User talk:Ikanreed/archive1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Powers 18:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * Thanks for your comments - I would recommend as a first step looking at the references on the page - there are several books, most of which are mentioned on the 'list of major proponents' section, and several discussion forums referenced on the page. I appreciate your comments, please let me know if I can help in any way, yours, Carfiend 18:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

reply
in less than an hour youve deleted/suggest deleted 3 of my things in a row -_- —Preceding unsigned comment added by mooseguy (talk • contribs)


 * I primarily do cleanup to articles(just check my edit history). I've nominated many times that of other people's pages for deletion, because a lot of things really aren't suitible for inclusion in an encyclopedia.  i kan reed 21:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

...
stop stalking me!

Pseudoscience page
I have changed immunization to immunology.

Do you agree that within immunology there are pseudoscientific elements, whether or not the entire field can be labelled as such?

I feel as you do with this addition as with the addition of Chiropractic. It's addition to this list is just as grotesque and incomprehensible to me as immunology's addition is to you.

I'd feel a whole lot better if chiropractic wasn't on this list. But with the same rationale that it was added to the list, I have added immunology.

This list was getting very one-sided. Just one POV represented. I want to fix that. Levine2112 17:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I assure you that chiropractic has just as much of a basis in biology as immunology. Levine2112 17:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a heads up
Remember to substitute warning/welcome templates on user talk pages by adding as opposed to just. Thanks. -- Steel 20:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
Good edit on the PS page. I think that is exactly what needed to be done. It was radical, bold and warrented. It probably isn't over, but I think that is what has to happen. Thanks. --Dematt 21:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Quotemarks
Please read the Manual of style regarding quote marks - the MLA is not relevant as we have an agree standard. violet/riga (t) 19:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Cleanup of Master of Magic
Well, I obviously did not create it on the spot, I spent quite a few time writing it :) I'll send it to CVG peer review as I have only limited experience with these kind of articles. And it's the least I could do to honor a game that used up countless hours of my life :) -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  20:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:CMC Notice Board
Just for your information: When merging comics-related articles, please try to make a note of it at the Wikiproject Comics Notice Board. That way, you can attract other editors to the discussion. Thanks, Chris Griswold 02:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Quick notes about prod
Hey there! Do as you wish with them, as always, but you don't have to go to AfD with a contested prod if you change your mind or agree with the result. I don't know if you were aware of that with your AfDing of the Berenstain Bears book, so I figured I'd give you a heads up. If you were aware and felt AfD was the right route, then accpet my apologies, I just wanted to make sure you were aware. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Including alternate points of view in articles
You asked to be informed of an RFC, but there already was an RFC. It's advanced to a Request for Arbitration. See Requests_for_arbitration. --Uncle Ed 14:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Scope of science
I was going to answer you at talk:TTC, but this is a general observation.

There is a dispute over what science is, and how biology should be studied.

My favorite dictionary (Merriam-Webster) defines science as:
 * 3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE

It defines scientific method as:
 * principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses []

Note that science has both a general and a specific definition. The general definition goes beyond natural science, while still adhering to the scientific method.

Note that this definifition of scientific method does not posit materialism or a materialistic approach such as Methodological Naturalism.

The dispute in the public arena over evolution has two main sides:
 * 1) that evolution is a part of biology and as such is a natural science; research on its causes and principles should be strictly limited to the physical world
 * 2) that evolution, while part of biology, is also related to religion; as such it should not be confined to natural science, and causes other than non-intelligent physical ones should be studied

I think this explains why ID would be rejected by the overwhelming majority of U.S./U.K. scientists and science teachers. It's because insists on reframing the question, how did species come into being? - by expanding the scope of inquiry beyond the confines of natural forces. --Uncle Ed 16:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, as if ID has a strong foothold anywhere outside the US. This user considers semantics very important, but I'll try to avoid discussion on the connotations of what you've said, and instead focus on what you're actually trying to say.(this is not an easy thing for me)
 * First: the basis rationalization, some terms are so loaded when it comes to public perception, that to use them another way is not very helpful. Science is one of these.  I might be mistaken, but when most people think science, after dumb things like "lab coat" and specific scientific fields, the first thing most people will think of is experiements.  How to define experiments is hazy, but their importance to science is well understood.  I think when you refer to "expanding the scope of inquiry beyond the confines of natural forces"  you take away everything that every single science I can think of is based off of.  What defines "natural forces" can be ephemeral as our understanding of nature grows, but to expand beyond what is natural by defintion, gives no grounds for experimentation.  You can draw all sorts of conclusions from non-natural enterprises and some of them may be helpful, but it's not science as we know it.  The very way you(and more importantly others) attempt to describe Intelligent design elsewhere explains a great much.  Numerous times proponents(and I don't know if this includes you) suggest that Intelligent design is a hypothesis.  This is true in the philosophical sense(I.E. it makes presumptions about the ordering of things) but by scientific standards, it's a prototheory.  A prototheory is one that makes claims that there are branches of study that have not been sufficently explored in science and there is a principle which can explain the things explained by other theories in a more accurate sense due to its intuitive jumps.  A hypothesis would be the next step for such a thing, wherein the differences between current theories and the new theory leads to a prediction that would be different between the two of them with a given set of inputs(coming from science's grounding in predictability, which even quantum physics asribes to statistically).  The next step I'm sure has been explained to you before with everyone who complains that you don't understand the scientific method, which is, devise an experiment to judge these differnces.  To my knowledge, at this time, no one has proposed a hypothesis that would diverge from current understandings, that is based in ID theory, at all, much less tested one.  I'd love to see a counter example, but the structure of how ID attempts to be science is beyond just not being natural, which is merely defined by what is nature(god could be included in nature, for all we know), but rather that it doesn't propose certain types of conclusions that science would.  Boy am I long winded today.  i kan reed 17:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No, that's okay, it's a complex topic. I don't advocate ID, although I'm curious about it. I have very specific beliefs, which I have not fully explained at Wikipedia because what I think doesn't matter: I'm not a published source.

You are identifying "science" with "natural science", which is in line with the public perception. It seems the ID movement disputes this identification and/or wishes to change it. But biologists want evolution studied only from a natural science perspective.

This discussion, I hope, will help us all write better Wikipedia articles. --Uncle Ed 17:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarifying my prod tag
Heh, thanks. I'm trying to come down off my 1 Liter per day Mountain Dew addiciton--I should probably take a hiatus from editing or else I'll start tagging things like {db-reason|WTF}. Cheers! -- Merope 15:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not so bad, part of me thinks there should be a {db-WTF}. i kan reed 16:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be involved
I think the two folks who began a RfC for User:Carfiend are hoping for you to either certify or support. Requests for comment/Carfiend. --ScienceApologist 23:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"Highly desirable"
Thank you for this edit the other day, but our user-id-less contributor persists.... -- Hoary 14:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit to Teddington
The Teddington article has had a string of edits claiming that Sir Darragh Connor (or variants on that name) is a famous resident. There's no evidence that such a person exists, let alone is a resident of Teddington. These edits have been replace every few days by a vaiety of editors. It looks like either some sort of joke - like an extremely minor version of the Colbert elephants - or co-ordinated vandalism. Either way, this is highly unlikely to be an innocent mistake or a good faith edit simply lacking sources. Gwernol 02:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh??
I dont know what your talking about??? I am no vandal I am just asking a simple question. 24.250.199.148 03:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design Talk
Could you please come here and give your opinion on my proposed change to the article? Thanks. Bagginator 10:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Would still like your opinion
The discussion at Intelligent Design was archived but I would still like your opinion. What do you think of....

Ive offered the following as meeting WP:V and WP:RS in regards to the sentence in dispute at the Intelligent Design article, "All leading proponents of Intelligent Design are affiliated with the Discovery Institute." The San Francisco Chronicle, August 28 2005 calls Norris Gravlox, "a leading proponent of the intelligent design theory" the Tribeca Film Festival calls Jack Cashill, "a leading proponent of intelligent design." The Orlando Weekly from September 1st 2005 calls Mat Staver, "leading proponent of teaching intelligent design in public schools" and on May 26, 2006, the Legal Times calls John Umana, "a leading proponent of intelligent design" establishing WP:V and WP:RS.Bagginator 05:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

please stop posting on my talk page
hello, please stop posting on my talk page. your method of contradicting yourself to suit your mood and your present point of view are not appreciated.

thanks Mroblivious1bmf 03:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand, please clarify. i kan reed 04:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

YOU POSTED YOUR CRAP ON MY TALK PAGE AGAIN!!!!!!
WHAT PART ABOUT 'STOP POSTING ON MY TALK PAGE DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? I ASKED YOU NICELY. GET LOST YOU CREEP! QUIT HASSLING ME! Mroblivious1bmf 22:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

you did it again!
ikanreed, now you edit my talk page again, after i asked you NOT to, and put a template on it. i am sick of his harrassment! Mroblivious1bmf 14:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * that template was because you were using uncivil language and engaging in personal attacks. I was trying to discuss our disagreement over what was simply a misunderstanding, and you attacked me personally for it.  If you can't understand why I placed the template, that's unfortunate, but it was the appropriate course of action.   I thank you for being civil in your reply this time.

Thanks
Thanks for the third opinion on Mike Mendoza page. Best, Disillusioned-

RE: Mroblivious
I have blocked Mroblivious for two weeks; his behavior is unacceptable, and thanks for bringing it up. In the future, the right place to discuss problems like that is Personal attack intervention noticeboard. Ashi b aka tock 19:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from me too
Thanks for taking an interest in the dispute. I've posted a source from MIT Technology Review (can't get any better than that), as well as a reply, on the discussion page at: []

Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Ed Poor is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or set of articles by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive editing, such as edit warring, original research, and POV forking. All bans are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 13:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

DI
 IP address: 216.163.84.151, Reverse DNS: firewall.discovery.org. Hope that clears this up for you. FeloniousMonk 01:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion on Bloodsport (film)
Hi, thanks for your help in resolving this matter, at least I hope it will lead to resolution! Mallanox 14:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I wrote "Temporary account" I'm not using the account for editing. Just using it to figure out how they can unblock my account.Gollum3 18:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Percy Nobby Norton
Thanks for the tip. And your support. Enknowed 07:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Xander756
As assessed by leapfish.com, ADBZRPG has hundreds of google hits. Newest version and domain have been activated in less than two months. Cannot judge search engine score in such a short time of transporting servers. Will this info convince you to remove objection for deletion?

Image:Boo.JPG
Hello! I removed the speedy delete tag you placed on this image, as CSD A7 applies to articles and not to images. To have this image deleted you can list it at WP:IFD. If you have any questions let me know. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 04:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for your quik-n-easy dispute resolution over at X-Ray specs, accepted by both parties. Herostratus 21:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

re Border fence
Good point, thanks for the note, will do this more in future. Herostratus 07:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Moon Hoax
That one user's only other "contribution" so far was to spread a rumor about a death on the Fear Factor set. The "alternative space society", or whatever it was, was probably along the same lines, either a fake rumor or a joke... and even if there were such a thing, it belongs on the Flat Earth page. Thanks for zapping it before I could. :) Wahkeenah 11:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

How exactly does one revert?
As per your recent edit comment in reverting edits unto the Philosophe article, could you briefly explain how one reverts edits? I would be very grateful... Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The link that you sent me did indeed help; thanks for that. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 13:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

X-Com
Re this: fine, but can it be fixed please? X-com is the greatest game ever made and it's sad its Wikipedia article isn't better... Mi kk er (...) 23:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've also tried to fix it without much success... What about this: maybe we can add the OR tag to the top of the article? That wouldn't break the visiual presentation and it's not terribly important that the tag be in the problematic section. I'll leave it to you to do, if you agree. Mi kk er (...) 00:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:France Lyon2.jpg
Image:France Lyon2.jpg is, I think, not an especially good photo. The watermark makes it even less good. It is rather small. I'm sure we can find better. Make sense? --Guinnog 18:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. No, copyright-wise it is fine. I just think we could have a better image here. --Guinnog 18:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you post the wrong username to AIV? This user doesn't have any contribs, talk page warnings, or log entries.--Kchase T 07:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC) Removing for now. Repost if there's a different name.--Kchase T 07:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked the vandal. I don't have the experience to judge whether to block the impersonator before he's done anything. Feel free to report to another admin, if you like. btw, no reason to be sorry. I was just confused. Thanks for your counter-vandalism work!--Kchase T 07:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

no comment
? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deswdfdess (talk • contribs) 22:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Reply: Warning another user about vandalism
Thank you very much for the advice. I'm sorry I didn't know that, I've only been here for a few days. I'll be more careful in the future when I make the warning. Sorry Balikem 08:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Er...no, you didn't chastise me. Sorry if my reply gave you that impression. I'm deeply grateful for all your help. Thank you Balikem 09:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion
Hi Ikanreed, thank you for taking time to review my request for 3rd opinion (Talk:Armenia). I listed it because the third user who took part in the dispute is barely connected to what I discuss there. Is it really not suitable for third opinion? Thank you.--Pethr 22:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Please ignore this. I posted request for comment. Thank you.--Pethr 23:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner
Hi Ikanreed,

You added a prod tag to the article Winner Winner Chicken Dinner. Though I agree with you that this should probably be deleted, I do not think it's a neologism since it gets almost 14,000 hits on google, so I would feel unconfortable about deleting it without an AFD discussion first. Please do nominate it there.--Carabinieri 23:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Haley's Alignment
I see what you're getting at with the "chaotic good-ish" observation. On the other hand, I stand by what I put in her description, or, at the very least, the part about her not being evil - that's quite categorically stated in the comic, so doesn't count as the notorious OR. The point about her not being lawful is, indeed, not backed up by definitive statement, but is purely drawn from observations of her attitude throughout the comic. As such, it's a deduction, which I must concede could be considered OR. I'm inclined to leave it the way it is at the moment, but should you wish to delete the 'not lawful' bit, I will not quibble. --Tailkinker 18:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

CHRY discussion
Thanks for commenting on my edit of CHRY. It was valuable for you to have raised the issue of conflict of interest, and I do appreciate it.

I want to clarify my relationship with CHRY. In fact, while I was Chair of the Board of Directors, this was strictly a volunteer position. I do not have -- nor have I had -- any ownership of CHRY, nor was I an employee, nor have I received any honorarium or other compensation from the agency. So I therefore have no financial relationship with the organization and, therefore, am not in any conflict of interest.

Oh, I probably ought to add that I haven't been involved with that organization since 2003; I think its safe to say I no longer have a relationship with them.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrei r (talk • contribs) 05:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Recent vandal patrol on Ancient Rome
Your recent reversions are helpful, thanks. I also get a kick out of your comments. Mlouns 19:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)