User talk:ErrantX/Archive/2010/November

SfMF
Just wondered what the abbreviation ' SfMF' stood for in your posting Talk:John Clark (actor). Cheers memphisto 15:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah yeh, sorry, I shortened Shakespeare for My Father. Not really sure why :) --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 16:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I couldn't see the wood for the trees. I thought it was another policy abbreviation! :) memphisto 16:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

A Barnstar
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WP:WWF/D/2010/O at 06:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

Congrats
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WP:WWF/D/2010/O at 06:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

You may perhaps find this insightful
Just an FYI, if you care to read it all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#No_right_of_reply.3F_.28cont.27d.29

Enjoy! R OBERT M FROM LI TALK/CNTRB 16:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have been keeping tabs, but not getting involved because it would probably be seen as ganging up, or something :( this is what prompted my talk page note to him today. This has been rumbling on for months now, I'm not sure the best way to resolve it w/o going over and over the same points... --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 16:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm about done with him over there. No idea his true motives, but I have seen instances in the past where others have done similar things to try to get a statement/comment from Jimbo or someone else in the WMF so they can turn it into a news item or suit or whatever. I wonder what his reasoning is, and his repeated refusal/ignoring of the proper direction to get the article issues resolved are? R OBERT M FROM LI  TALK/CNTRB 21:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi, you did a revert here. I just want to say thank you. If you look at this editors contributions you will see that one article is protected due to edits from the editor. We are all pretty sure that this is a community banned sock puppet. I will almost bet that no more edits will be made by this account as the sock master usually moves on to an another account or uses multiple IP's for awhile before starting another new account. If interested in knowing who this editor is please feel free to email me. We are considering possibly trying WP:LTA but to be honest I'm not sure how useful that would be or not since I've never seen it in action against a deteremined sock master. I'm curious have you or any of your talk page lurker ever seen WP:LTA used and it be helpful? Anyways, thanks, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  12:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Crohnie :) the reason I picked it up, actually, is because I've been in email contact with a mutual acquaintance :) (who pointed me at this latest account). In terms of LTA... a long long long long time ago I did something with an early incarnation. But the current set up, no idea. However it looks fairly logical to go through - and from what I've gathered this certainly qualifies :) --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 12:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I am actually laughing out loud which is good for me! :) I should have known, and I know who too.  ;)  Yes this one used to rant and rave about another editor, who is now retired, about how horrible she was for socking, though some of the accusations weren't her but she took the block anyways.  She went to anyone who would listen and got some editors to bang this editor every chance they got to make her pay for her past misdeeds even though she paid for it.  Now look at this editor.  What concerns me at this point is this sock is getting real mean and personal against that editor you were in contact with.  I want it stopped if at all possible which is why I went there and asked what they could do for us.  You will see my question at the talk page of WP:LTA.  I'm hoping someone will give me some good answers about it.  Thanks for the laugh though much appreciated, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hehe :) I think if you rattle up a LTA page that at least gives a single place to co-ord the effort. Then recruit some admins amenable to blocking these - and as the socks appear revert (as she is community banned) everything, hardblock ASAP and record at the LTA page. With luck some sort of picture will grow over time to let you block her more effectively. --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 12:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well the good thing is that there are a few administrators that each of us can go to for blocking when we are sure. They know this sockmaster and the editing style so they can see what we see.  The editor who contacted you has something like three or four administrators keeping an eye on her talk page due to abusive postings.  All of us, except one, have had our pages, ( either user or talk, sometimes both) protected.  My user page is protected.  It got revdel so I didn't see what nasty comments were made.  Ocassionally the sock get angry and leaves a ridiculous comment on my talk page but I am only a secondary target who is stalked.  It's funny, this sock went to Wikipedia Review and the editors there didn't like her that much so she went and made herself a new account with hopes that the editors wouldn't make the connection which at least one has.  So she socks where ever she goes.  I got emailed another location where she has been banned also but because she doesn't have a stable IP she keeps breaking through with new accounts there too.  It's amazing isn't it?  She just can't take 'no' for an answer.  Why anyone would want to be in a community where no one want you at is astounding to me, I guess I'm naive about this, but why would you sock at so many places where people don't like you?  Anyways, I was surprised when I got the email and clicked the links.  Anyways, I'm babbling as usual, I hope LTA is something that will be useful.  An administrator brought it to our attention, I just don't remember which one. :)  Not to good of my brainfarts to kick in at times when I really need my brain to work normal.  Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to the December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive
 Ⓢ ock   00:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Information Forensics
Hi Tom, thank you for your research and comments. The article that I posted is a specialty area of work tracing information flow with people/paper rather than the technicalities. Anyway can I have a text copy of the page so I review and maybe work on it according to wiki terms. I won't repost it. Robert —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertee (talk • contribs) 06:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hiya, I'm not an admin so can't recover it. You might want to ask the deleting admin NativeForeigner if he can userfy it for you :) --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 08:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive is about to begin!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wikiproject Wikify at 00:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC).

On atheism
Tom, as I see my personal views creeping more and more to the fore I've decided to move this discussion here so as not to clutter the talk page. I've moved your last response as well because I started to respond to it there. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:List of atheists

 * Meh. I see, and agree with, the distinction you are making. However; someone saying "I do not believe in a God" has clear disbelief. I have to confess; I have always seen the argument of "I do not disbelief, I only lack belief" as being simply a distinction made recently popular by those rejecting atheist as a slightly pejorative term. I'm not sure there is very much of a distinction between disbelief (an active refusal OR simply reluctance to believe) and a lack of belief. Indeed, if anything a lack of belief is stronger than disbelief because it outright rejects religious perspective as relevant --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 13:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, to delve further into my own perspective as an example, I reject the very question as one irrelevant to my life because I don't really care whether or not there are god(s). However I'm not making a value judgment on the rationality/irrationality of belief in gods or the very concept of gods, which is what the traditional atheist position that supports "lack of belief" does - see Bradlaugh.  If I were an historian or social scientist writing about Bradlaugh I would categorize his perspective as radically materialist, and not simply as a lack of belief in God.  In that context I reject both the religious perspective and the materialist perspective as relevant.  To claim that one doesn't care about the very question, but to still call oneself an atheist, is in my view somewhat self-defeating or at least ironic because in declaring atheism one affirms the importance of the question.  I usually don't even use the term "agnostic" to describe myself but sometimes I feel like I ought define myself for purposes of disclosure and find that to be the best descriptor.  An atheist, in my view is someone who has affirmed the importance of the question of whether or not there is a god, and has come down on the side of those who say no.  They have either done this very purposefully, see what you are calling "Atheists" or have done so passively, see "atheists".  To be sure, that's simply my POV on the matter, but perhaps it explains my perspective a bit better.Griswaldo (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In terms of the article; re-reading I think the same thing happened as last time, and we're actually on the same page when it comes to the practical level of who to list. Although I guess I might tend to lean more towards accepting sources that do not explicitly use the word atheist for historical individuals. It was a bit (ok, a big) of a mistake, probably, to discuss the definition in a comment where I was more trying to say "discussing the definition of atheism is not really what we should be doing here" :P. But I see we actually agree about that too!
 * It's hard to detach my fascination with the subject (which I quite enjoy discussing with you) from the matter at hand ;) So coming here is a good compromise... in terms of your personal thinking - I see what you are saying. But I sometimes have a tough time appreciating the logical distinction between a declared lack of belief and a active disbelief. I take it, from what you have said, that you simply have no opinion on whether a god exists or not? (putting you somewhere between atheist and agnostic) and are simply uninterested in the question? If that is the correct interpretation I entirely see your point - however I would argue that yours is a relatively specific position and one that is hard to maintain (by which I mean; it seems unlikely to be a common position, in general, for people who say "I dont believe in God(s)"). For my example; I have no particular interest in the issue of gods existence in relation to my own life and well being etc. But if asked the question "do you think a god exists" I would still say "no" - having considered the question rationally. As I understand it; we are basically both in the same position - except you take no stance on the question of existence? --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 14:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * From what you say, I think we are very close at least in how we consider the issue. I would also answer the question no.  Of course, I would be answering the question "no" because my preferred answer, "it doesn't matter", is less likely to be understood or might provoke a conversation I'd rather not have at the time of being asked.  The "it doesn't matter" position is possible more common than you imagine, but not in the same manner that we are discussing it.  There are a great deal of people this day and age who would say "no" but aren't precisely sure why, or haven't really thought about it all that much and probably because they don't really care.  If you ask them why they say now, they might say ... "I'm not sure, I really don't think about it all that much, but I feel like there probably isn't a God."  Answers of that nature indicate a lack of concern about the very question, without a self-conscious articulation of such a lack of concern.  I think you'd be surprised perhaps at the amount of non-theists who would fall into that camp.  Or maybe not surprised.  I think labels like "atheist" are both rejected and accepted by people in that camp for different reasons at different times.  It is often easier to just slap a label on yourself (see my comment about "agnostic" as a self-description for instance).  However, at other times some people don't want to be associated with other people who use the same labels.  Perhaps like your distinction between (A)theists and (a)theists.  A related example is the argument that the recent upsurge in unaffiliated self-identifications in the United States is a backlash from the politicization of religion during the 80s and 90s.  According to this explanation, liberal minded believers started to claim no religious affiliation in surveys not because of a change in beliefs, but because they associated religion with the religious right or Moral Majority.  I do think there are people without affirmative beliefs in god(s) who do not wish to be called "atheists" because of the popular writings of the New atheists, or perhaps more so because of some of their followers. I have no empirical data to support this, just anecdotes.  The New Atheists certainly do nothing to make someone in my position more likely to consider the label "atheist".  Anyway, more food for thought.Griswaldo (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion
I'm not sure if I'm doing this right. I happened to see, and was impressed by, your comments on Political sex scandals of the United States which was been nominated by Burpelson AFB for deletion. He has also nominated Convicted politicians for deletion as well as Political scandals of the United States. I believe his deletion attempt is spurious and vengeful, but I'm afraid I'm not computer literate enough to stop him. Could you look at and comment on the deletion of the other 2 articles as well? Thanks. Richrakh (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I may comment, but I was considering commenting anyway on those deletions - IMO they were not as simple cases as the main list (apart from the redirect, which should be dealt with later anyway). However just FYI it is usually considered inappropriate to canvas input on stuff like AFD; I'm sure you meant nothing by it (especially as I was the only one you asked) but it's something to bear in mind in the future. Don't sweat about it :) I will try to have a considered look at those other AFD's if I get time --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 21:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Next drive
As you are either a participant of WikiProject or the October wikification drive or have signed up to participate in the planned December drive, this probably concerns you. Discussions that have been inactive for a couple weeks regarding the December drive have been reactivated, and we would like you to participate in these discussions, and also consider joining the December drive. We have taken upon ourselves a massive workload, encompassing a backlog reaching June 2008 and comprising articles. Barnstars will be awarded to participating editors, and also, please invite your friends to join! Please do not reply to this message here. Either reply here, here or here.

For the December Drive Coordinators,.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 23:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC).