User talk:AcuteInsight

Welcome, and a message about Original Research
Hello AcuteInsight, I'm putting a Welcome template below, please spend some time with its links, but first take a good look at WP:No original research, perhaps the most important Wikipedia policy there is. Your edits (example here) to The Miracle of the Sun espousing an expanding sun theory are pure uncited speculation on your part. You need to find a reliable source saying exactly what you're adding to the article and I doubt if you'll find one, or find one using the speed of light to support the duration of the event. Please don't add such scientifically unsound material, it reflects poorly on the encyclopedia. I think there are other, lesser, problems with your additions to the article, but I'll leave them for another day or another interested editor. --CliffC (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi CliffC, I was attempting to point out the fact that the witnesses testified the miracle had a duration of 10 minutes. The time it takes light from the sun to travel to the earth is also 10 minutes. There may be significance to this. John Haffert compared the events of this miracle to a prophesy from Akita, Japan “fire will fall down to the earth”. There was a show on the Discovery Channel “Savage Sun”, that described huge solar flares from distant stars (observed via the Hubble Telescope) large enough to scorch inner planets. It hypothesized about our sun exhibiting similar behavior. No big deal, but thanks for the info.

Welcome! Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights - do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view - this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a  living person to any Wikipedia page. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced to multiple reliable sources.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, doing so will result your account or IP being blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!

Talkback
NW ( Talk ) 23:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Stationary Engineers
Stationary Engineers operated "Stationary" steam driven equipment as opposed to Locomotive Engineers. Thats why they are called "Stationary Engineer", not because they stay in a control room —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapn80 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverted edits at Atheism and Intelligent Design
Hi,

I reverted your recent edits to Atheism and Intelligent Design. Edits need to be cited to reliable sources, and the website you used would not be considered such. Generally we're looking for books, magazines, newspapers, and academic journals. For the full details of what constitutes a reliable source, check out WP:RS. If you have any questions, the WP:TEAHOUSE is a friendly place for questions about editing. Hope that helps! Garamond Lethe t c  06:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "ArguingWithAtheists.com" is not an appropriate citation for an encyclopedia. Please don't add it to the intelligent design article (or anything else).  Garamond Lethe t c  18:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The ID perspectives category lists 7 sites (including 2 personal blogs). It is difficult to imagine that ArguingWithAtheists.com, a project initiated by Diocesan Judge Deacon Thomas Rich, D. Min., J.C.L. under supervision of Bishop William Murphy of the Diocese of Rockville Center, NY. with permission of Cardinal Timothy Dolan does not meet Wikipedia Standards. The site is edited by two Roman Catholic Doctors (Dr. John Palmer & Dr. Tony Ciuffo), who host the most popular Catholic Radio show in the tri-state area of NY, NJ & CT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcuteInsight (talk • contribs)


 * For starters, can you provide evidence that this site has the endorsement of Cardinal Dolan? Guettarda (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The Links Page mentions the two editors Roman Catholic Doctors (Dr. John Palmer & Dr. Tony Ciuffo), and one of their radio shows details the history of the site with Diocesan Judge Deacon Thomas Rich as the guest. The back shows are on http://www.Listen-Up.net. The site is also edited by Rabbi Uri Yosef. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcuteInsight (talk • contribs)


 * No, we need a source that's independent of the website. Something that attests to its notability. If, as you say, Cardinal Dolan has endorsed this site, then surely there's a link from the website of the archdiocese, or a press release or something? And that still wouldn't necessarily be enough. Anyway, please discuss this at talk:Intelligent design. Make you case for inclusion. And please stop re-inserting the link. Gain consensus for its inclusion first. What you're doing is edit warring, and that's not acceptable behaviour. Guettarda (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

What are the press releases to the other 7 sites, including the 2 personal blogs?


 * They are considered unreliable. See the page on reliable sources for details.  The short version is that wikipedia doesn't cite blogs or press releases.  The next hurdle to be cleared will be convincing other editors that citing this web page does not give it undue weight.  Garamond Lethe t c  22:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight? That statement is illogical, as the "Further Reading" category is "ID Perspectives"; sites supporting ID. It is followed by "Non-ID Perspectives"; sites not supporting ID. Naturally links in either category are expected to be subjective.


 * As illogical as you might find WP:UNDUE, it reflects the expectations of the community. If you want to include this reference (for more than a couple of hours) then you need to establish why this website is important, and you do that by showing that folks who are prominent in the ID discussion have cited it.  Becoming an effective editor means not only knowing these policies but also knowing how they are interpreted and applied.  Lots of ineffective editors make changes to intelligent design.  Neither they nor their edits tend to last long.  Garamond Lethe t c  04:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Notwithstanding that this is the third time the goal posts were moved for including the Catholic ID perspective, at least we arrived at the heart of the real obstacle. This last hurtle is untenable, as the Catholic ID perception is at complete odds with the creationists who appear to dominate this Wikipedia page. Observably, no creationist site would be willing to endorse or link to views incongruent to a 6,000 year old earth. The Catholic Church is unique among the Christian denominations, in that it abandoned challenging sound science. It learned from its mistakes, such as adopting the Flat Earth model during the Hellenistic period and espousing the celestial sphere orbs theory developed by Aristotle (in these celestial models, the stars and planets are carried around by being embedded in rotating crystal spheres moving around the Earth), so it is not limited to the young earth ideas. I mistakenly considered these insights good for further ID reading, since the Catholic Church is the largest denomination in the world with more than a billion followers, more than all 41,000 Christian denominations combined. My hope is that one day a Wiki editor who doesn’t believe that cavemen had pet dinosaurs would be able to make sound science based edits on this page.


 * The Catholic perspective on ID would be a valuable addition, but that doesn't address the reliability of the website you've chosen.  Just doing a bit of googling I found an article in Catholic Online and Catholic Answers, both of which appear to be actual publications that would be considered reliable.  I also found the relevant wikipedia article:  Catholic Church and evolution.  Basically, the church's position on intelligent design has been covered by multiple mainstream publications.  There's no need to prefer an obscure website over these.  Garamond Lethe t c  19:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Some of these sites do not reflect views of Pope Benedict XVI: "In the beginning the creative Word - this Word that created all things, that created this intelligent design which is the cosmos - is also love": http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2005/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20051109_en.html


 * There is no evidence that the ex-Pope's statement has anything whatsoever to do with the subject of this article, which is Intelligent Design creationism as promulgated by the Discovery Institute. It's a pretty safe bet that Benedict is not at all a supporter of Intelligent Design (TM). He is a thoroughly traditional, insular European intellectual, to whom the concept of ID (TM) is alien, irrelevant, meaningless and practically unknown. His choice of words was almost certainly coincidental. You would need an EXTREMELY reliable source to back up such an extraordinary claim as that Benedict supports ID (TM). Your blog falls far short of the mark. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)