User talk:Drlight11

Re. Regarding the Virginia edits in Creationism vs. Evolution
I, as much as I try, can not respond with such... lucidity and length. Reading your post was wonderful, and I enjoyed it very much. I agree with you in every respect, and will probably take time after this response to dedicate some form or another to that incredible surprise: I log in, and low-and-behold, I have a new message. "Probably an IP address I improperly reverted or the like," I thought. It was not. It was an essay. Thank you!

Now, to move past the frivolous exposition, I must continue forth and conquer the better part of your message.

And a "sting" it was! You undermined the whole argument, and, in the same sentence, I must tell you that your edit does not belong on Wikipedia. I'm sorry. I can only hope that listing the problems that your edit falls under will help:


 * WP:OR: No original research. This means that however much time you put into it, however many hours you spend writing it, and however clear and close to the truth it is, if it is original research, it can not be on Wikipedia. Being an encyclopedia, we can only accept secondary references that with proud neutrality outline the fact you wish to add (and this requirement becomes even more important the more controversial your edit becomes).


 * WP:V: Verifiability. This page (in a nutshell) says "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." In more detail, I will also say that an edit such as yours, which I will go into more detail in a moment, can not be proved even if all the logic in the world points in its direction. (You seem like a smart guy; would you not remember that with a small bit of logic I can prove that I will never get the other side of a room, or that a grain of rice is a heap of rice?). Sorry, but we need a source, which brings me to the final, and most relevant, policy...


 * WP:NPOV: No point of view. This is the crux of an encyclopedia; experiments to science; ATP to organisms; fingers to typists. You understand what I'm saying: we can not, and I stress the word not, have points of view (POV) in this encyclopedia. If your point of view was allowed to flourish under claims of "undeniable logic" or "clear contentions" we would have to allow every other point that someone can think up. Neutrality is key to the success of this wonderful project.

Those three policies (and I dare say bases) are the reasons why I can not allow an edit of that nature to be. Now, I will dissect your edit, and show you how I came the conclusions of which policies were applicable.

However, since creationism is not scientific, as it is not the outcome of typical logical analysis focused on objective evidence, but a tenuously supported adherence to obsolete references, the label of "scientific debate" is actually a misnomer."

That is the edit you made, found here. It is clear, concise, and grammatically correct. It looks contributory, and good so far. Until, of course, we examine the content. Let us begin.

"However, since creationism is not scientific..."

"However" is word that should be avoided like the plague, for the following reasons:
 * "However" asserts a change in the text. Ex: "B = A, however, B = C". Do you see what I'm saying? It helps if you look at it as one person wrote the article. You would not change points dramatically would you? I hope not! That sort of writing is detrimental to the reader, and that is why we all here: for the reader.
 * "However" also undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. If one was to pragmatically and exhaustively examine an article, and found a "however" in the usage you have prescribed, then that article would lose credibility. Naturally, we do not want to examine both sides of an argument in a single paragraph; it is bad form.

"Not scientific" could also be questionable. It asserts that little to no scientific thought was put into the Creationism idea. Although maybe true, it is a point of view, which, as stated above, we can not have.

"...it is not the outcome of typical logical analysis focused on objective evidence..."

The only issue with this particular segment is the usage of "typical". It asserts that Creationism is, in fact, abnormal in its pursuit of lucid logic. This is a point of view, and again, we can not have that. In a minor point, "objective evidence" would not apply to such a broad scale of science, and Creationism could not (and should not) meet these same implausible demands.

"...a tenuously supported adherence to obsolete references..."

Again, I find a point of view in "obsolete". This term may be correct, but as per your whole contribution, without any references to back it up, it is unacceptable. It is based on logic, albeit it clear and undeniable.

"...the label of "scientific debate" is actually a misnomer."

I find two problems with this section.
 * "...is actually..." should also be avoided. It asserts that you have reached a conclusion of sorts, and that, if you notice, is not particularly common in our high level articles. If you observe closely, we have few conclusions finalize a point; a conclusion of that nature asserts a point, and this can be taken as an opinion if incorrectly performed.
 * "Misnomer" is clearly a point of view, and should be removed.

Hopefully, for the reason stated above, you understand why the edit can not be approved for usage in such a controversial article. If have any more questions, feel free to ask me. My talk page is always open. Feel free to contribute to more articles, and I hope you enjoy it here. I ask though, that you let references and citations do the talking, not logic. We need less POV and more conclusive evidence. I think one such as you can respect that, fighting on the side of science. Leonard(Bloom) 01:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Rihanna
Hi I would say seven singles is correct since If I Never See Your Face Again is a single by Maroon 5, and apparently only on the Reloaded release of Good Girl Gone Bad. If you disagree let's discuss at Talk:Rihanna. Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea  12:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I've reworded it a bit to make clear that only the reloaded edition had eight singles, after I found a reference to say so, too. Cheers, Amalthea  12:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Anencephaly - Image inclusion in encyclopedias [Draft]
I am starting a new section, rather than the previous one regarding this topic, because activity on the previous one has petered out. This is also a new approach to the topic of debate, and I think it merits its own introduction.

There have been a number of suggestions on how to handle the images of anencephalic babies on this particular article. Both the educational and the graphic natures of the images have, I believe, been acknowledged by all editors involved - the dispute stems from a matter of priority. Currently, as anyone reading this knows quite well, the graphic images are embedded in the article with no prior warning to readers. This has caused distress to a large proportion of said readers. The reason why these pictures remain prominent there for the time being is because of the argument that Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, has the duty to inform, and that censorship impedes that.

However, other established encyclopedias take a different approach. You will not find an image of an actual ancephalic baby, or penis, or vagina, in the Encyclopedia Britannica, for example. You might find a medical illustration - an artist's depiction of the topic of discussion. However, the human element is avoided by not showing the reader pictures of actual people, or their body parts. This has obviously not hindered the Britannica's success, which is an indirect but useful measure of its perceived utility by the populace. Clearly graphic images are not essential to communicate factual information. On the other hand, images of actual people do educate, and should not be shunned completely in an educational resource. We need to find a balance between imparting information essential to comprehension and shielding potential readers, at least temporarily, from visual media that is noted to impair their quest for knowledge.

Fortunately, the solution is obvious. Wikipedia, being an online encyclopedia, has tools unavailable to the printed E. Britannica. As others have pointed out, concealing the pictures behind an interactive warning when the page is first loaded successfully maintains their inclusion in the article, while at the same time blocking them from anyone who is not fully committed to witnessing them. A single click on the warning is sufficient to load the picture - we need not immediately worry about age verification or the like, since such is not our primary responsibility. In this way, we can preserve the integrity of the encyclopedia, while at the same time broadening its prospective audience.

Talkback - Giffords' Recovery
No big deal. Matters of timing are somewhat subjective anyway. KimChee (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Her attending physician sounds more optimistic now. KimChee (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been off WP for a few days, but the article is doing well. - Drlight11 (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Milky Way update
This is pretty much what I've been expecting. I would like to hear your thoughts on this if you have any. Viriditas (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Responsibility for USG shutdown
From JRSpriggs &mdash; At Talk:United States federal government shutdown of 2013, you asked:
 * You speak of it being "lies" to represent the shutdown as the fault of both parties. Exactly how is that?  You point out - and you may be right, I am not especially knowledgeable of the document - that it is a constitutional role of the HoR to only adopt appropriations it approves of, and thus the HoR is acting reasonably.  But as others have pointed out, the Senate also has the authority to sculpt the budget according to its constituents' beliefs, and the President certainly has every right to veto a budget he disapproves of.  Per your own argument, all three entities are exercising their constitutionally-granted powers, leading to this impasse.  The only logical conclusion one can come to, per your logic,  is that there is some diffusion of responsibility among all three entities.  However, you explicitly insist above that it is "solely the fault of the President and the Democrats in the Senate".  One can only conclude it is sheer bias that leads you to this conclusion.  You need to understand that the ONLY objective tool we have to make judgments is reason.  You need to stop letting the passion of your pride overruling your logical faculties, and look at this objectively - there is no argument to be made for the Senate and President abdicating THEIR responsibilities while the House stands by theirs.  Your thinking is inherently contradictory.  And while we speak of contradictions in casual parlance, a genuine contradiction CANNOT exist, in whole or in part.  Either your argument is broken, or your conclusion is wrong. - Drlight11 (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Now, ignoring the philosophy of it all - here's a critical fact that has not been mentioned: Boehner has yet to even allow the House to vote on the Senate's bill! It cannot be overlooked that the Senate did in fact vote on - and reject - the House's bill multiple times.  It is time the House votes on the Senate's, to see if there even IS a dissenting majority that "justifies" this gridlock.  After all, it is the most basic of constitutional powers for each house to vote on the others' work. - Drlight11 (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I (JRSpriggs) will reply here:
 * All three entities (House, Senate, and President) are acting within their assigned roles in the legislative process. That is, they are acting in accordance with that part of the Constitution (although much of what they do violates other parts of the Constitution). However, only the House is acting honestly and sincerely according to the spirit of the Constitution. The Senate (majority leader) and the President are acting against the spirit of the Constitution and lying about it.
 * Acting according to the spirit of (this part of) the Constitution would mean that each of the three entities would pass any appropriation which they believed was beneficial and affordable without any attempt to manipulate or dominate the other entities. If one appropriation did not include everything that one of the entities desired, they could simply seek an additional appropriation for the other desired objects.
 * The Senate (and by his threats, the President) have blocked appropriations which they believe are beneficial and affordable and then falsely told the people that the House had blocked them. This was done to gain a political advantage over the Republicans and to try to compel the Republicans to agree to something that the Republicans would not agree to of their own freewill, to wit, funding implementation of Obamacare.
 * In other words, the Democrats have taken the government hostage so that they could falsely accuse the Republicans of taking it hostage.
 * If the moderate Republicans in the House really wanted to pass a CR that included Obamacare implementation, then they could join with the Democrats to replace John Boehner with Nancy Pelosi as speaker, or threaten to do so. The fact that they have not done so shows that what they really want is for Boehner to give them political cover by blocking Obamacare without having to personally vote against a CR that contains it. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)