Talk:T. Anthony/Archive 5
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I'll try again
What with the holiday I'm in the mood to goof, but hopefully after today I will resist the temptation to edit.--T. Anthony 14:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- You'll need to try harder. Joyous! | Talk 03:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Heh heh, yah I know. I have serious misgivings about the whole concept of Wikipedia, but it is a good waste of time activity when I want to procrastinate from work. The other deal was that even though I'm not a fan of hers, well except that I thought she was funny on Space Ghost, the article was way too stubbish. I was hoping to find a non-POV way to say she's considered annoying, as I think being annoying is something she intends as part of her act and she was known for being so, but I couldn't find away to work it in.--T. Anthony 04:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- I have serious misgivings about the whole concept of Wikipedia... I have a quote from Gareth Owen on my userpage that says "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it's a total disaster. Joyous! | Talk 15:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Hmm. Well actually I don't think it works all that well in practice. I find it most useful for leading me to names I wouldn't have known before and as a source of links. As it's built on concensus it seems to work on "what amount of truth will be acceptable to the most editors" rather than real accuracy, which it does not have for the most part. Although in honesty I also have biases, you could even say bigotries, which predispose me against it. Namely I'm uncomfortable with the views/history of Jimmy Wales and consider Randian Objectivism to be essentially evil. I don't like using the word "evil" for a philosophy but Randianism does fit as evil, from my perspective, better than most extant philosophies. I have never met an Objectivist who was anything other than loathsome and I think being bigoted against a philosophy is valid. Now a good person can come to believe in a bad philosophy, but that's not the only concern I have with him. Anyway I'm hoping in time my discomfort with this place will overcome the pleasure I find in it.--T. Anthony 12:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
-
Work offline
Well now I have reason to make good my pledge of leaving. I have a thesis to write so I have to save my wrists for typing it up. No more typing here if I can help it. I haven't so far, but I really should this time.--T. Anthony 11:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Okay I did remove Nikola Tesla from the Eastern Orthodox list, but that was something needing to be done for awhile.--T. Anthony 11:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Eek I was weak again, adding John Bachman to the List of Christian thinkers in science. I must work harder on not working here.--T. Anthony 07:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Eh it's likely not going to work, but I am going to in least limit myself to weekends and only typing at my talk page. I'm not going to do any more editing. That in mind I'll make a link to some articles I created or like to check.
-
Names previously on List of Christian thinkers in science
- Ernest William Barnes: Bishop and mathematician.
- Temple Chevallier: Polymath Anglican priest.
- Michael Heller-Physicist.
- Hugh Miller-Only recently added him, but he's ultimately too amateur/unimportant.
- Georg Agricola-In another article on a similar topic, but not much theology study/work.
- Antoine Arnauld-More of a philosopher than anything.
- Anthemius of Tralles-Should possibly be brought due to the dearth of Eastern Christian content.
- Laura Bassi-Effort to add a woman, but didn't quite fit. Closer than Leavitt I think.
- Thomas Bayes-Minister and statistician. I must have had length concerns and uncertainty he did any real theology.
- Thomas Browne-Barely remember him.
- Hermannus Contractus-Too much uncertainty about him and maybe too minor, but he's cool.
- James Dwight Dana-Active churchgoer, but not enough for what the list's intent was.
- Humphry Ditton: Theologian who wrote about fluxions.
- Robert Evans (astronomer)-Too amateur(Although I've added amateurs since then)
- Galileo Galilei-Not enough religious work
- Kurt Gödel-He held a strong belief in God and an interest in theology, I go by what I've read by him on this, but it wasn't clear if he was Christian.
- Johan Ernst Gunnerus: Archbishop with the plant genus Gunnera named for him.
- John Kerr (physicist)-Outside of being a minister I couldn't find religious significance. Still it was a tough call and I think it may have been a wrong one.
- Henrietta Swan Leavitt-To be honest I just added her to have another woman. Although adding her did help Adherents.com correctly list her as Protestant.[1]
- Nicolas Malebranche-More of a philosopher in an age when that dovetailed to science.
- Matthew Fontaine Maury-Didn't quite fit, but quite devout.
- James Clerk Maxwell-A very tough call, but I couldn't find any religious writing by him. I kept trying to think of ways to justify putting him back and may again in the future.
- Michel Plancherel-Active Catholic mathematician, but not significant enough to science or religion.
- Hugh Ross (creationist)-He does fit as a guy trying to mix science with Christianity, but not scientifically important enough.
- George Salmon-Fit, but was too minor.
- Anton Maria Schyrleus of Rheita: Capuchin friar and astronomer who speculated on extraterrestrial life.
- Gaspar Schott-A Jesuit, but not much religious writing of note.
- Michael Stifel-Too minor, but interesting.
- Samuel Vince-He didn't seem to have amounted to much was the problem.
- John Wilkins-Seemed slightly minor as a scientist.
- John Williams (water scientist)-As a scientist he seemed to minor.
- Christopher Wren-Mostly known for achitecture and did a little science or theology.
- Theodor Wulf-Belongs on the List of Jesuit scientists, but not enough religious significance for the other.
Articles of interest to me
Created/Started by me
- Augusto dos Anjos-Brazilian author in need of expansion.
- Category:Assyriologists
- Cleve Cartmill
- List of child prodigies-Essentially moved it out of the article Child prodigy.
- List of Christian Scientists (religious denomination)
- Emmanuel III Delly
- List of dentists
- Mar Khanania Dinkha IV-Mostly done by others.
- Laurance Doyle
- Category:Draughts players
- Eight Eccentrics of Yangzhou
- List of ex-atheists-It's possibly controversial but we have other "ex" lists.
- Gamprin
- House of David
- Joachimites
- Kung Te-cheng
- Late bloomer
- Asa Long
- Mauren
- List of Mennonites
- Mi Fu
- Planken
- List of Protestant authors
- Religion in Iceland
- List of religious leaders in 2006
- Mon Rivera-Started it, but almost all of it done after I forgot about it.
- Rissho Kosei Kai-Most work on it was done after I forgot about it.
- Eddie Rosner-Neat story.
- Ruggell
- Pamela Sargent
- Category:Shakers
- Triesen
- Sheila Williams
I worked on extensively
Otherwise interesting
- Bamun people
- Locus Online
- Osteogenesis imperfecta-Personal, as I have it.
Cleaning up
I'm planning on limiting this talk page, in least for now, to stuff on Wikipedia that interests me. Hopefully I'll get too busy with my thesis to work here much.--T. Anthony 12:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
My work is really suffering due to this. Also my reasons for leaving in the past basically remain. Hopefully I shall move on and resist the urge to come back this time.--T. Anthony 18:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well I didn't, but I've edited quite rarely. I do intend to work harder as I really don't like, believe in, or trust this place. Although there are many fine people here and it is fun on occasion.--T. Anthony 03:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Some eccentrics
In case the list and category both get deleted and I decide to go back to recreating articles. I'm only putting people here whose main claim to fame is eccentricity and of whom I can find sources calling them such.
- William Cavendish-Scott-Bentinck, 5th Duke of Portland[2]
- Henry Darger[3]
- Timothy Dexter (businessman)[4]
- Jemmy Hirst[5][6]
- Prince Mongo[7]
- John Mytton[8]
- Joshua A. Norton[9]
- Frederick Rolfe[10]
- Matthew Robinson, 2nd Baron Rokeby[11]
- George Francis Train[12]
- Martin van Butchell[13]
Service awards
Hi T. Anthony. Well former or not, you still seem to be editing... and whatever your status, you are have earned these WP:SERVICE awards in recognition of your contributions. Herostratus 19:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wow. I'm not sure how to feel on this. I figured my consistent saying I don't like this place or consider myself a Wikipedian, but am addicted to it as a fun diversion, would kind of anger people. Instead you've all been quite tolerant. Maybe I'll reconsider the whole "Former" idea in light of this new evidence.--T. Anthony 19:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Names previously on List of Christian thinkers in science
- Ernest William Barnes: Bishop and mathematician.
- Temple Chevallier: Polymath Anglican priest.
- Michael Heller-Physicist.(Possibly needs to be brought back as he's doing a new science book for the Vatican)
- Hugh Miller-Only recently added him, but he's ultimately too amateur/unimportant.
- Georg Agricola-In another article on a similar topic, but not much theology study/work.
- Antoine Arnauld-More of a philosopher than anything.
- Anthemius of Tralles-Should possibly be brought due to the dearth of Eastern Christian content.
- Laura Bassi-Effort to add a woman, but didn't quite fit. Closer than Leavitt I think.
- Thomas Bayes-Minister and statistician. I must have had length concerns and uncertainty he did any real theology.
- Thomas Browne-Barely remember him.
- Hermannus Contractus-Too much uncertainty about him and maybe too minor, but he's cool.
- James Dwight Dana-Active churchgoer, but not enough for what the list's intent was.
- Humphry Ditton: Theologian who wrote about fluxions.
- Robert Evans (astronomer)-Too amateur(Although I've added amateurs since then)
- Galileo Galilei-Not enough religious work
- Kurt Gödel-He held a strong belief in God and an interest in theology, I go by what I've read by him on this, but it wasn't clear if he was Christian.
- Johan Ernst Gunnerus: Archbishop with the plant genus Gunnera named for him.
- John Kerr (physicist)-Outside of being a minister I couldn't find religious significance. Still it was a tough call and I think it may have been a wrong one.
- Henrietta Swan Leavitt-To be honest I just added her to have another woman. Although adding her did help Adherents.com correctly list her as Protestant.[14]
- Nicolas Malebranche-More of a philosopher in an age when that dovetailed to science.
- Matthew Fontaine Maury-Didn't quite fit, but quite devout.
- James Clerk Maxwell-A very tough call, but I couldn't find any religious writing by him. I kept trying to think of ways to justify putting him back and may again in the future.
- Michel Plancherel-Active Catholic mathematician, but not significant enough to science or religion.
- Hugh Ross (creationist)-He does fit as a guy trying to mix science with Christianity, but not scientifically important enough.
- George Salmon-Fit, but was too minor.
- Anton Maria Schyrleus of Rheita: Capuchin friar and astronomer who speculated on extraterrestrial life.
- Gaspar Schott-A Jesuit, but not much religious writing of note.
- Michael Stifel-Too minor, but interesting.
- Samuel Vince-He didn't seem to have amounted to much was the problem.
- John Wilkins-Seemed slightly minor as a scientist.
- John Williams (water scientist)-As a scientist he seemed to minor.
- Christopher Wren-Mostly known for achitecture and did a little science or theology.
- Theodor Wulf-Belongs on the List of Jesuit scientists, but not enough religious significance for the other.
First day of semi-full activity
And I must say I'm thinking I made a mistake. I'm tempted to go back to calling myself a former again. Still if I stick to small towns or other obscure topics that get few editors I think I'll be fine.--T. Anthony 10:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
In many respects I still consider myself a "former wikipedian" in that I don't consider myself a Wikipedian and I think Wikipedia on balance does more harm than good. I think there are systemic cultural problems which have not been remedied and in time I decided they can not ever be remedied. I think when it comes to anything concerning politics, religion, and most of the humanities Wikipedia is worse than worthless...Objections aside Wikipedia is fun. If you reject the idea of it as a legitimate source of information, which I mostly do, and just see it as a way to share some obscure stuff you know or researched it's pleasant. Also on areas where the facts are more objective or obscure it does considerably better. This is most true in the case of mathematics and small towns. The coverage of pop-culture and sub-cultures is also extensive. I'm not sure it's coverage of pop-culture is good in the way I once put it, but as it's an area of lesser scholarly interest it is better simply by being so much more extensive. I had that on the main page once, but it's more appropriate here. I removed it briefly, but I think it's something I standby enough I'll keep it on my talk page.(I removed the part about Colbert and concensus as it is a bit more strident than I like)--T. Anthony 11:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
List of Christian Missionaries
Hi T. Anthony. I noticed that you have added many changes to the page List of Christian Missionaries, the page I created. Is there any way you could perhaps get the page to appear when you type the words, "List of Christian Missionaries" in the search box? For some reason it doesn't show up. Thanks. Canadia, 10:34, 2 Sept 2006 (UTC)
- It did pop-up when I typed "List of Christian Missionaries," but I'll see if there are any other problems. Also I hope the changes were acceptable to you.--T. Anthony 02:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your Poland-related contributions
|
-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- You're welcome, glad to help.--T. Anthony 03:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
List of critics of Islam
The new location is here: List of critics of Islam . --Amenra 03:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Better luck
I'm enjoying it a bit more now. I mostly just do jazz, small towns, and some articles that are featured in other languages now. I still don't necessarily like the place and I don't believe in it, but I'm feeling mellow on it today anyway.--T. Anthony 06:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
CfD Thanks
Thanks for putting up a good argument. I appreciate your help.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Although on one level you don't need to thank me. I really didn't do it for you, I was just defending categories I felt had merit or precedent.--T. Anthony 02:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I know. But its helped to have someone arguing the merits of the cats that can't be classified as a Hindutva bigot or other nice phrases.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
CfD
I am afraid it is quite hard to separate the "Jewish ethnicity" (whatever it is) from the Jewish religion; see the last comments in the discussion page of Category:Jewish Mathematicians. What we have here is three things:
(a) a religion, which, like a number of other religions, claims that some people who never signed up for it belong to it and will always belong to it, regardless of what they wish or do not wish; in this case, belonging is determined largely by bloodlines; (b) a nation (this is not a term I would use, but, rather, the term used in the article Jew, to which the categories link) consisting of the individuals who belong to the religion; (c) a vaguely applied tag used to denote several different immigrant groups - often migrants from Eastern Europe to the Eastern coast of the US at the turn of the century.
It is impossible to point out (b) without pointing out (a), and that violates the guidelines on living subjects. As for (c) - we ought to have more articles on the general subject, but using a term as a yes-or-no tag in this case is senseless and serves no purpose. (Moreover, it is an invitation to projection and anachronism.) Bellbird 13:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I simply know this is the argument sometimes used for why such categories must be treated differently. It doesn't matter too much to me as I'm positive on categories for Muslim, Hindu, or even Jain mathematicians if that's useful.--T. Anthony 13:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- If somebody's Judaism (or Jainism) has influenced his mathematics in a significant way, that can be pointed out in the article. The interface between mathematics and religion may be of interest; tagging mathematicians (dead and living) by the religions that claim them is a different matter entirely. Bellbird 14:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I disagree. Let's say a person reads an article on a Hindu mathematician and they want to learn more about that. Well having the category at the end gets them to the names of many such mathematicians. Besides which the "it can be mentioned in the article" statement can be true of anything and if taken to its extreme means mathematicians should never be categorized on any human basis like nationality, gender, sexuality, or ancestry. Can you really justify Category:Basque mathematicians or Category:Welsh mathematicians and reject Category:Hindu mathematicians or Category:Muslim mathematicians? In any event my opinion is quite solid on this matter and is not likely to be changed so I think this discussion could become futile. Hopefully we'll both find better uses of our time. Nice talking to you though and have a pleasant day.--T. Anthony 14:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- "Basque mathematicians" sounds a little silly to me, but perhaps they worked together for the obvious geographical reason. If "Welsh mathematicians" is being kept by blood rather than by institutions, then I will vote for its deletion. Goodbye, Bellbird 14:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
