User talk:Taiwan boi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Taiwan boi, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Alai 17:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] afd
Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NCSE_Grand_Canyon_Raft_Trip and the associated article NCSE Grand Canyon Raft Trip. Thanks Happy Couple 22:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bereans
I've moved your content to a separate Berean Christadelphians article. Hope that's ok. RiJB (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't mind that, but you've cut a lot of it out. --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I just copied and pasted, and made a minor alteration to the opening paragraph. I'm sorry if some sections got lost in the ether, but I think it may be subsequent alterations by others that have been the source of the cuts, not my setting up the article RiJB (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Accusation of bad faith
With reference to your accusation on the Christadelphians talk page that I acted in bad faith by not logging in, I refer you to the Wikipedia guideline on Good faith, especially the section under the heading Accusing others of bad faith:
- "Making unwarranted accusations of bad faith (as opposed to explanations of good faith) can be inflammatory, and is often unhelpful in a dispute. If bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is in fact based upon bad faith, it can also count as a form of personal attack, and in it, the user accusing such claim is not assuming good faith.
Your accusation is therefore inflammatory, is a form of personal attack, and in the words of the guideline is itself "not assuming good faith". Your attempt elsewhere in that discussion to reveal my identity is also contrary to Wiki guidelines and is contrary to good etiquette. The reference to Wikipedia FAQ which you cited specifically says "we welcome anonymous contributions" and "you are actually more anonymous (though more pseudonymous) logged in than you are as an "anonymous" editor". Your implication that I somehow contravened a Wikipedia policy or guideline on good faith was therefore in error and could itself be considered to be in bad faith. Taiwan Girl (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Taiwan Girl are you really accusing Taiwanboi of bad faith for accusing you of bad faith? ;) RiJB (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Of course he is. His standard tactic is to invent reasons why the other person is wrong, in an attempt to deflect attention from his own wrongs. It's the tu quoque fallacy, and none of it addresses the fact that he's in error. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well this is totally expected, and up to your usual standard of inaccuracy. Good faith is to be assumed on Wikipedia unless there is clear evidence otherwise. In this case there is clear evidence otherwise, as I pointed out more than once (and you never responded). You were invited several times to make use of a source which I would not have contested, and you deliberately chose not to. You also deliberately misrepresented the source you were using, until I exposed your misrepresentation. That is not good faith, that's acting in bad faith, and my identifying it was not unwarranted. You were grossly abusive of the article, and consistently acted in bad faith, which is why not one person attempted to support you.
- I didn't attempt to reveal your identity, I only used an abbreviation of what I know your first name to be. The reference to the Wikipedia FAQ specifically defines people who login without a username as 'anonymous'. The issue of who is more anonymous was not under dispute. I rightly identified you as anonymous, according to the standard Wiki definition. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- I won't discuss personal attacks with you. I have consistently tried to confine myself to the actual material, and I suggest you do the same. I won't dignify your accusations of "bad faith", "vandalism", or "misrepresentation" with a reply.Taiwan Girl (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- There are no personal attacks here. You acted in bad faith. You misrepresented your source regarding conscientious objection, you refused to use a source which wasn't disputed, and now you're continuing to make edits without substantiating your claims. Quoting the attitudes of a Christadelphian who lived in the 19th century does not constitute quoting evidence for the attitudes of 21st century Christadelphians. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- I won't discuss personal attacks with you. I have consistently tried to confine myself to the actual material, and I suggest you do the same. I won't dignify your accusations of "bad faith", "vandalism", or "misrepresentation" with a reply.Taiwan Girl (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] February 2008
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Christadelphians. Thank you. NeilN talk ♦ contribs 01:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I do keep forgetting that. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] A friendly word of advice
Hi Taiwan boy. I'm going to make a suggestion that may seem a little childish to you, but if you could at least think about it, then that would be great. Can you sit on replying immediately to comments made by Taiwan girl, as that person is clearly Trolling you. I've given Taiwan girl a friendly warning and really don't want to take it any further than that, and while they are in the wrong hear, I think that if you take a bit more time to reply (or don't reply if needs be) then hopefully things will calm down a bit. Please don't take this the wrong way and think I'm attacking you, as I'm not! --Samtheboy (t/c) 09:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ok Sam, I'll give that a go and see what happens. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Suggestion
In order to encourage NPOV in the Bereans article, I wonder what you would think of inviting a Berean Christadelphian and a non-Christadelphian to review it? RiJB (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've already mentioned it to a number of Bereans, but they don't appear the slightest bit interested in editing it. As for a non-Christadelphian reviewing it, that's 'Taiwan Girl'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, OK. I was thinking of someone who perhaps knew very little of Christadelphians at all, i.e. they might pick up on things of particular interest or matters that needed further explanation, or parts that did not come across as neutral. On the Berean front, I do seem to remember we had a Berean editor in the past, but it may have been another subgroup. Actually, you quoting of Stephen Male makes me wonder if I should drop in and see him - he lives just down the road.RiJB (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I mentioned it again yesterday on a Berean forum, and received the response basically that Wikipedia is stupid and dumb and worldly and anarchistic, and all the rest. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- You should tell them that yes, it is all that, but it's also viewed by millions of people around the world, so are you sure that you are happy that an article about yourselves is up there without being reviewed by you? --Samtheboy (t/c) 06:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- That is almost exactly what I said:
- I mentioned it again yesterday on a Berean forum, and received the response basically that Wikipedia is stupid and dumb and worldly and anarchistic, and all the rest. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, OK. I was thinking of someone who perhaps knew very little of Christadelphians at all, i.e. they might pick up on things of particular interest or matters that needed further explanation, or parts that did not come across as neutral. On the Berean front, I do seem to remember we had a Berean editor in the past, but it may have been another subgroup. Actually, you quoting of Stephen Male makes me wonder if I should drop in and see him - he lives just down the road.RiJB (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia has many flaws and for the most part I'm not remotely interested in it. However, there is already an article on the Christadelphian community, including articles on the Unamedended, Nazarene, and Berean schisms, so I spend some time ensuring that these articles are factual. I see that as a personal responsibility. I'm sure you wouldn't want the Berean article to represent you falsely.
-
-
-
- I've been told 'I think we'll stick with the Book of Life'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Please consider taking the AGF Challenge
I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [1] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Battle of Qadesh
Sorry about the removed part, I accidently removed it while adding some details in the above section. Just feel free to add more such facts. Egyptzo (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, only to tell you that we might start an "election" of the best battle section, it will be "my" version against "Egyptzo's" version. Super Knuckles (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] -isms
Thanks for your comments, and I hope I didn't cause any offense. What I said about '-isms' was really prompted by a couple of instances I've come across where a feminist historian has been summarily dismissed as a crank when in fact this was just an excuse to ignore the (very solid) evidence they were presenting. Ronald Hutton does this for example, responding to Max Dashu's critique of his work by stating that she is "not an academic of any sort" and that addressing any of her points is beneath him. In fact, she had pointed out some serious flaws in his work, supported with very solid evidence. I see this too often in the study of history, important work being marginalised on the basis of its author's supposed (and often misrepresented) ideologies, rather than on the basis of an actual evaluation of the work. But then, I'm just an amateur historian, and probably not a very good one at that... Fuzzypeg★ 22:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Welcome!
|
[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Taiwan boi! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Daniel (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Christianity Newsletter
| The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||
