User talk:KitchM

Welcome too

 * I appreciate your contributing to the "Sabbath" article! As a new editor you may not be aware of several Wikipedia methods (there's a learning curve for everyone), but it looks like Rosiestep has provided a good list. I have tried to incorporate your text in more appropriate places. Please take a moment to read some of the standards linked above and/or below and it will greatly assist you in learning where best to place content like this and how to keep it neutrally stated. Rest assured that I likely share your strong feelings about Sabbath, but we do well not to let those feelings spill out into content which may require balancing by others.

I know this may seem like a lot suddenly, so just take it slowly. When one wants to edit in historically controverted areas, it just means taking a little more time to ensure sensitivity to the concerns of all. Look at the article history of "Sabbath" for some ways in which I incorporated your thoughts into the existing structure of the article. I'm looking forward to your continuing to make positive contributions to the project! JJB 10:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Most important, learn about neutral point of view and how statements that could be challenged by other editors should be balanced by stating all significant points of view without undue weight.
 * Guidelines about lead sections indicate that the lead of this article should stay about a paragraph long.
 * Summary style guidelines indicate that most content about this topic should appear in subarticles instead of the summary article: e.g., Shabbat and Sabbath in Christianity would be good ones to start.
 * The distinction between which usages are "God-ordained" and which are "ritual or ceremonial", like the capital and lowercase distinction, is not easily described nor easily agreed. There are many points of view among reliable sources and Wikipedia is not regarded as a source for promotion of any one view at the expense of others.
 * Phrases like "the most ancient finds of archeological writings" are vague and unqualified and need to be verified by reliable sources with specifics. Phrases like "one can easily understand that" should be avoided because they editorialize on the topic's understandability rather than make it understandable.
 * Which command is it originally? Moses didn't say, actually. Counting imperative statements like Maimonides did might make Sabbath the fifth. While it may (or may not) be true that "fourth" is the most accurate, it is not suitable for a neutral encyclopedia unless it is also verifiable. See Ten Commandments.
 * "The most precise definition has been determined to be": by whom? And has everyone agreed suddenly? If you have a source, then go to one of the subarticles, cite and attribute your source, and place it among the other folks who happen to disagree that this is what "the most precise definition has been determined to be".
 * Remember that, as the article hints, Biblical Sabbath and Saturday are not identical; the latter begins at midnight. Precision is essential!
 * Similarly, if Sabbath had actually been originally referred to in Bible times as the phrase "Lord's Day" in some language, it would be easier to get away with saying that! But since "Sabbath of the Lord" is (slightly) different from "Lord's Day", we are not permitted to equate the two on our own. On Wikipedia that is called original research.

Editor
Since you boldly disagreed with the past work of several different editors, and changed Editor to redirect back to the disambiguation page, I hope you will be equally bold in reviewing the 800 or so other articles that contain links to "Editor" and fixing them to point to the most relevant article. Without this step, your change will be distinctly unhelpful to readers of those other articles. Thank you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but if there is a fundamental flaw in Wikipedia to not automatically correct all links, that's what should be fixed. All references to "Editor" should first go to the disambiguation page.


 * It is totally unacceptable in this digital age to try to find information about an editor, but then be sent to an article about editing. The searcher does not want a different word; they want the word they typed into the search box.  Worse yet, I want to find information about the editor that is a software program.  This includes information about all types of editors, including word processor software.


 * Always do the disambiguation up front, and not after the fact. In this case the disambiguation actually wasn't even linked properly at all. - KitchM (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Editor redirects to Editing as Russ indicates because it appears that most links to the term are intended for that topic. What you are suggesting is that there is no primary topic. If that is the case, you should be proposing that Editor (disambiguation) be moved to Editor. Instructions on moving a page can be found at WP:RM. older ≠ wiser 22:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Screenshot of Wikipedica Format Problem 02-01-10.png
Thank you for uploading File:Screenshot of Wikipedica Format Problem 02-01-10.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 00:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Screenshot of Wikipedica Format Problem-2 02-01-10.png
Thank you for uploading File:Screenshot of Wikipedica Format Problem-2 02-01-10.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 00:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:WordPerfect_X5_Output_1.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:WordPerfect_X5_Output_1.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 05:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Image Copyright Silliness
To all people who wish to question "fair use", please be advised that you really don't get it at all. If I state that it is fair use and you don't accept that, then simply state how to fix it so that it is accepted.

The key word here is "simply". Making a person jump thru hoops is totally unacceptable. We go to a lot of trouble to find acceptable images, but with a quick and thoughtless tap on a key, you erase all of that hard work.

At the end of the day, (1) you need to notify us in a timely fashion, and (2) you need to make the acceptance as easy as your unacceptance. Anything less is not serving the public good. - KitchM (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Comparison of CECB units for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparison of CECB units is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Comparison of CECB units until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Gh87 (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I can honestly say that it is shameful when other people decide to eliminate another's work. What thoughtlessness.  It is only exceeded by their shortsightedness and ignorance.  I am sure that such people are glad that the library of Alexandria burnt down, since it was so full of outdated and useless information. - KitchM (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi there
Nice work on the Display resolution article. Keep it up! :) --Waldir talk 00:05, 8 September 2011 (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)

July 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Ken Ham. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. clpo13(talk) 16:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Ken Ham, you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of scat singers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carl Anderson ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_scat_singers check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_scat_singers?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

December 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 18:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't be so hard on them Doug, after all, god-botherers have to justify their existence somehow. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 22:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Get a life you guys. There is a very strong bias against the existence of Deity in Wikipedia and only the closed-minded cannot see it. Woof indeed.--KitchM (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a very clear policy against stating as fact that any religion is true. Almost all our religious editors accept that. If you can't then I suggest you avoid letting your beliefs affect your editing, just stay away from articles where your faith is in conflict with what the article says.  Doug Weller  talk 19:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What unbelievable silliness. It seems you cannot comprehend the difference between religion and the existence of Deity.  How bizarre.  Any true thinker should be able to understand that distinction.  Just because an individual is open-minded enough to realize that Deity could exist does not mean that individual adheres to any religious belief system.  My statement did not in any way state the any religion was true.  It simply took offence at the closed-minded belief that anything having to do with the existence of Deity is pseudoscience.  No true scientist would ever take such a position. - --KitchM (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Science is agnostic: whether a deity exists or not is not a scientific problem. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Prove it.--KitchM (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have to prove it since it is WP:BLUE. Seriously, ever studied a science at the university? In every academic field they teach students epistemology. Epistemology says that science cannot prove or disprove the supernatural, nor the existence/activity of God or gods.
 * And they would be wrong. - --KitchM (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You should mind that around here "they would be wrong" is dismissed as WP:FRINGE/PS. You might have more luck at Conservapedia, since for Wikipedia holds WP:GOODBIAS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Like any Christian (and indeed any theist), I believe that the world has been created by God, and hence "intelligently designed". The hallmark of intelligent design, however, is the claim that this can be shown scientifically; I'm dubious about that.

...As far as I can see, God certainly could have used Darwinian processes to create the living world and direct it as he wanted to go; hence evolution as such does not imply that there is no direction in the history of life. What does have that implication is not evolutionary theory itself, but unguided evolution, the idea that neither God nor any other person has taken a hand in guiding, directing or orchestrating the course of evolution. But the scientific theory of evolution, sensibly enough, says nothing one way or the other about divine guidance. It doesn't say that evolution is divinely guided; it also doesn't say that it isn't. Like almost any theist, I reject unguided evolution; but the contemporary scientific theory of evolution just as such—apart from philosophical or theological add-ons—doesn't say that evolution is unguided. Like science in general, it makes no pronouncements on the existence or activity of God.


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * If God is Deity, then He can create something out of nothing simply by the words of His mouth. Of that there is no disagreement since that is the whole point of Deity and Godly attributes.  Trying to give God an “out” by allowing Him to do things in any other way or by any other method is just limiting God, while at the same time shows our ignorance and hubris in claiming to understand God’s limitations.  As if there were any.

But that isn’t the issue. The issue is between the belief system of evolution and that of creation. The decision between the two is based upon whether or not God exists.

I have always assumed that this choice must be based upon scientific evidence. If not, then the whole premise falls apart. And don’t forget the ramifications of that. If there is no God and no creation, then there is evolution and we must live by those tenets. Even though Pascal gave good reasoning for following a Godly life, for the sake of argument, I will lay that aside for now.

The problem people have is that they do not know how to prove God exists. However, it is quite easy to do.

All we have to do is follow the oldest study of mankind, and that is theology. Please remember that the name comes from Theos, or god, and ology or the study of. This is not a study of religion, regardless of how much it has been perverted in the minds of many. Rather, it is simply a study into God.

With that said, all of the historical evidence and the results of the studious work of countless scholars over millennia of time gives us some simple facts. 1. Of all the documents in the world, the amazing history of the accumulation of books we call the Bible is astounding. They contain an historical perspective of God’s interaction with His creation. They contain other important things, such as complete and precise agreement between themselves, and the absolute accuracy of the prophecies contained within it. 2. The story of the flood completely explains the visual facts we see in the surface of our world and give a strong argument for a young Earth. 3. The historical fact of a man named Jesus is without refute. 4. There are witnesses to these things, while there are no witnesses to the claims of evolution.

But God doesn’t leave it at that. He explains that He is good and that the devil is bad. This simple explanation goes far to clarify for all people what is going on in the world today.

Then God says that He wishes us to try Him out and see if what He says is correct, and to find out if He is indeed loving and kind as He claims.

But now let us look at the facts and claims of evolution. The basic premise is that there is the concept of survival of the fittest. If this is so, then we have the idea that every organism is out to preserve itself to the best of its ability. The average proponent of evolution fails to understand the full ramifications of that idea.

To understand the full extent of the issue is simply to see what happens at the top of the food chain; humans. If I wish to get whatever I want, I will take it from you. If I allow you to live, it is because it benefits me. This is a totally self-centered means of living.

If you are competing for something I want, I simply eliminate you. There are no moral compunctions involved within this concept because such would be contrary to the concept. Love does not exist or come into the picture.

I have seen evolutionists so confused that they claim to be environmentalists. I cannot imagine any sillier situation than that. If things happen because that is the way things are, then we will make ourselves extinct sooner or later, and there is nothing good or bad about that. Then why waste time and effort trying to change the natural progression of evolution? That’s just bizarrre.

Why not break every misguided law that tries to stop us from accumulating that which we want, and do it by any means necessary? Evolution does not give morals, and yet most everyone in the world claims a moral position. There are evidently very few true evolutionists.