User talk:Tritium6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:13, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Vance's birth dates

The hidden note you inserted is an excellent, and extremely elegant, solution. Keep up the good work! Tetragruppasum 08:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pentacles and "five"-ness

Hi, just a note to say I removed the {{fact}} tag you added to Pentacle, since that section (and indeed the rest of the article) continues by giving plenty of supporting examples. You should find quotes and references to a number of sources that state the pentacle can be of many designs. You should also find several example images of pentacles that quite clearly don't incorporate much to do with "five". I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but the fact of the matter is that pentagram-shaped pentacles were the minority in the old grimoires. Perhaps the most famous set of magical pentacles is that given in the various versions of the Key of Solomon, and if you look through these you will find that a remarkably small minority of them incorporate pentagrams in any prominent way. Cheers, Fuzzypeg☻ 22:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism rv (moved from User talk:Brian0918)

Hi, You seem to know more about the Britannica numbers for atheists than I do so I'm fine with you changing that back, but I don't understand why you reverted all of the changes I made instead of selectively changing the ones you disagreed with. Please see Help:Reverting#When_to_revert Tritium6 22:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no way that 18% of the world has any idea what the terms strong atheism or weak atheism mean, much less would so many refer to themselves as such. The other change- using names instead of "some", makes the statement meaningless with no context as to who these people are or what their statements might indicate. johnpseudo 23:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you suppose that one must know the vocab words in order to be considered an atheist? Under that philosophy it is logical to say "I believe there is no God, but I am not an atheist", which to me is nonsense. If I'm afraid of spiders, but I don't know that the name for this is arachnophobia, does that mean I don't count in the statistics of those afraid of spiders? No. Atheists are defined by their beliefs, not by whether they consider themselves atheist.Tritium6 17:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you missed the point. You wanted to add the sentence "The first individuals to self-identify as "atheist" appeared in the 18th century; today, about 3.8% of the world's population describes itself as strong atheist, while 18.5% describes itself as either strong or weak atheist."
I think I missed the point tooTritium6 20:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
"18.5% describes itself as either strong or weak atheist" is incorrect. 18.5% might be classified as implicit atheist, but they certainly wouldn't describe themselves as either a "weak" or "strong" atheist. johnpseudo 20:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)