ID itself does not define God. The opinion should be attributed to the court case or it should use a less specific term such as "designer". However, many of the long term editors feel that it is a factual statement based on the sources and the belief of proponents. We're at a stand still in the discussion with many editors not willing to find compromising language. Wikipedia has a dispute resolution process to follow when discussion does not produce compromise and consensus. There is much discussion on this topic on the article page - so give it a read and leave your thoughts. Morphh (talk) 2:13, 05 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Intelligent design"

Hi Sapphic, I think what you propose would be a good idea, I'm just not sure what to call such an article. Does anyone use a phrase like Intelligent Engineering as a synonym for intelligent design (non-religous version)? I'll look through Google and see if I see anything that might be a good title, then it could start, "blah-blah, otherwise known as intelligent design..." with a link to a disambig page. The current article on ID is the way it is because the DI has coopted the term, and, unfortunately, their definition is by far the most common one. •Jim62sch• 15:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of 40 ZIP codes

An editor has nominated List of 40 ZIP codes, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 56 ZIP codes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 19:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of 50 ZIP codes

An editor has nominated List of 50 ZIP codes, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 56 ZIP codes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 19:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of 30 ZIP codes

An editor has nominated List of 30 ZIP codes, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 56 ZIP codes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 19:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of 60 ZIP codes

An editor has nominated List of 60 ZIP codes, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 56 ZIP codes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 19:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of 80 ZIP codes

An editor has nominated List of 80 ZIP codes, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 56 ZIP codes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 19:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Osborne

Please re-visit this article as part of your "tireless" effort to rate other people's work. El Ingles 01:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flood geology

CONVERSATION MOVED TO Talk:Flood geology#Removal of Pseudoscience category

[edit] Pseudonutrition

Agreed. Antelan talk 00:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pseudoscience

Are you trying to categorize pseudoscience as a type of parapsychological study, or to say that parapsychology is a type of pseudoscience?

perfectblue 07:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither. I'm saying that Category:Parapsychology is a sub-category of Category:Pseudoscience because parapsychology is associated with pseudoscience by a significant number of people. It's not the place of Wikipedia to pass judgment on those associations, but simply to note them. Inclusion in a category does not imply that the member of the category is an example of whatever the category describes, only that there's a connection of some sort. For example, the pseudoscience category also includes notable skeptics and also pages that describe various logical fallacies that are sometimes associated with pseudoscience, as well as related concepts that aren't in and of themselves examples of pseudoscience, in any conceivable way. --Sapphic 20:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Pseudoscience on Magnet therapy

Sorry about undoing your decategorization. I assure you it wasn't a deliberate reversion -- I was taking a look in case the NPOV issues could be cleared up easily (maybe the POV tag was old and never really discussed, for example), and I threw in Category:Pseudoscience kind of as a consolation prize. (I have a bit of a grudge against pseudoscience, and I apply the category whenever I think it needs to be noted.) I promise to pay more attention in the future. CSWarren 22:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Categories mergers

If it is agreed that two or more categories need to be merged, it is done by a bot, ie automatically. It is no trouble at all. LukeHoC 00:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Your enthusiasm is appreciated, and I love your interest in taking on pseudoscience. The reason we don't move items out of a category until after the CfD is simply because the category might not get deleted, in which case (1) somebody has to make sure to move the articles back into the original category and (2) they spent some time incorrectly categorized. Also, we sometimes base deletion decisions on the fact that a category is unused. Emptying it before CfD is complete can give the false impression the category wasn't used, thereby throwing off the category evaluation process. (Don't worry about it. You're doing fine.) Doczilla 06:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Pseudoscience

Thanks for explaining the reasoning behind your edits. I find that people tend to create little pointless sub-categories (the Orgone Therapy... category is a good example) in order to avoid being listed in the higher categories like Pseudoscience. Its a useful trick for avoiding a label. Any suggestions as to how to improve the situation? Famousdog 13:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marcello Truzzi

I noticed that you have evaluated many biographies. Today you made a category change to Marcello Truzzi (and some others about skeptics). Would you evaluate that article, and see if it needs editing? Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 02:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Freefoot.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Elquest Freefoot.jpg. The copy called Image:Elquest Freefoot.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 23:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of asteroid-discovering observatories

Regarding the observatories at Wikipedia:Most_wanted_articles#Astronomy, if you could confirm for me that (to your knowledge) none of them are notable for anything other than getting credit (from the Minor_Planet_Center I'm guessing?) for discovering a lot of minor planets, I'll go ahead and create a page at List of asteroid-discovering observatories that lists them and their relative discoveries. ...

Hi. The way I usually check is to go to the "What links here" link in the toolbox, then substitute the name of the observatory. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Geisei_Observatory . If it comes back with a bunch of "List of asteroids" pages, then it's a pretty sure sign that it's an asteroid-discovering observatory. Some of the references on the Nihondaira Observatory page may also prove useful for getting more information. (The Dictionary of Minor Planet Names may show up in google books because astronomers sometimes name asteroids after the observatories, and so there's usually a description.) I'd be happy to include some text on the page, once it's set up, and you can usually get some help from the Astronomical Objects wikiproject members. The names 'asteroid' and 'minor planet' are synonymous, but I think asteroids is probably more familiar to non-astronomy people. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)