User talk:K/Archive 1

ID

Yeah, I know...but I figure very little or no will calm the masses for the time-being.  :) Jim62sch 18:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[Regarding my change re:"overwhelming majority"] "The language of the article was arrived at by consensus after lengthy and detailed debate and discussion. It is in keeping with..." That may be, but, with all due respect, reverting my revision is absolutely indefensible. My reasons for the revision are inarguably true, and the resulting language is inarguably more accurate, so why revert it? Smitty1276 04:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The wording has been hashed out at length. How is it "indefensible" to revert an edit which has been discussed and rejected over and over? Guettarda 05:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverting your revision is entirely defensible -- your revision is inaccurate. •Jim62sch• 21:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Teleo arg

Sorry, I didn't realise it was you. -- infinity0 14:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem of evil

I've written down some notes in Talk:Problem of evil. You should be able to find it, it's somewhere near the bottom. -- infinity0 16:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) You seem to know a lot about the history of such things, could you expand the relevant section please? -- infinity0 00:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience revert

Once again, I ask why you've reverted my change to the intro of pseudoscience. Is there any particular reason?

Thanks. (left unsigned by Phywum)

Insofar as this question is not signed, I needed to look it up. I reverted it because it was too factually debatable as a summary in the introduction, because it was visibly apologetic, and most importantly because it was a bit too lengthy for the introduction, at least in light of the brevity of the first sentence.. The intro is not the place for detailed analyses of the methods by which an adherent counterattacks, at least in my judgment. Although there are a few ways of saying it, I do not believe the one presented was consistent with the talk discussion or the intent of the brief introductory paragraph. I also did not see your original explanation of why you included the additional language and chose the changes to the earlier language. I agree it could have been said better than it was.Kenosis 20:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Origins

Thanks for your comment and for clarifying the sentence in origins of the concept of ID. I'd normally put ideas up for discussion, but the talk page has been a bit cluttered lately. I think these changes go some way to covering those who'd like their position to be called intelligent design, but have had the meaning twisted by our well publicised friends...dave souza, talk 15:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Scientific Method

I just wanted to say that I love what your doing to that article. Keep up the good work. JoshuaZ 04:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

The Mediation Cabal

You are a disputant in a case listed under Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. We invite you to be a mediator in a different case. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
~~~~

--Fasten 12:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Process of Notice of Dispute(s)

Thanks very much for the heads-up on my page. Isn't formal notice the normal expectation for parties to a dispute? I had no idea; who on earth decides these things around here? Kenosis 16:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Formal notice for informal mediation? No. Somebody filed a mediation case and mentioned your name. If you weren't aware of it the mediation probably hasn't yet begun. --Fasten 17:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again Fasten...Kenosis 17:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If it quacks like an empiric ...

JA: Yes, but not till after The Deils's awa wi th' Exciseman. Jon Awbrey 22:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: Who writes this stuff? We, the pebbles. Jon Awbrey 22:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Intersubjective Verifiability (IV)

Kenosis, I see from your edits that you share my concern about empiricism, objectivity, science, etc. However, I did not understand your edit of IV. I don't doubt that it needs clean up; as the creator of the page I knew it was just a beginning and needed to be developed and edited by others. If I could see what was needed, I would have written it differently and/or edited it already. So, your view of what needs to be changed is something I need to understnd. But could you be more specific, as the generic clean up tag gives me no clue as to what you think specificially needs work.

Also, I don't think "intersubjective" in IV = "objective." Objectivity (which as you aptly realize is THE goal of IV) is only obtained by subjectivities engaging in the intersubjective process of comparing their descriptions and observations, i.e., by IV (meaning the whole term, not just the I part). I think you are getting at something but I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to clarify. Kriegman 12:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello: you make an excellent and very important point more readily grasped by those with a firm handle on the core philosophy issue than among those just familiarizing themselves for the first time. It is indeed only roughly akin to "objective verifiability" in that the expectation is for a set of terms that can be readily shared without constant confusion and wrangling over the meaning of terms for which a standard is required to be meaningful. Since I linked to the IV article from the Pseudoscience article, my concern was creating further confusion upon possible half-understanding or partial understanding (the old "know enough to get into trouble but not enough to get out of it" problem)-- hence the cleanup tag. I agree the tag's debatable and will remove it. Thanks for being in touch...Kenosis 14:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I will take a shot at integrating the material in the IV article for more accessibility in the opening sentence or two of the article as soon as I get a chance; at that point it may be helpful to review it and determine if it is properly explanatory for all the needed slants, including those who only quickly pass through without dwelling in the Sartrean barbershop mirrors or the Cartesian-type solipsism--honestly, as you must know from your practice, folks do get lost in this stuff upon cursory analysis...Kenosis 14:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Falsifiability

Thanks. I'm glad to know someone else is reading the article! Banno 09:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Perception as abduction

JA: Still travelling, and a little bit scattered, but it was starting to seem like the 2-way street remark was out of place in the empiricism article, and I know how misleading it can be without all the proper hedges in place, so I'm thinking maybe to put it in with scientific method or some other offchute article. Jon Awbrey 04:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Falsifiability and mathematics

Hi Kenosis,

Saw your note to CSTAR. I think there's a big omission here. Mathematical systems taken as a whole (from the point of view of "confirmational holism", or maybe more to the point "disconfirmational holism"), are indeed falsifiable. For example, they might prove inconsistent; I don't say that's the only way they can be falsified but it's certainly the clearest.

Maybe the canonical example is large cardinal axioms. The consistency of stronger axioms cannot be proved from weaker axioms. In my view they fit the Popper criterion for scientific hypotheses. Unfortunately I don't really know whom to cite for this. --Trovatore 05:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Your point is indeed Imre Lakatos' position on the matter, and is obvious only to mathematicians and their friends, which was why I asked CSTAR first. I happen to think the point can be said far more straightforwardly than it currently is in that article. Very much appreciate your reply...Kenosis 13:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't be skeptic...

There was no argument at all! I had only slotted in a link to the spelling differences page (where everything is duly explained)---all articles with titles that can be spelled in different ways have one. I believe that Jon Awbrey had just some kind of technical problems, see the talk page. Best, JackLumber 22:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info... ;-) ...Kenosis 22:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Empiricism page and tabula rasa

Hi there,

Could you please comment on the empiricism talk page about the reversion you made? Thanks. Lucidish 20:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

A homeopathic solution is often diluted 1:10 something like 26 times. That gives a total dilution of about 1:10^26, which is a lot. Hope that clears up the confusion. Jefffire 17:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Kenosis, my apologies to you for not detailing my reasons for asking about a merge in the coherentism articles. I was distracted by work mid-edit, and have only now returned to the problem. Banno 16:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware of this[1] discussion? Banno 21:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Tarski

JA: It's been a while since I looked at that article, and there's this STM buffer overflow problem ... I can't recall putting that in there, but can't swear that I didn't, either. If I did, I would have had chapter and verse in mind at the time. Actually, it depends which Tarski you mean, Tarski (mathematician) or Tarski (philosopher). T_math is, like any other day-job mathematico, an in-∨-out-of-the-closet Platonist — those who aren't simply don't maintain their sanity or uberty for very long. T_phil is, like a host of mid-1900s latenight talk-show guest philosophicos, a card-carrying nominalist. It was the McCarthy era you see, and many the closet Platonist lived in abject fear of being found out. Plus, he smoked like a fiend, which does not say much for his general good sense. Will look it up later, and see what I can find. Jon Awbrey 17:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Kenosis, your edits on the psuedosciene page are unacceptable. Your edit summary Revert factually incorrect POV pushing. To say the boundaries of science are disputed is incorrect without the statement about the "precise" boundaries, is also incorrect in logical terms. Removal of the qualifer "precise" does not achieve what you claim. You then edited the page MORE THAN TWENTY TIMES!!! I gave up counting. This is going way beyond what is acceptable, in my view. If other editors feel the same they can say so. Please take this in good faith, I am only trying to explain to you that your behaviour makes it much harder to work together to create an excellent article which I assume we both desire. You may also like to check my Editing principles for pseudoscience articles. I'm always keen to talk and try to reach consensus. Mccready 12:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And we're not finished editing either. All but three of these edits were in direct response to Jim Butler's demands for citation. Judging by the comments since I added these latest citations, Jim Butler has a different opinion about the issue. I will now proceed to move the rest of this discussion over to the relevant Talk page. Appreciate your feedback..Kenosis 15:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Up your alley

Would you mind vetting this edit and fixing or rv'ing if it's inaccurate [2] Thanks. FeloniousMonk 05:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

PA system

Hi, I added those 2 links to the PA article page, which you called spam and removed. The PA systems primer, from Yorkville, explains how to plug in and set up a basic PA system. You stated that the article is supposed to provide the info, but in this case, these guides are very "how-to" and practical, more detailed info than you'd want in an encyclopedia. So I think that the link to the PDF document is helpful. I'm going to check what the wikipedia policy is, as far as what qualifies as spam, and what is legit.--ThanksNatMor 18:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Hi again, I had a similar discussion on the bass amplification page, and so I posted this note to Lightcurrent (an editor); he responded by sending a policy quote:

Leave out the adverts [left unsigned 19:10, 12 July 2006 by 198.103.196.130 ]

The article is about bass amplification, and the specific subsection is about amplifying the upright bass. Including the names of manufacturers seems reasonable. I believe an article about sports cars, specifically Italian sports cars would list the names Lambourghini, Ferrari, etc. There is even more justification in the bass amplification/upright bass preamp example, because whereas Lambourghini and Ferrari are well-known names, even to those outside the field of sports cars, the names of manufacturers of impedance-matching preamplifiers are probably unknown to most non-upright bassists.NatMor 02:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Links to the manufacturers are at the bottom of the page. I believe this is the acceptable place to put them, not in the body of the article.8-|--Light current 02:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy quote: Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for a proposal on corporate notability. ....The policy quote indicates that external links to commercial organizations are acceptable -- and yet in my case, I wasn't even trying to link to the PA company's website, only to a PDF primer on PA systems.NatMor 19:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Re: you called the PA systems primer a "commercial spam "info" links". Did you look at the document? It explains how to set up a PA system, get the levels right, plug in your cables, etc. This would be helpful information for readers trying to set up a basic system. .. As well, if you look at the Wikipedia policy, an editor could evcn put a link right to major PA system companies. However, I chose not to do that...instead, I just picked a .pdf document from the site...NatMor 14:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi NatMor: I already responded some time ago on the relevant talk page. The Yorkville primer is reasonable because it is primarily informational and applies not only to this manufacturer's products (with ample display of the Yorkville name of course). The Sweetwater link at Introduction to PA Speakers, courtesy of Sweetwater is a commercial vender's info-mercial pure and simple, and should under no circumstances be included in such an article. In any event, I've moved this discussion over to the article's talk page, and appreciate your feedback (;-)) on it. ... Kenosis 16:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Socks

Ken, Admins do not as a rule have Checkuser privileges, for obvious privacy reasons. Nor do I think that there is sufficient difficulty caused by these apparent meatpuppets to justify the check at this stage - see meta:CheckUser Policy. Best to assume good faith and see what happens. Banno 12:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Truth

No problem. The Truth page has gotten way too technical for me to understand anyway. Rick Norwood 07:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

I don't feel you are treating my edits in an appropriate manner. In intelligent design your simply reverted instead of improving the changes according to their purpose. (I am sorry that English is not my native language and I make many mistakes. I'm improving, but it's a slow process! I hope you can understand that.) In Naturalism (philosophy) You did not disclose alleged "significant factual inaccuracies" and simpyl reverted, too. What causes this hostile attitude towards me? I would appreciate if you could work in a more cooperative manner. --Rtc 04:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, but you've appeared on my watchlist in rapid succession on four articles directly related to the "defining intelligent design as science" section in intelligent design. You weren't satisfied with the long consensused language in that article which was thoroughly, intensively, and expertly researched by numerous editors both pro and con. So you've apparently started attempting to change the definition of methodological naturalism, epistemology, and inductive reasoning to fit your preferred version. I reverted your second version in intelligent design because you had a reasonable alternative definition the first time. So I reverted you back to your first version, and put the disputed version on the talk page. Same with Naturalism (philosophy), where you put a counterargument which was a very questionable interpretation of Karl Popper's stance right in the introductory paragraph, rather than in the already existing section on "criticisms", and I put that stuff on the talk page for discussion too. This is not hostility, though the accusation of hostility is offensive, particularly in light of the fact that you apparently are expecting me to be your teacher in ESL, scientific method, philosophy of science, epistemology, and a reasonably correct interpretation of Karl Popper without getting compensated for it. Now, if you wouldn't mind, please take this to the relevant talk pages. Good day, and thanks for the feedback... Kenosis 05:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Objectivity in the midst of heated discussions

Thank you for your recognition of my efforts here. I am indeed trying to bring some of these heated discussions back to the cool, sometimes even bracing, verifiable (or at least citeable) facts, which I do believe can unite the partisan views. Hgilbert 00:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Science

OK, I tried to reduce the redundancy (and go from the largest category to the smallest, big picture to details, perhaps a mistake here). Let's try to build up a picture of the introduction, however; how do you see it?Hgilbert 02:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

Perhaps you should consider Wikipedia:Third opinion; but if the problem is with more than one editor, then Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts might be a better option; if nothing else helps, the next step woudl be Wikipedia:Requests for comment on either the article or the other authors. If you feel obliged to go to an RFC, you will need to give a good account of the problems, and attempts you have made to solve them. Best wishes. Banno 07:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience category

Hi Kenosis! Your work on the Pseudoscience page is excellent, and you might want to take a look at Category_talk:Pseudoscience. I'm trying to develop consensus on the criteria for populating the category. In theory, the category page provides a definition and WP:CG suggests avoiding adding topics to a cat unless the categorization is "self-evident and uncontroversial". In practice, topics seem to get categorized as PS because a reliable source has applied the label, even though the source's definition of PS may be broader than WP's, and even if other equally reliable sources (mainstream scientists) disagree. Your input would be highly valued if you've got the time. Best regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 19:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice job

Hey, I've been away for two months, but I see you've finally overhauled the Problem of Evil article. Nice job! :D -- infinity0 22:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Tabula rasa

The point about tabula rasa has been noted by other commentators, like Steven Pinker in "The Blank Slate" (where I first learned of it). Just an interesting historical quirk I suppose. Lucidish 19:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Communicating the Truth

Jon's quote from Cool Hand Luke is quite apropos re the difficulties on the Truth article, especially the talk page. While I very much enjoy Jon's writing, finding it a breath of fresh air in the murky world that passes for English these days, I think many find it off-putting. Perhaps, since you and he seem to get along quite well, you might suggest that he tone it down a bit for the average reader. (Yes, this violates my principle that one should never write doiwn to the audience but rather raise the audience up to one's level, but since the talk page is less formal than the article itself, an exception could be made). Take care. •Jim62sch• 09:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed regarding the technical obscurities and the rest of it, although some of the wordplay is rather clever, I suppose. On the other hand, I've only read snippets of his writing whereas you've seen the entirety of it. Looks like you end up trying to clean-up and clarify.

He's on a roll with the "Pragmatic theory of truth" section -- and you are essentially correct: very few readers will understand what he wrote. Maybe it's just me, but it seems that he's become more obtuse lately. (Funny -- I write on a post-graduate level in work, given the approriate audience, of course, but I try to at least nudge it back down to Junior or Senior year of college for articles.) •Jim62sch• 17:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent design

Kenosis, please note that my recent edits to Intelligent design are essentially just a routine copyedit, and are largely stylistic and minor. I made no real content changes in any of my edits; I am afraid you have been misled by an error resulting from an already-present ambiguity/mistake in the article (which implied that irreducible complexity was in usage outside of the intelligent design movement) being brought to light by my clarifying the wording, which I corrected in the most recent version of the article (though the original, subtler problem is still present in the article now that it's been reverted).

If you have any objections to any aspect of the changes I made, feel free to simply say so and I'll gladly discuss them. With the exception of the IC mixup and an ongoing discussion regarding template placement, no user has yet specifically objected to any aspect of any change I have actually made to the article in question, which is the only reason I haven't been able to discuss the matter on the Talk page—there's no one to discuss it with! If you have any problems with my edit, feel free to start such a discussion. I welcome collaboration and open-minded idea exchange; I certainly prefer it to the dismissive, edit-warring style I've been met with so far. -Silence 16:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Re. your comment about cooperation and consensus: Me too. It would be helpful if you made changes one point at a time with effective edit summary justifying each. Editors have accepted such point-by-point changes many times in that article, and will again. Please understand that if your changes get inadvertently caught up in a POV war in such a controversial subject, it will likely get successfully sorted out in the end. Good regards. ... Kenosis 16:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Making copyedit changes one point at a time would literally take weeks. It's easier (on all sides, since other users would have to read my ultra-detailed summaries!) to simply make the changes, since they're largely very minor ones, then to discuss whichever ones anyone objects to—I'm not psychic, I can't foresee which minor edits are going to be problematic before I've even made them! I did, however, deliberately take the time to make my edits gradually and methodically, and over the course of a number of edits, so that anyone who wanted to could very easily compare the differences in each version. For example, I waited an extra edit to move an out-of-place paragraph from one section to another, and add a new image, because I knew that doing so in the same edit I made my copyedit would mask what specific change I'd made to the article from users who were non-manually comparing the two versions, which I didn't want.
• In any case, thanks for the kind comment; you've given me renewed faith in humanity. :) I apologize for any confusion that was caused by my hasty edits; although at the time I made them they were quite minor, I realize that over the course of a number of minor edits, the accumulation can make them seem like one huge, major edit. :) -Silence 16:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Understood. These things take time, and should take time, especially in controversial subject areas. ... Kenosis 16:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I just hope to get some constructive, workable responses to my edits in the future. I'm fully willing to compromise and rework any of my changes that are not acceptable—it's just hard to do that when the only criticism you get is, essentially, bein' a dirty stinkin' rotten scoundrel. @_@ Not as specific as I'd like. But I'll try to be patient; thanks for the advice! -Silence 17:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the end of your recent comment at Talk:Intelligent design (I'd post this response there along with the rest of my reply, but I'm sure that if I make my reply any longer I'll be attacked and ignored for being too verbose, so I'll just respond here): I'm aware that these are not the changes that attracted the attention. That's why I suggested focusing on the controversial edits (so far, there are only two, neither having anything to do with the textual copyedit: the template placement, and the image placement), not rehashing dozens of edits nobody's objected to. But Felonious found that strategy unacceptable, so, I'll do whatever's necessary to make the fixes.

I don't find your advice about making smaller, one-at-a-time edits very useful or practical at all. Note that if I'd made these edits one or two at a time, it would have resulted in hundreds of tiny edits scrolling away the edit history, which would have made it more difficult, not less, to compare edit histories (and it also would have taken hours instead of minutes to implement). When making a major copyedit, it is necessary to reach a balance between making the changes in too many edits, and making them in too few. I carefully avoided both extremes in my initial edits, as you will see if you recheck them; for the most part, I only edited a section at a time, I was very careful to avoid moving paragraphs or adding spaces at the same time I was making a text edit lest the move hide the textual changes, etc. -Silence 13:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Mass edits tend to be rejected in a controversial article like that. If you look through the edit history 500 at a time, you'll see that after being rejected on a couple of issues, I began on 1 March 2006 making edits one at a time. I made no more than six or seven individually small, specific edits a day. Most of them were accepted, a few were reverted. If I had tried them all at once I'd have been blown right out of the water, so to speak. And, some of the specific proposals I made were rejected by consensus. There is good cause for editors of a controversial article such as that one, to reject mass edits completely, but that's a dynamic that is too much to analyze fully at the moment. ... Kenosis 13:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being understanding. By the way, would you mind if I move the last four comments in the "In-depth copyedit analysis and discussion, part 1: Lead section" section of Talk:Intelligent design to our Talk pages, where they'll be more out of the way of the main discussion about the proposed copyedits? I'll leave the comments there if you prefer, but I'm worried they will distract from the topic at hand and possibly prevent people from noticing the comment I made at 12:58, since they take up a page of space. Since it seems to just be a misunderstanding, do you mind? -Silence 14:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer to remove them from the page, because that'd ensure that they don't get in the way of more people responding to the section's topic so we can develop a consensus, but if you'd prefer strikeouts, then that's OK by me. -Silence 16:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Scientism

Thanks for your comments on the Scientism article and your intervention at Nature. Both articles are in need of major work: Scientism is little more than a stub listing definitions. I've begun by trying to write a lead sentence. As to Nature, that is an important article and a Core topic for Wikipedia 1.0. As I said on the talk page, it has a long way to go. Sunray 19:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of edits

Sir.

Regarding your removal of my edits from the Intelligent design article, I am curious as to the reason you reverted to a previous version. Being a Wikipedia newbie, I certainly concede to more experienced users, however, I feel it appropriate to defend my edit.

"Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for evolution. This stands in opposition to conventional biological science, which relies on experimentation to explain the natural world through observed physical processes such as mutation and natural selection..."

The preceding quote is the reason for my edit. The following statement, "which relies on experimentation to explain the natural world through observed physical processes" seems to imply that "conventional biology" has evidence that living cells can evolve from non-living elements, when in fact, no such evidence exists. Laboratory experiments involving the "accidental" creation of an amino acid are a long way from demonstrating spontaneous generation of living cells, and so the claim that evolution-supporting biologists rely on experimentation and observed physical processes is misleading. If only observed physical processes were considered, then evolution would have to be excluded from viability as spontaneous cellular generation has never been observed.

And so it seemed appropriate to add the following:

", although ID proponents and critics of evolutionary theory have cited a complete absence of observable phenomena demonstrating abiogenesis (which is needed for the evolutionary model to be viable)."

If my manner, or positioning of the edit was flawed, I apologize, but I stand by the edit. I believe it has value as a balance for the paragraph.

Thank you,

202.173.128.90 07:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)W. Jones

I've reproduced your comments on the ID talk page and responded there. Responses thus far are as follows. ... Kenosis 15:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr.or Ms. Jones: Actually your edits had already been removed by two other editors. I reverted to the last known consensused version, then re-implemented an edit that Dave Souza apparently considered reasonable. I believe your edits started here and went through here, then were sequentially reverted by Scienceman123 and Dave Souza. I might speculate that the content you added was reverted because the framework of evolution does not necessarily address the question of abiogenesis, just as, for example, the study of expansion_of_the_cosmos might not directly address the question of the dynamics of the Big bang. But I would prefer to hear from Scienceman and Dave Souza to know better about their reasons. If I had noticed it, though, I too would have reverted the changes you made. Regards, and thank you for the note. ... Kenosis 07:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've responded at inordinate length to a similar comment on my talk page, and have no particular problem with "conventional" instead of "mainstream". dave souza, talk 08:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There are, of course, semantic differences between the two words, but probably not significant enough to raise a major ruckus over. Abiogenesis is, however, a separate issue. •Jim62sch• 09:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant

I'm not sure who else appreciated it, but this was brilliant. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

god of the gaps

thanks for the revert, good explaination... what can I say, I screwed up, thanks for catching it. Somerset219 03:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Nature

Not having been able to spend much time on Wikipedia for the last few days, I was delighted to see the progress you have made with the Nature article. I think you have taken it a considerable distance from the "start" article it was. Great work! Sunray 20:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You may also be interested to know that Nature has been nominated for the Wikipedia 1.0 Core Topics Collaboration of the fortnight. If you would like to get some editorial assistance, you might wish to vote for it. Sunray 20:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

mythology

WTF.... blind reverting back to someone else's blind revert against consensus THREE SECONDS after an edit was made? Whatever you are trying to do here, it's sheer madness for intelligent editing an encyclopedia and needs to stop. 172.144.20.69 19:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

All ID proponents from the Discover Institute

Hi, I was about to alter the ID article concerning "All Proponents from the discovery institute" to "many" when I read the comment in the article...I found your section on the talk page and posted a couple of questions and am waiting for a response, so if you have a moment, I'd appreciate a response.

I think saying "all" probably goes too far. While it may be true for academics there are numerous columnists and other authors that have supported ID and I think it unlikely that everyone is associated with the DI.

I noticed a reference to further discussion in "archives"...I'm not familiar with how to find these archives, perhaps you could post links on the ID talk page or maybye copy and paste those discussions into the talk page for people's review when this question comes up. Thanks. AbstractClass 13:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi AbstractClass. I couldn't believe it was possible at first, but it is quite true. All of the leading proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute. Amazing. ... Kenosis 13:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for your reply. I was curious specifically about Lee Strobel (the author of The Case for Christ) who advocated for ID in The Case for a Creator. Is he affiliated with DI?

Also, and I didn't ask specifically about this person, but there is also, apparently a columnist for the "National Review" (Online) named George Gilder who had a recent article advocating ID. He may be more obscure as I only know his name from a column I read. I guess the question may also stretch into what is a "leading proponent". At any rate if you have any information on these, particularly Lee Strobel, who is well known, I would appreciate it. Thanks. - AbstractClass 14:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, apprently George Gilder was a co-founder of DI, as I just found out. So that leaves Lee Strobel and then I suppose that will be the extent of my challenges at this point. :p - AbstractClass 14:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The citation is in the article. If the situation changes, the wording and citation will change accordingly. I'm now moving this exchange over to the relevant talk page. Thanks for getting in touch. ... Kenosis 14:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Exclusion of perspective on ID

When reverting my latest change to Intelligent design, you wrote:

• What is going on here? "in other words... [POV follows]" "Indeed, ...[POV follows]" Please stop these POV entries into already consensused material

I'm not sure what this means. Are you saying that what I added was an example of "point of view editing" in violation of some policy?

Allow me to call your attention to the following:

It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view. Arbcom link)

Unexplained deletions of portions of controversial articles are unacceptable.

The Wikipedia policy of editing from a neutral point of view, a central and non-negotiable principle of Wikipedia, applies to situations where there are conflicting viewpoints and contemplates that significant viewpoints regarding such situations all be included in as fair a manner as possible.

My addition points out a significant reason that supports and critics of ID are in conflict. So my addition was relevant to the article and not a violation of policy.

Please reassure me that you did not mean to accuse me of violating policy. --Uncle Ed 18:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This could easily be construed as bullying and badgering behavior, Ed. You know there was no consensus for your edits and you have a "history" at this article. Give it a rest. FeloniousMonk 20:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Your addition pointed out nothing but an overly-simplistic, grasping-at-straws opinion that has very little (if anything) to do with the ID issue. I can just see you moderating the debate between the heliocentic and geocentric versions of the solar system: "it just depends on perspective, that's all". To second and amplify FM, give it a rest and stop trolling. •Jim62sch• 00:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Geez, guys, I don't know what to say. ... Kenosis 01:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Truth

Seriously, no need for snotty comments in your edit summaries (to be fair, I've been guilty of the same thing, though). That said, thanks for your contributions. -Smahoney 01:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Seth, the issue I had actually was with another editor about the attribution to Ecclesiastes that quite obviously was fabricated by Baudrillard to make a point. That editor already had made it clear the tendency was going to be to resist requests for citations and attempts to get this stuff right. Apparently you noticed the action and were reverting a correction I made about it with an edit note that I'll be back in a minute with a citation. When I came back with the citation a few minutes later and it came up as an edit conflict I couldn't believe it (though I actually figured it was another editor who already had demonstrated some willingness to be a bit fast and loose with the facts in other recent edits). So I'm inclined to stand by my edit summary, which was: "The people that believe this stuff. It's unbelievable sometimes." That's not snotty, but a comment about reverting a correction of very erroneous statement. Remember, this was a premise for the movie "The Matrix". Sorry if you saw it that way. Take care, OK?. ... Kenosis 02:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

edits to ID page

why did you revert my edits? the text was on the talk page for ages, and nobody objected to it. the distinction between Aquinas and Paley is critical: Thomists do not have a problem with evolution, those with Paley's ideas are creationists. Sillygrin 13:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not see any agreement on the talk page for these edits. There were some significant modifications to the consensused text and the sectioning in an article that has a history of being controversial. What the re-sectioning attmpeted to do was separate out "precursors" to the teleological argument from "historical" teleological arguments. This is an arbitrary distinction. ... Kenosis 13:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

there was also no disagreement, which is significant on a controversial page.

it is not arbitrary: Aquinas in particular, and Aristotelianism in general, are not the origin or precursors of intelligent design:

• 1. Aquinas' five ways and Paley's watchmaker argument are actually quite different (for instance, in their consequences - the acceptance or rejection of evolution), though I don't think I brought this out well.
  2. Thomists in particular, and Catholics in general (the Catholic Church is still heavily influenced by scholasticism) do not go in for creationism.
  3. evangelical and free-church protestants, who are the vast majority of creationists, are not influenced by Aristotelianism, and certainly not Thomism - the reformation generally followed the Renaisance in repudiating scholasticism.

i.e., creationism does not follow from Thomism in general or Aquinas' 5 ways in particular.

the page is not about teleological arguments for the existence of God, but ID, which is a rather special and distinct case. ID pretty specifically accepts the premise that "if evolution is true, atheism is true." this premise contains the erroneous one that atheism (and theism) are empirically falsifiable hypotheses. this is one of the important sources of ID. the other one is so blindingly obvious I do not understand why it is not explicitly explained (although editors do touch on it from time to time) - the protestant (sola scriptura) literalist interpretation of scripture. they are apparantly forced to interpret Genesis as a biology lesson (even though there are plenty of other allegories in scripture - Christ's parables, for instance). if Genesis is a biology lesson (in an otherwise religious text), then evolution necessarily contradicts scripture, and more or less disproves their religion.

I think I am not the only editor with the vain hope that Wikipedia can do something about doing away with the opposition to evolution. stuff needs to be properly explained for that.

to recap, it seems to me that:

• 1. it is a historical and philosophical error to regard Thomism as a precursor or source of ID
  2. the real sources of ID, which should be brought out a bit on the page, is a kind of scientism (believing that theism and atheism are empirically falsifiable hypotheses (i.e., regarding empirical science as unlimited in scope or competence)), and dogmatic scriptural literalism.

Sillygrin 12:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate you comments. I have pasted them on the ID talk page so all interested editors have an opportunity to weigh in in it. ... Kenosis 14:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

cool. Sillygrin 12:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Citations in nihilism

Hi - thanks a lot for the much-needed citations in nihilism. Do you by any chance have the full citations for the references you mention? -Smahoney 23:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Seth. Full cites were already given. I put in links to two of the three I added to the intro. FN#1 does not have an online link. ... Kenosis 23:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The citations you gave in one of the footnotes, though certainly complete, seem sort of roundabout. What I was hoping for was an expansion of:

For some examples of the view that postmodernity is a nihilistic epoch see Toynbee (1963); Mills (1959); Bell (1976); and Baudrillard (1993) and (1994). For examples of the view that postmodernism is a nihilistic mode of thought, see Rose (1984); Carr (1988); and Pope John-Paul II (1995).

I realize that it is a quotation from an article, but it would be more useful if the actual sources mentioned in the quotation were expanded into full citations and then followed with a "referenced in..." bit. Either way, though, thanks again for the contributions. -Smahoney 23:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, done. ... Kenosis 23:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Full citation is:

• For some examples of the view that postmodernity is a nihilistic epoch see Toynbee, Arnold (1963) A Study of History vols. VIII and IX; Mills, C. Wright (1959) The Sociological Imagination; Bell, Daniel (1976) The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism; and Baudrillard, Jean (1993) "Game with Vestiges" in Baudrillard Live, ed. Mike Gane and (1994) "On Nihilism" in Simulacra and Simulation, trans. Sheila Faria Glasser. For examples of the view that postmodernism is a nihilistic mode of thought, see Rose, Gillian (1984) Dialectic of Nihilism; Carr, Karen L. (1988) The Banalization of Nihilism; and Pope John-Paul II (1995), Evangelium vitae: Il valore e l’inviolabilita delta vita umana. Milan: Paoline Editoriale Libri.", all cited in Woodward, Ashley: NIHILISM AND THE POSTMODERN IN VATTIMO'S NIETZSCHE, ISSN 1393-614X Minerva - An Internet Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 6, 2002, fn 1. [3] ... 23:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful work! Thanks again. -Smahoney 00:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

Please explain your objection to the discussion of Second Law of Thermodynamics in "Intelligent Design." It's one of the oft-quoted arguments of ID theory. I think I presented both sides with no spin, and with citation to sources. It's certainly in the same ballpark as the preceding points, which I used as a model. If you'll tell me what the problem is, I'll fix it. Or you're welcome to edit it as well. (But just removing it is rather rude, isn't it?) Thanks. Boundlessly

Actually, if you look at the edit summary, please note that it read as follows: Edit summary: here ... Kenosis 00:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC) The edit summary read:(Rmv mass of completely irrelevant material: violates (1)WP:VER, (2)WP:NOR, as well as rampling personal POV about entropy), and the material read as follows:

===Intelligent beings as an exception to the Second Law of Thermodynamics===

-

- Intelligent Design theorists argue that intelligence must have intervened, because only intelligence can violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics to arrive at more-ordered systems. Specifically, highly-ordered humans could not have evolved from disordered hydrogen atoms. Mr. Dembski's blog explains, "The layman’s expression relating to this is you can’t unbake a cake. The reason why you can’t unbake it is it would violate 2LoT [the Second Law of Thermodynamics]. However, that’s not quite right because a sufficiently advanced intelligence can unbake a cake. Intelligence can accomplish things that nature cannot and that includes violating 2LoT in relation to information entropy." www.uncommondescent.com, March 5, 2006.

-

- The scientific community responds by showing that intelligence necessarily follows the Second Law. To consider the layman's example, if an intelligent being (e.g. a human) attempted to "unbake a cake" by converting it back to flour, water, etc., the process would increase entropy by converting chemicals used in the "unbaking" process to disordered waste products. Further, the intelligent being would expend energy and create entropy merely by thinking, totally aside from the mechanical expenditure of energy to reorganize the hydrocarbon atoms (compare the food ingested by the human to the waste products expended by the human). The two increases in entropy would be more than the reduction in entropy gained by "unbaking." In other words, if one considers all the inputs and outputs to a closed system, rather than drawing the boundary of the "closed system" around only the cake, to exclude the "sufficiently advanced intelligence" performing the "entropy reduction" on the cake, it is seen that intelligent beings observe the Second Law. The scientific analysis is that a random process can produce local reductions in entropy, but such local reductions will be accompanied by global increases.

-

- More academically, Leo Szilard's 1929 paper, “On the Decrease of Entropy in a Thermodynamic System by the Intervention of Intelligent Beings,” Zeitschrift fur Physik 53, 840 (1929), showed that no being, intelligent or not, can violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Szilard showed that any measurement or observation made by the being must involve expenditure of more energy - and thus creation of more entropy - than is gained by whatever "entropy reduction" can be acheived by that being. Later papers by Claude Shannon and Rolf Landauer showed that any change in information content that is either irreversable or that occurs in a finite physical memory - essentially, the exercise of intelligent information processing - necessarily involves the expenditure of energy and increase in entropy.

Your edit history is essentially a form letter that raises many questons and answers none - no individual point of your edit note is applicable to the paragraph you reverted. My entry is not "irrelevant" - it addresses one of the top five arguments for ID (not one directly advanced in the Kitzmiller case, but one you'll find in nearly every discussion of ID). It is verifiable - both sides are drawn directly from the sources cited in my original. I gave a full cite to Szilard's paper. I haven't read it in the original German, but bits and pieces of it exist in translation all over (it's the paper that resolved the "Maxwell's Demon" paradox). Claude Shannon wrote the dozen or so papers that defined what we now call "information theory" in the 1940's and 1950's - if you deal with Information Theory (I took the seminal course at MIT, and use it fairly regularly professionally), Claude Shannon is a "household name" to specialists, and Google gives hundreds of hits for his work. I cited Rolf Landauer, another seminal paper known to everyone in the field (and I added a full cite to the above). In what sense "rambling?" My second paragraph presents the issues at a layman's level - essential in an escoteric area like the interface between information theory and thermodynamics. My third paragraph addresses the information theory/entropy/thermodynamics relationship that is key to an advanced deep understanding of the topic - a bit of theory known to specialists in information theory but not to many others, and that is key to fully understanding the flaw in the ID "entropy" argument. It is slightly oversimplified and therefore a little bit wrong (but has been fixed up a bit in the above), but an absolutely correct discussion would simply be too long (but can be found at the Landauer's Principle page). What's the "POV" that you find objectionable - what do you think my POV is, and which sentence is not clearly attributed to one of the two sides? My entry only presents the two arguments as they are commonly made, without expressing my opinion on either side. Please identify the "original research?" I took a direct quote from the www.uncommondescent.com for the ID side, and condensed the responsive arguments, and pulled together a few ideas from the main scientific papers in the area for the responsive side.

I'll ask again. Please identify the particular features to which you object. We can't cooperate if you only communicate in form letters that do not connect to the particular facts at issue. Thanks. User:Boundlessly^(talk)

I have placed this discussion on Talk:Intelligent design, where it belongs. ... Kenosis 04:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Protoscience

Hi Kenosis -- Kevin Mccready, the same user who wanted to delete this article in May b/c he thought it to be a dicdef has now added the dicdef template again. It was removed a couple times by other editors (bad Wikiquette; they should have let it stay and then commented on talk). Kevin twice reverted the removals, but I thought it a good idea to change the template's date since it hadn't been up for much of that five-day period five days. See talk page over there and weigh in if interested. And thanks as always for your excellent work on philosophy-of-science-related articles. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 16:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

category:pseudoscience

Hi Kenosis. There is discussion on Category_talk:Pseudoscience over how to populate the category, and whether a category is even appropriate for handing pseudoscience; both concerns are reflected in WP:CG's comments on applying NPOV to the category namespace. E.g., "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." Other editors besides myself have raised these concerns. My understanding is that dispute-tags are an appropriate form of WP:DR, meant to attract further edits. Do you think that the original Template:cleancat might be better, to that end? Thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 18:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jim: I left a note on the category:Pseudoscience talk page. Seems to me the dispute is actually the province of individual articles that link to this page. ... Kenosis 18:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your feedback! best, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Relationship between religion and science

i'm stil here.--Pixel ;-) 05:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

it has a reputable source,and i passed it in my spell cheker.The second is an article of wikipedia that is whell sourced.The last ,i now they exist,but i didn't find one yet,so i just mensioned they exist.I don't see why you took it out?--Pixel ;-) 06:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR

You were reported for a 3RR violation on the article Ontotheology. I would like to advise you that the report was found to be bogus, and you have not been blocked at this time. However, you do seem to be reverting quite a lot on that article, and I recommend discussion as opposed to sterile revert wars. Stifle (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

True about a lot of reverting on that article the past two days, Stifle. Thanks. ... Kenosis 22:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Religion and science

Not a bad influence, I think, to include some prose on the scientific studies of religiosity. You're absolutely correct that the paragraph as written was not NPOV. I tried to make it moreso while including the more popularly known studies regarding the effectiveness of prayer. I think an entirely new section on "Scientific/naturalistic explanations/speculations of religion and spirtuality" might be appropriate. If I recall correctly, Daniel Dennett just wrote a book on the subject. --ScienceApologist 13:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Prof. Daniel Dennett of Tufts? Last time I saw him, he was nothing but a brain in a vat, wired to a computer. I saved him by pressing the button on the remote control that switched his consciousness from the computer (where he was held prisoner) back to his physical body. (Or did I swap in the impersonator, and send him to prison?) --Uncle Ed 13:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh! I suppose any author willing to title a book Consciousness Explained must know what he's talking about, right? ... Kenosis 14:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A good point, SA, and an increasingly well studied subject today. Like trying to pin down a quantum particle at times, but those studies worth mentioning I should think. ... Kenosis 13:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Hillman

Hi Hillman: Just wanted to point out recent goings-on at Relationship between religion and science. I definitely didn't want to deal with the current irrationality singlehandedly, and no one else is attentive at the moment. Thought you might like to think about quickly checking in there. ... Kenosis 02:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Kenosis, I am moving this discussion here because I am trying to clear my talk page to avoid distractions during my negotiation with User:David.Mestel. I don't really have the heart right now to check in with Relationship between religion and science, and if it involves User:Haisch-Bernard Haisch in any way, I'd recuse myself from editing the article itself, although I suppose I could leave a talk page comment if I find energy to study recent edits to this article. However, even leaving a comment might be inflammatory since Haisch seems to insist upon believing that I was not acting in good faith regarding my encounter with him a few months ago in this article and at other places where I had noticed him editing anonymously in a manner suggesting that he was in some sense "promoting" his new book without acknowledging his personal connection with that book, which showed poor judgement on his part. See User:Hillman/Digging and User:Hillman/Dig/Haisch.

My experience at Wikipedia has been almost entirely limited to the sci/math pages; I am not sure what to call this article; maybe "Science and society"? My best guess on where to find help in dealing with bad edits to this article would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Good luck!---CH 19:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hillman, got it covered for now. That page still needs a bit further work, though it has come a long way in the last year. ... Kenosis 19:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:Lucaas

Hi Stifle: Got a question. How does a user evade a block? ... Kenosis 18:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

When the admin says he's going to block him and manages to forget to do so. >_< Stifle (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I understand better now; thanks Stifle. ... Kenosis 23:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Email (please read ASAP)

I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 04:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Core topics COTF

You showed support for Amazon rainforest at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF. This article was selected as our collaboration. Hope you can help.

Maurreen 15:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements to the article. I see JoshuaZ reverted back a bit too far; glad you caught it. But you should have seen the article at this diff here. Good regards,

Thank you. Yes I got a good look at the article before it was reverted. (I had just left a message on the Nature talk page.) Nice work by the way, on the page. :-) — RJH (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on Universe page

Hi, thanks for the correction on Universe, missed that bit! MarkThomas 21:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Some advice, if you have time

Hi Kenosis. You previously mentioned that I had been accusing or inferring stuff on other editors. (" and overlaying it with tendentious judgments of myself and other Wikipedia users. I would be remiss if I failed to warn KrishnaVindaloo that there are potential sanctions for habitual display of these kinds of behavior on Wikipedia"). To be sure, I have no idea what you were talking about, and I'd like to see if what you said was something I should take into account. I know we may not see eye to eye on some matters, but you seem to be a very constructive editor on the whole.

My main goal at the moment is to make the article more specific, and to deal with long term censorship issues. Of course, the specific concept-in-field solution seems to be working, but there will always be problems with the regular objectors. (I'm not urging you to join me btw,:). Anyway, a bit of feedback from you wouldn't do me any harm, if you have time for a line or two. Cheers KrishnaVindaloo 10:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, also, I was considering making the ID, creation science examples into a grouping. The one specific PS concept I found was "Argument from design", which I believe are specific to ID and Creation science. There is also a teleological argument in Christian science to explain the effect of praying on healing which would also place it in that group. Just looking for verification. I may be wrong on this so I'm checking with others first. KrishnaVindaloo 10:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent design

I agree with your change for the better with this edit. However, sources are needed for such a statement or it can be seen as weasel wording. Cheers, Ansell 22:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ken, you've shown an interest in the theological meanderings of Patrick Edward Dove: I've tried to get to grips with it a bit, and thought that rather than discussing it in depth on ID talk it would be a useful addition to the biog, which needed some attention anyway. If you can find time to have a look at it your comments would be most welcome. ...dave souza, talk 00:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggesting an one month community ban for Mccready on all pseudoscience articles

I'm suggesting a one month community ban of Mccready from all pseudoscience articles. [4] He could edit the talk pages but not the article. Please make your thoughts known on AN/I. FloNight 17:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Hi...try to not violate the three revert rul in editing as I see you have several on the Monad article. If possible, try to engage the edits on the discussion page. Thanks.--MONGO 18:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks MONGO, I know what the rule is. Fact is, I have one yesterday and one today on Monad, along with some increasingly detailed discussion on the talk page. This issue at hand is about LoveMonkey's removing valid disambiguations from the page as part of an apparent pattern of removing "heresies" from theologically related topics. That's not a discussion I intend to give up on very easily. Either way, one revert per day on two successive days is hardly in danger of violating the rule, and I reserve the right to use up to two more if I feel strongly about the issue (which is not often). Thanks just the same. ... Kenosis 18:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design Talk

I do not want to muddy the waters over at the Intelligent Design Talk section where ive requested a change in the article by bringing up past debates. So I thought i'd ask you here. Since LegalTimes.com describes John Umana as, "As an aside, Umana is also a leading proponent of intelligent design, the belief that evolution involves the direct intervention of a supernatural being." and as far as I can tell has no connections with the Discovery Institute, what does this mean to the claim by the article that all leading proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute?Bagginator 12:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC) John Umana is a senior trial and appellate lawyer in Washington, DC with a Ph.D. in analytic philosophy from Michigan. In 2005, Umana authored the book, “Creation: Towards a Theory of All Things.” This book was the source of the Legal Times statement in its May 22, 2006 issue that he is a leading proponent of intelligent design. He is both a biological evolutionist and intelligent design theorist, and not affiliated with Discovery Institute or any group. He argues that the debate on evolution suffers from confusion from the failure of some to distinguish two different senses of the term ‘evolution.’ MEANING NO. 1: In one sense, evolution means that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor (and that different species share common ancestors, such as for example the hippopotamus, dolphin and whale share a common ancestor). It maintains that all organisms on earth are descended from a common ancestor. Umana argues that Dr. Darwin’s theory that living things evolved or descended from common ancestors is true and proved by the convergence of the sciences. MEANING NO. 2: But ‘evolution’ in Dr. Darwin’s full-blown sense is taken to mean that a new species originates as a result of "natural selection," random incremental mutations over millions of years. In this biological and Darwinian sense, the term ‘evolution’ means a process whereby life emerged from non-living matter and subsequently new species emerged and developed entirely from natural means. Darwin’s theory is that all complex species and organs such as the eye and animal instincts “evolved by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations ….” (1859, p. 459) This latter thesis is impeached by modern microbiology and is bad science, Umana argues. The book maintains that the evidence (including Big Bang analysis from NASA’s spacecraft studying the Big Bang's background microwave radiation) points to a cause external to the physical universe as responsible for the biodiversity that exists on this planet and on other worlds. Umana’s theory predicts that there is no other life and never has been life elsewhere in this solar system – an empirically verifiable theory that will be tested up or down in the near future with life-searching NASA landers (e.g., the Phoenix lander and the Astrobiology Field Laboratory) set to explore Mars. At the same time, he argues in his chapter 8 that the universe is teeming with life and with intelligent life. Umana maintains that science and exploration offer the best hope of answering these questions.

Thanks...

Truly cannot adequately thank you for coming to the Talk:Entropy page AND Entropy article itself -- It has been an incredible scene with SC acting as the owner (although he quit for two months when I personally emailed him for clarification of his remarkable educational record [I have an ex-student who is a distinguish prof in engineering at UMich who reported no such.]. To your very kind '88 comment', I wanted to say something like "did not know LC unlike 'Sadi Carnot', but felt I must be 'gentlemanly'.

ESPECIALLY appreciate your comment to PAR, BUT for my and Wikipedia's benefit (and PAR's), I would like to have our differences adjudicated -- so I have sent the bundle of our last three off-list calm and reasonable data/idea exchanges to Harvey Leff, world-class math physicist and friend, for his analysis. I'll report it to the Talk:Entropy page tomorrow (He's usually very prompt in our back and forths, if he is in town -- 6 miles away!) FrankLambert 06:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Inacceptable

I gave the source. It is inacceptable to respresent Poppers position in the false way. --Rtc 06:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Would you please talk to me? Why are you deleting sourced statements from the article? --Rtc 06:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 13:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Dating creation

Hello, I agree that the Big Bang is something recent which traces out the age of the Universe, but this misses the point of my argument. The Big Bang is not a historical culture. Look at some of the other entries in that section: Traditional Catholics, Puranic Hinduism, Maya civilization....hopefully you can see how these are different from the Big Bang. I don't think that requires explanation. That's the basis I have for removing it from that list. I will wait for your reply and hopefully we can come to an understanding on this. Thank you.UberCryxic 03:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi UberCryxic. I just left a couple of relevant comments on the talk page of that article. Thanks. ... Kenosis 03:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Due Process

Thanks for putting the due process page into better format. Regarding the Amar quote, I think it's important. One of the main arguments against using the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause to incorporate the Bill of Rights against the states is that it would render the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause superfluous. Amar concisely addresses this point, by showing that the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause would not be superfluous at all. So, I'd like to keep that quote in there, if possible. (I'll copy this comment in the due process discussion.) 69.183.187.206 07:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Andrew

Wikipedia:Assume good faith

Kenosis, hi. You reverted an edit I made to WP:AGF, giving an interesting reason for one part of the revert. I thought the rest of the edit was worthwhile, did you disagree? I really don't understand why we would have to have an official meaning for "even if they're jerks" - it's just an explanation of an idea, not a law book, right? I really think it's better to phrase the policy with less use of the imperative and of words such as "should", but if I'm in the minority on that point, I'll shuffle along and keep quiet. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Prepositions in titles

Kenosis, you said: "(diff) (hist) . . Intelligent design; 17:37 . . Kenosis (Talk | contribs) (ÆReligion and leading proponents - following up on Cognita, the "Between" is capitalized in the title of Dembski's book)"

I appreciate being told the reason for a change, but the standard practice when citing titles is to let the part of speech dictate a cap or l.c. initial. (Style books do vary. In American Psychological Association style, the length of a preposition counts, too.) The way Dembski's cover or title page handled the word makes no difference; not sure that's what you meant.

Citation styles in the ID article are probably all over the map--and off its edges. I noticed some inconsistencies when going over the text. I imagine many people supplied references for this kind of article, and they did it differently. Making the style uniform would be a daunting task unless I had a paper copy that showed everything at once. Cognita 02:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Cognita, we generally handle quotes and book titles as they're presented by the author/publisher. With respect to the particular title you were referring to, please see this rendering. ... Kenosis 04:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but the policy here seems strange. (What happens when a book designer uses all caps for the title?) Traditional publishers do it as below:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780830823147&z=y

Cognita 04:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Cognita, I'm moving this to the relevant talk page, so that those more familiar with WP policy, of which several are involved in the ID article, can assess and comment if they wish. My understanding is that when we quote to someone else, we're to quote verbatim, and mark accordingly any alterations with the appropriate markers, e.g. "[ ]", " ... ", or whatever other markers might be in accepted use, including "[sic]" if the WP editors think it's important to note. ... Kenosis 04:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Re "re-"

I don't like to fight, but I do want to say that refactor without a hyphen is actually correct. In any case, when it appears twice in an article, it should be hyphenated either both times or neither time. And the word isn't all that technical: it's only from math, like recalculate.

Re- is in a large class of prefixes, along with anti-, non-, un-, pro-, supra-, infra-, semi-, dis-, and sub-, that form solid compounds unless (1) the second element is capitalized or consists of more than one word or (2) an unsightly or confusing string of vowels would result.

From the American Heritage Dictionary, 1969, s.v. re-:

"Many compounds other than those entered here may be formed with re-. In forming compounds re- is normally joined with the second element without space or hyphen: reopen. If the second element begins with e, it is preferable to separate it with a hyphen: re-entry. However, such compounds may often be found written solid and are indicated here as fully acceptable variants. If a compound that resembles a familiar word is intended in a special sense, the hyphen is necessary to make the distinction: re-creation . . ."

The paragraph has a bigger problem than that, though, which is that it doesn't say exactly where Dembski's going with these numbers of his. I suppose he uses them for some form of "What exists is so unlikely that it wouldn't be here without divine intervention" – but that isn't explicit.

I appreciate your attention to detail, even when we disagree. Cognita 06:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course the writer is permitted to make a "re-" verb out of any verb without hyphenating. That wasn't the issue there. If the "re-" form of the verb is not on the short list of such verbs provided by most dictionaries, plainly it's the writer's option. Here, we had past tense and present continuous forms of a mathematical verb, which increased the incentive to hyphenate for clarity. The words "refactored" and "refactoring" aren't in most dictionaries, while the word "factored" and "factoring" are in virtually all of them. ... Kenosis 16:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The AHD's note tells whether to hyphenate when you create a word by adding re-. Every re- word in dictionaries was written for the first time by someone. True, refactor isn't in dictionaries, but neither is re-factor. Ah, never mind – I can see that "delete and close up" is a lost cause.

Another point in the same passage. "This value, one-in-10¹²⁰, represents a re-factoring of his original formula, which set the value of the universal probability bound at one-in-10¹⁵⁰." "One" really should be "1," and no hyphens because the whole formula is used here as a substantive. From the Amer. Psychological Assn. publication manual, which isn't eccentric on this issue but is representative of prevailing style for numerals: "Use figures [i.e., arabic numerals] to express: all numbers 10 and above. . . . all numbers below 10 that are grouped for comparison with numbers 10 and above (and appear in the same paragraph). . . . numbers that represent statistical or mathematical functions, fractional or decimal quantities, percentages, ratios, and percentiles and quartiles" (italics added). Cognita 19:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Cognita, insofar as the APA style manual advocates the numeric rather than written form for single-digit integers below ten where a statistical function is represented: I say go for it if you prefer it that way. Happy editing. ... Kenosis 22:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Your reply is a relief. The ID article has many bodyguards, and I expected a subtext of "Well, Jesus in a jelly jar, who is this newbie who shows up with no credentials and starts changing everything in sight?" I'll make the changes. My preference doesn't govern; what I'm aiming for is to make the article look more professionally written. Numerals in formulas conform to standard styles for academic journals and textbooks. Cognita 01:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

AFD

A redirect is probably OK (not like anybody is likely to search for it anyway) - nobody suggested that at AFD. You can always take it to WP:RFD if you think it isn't. Thanks for letting me know anyway. Yomangani^talk 15:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversy: copy edit of copy edit of copy edit of . . .

It's still wrongedy-wrong! For the history of these changes, please see Jim62's talk page. The original problem was that the section calls ID a theory. That problem has persisted through today's revisions. Cognita 07:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, my only contribution was to change it to third-person singular, from the earlier incorrect plural. I have no problem with changing "theory" to "concept" or another more suitable term. ... Kenosis 14:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disturbed at Distortion

Regarding (1) my: I made some changes to the first 3 paras. I find that in most of this, that too much of the "results of" and/or "the management of" science, it's experiments and it' "useful paradigms and expectations" (e.g. that hypotheses will get broader, more accurate, etc., or that they must be made by the "rules of logic" which themselves have yet to have a fully acceptable foundation, as is the same with math, that measurement is indirect "obervations usually based on a theory", etc., etc., is all only an observation that hypotheses agglomerate into theories, that these so very often are expressed in math terms, that so much of physics can be based on Lagrangians, etc., etc. I vote to keep it to the bare 3 steps. Any more is as yet untested, unhypothesized "observations" on our proceedings to date with the three steps. We may call much of it meta scientific method or emerging philosophy and separate, but not all that is put forth here is really needed, or I believe really is in sci meth. 129.24.141.64 23:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Leslie B. Dean

And further regarding (2) your: I changed it back to the earlier approach, arrived at by consensus of a number of editors in the Spring of 2006. The consensus is not inflexible, but should be discussed interactively before making any major changes to the approach. ... Kenosis 03:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientific_method"

And further regarding (3) my post/discussion under "Science" as follows:

Practical Pulic Useable Sciences Definitions Advised

I made additions and changes today, Nov 25, '06 in the early paragraphs. I maintain that althoough everything written so far is true, it is not the whole truth and is too "abstract, impractical and "windy", a term my stuedents use, not meant to be pejorative by either them or me. I am making these changes based on "a need for this knowledge in the form they want it". It may not meet the full verifiablity requirements; but, in not so doing it meets my student's "windylessness" requirement.

I am not bragging and have no personal need for it; but for where I am coming from it is imortant that I credentialize a bit: I have done 30+ years of full Ph.D RDT&E in black and white industry, military and civilian applications, and have taught science and math at K through grad school levels. Most of what I am writing here, came from those experiences in fighting "bad science and pedagogy" as my ultimate students and customers ALL finally agreed. The most important of these to me was teaching masters level science and math for rural teachers of 10+ classroom yars of experience and WHO WERE GOING BACK TO THE CLASSROOM, in a manner that they themseleves callled reinvigorated science and math understanding.

I agree with most everything said above as truth. But, not having the scientific method right there within the definition and similar things, defeats what "the students say they need!"LekLiberty 20:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Leslie B. Dean, Ph.D.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Science"

Kenosis--I do feel strongly about both my "Disturbed at Distortions" and what I feel is part of the same "problem" my "Practical Pulic Useable Sciences Definitions Advised" submission issues, both provided above, and do want to "debate/discuss it interactively as you suggest".

But, I'm very new to Wikipedia and I don't know how. To me this and assorted other sections are "wrong enuf" to be "bad definitions" and very much need to be strongly re-debated. I do accept that the above refernced submissions are not the complete description of "my problems" with these definitions. If a cold re-start is needed, WILCO!

Perhaps also I am reacting to your requirement for "validations". If that means something akin to a literature search, I'm sure I'll object. In any case, I do want to understand.

Please advise me how to proceed to begin such. Thanks!LekLiberty 23:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Leslie B. Dean

LekLiberty 22:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Leslie B. Dean, Ph.D.

Input request

There has been a suggestion that Objectivity (philosophy) be merged with Objectivity (science). The later article is new, started by the editor that attempted Objectivity (philosophy) previously and failed. On the Objectivity disambig page Objectivity (science) was previously was linked to scientific method. I think that Objectivity (science) should either be merged with scientific method, or deleted as duplicating another material in another article. Your input would be appreciated at Talk:Objectivity (philosophy). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amerindianarts (talk • contribs) 16:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

<p> tags

Hi Kenosis, I noted that you tend to use HTML-Tags in Wikimarkup. That is rarely necessary. In particular, a blank line will have the same effect as a <p> tag, and looks nicer in the source. --Stephan Schulz 22:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Nature

RJ, are you the one responsible for having cleaned up the last paragraph of "Matter and energy" (thereby likely saving it from permanent elimination)? ... Kenosis 02:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm not completely sure. I know I made some changes to that section, but I don't know if it is the revision to which you refer. Was there something you had in mind? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue's already been addressed-- I don't remember taking the last chunk of Platonic philosophy out completely. But it's gone now and closer to the point of the section than it was before. And thanks for your repeated and diligent attention to the article. ... Kenosis 16:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh sure thing. I know you've contributed quite a bit to that article, so I think you deserve much more of the credit. All I'm trying to do is get it up to GA. Thanks. — RJH (talk)

Your edits to WP:AGF

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Translation: "Don't mess with my preferred edits." Thanks for reminding me about WP policies and guidelines. ... Kenosis 02:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Remember to assume good faith. :) Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

OK then; see ya' on the talk page. ;-)... Kenosis 02:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for changing the spelling back on Consumer; I couldn't do it myself without violating 3RR. I try not to sweat the small stuff, but I have to admit that it irked me to have someone who did not edit/add content to the article come in and impose their spelling preference. Trying to resolve the issue on talk pages was getting me nowhere, so thank you.--Kubigula (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

Why are you reverting my edits back to a regional Spelling (North American), I was not aware that articles had to be in North Maerican English as opposed to the more popular standard English usage ise NOT ize please. "Snorkel | Talk" 10:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a lie! "Ize" spelling way more popular - you can use Google to check that. Furthermore, PLEASE READ WP:MOS! Spelling of first major article contributor should be maintained! TestPilot 16:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Distribution of first-language native English speakers by country (Crystal 1997)

Unfortunately it's not universally agreed how to tally the numbers. "British English" is used by about 60 million in the UK today. This is as compared to over 300 million, who use what's typically termed "North American English". Of these, nearly 250 million with internet access appear to use North American English, versus roughly 40 million using British English as a first language.

Crystal's figures, in the illustration, present it a little bit differently but lead to a similar conclusion. By Crystal's numbers, about 75%, roughly three out of four, persons who use English as a first language use the North American convention.

There are, in addition, several hundreds of millions using several variations of British English conventions worldwide as a second language, compared to many, many hundreds of millions, perhaps over a billion, using the North American English conventions as a second language. Although there is wide debate about the numbers, it is clear that the general trend worldwide somewhat favors the North American conventions, with a very wide audience for the UK OED (Oxford English Dictionary) style as well. (See, e.g., [5].) The latter uses "..ize" as opposed to "..ise" with respect to words such as "realize", "synthesize", "popularize", etc.. So, while the worldwide preferences are debatable, it is clear that the "..ise" spelling is a minority view limited mainly to the British Isles proper. ... Kenosis 17:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Kenosis, I just saw that note on Snozzer's talk page and wanted to extend my compliments - very nicely done. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Alienus

Yes, there is much evidence that it is Alienus. His sockpuppets (of which there are quite a few) are known for introducing outright vandalism. He intentionally adds nonsense to articles like Patrecia Scott, and has a history of stalking other editors he doesn't like (such as me) and reverting their edits. This specific anon editor already is a confirmed vandal, as evidenced by his talk page. LaszloWalrus 06:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. That is unfortunate, as I recall seeing some seemingly well considered edits earlier in 2006. Take care. ... Kenosis 07:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

AvB ÷ talk 23:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I try

I will learn and appreciate the encouragement. --Kenneth M Burke 20:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Analytic Philosophy

Thanks for your kind remarks. Nothing too major in my edits, just thinking out loud. Banno 03:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. In your edit here, you say that "Characteristically it [analytic philosophy] rejects sweeping philosophical systems in favour of close attention to detail".

Nothing wrong with that, but

(1) It is in the wrong place. The original second sentence was "Initially defined by a reaction to British Hegelianism …" should stay where it is, the sentence you added should be one of the list of features identified in the following part. I have altered it so the structure is more logical.

(2) Next question, is the rejection of 'sweeping philosophical systems' characteristic of analytic philosophy? Do you have the exact reference to hand (Encyclopedia of philosophy).

(3) There is an implied contrast between 'sweeping philosophical systems' and 'close attention to detail', but of course there isn't really one. By 'sweeping philosophical system' do you mean an excessively generalistic one? That is implied by 'sweeping', but the problem is that 'philosophical systems' can be very detailed, e.g. that of Aristotle.

Let's discuss. First, I'd really like to see the exact words of the encyclopedia you were quoting. Thanks for your help.Dbuckner 16:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I gave the exact reference with page numbers. And I wasn't quoting, but rather was backing up User:Banno's offering with a supporting source. I cannot quote the entire EOP article for you. The Macmillan EOP article characterizes analytic philosophy as generally A) dualist as opposed to idealist and monist, B) reductionist and highly specific as opposed to broad and sweeping in its observations (generalist, as you say above). The article starts with Russell, then G.E. Moore, and on to logical positism generally, then discusses the later rejection of logical positivism and "analysis", including by Wittgenstein in his later years. ... Kenosis 17:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure you gave the reference, but I don't have the source to hand. Wasn't expecting wholesale quote, but your brief notes help a bit. The sentence is a bit awkward as it stands but I'll try and tidy up. I think you are right that analytics are suspicious of grand systematic philosophy, but it's a question of phrasing. Dbuckner 18:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Noumenon

Please explain which specific editorial policies you were referring to in your decision to revert.1Z 13:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

'Noumenon ... is "defined" as "thing-in-itself"'. 

Do you have a source for that?1Z 13:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Placing section on Noumena and the Thing-in-itself under criticisms with an OR tag)"

1. Its not criticism, it is explanation.

2 If you can source it, it isn't OR, and you know that I can source it, because there were many citations of primary source material in the version you reverted. I notice that you have still made no effort to source any of your stated opinions on the subject.

"Kant's usage is why the word is in our lexicon today". 

I know. I stated so in my revision of the lead which you reverted. That Kant was not using "noumenon" in the classical sense was criticism made by Schopenhauer, as the article states. Kant himself aludes to the fact that he is using it to mean "not sensible" rather than "inteligible":

"If we are pleased to name this object noumenon for the reason that its representation is not sensible,.."

You attitude is most unhelpful. Your changes do not have editorial justification as AFAICS.

1Z 18:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? What !Z attempted to apply to the article is original-research-based analysis of Kant, attempting to argue, based upon Kant's Critique, that "Ding-an-sich" (thing in itself) is not what Kant meant. I don't have time to give a lesson in Kant, but the assertion shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the context and influence of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. It's original research, and that's why I placed it under "criticisms" and put up an "original research" tag. That has nothing to do with "attitude" as you say here.

Briefly, why I reverted the newly written lead earlier on was that it started with an etymology rather than a definition. Currently the reads fairly reasonably again (after your last edits), so this time I left it as it stands. I removed the sentence alleging that "thing-in-itself" is a controversial interpretation, and as I said, placed the subsection on the same issue under criticisms with an OR tag, pending further discussion and analysis. ... Kenosis 18:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

One more thing for the moment. I did not assert that noumenon is defined as "thing-in-itself". Many editors have had their hands on this, and I support changing that to a more appropriate definition. The current definition is a reasonable choice in my estimation. ... Kenosis 18:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:DRV

Hi. Just a heads up that you seem to have got your dates mixed up on your post at the DRV for Category:Articles with unsourced statements. At the moment part of the first line reads "it was deleted in July 2007, but unilaterally reinstated in September 2007" (which really would make the DRV backwards!). Hope that helps- I thought it would be a bit rude to actually edit you post. WjBscribe 12:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The category was unilaterally reinstated by User:Dragons flight on September 9 here with a talk post here and a follow-up here. ... Kenosis 12:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You missed my point. These events happened in 2006 not 2007. WjBscribe 13:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh duhh, OK, thank you!!... Kenosis 13:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to your query on my talk page... DRV's job is to figure out whether process has been followed correctly during deletions, in situations where it matters, and to figure out what to do next in situations like this one where it's got confused. Filing a CfD during the DRV would normally only be done in situations where it was quite clear that the consensus was to relist. You can !vote relist in a DRV to suggest that 'it would be best if there was another opportunity for people to voice their opinions about whether the article/category/whatever is needed, because I think it might be different now more information's come out/more people know about the situation/whatever', which seems to be quite close to the view you've expressed on my talk page. If the consensus is to relist, a procedural CfD will be started as the DRV is closed. I hope that helps! --ais523 17:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense; guess we'll see what the thinking is, then. Appreciate it ais523. ... Kenosis 18:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles lacking sources and Articles with unsourced statements

I have now parellelized these so that neither category includes the other. Rather the header of each simply provides a link to the other. Oh, and to clarify a confusion, Articles lacking sources independently has >40000 entries from the use of {{unreferenced}} and the like. You have seemed to think that unsourced is much larger when in fact they are of comparable size. Dragons flight 19:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi DF. Thanks for the info. I had assumed that the higher-level category Category:Articles lacking sources naturally had due to the inclusion of the this category. I think this may help uncomplicate matters somewhat as to the DRV and, if applicable, the CfD. Thanks, I'll get back to noting it in the DRV a bit later, so as to avoid any further unnecessary confusion by those reading it. ... Kenosis 20:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis=Sysyphus? (revert incorrect and mindless dating of tag by User:SmackBot)

Dude, it's a bot! ("Mindless", hee hee). 1Z 00:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Was that Sysyphus? or Sisyphus ;-) You should see the debate over this bot and category at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_20. My objection is it's intrusive and highly inaccurate, and editors are entitled to make article-by-article decisions what their "citation-needed" policies will be. Now all of them, or virtually all of them, are labeled "February 2007". In addition, the whole thing involved an administrative override of an earlier community decision to do away with the category out of which the bot operates. Anyway, nice work recently; my compliments!. ... Kenosis 01:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It's innocent date tagging so people know how long it has been an uncited fact. ~ Rollo44 00:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. See above. ... Kenosis 01:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Smackbot

I have a few articles on my watchlist that keep being edited by Smackbot, and then you come along and revert the bot's edits. This has been going on for a few days, and the bot is going to keep doing what it is doing because that is how it is programmed. If you have a problem with the bot's edits, please take it up on the bot's talk page. Posting on the bot's talk page will stop the bot from working until the issue has been addressed by the programmer. If you don't do this, the bot will keep finding fact tags and adding the current month.-Andrew c 01:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The status of this bot and category is currently being hashed out at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_20. My objection is it's intrusive and highly inaccurate, and editors are entitled to make article-by-article decisions what their "citation-needed" policies will be. Now all of them on the wiki, or virtually all of them, are labeled "February 2007". In addition, the whole thing involved an administrative override of an earlier community decision to do away with the category out of which the bot operates.. ... Kenosis 01:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

SmackBot Kevinkor2

To: Rich Farmbrough, Kenosis

Cc: Template talk:Fact

From: Kevinkor2

Currently, Rich, your bot is expanding {{fact}} by adding the current month, resulting in {{Fact|date=February 2007}}.

Kenosis, whenever you see this on the Truth, Pragmatism, and a few other articles, you revert it. As you noted at User talk:Rich Farmbrough#Automated fact-tag tagging, it would be useful to have fact dating/nondating under control of an article's editors.

I suggest we adopt one of three possible compromises:

1. Manually change {{fact}} to {{fact|date=}} for facts where we do not know an accurate date.
2. Add {{nobots}} to the top of the article.
3. Research the page history for the first appearance of the {{fact}} tag to give it the correct date.

I recommmend the first alternative. --Kevinkor2 17:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed in general, Kevinkor2. The existence of the category Category:Articles with unsourced statements, out of which this function of the bot arises, is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 20. I'm on the road right now and only have a minute. Talk later. ... Kenosis 20:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Noumenon (2)

All the tags where you've removed "February" as wrong were added in February. The one by "causal loop" where you've left the date of February was added on the 26th of January. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 00:15 24 February 2007 (GMT).

Hi Rich. Yes I noticed the more recent ones too. As I mentioned, the whole issue of whether this dating thing should be automatic from here forward is a legitimate one that appears to need broader discussion about the various issues that are involved. Among them are standardization, editor discretion, administrative actions vs. consensus, and a few others. Thanks also for calling to my attention the {{Nobots}} template. Many approaches have been proposed thus far that I hadn't heard before, and that particular discussion, as it relates to Category:Articles with unsourced statements, appears like it'll probably play out over the next week to ten days or so. My point of view you already know to some degree. Thanks. ... Kenosis 00:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Barrett v. Rosenthal

I think your observations are very astute. Have you seen this page? AvB ÷ talk 14:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kenosis, I was just about to suggest the same thing. It appears that the ArbCom is close to instituting a ban of some sort on User:Fyslee, which would be a serious loss to WP, as he is one of the best scientific skeptical editors we've got. Here are a couple of good things Fyslee has done: [6], [7]. best regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 18:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Discovery Institute

Why did you revert my edit? It is only a minor clarification, after all. Also I think it is good to make clear right from the beginning that this is basically a US phenomenon. --KarlFrei 09:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Karl: While it is true that the Discovery Institute is American, it's also true that the entire "intelligent design" issue is American, specifically a response to the US Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguilard. As to the placement of the word "American" in the first paragraph, if you look through the talk page of that article, you'll see that it's been quite a task going over very little word in the article, especially in the lead section. If you want, I'll go ask on the talk page if the participating editors want it there or not.. ... Kenosis 11:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I just read your latest entry on that talk page. A minor point: the Dutch minister who suggested looking at intelligent design did not lose her job because of this. She was laughed at and withdrew her suggestion. After the elections in 2007, she became minister of the economy. I don't know whether this switch has anything to do with that two-year-old affair, but I doubt it! --KarlFrei 15:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks man.

- Atfyfe 06:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)