User talk:Timh2007

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 ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! David Ruben Talk 14:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

February 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Russell Blaylock appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Verbal chat  11:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No Intelligence Allowed
Hi, Tim, The article you edited is supposed to be about the movie. Wikipedia articles don't include the personal opinions or additional comments of editors. You might want to review some basics before editing again, as I see you've been away for a while. Regards, Yopienso (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your good faith attempt to re-edit correctly. Unfortunately, the new version expounds on doing evil for a benefit rather than dealing with the controversial use of a Darwin quote in the film. I don't recall the film discussing Sherman, Lemay, or McNamara. Am I mistaken? Yopienso (talk) 06:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * dont even know if you will see this. but this is a first attempt at communication. No you are not mistaken, perhaps I haven't made the links clear. Here is the reasoning in a different order. Some people claim there was controversial use of a Darwin Quote. They claim to prove this with a longer quote of Darwin. Their "proof" quote provides a rationale for doing evil providing there is a benefit. 4 examples from 4 different wars are given of doing evil for a benefit. One of them is Nazi Germany. The conclusion is unstated. Perhaps I should make the logic clearer. While still leaving in the rather impressive quote in denial of Darwins own words at the end. ? Perhaps i should leave out the other 3 wars and limit it to just Darwins quotes and Hitler? Timh2007 (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing our views and insights. No original research is allowed. You might want to read about Wikipedia articles. It's all quite bewildering at first, but if you stick around and keep a collaborative attitude, you'll soon catch on! Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I found your reply because I'm "watching" this page. At the upper right of every page is a blank star. If you click on it, it turns blue, and that page goes onto your "Watchlist." Whenever someone edits it, it goes to the top of your personal watchlist, which you access by clicking on "My watchlist" above and to the right of the little star. You can watch any page you choose, as many as you choose. To make sure someone sees a reply, you can use a Talkback template, which I'm not a great fan of; I figure if the person wants to see a reply, he or she will be watching the page. To use it, you answer a question on your own talk page, and then post the talkback template to the other person's page. Yopienso (talk) 05:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors&#32; according to your reverts at Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 15:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks for the message, i did not know about the 3 revert rule in 24 hours. I have included the information in good faith as I think it is clearly relevant. My rapid reversions were a deliberate social experiment to see how quickly the facts would be rejected in favour of the "spirit of the age" concerning evolution and Nazism. In the article many secondary sources are quoted along the lines of evolution has nothing to do with Nazism, none of these refer to Mein Kamph. The quotes I provided clearly show that Hitler liked the idea of evolution and used it to justify vengance. It seems that many incorrect secondary sources are preferred over referring to the primary source on Nazism, which would be Hitler. Timh2007 (talk) 02:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

More on Expelled. . .
Hi! This is the article that I cut my teeth on three summers ago in learning the WP ropes. I'll share my experience with you in hopes it will help you find your way through the thicket of rules and onto the broad plain of successful editing.

I wanted to complete Darwin's original statement, adding the last sentence of the boldface paragraph here. Scientific American accused Stein of distorting Darwin's message by not including the whole quote, yet they left off the last sentence of the paragraph they scolded him for omitting!

This is the page of the whole mediation I requested. It's long, so I'll draw your attention only to this part :

What is the dispute?

''Original research and synthesis. I do not see how supplying the full quote from a primary resource that a secondary source has truncated is against Wiki policy. Yopienso.

The dispute is over a proposal to extend a quotation selected from the original book by reliable secondary sources (two sources, three links) to include an additional part of the original work selected by the user. The proposal completes the second paragraph cited, but the first paragraph is left incomplete, and there is considerably more closely related text in the primary source. As stated in the various discussions, policies involved include WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV with particular regard to WP:PSTS and WP:GEVAL. . dave souza, talk 21:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)''

What would you like to change about this?

''I want to include the final sentence of a paragraph Charles Darwin wrote. Scientific American omitted that last sentence, and since it is the secondary source being quoted, the above parties/users say I cannot go to Darwin's original text and supply the missing sentence.''

How do you think we can help?

''I think you can help me better understand the Wiki policy. If it proves to be a policy that suppresses the facts, I will appeal to the higher mediators and request that they review their suppressive policy. If it proves to admit all relevant facts, I will go back and add the sentence.

Yopienso (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)''

And from here: :

'''Mediator question - How does the additional primary source sentence directly relate (or fail to relate) to the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed article? How does the article benefit or suffer as a consequence of its inclusion? (Note: I am deliberately ignoring the WP:V issue for the moment). Manning (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)'''

Response by Yopienso:

''How it relates: It is part and parcel of the quote being considered. SciAm faulted Ben Stein for not giving the full quote; let's give it. From the article:. . .''

Keep reading. ..


 * . . .down through here :

''4. "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages." (Direct quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research.) As I have previously stated, it is my opinion that common sense dictates the inclusion of Darwin's final sentence to give the complete thought of his paragraph. This is the consensus I’m hoping we will reach. ''

And then my final nine points on that page. (That's the important part.)

From that and since then, I've contributed to WP with no problems. The important thing is figuring out the rules and abiding by them. What WP means my "neutral point of view" is "view of the mainstream scientific and social establishments and the media." I am now comfortable with these rules because lines have to be drawn somewhere. Knowing the rules also helps me as a user of WP: I know that whatever I find here will be from the mainstream of academia, meaning the inherent bias will be liberal. We're all biased, and it's useful to identify the biases of the sources we consult. This experience has educated me in science and history and other fields, but even more, in the ways of mainstream academia and in identifying reliable sources. I returned to school the next summer, and this has been beneficial to me. The constant challenge when interacting with other editors is to maintain my Christian standards of respect and honesty, so I can say participating here helps me in spirit, soul, and intellect. Unfortunately, it makes my body flabby! LOL Yopienso (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Yopienso, have been away for a while, i read your links. If the pillars of wikipedia cause them to prefer a lie over the truth then the pillars are worthless. As far as God is concerned the truth matters. For example. John 8:32 "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
 * compared with lies. Rev 22:15 "But outside are ... and whoever loves and practices a lie."  Interestingly the Bible predicts that the rejection of truth will be one of the defining signs of the end of the age. New American Standard Bible (©1995)2 thessalonians 2 vs 3 "Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction." Apostasy means rejection of truth. You will find now in many courses there is a values or understanding cultures class.. and the great theme of these classes is "there is no absolute truth!". The retort is "is that true?". I am glad you have got something out of using Wikipedia. Maybe it would be a good idea to ask God to make sure that only He gets to speak into your life. If you have heard of Maslow's Heirachy of needs, as a Christian has it ever occurred to you that all of Maslow's needs can be met and a person still be lost?Timh2007 (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments, Tim. My daughter did a symbolic painting of me that includes a broken chain representing John 8:32 because she recognizes that lodestone in my life. The Truth (capital "T"), as you know, is a person: Jesus Christ. Wikipedia specifically rejects truth and Truth for verifiable facts. There's even an essay titled, "Verifiability, not truth, based on a core content area of the second pillar."
 * WP is designed to inform the reader what mainstream consensus is. It excludes the Christian worldview and all other worldviews except the materialistic, scientific viewpoint. The goal is to produce a neutral, fact-based, reliably sourced encyclopedia. Wikipedians realize true neutrality is impossible to achieve, and so hew to the liberal interpretations of the most up-to-date scholarship available, giving due weight to any notable disagreements.
 * Contrasting Maslow's hierarchy of needs with eternal salvation illustrates the point: WP, in a sense, is all about Maslow and nothing about salvation, attempting to live entirely "under the sun" (Ecclesiastes). Yopienso (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)