User talk:Titanium Dragon/Archive 3

Timing is Everything

I've just been looking at Controlled-Demolition Theory (9/11 Conspiracy Theory), and see it was created on the anniversary of the event. I agree that it was right to create it and split it off, but why, oh why, on the anniversary?

There is somehow an inevitability that it will not survive the AfD simply because Wikipedia is not apolitical but suffers from the emotional rather than intellectual bias of its anonymous pool of editors. While one might argue that the bias will be controlled precisely because it is multiple editor/global input, it is rather easy to see that the English language item is US dominated and suffers from its quota of well meaning ignorance worldwide.

Of course it is valid to split this and other articles off (assuming they are correctly references in the text), but this event is now an American Institution, an you tamper with those at your peril, especially on the anniversary. Fiddle Faddle 06:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the real reason is that I reread the article on September 10th and while looking at making some minor edit I got the warning that the page was over 100 kB in size. I looked at the article, tried to figure out how to cut it down, didn't figure it out, then today (well, 9/11) thought it'd be a good idea to split it off. I do realize that people are polarized and that a ton of people posting to delete are neocons (having a picture of the 9/11 "cross" as their user profile is never a good sign), but I hope it doesn't get shot down as it really does need to happen as it is useful information and the 9/11 conspiracy theories article is the size of four. The article is really well sourced too. Maybe I should have waited a day, but I wasn't really thinking that a large number of users would oppose the split - I figured few would care, and the people from the page would follow me and vote for the split as the page is very much in need of a split. Thanks for your concern and support, though.

In general, I find if I'm not bold with something which is not going to get opposed, I'll forget about it and not do it, and the page will stay the same. I don't have a problem with discussing stuff like it, but I'm liable to forget and I figured people would welcome it happening. Titanium Dragon 06:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I fear you have met those with a zeal rather than those with a hunger to improve this "place". I see your editing for size and legibility as wholly positive. I just think that, for all the right reasons, you hit it on the wrong day. I hope I am wrong. Fiddle Faddle 06:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Please drop back to the AfD page. I don't think you will win this, but I have an outstandig question there to seek to clarify it. Fiddle Faddle 15:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the question? I do not see it. Titanium Dragon 23:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

fbi

Hi, I've continued the discussion on: Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/FBI_poster_controversy#Continued_discussion_from_talk_page. Would you please take a look? — Xiutwel (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sup'

I read your response one talk:Otherkin and I wanted to talk to you more privatly on your veiws of the subject. You seem to have a good veiw, and I was also intrigued by your username. (Big fan od Dragons)Solon Olrek 18:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've got some otherkin friends and associates. Honestly, though, I'm not sure how I classify them; I just consider it another set of religious beliefs, really. A lot of them superimpose them on other religions, but in general it seems that many of them are members of a sort of otherkin religion; not really a formal organization or grouping, but some sort of loose whatever. Not that they're consciously part of it, but it seems a lot of otherkin fall into a few categories of belief: reincarnationists (which make up the vast majority of the ones I've met), ancestrals (I've only heard about them and seen their webpages; it is hard for me to know how many of them exist as, while I've never run into one, it could just be the circles I'm in don't have them/exclude them/encourage them not to talk about it), and spiritists (who basically believe their souls are nonhuman in some significant way, but don't have the reincarnation/former lives beliefs attached; I've run into more than a few of these as well). This last group seems somewhat related to the group of people who have some aspiring avatar, but are distinct in that the avatar is them, whereas it is more inspirational to others. I suppose I could fall somewhere outside of these categories; my online avatar is actually sort of symbolic of myself in many ways, but it was a conscious creation (though it was originally created when I was very young, before the World Wide Web even existed). I have always been throughly intrigued by dragons, and it is a source of great frustration to me that my 30-odd page report on the mythological aspects of dragons disappeared some years ago and I only have a fragment of it left.

I think that the otherkin article really needs someone to convince a psychology major (or graduate student) to do an analysis of the community and get a paper published on the subject; the problem is that it is a strange community and that anyone interested in it is likely to be otherkin themselves, or perhaps a furry - despite protestations to the contrary, I've noticed that there are huge amounts of overlap between the two groups, and many otherkin are furries, or used to be, and that with the less stable members of the furry community, it is difficult to tell whether they still distinguish between their avatar and themselves. Such a study would give a great deal of information on the composition and beliefs of the community, and would give us a more substantial base to write the article from. Titanium Dragon 20:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess I would fall into the third group of people you described. Although I am not sure. I am currently without religion and I am interested in the Otherkin beleifs along with the Wiccan beleifs. I see a little bit of resemblence between the two, but then again, that couldn just be that fact that I like them. What do you think? do they relate to one another or not?Solon Olrek 19:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a large overlap between the two, but I'm not sure if it is causative or simply because people willing to embrace alternate religious beliefs simply gravitate towards those which seem to empower them the most. Titanium Dragon 01:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think, and I may be wrong, that Otherkin was developed by people who were in the Wicca religion, but found themselves unsatisfied with it and went on a spiritual journey to find a form of religion that best suited them.Solon Olrek 18:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge no one knows exactly where "otherkin" is from; though there's a lot of speculation it arose from the elf communities, to my knowledge no one has verified this. It ceretainly wouldn't surprise me if the people who devised it were Wiccan or New Agers, but I don't know if we actually know the source, or even if there is a real source - it may have arisen independently multiple times, and it is hard to know whether people in times past were otherkin but just didn't talk about it. Titanium Dragon 08:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have never looked at it from the multiple starting point of veiw, but to me it seems like that is most likely. Unlike Christianity, where it started when the people who followed Jesus distributed his messages. The practitioners of Otherkin don't have any type of holy book that I am aware of. Nice thinking.Solon Olrek 18:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, I hadn't run into you before, and I wanted to thank you for the useful comments you made to my newly created discussion page. I hope you'll consider Watchlisting the page and making more contributions as things progress. Between that page, and what I can see on your talkpage, we probably have quite a lot in common. I look forward to working with you more in the future. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 21:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Greetings!

I enjoyed your discussion with the egregious User:Xydexx on Talk:Furry_fandom. Are you a member of CYD? Salmanazar 11:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Naw. I just read it fairly regularly; I've considered joining but I just don't really have the level of rediculous stories necessary ;) I mostly stick with the more sane stuff anyway, rather than the stranger stuff in the fandom. Titanium Dragon 21:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

911 Conspiracy Theories/Alternative Theories

Why dont we focus on identifying individual points of objection at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Why_dont_the_Oppose_and_Agree_camps.3F instead of having long winded debates that cover 2 or 3 subjects The we we know everyones objections either way, we can work out a compromise on each point with a view to reaching a consensus. "Snorkel | Talk" 09:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Put in my sentence, but the reality of the situation is that this issue has been resolved previously; there's no reason for the debate to even be occurring. Pro-conspiracy theory people, combined with people who don't understand that Wikipedia is not politically correct, are complaining about the name, but in reality the name is quite correct. Its getting to the point of silliness - I've done work on that page previously, splitting out content, and the realiity of the matter is that they're all conspiracy theories and to call them anything else is to be disingenous - they are, by definition, conspiracy theories, and regardless of supposedly negative connotations to the phrase it is entirely accurate. Cult has negative connotations, but accurately describes numerous groups. As Wikipedia is supposed to be accurate, is not supposed to use weasel words, and is not censored, there's absolutely no argument I've yet seen to support changing the name of the article. Titanium Dragon 10:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for adding your comment, short and sweet just what we need. The whole CT not CT debate has, is and will rage on, but the current round of debate is turning into a long rambling novel of policy, style, grammar, language and opinion. Its not going to get better, or go away, what I am hoping to achieve is the prevention of it breaking down into an us versus them arguements with personal attacks and incivility. Thanks for your support (not in the direction of your posistion) in supporting a simple method of debating it, I hope everyone follows your good example. "Snorkel | Talk" 10:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Champ, Nessie and Seiche waves

When you accidentally posted on the nessie page about seiches (instead of on the champ page) it nudged my arm enough to write it up in the article. So don't worry about making mistakes! "Honour thy error as a hidden intention," as Brian Eno once said. Totnesmartin 13:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I was wandering through and couldn't remember correctly. Thanks for the edit and notification though :) Titanium Dragon 20:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is Ymous and why should I mediate with him?

I am stunned. Who is this person? --Filll 23:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

He is a troll, ,as far as I can tell. Titanium Dragon 00:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Harsh assessment

Not that I should care, but I actually respect what you have said and done on the Evolution discussion page, so I want to give a little pushback to a comment you made about me. You claim that I have made personal attacks on VacuousPoet. Possibly true, but in my own defense (and someone once told me whenever you start a sentence like that, you're guilty), I didn't give a damn about him until he made wholesale deletes to the discussion page (and when I mean wholesale, I mean paragraphs from several of us). He was blocked (just check his user page), and he continues to post. I really don't care about his philosophy of Evolution (and it is way off-base), but he should take his block/ban like a man, and not post for 7 days or whatever his punishment. An administrator noted this, and blocked a couple of his IP addresses. I have filed sockpuppet charges against him.

If he or you would like to mediate against what you perceive to be my personal attacks, I will take it like a man. I intensely dislike these Creationists, and I cannot help but fight them. If you think it would be better that I just leave, I can do so. The anti-evolutionists get under my skin, so I probably will save myself a stroke or something. I hope I contribute to the overall knowledge, but if the negatives of my posts outweigh my positives, then I can move along. I can concentrate on my NHL interests, which are lot less controversial.

I'm not being a martyr or passive-aggressive here. Your comments hit home, so I'll respect your advice. But you ought to look into what VacuousPoet has done.

Thanks for listening.

Orangemarlin 18:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what VacousPoet has done, but flaming him is not the answer to the problem he is. He has been banned repeatedly and evaded it, and will be dealt with by the admins. Report him or whatever, but don't flame him. Titanium Dragon 00:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I'll need to take some drugs. It is annoying. And I did report it, which is really a difficult thing to do. I have to take down each IP address, make a charge, then go to a page to set up a checkuser. Flaming is infinitely easier you know. But maybe they make these things difficult so not everyone files reports on every little issue. I wonder if the abortion article was this difficult. Orangemarlin 02:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Creationism

Take a look at Creationism and the venting in the reasons for edits.--Filll 21:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

RFA vs Ymous

For those having to deal with User:Ymous's random vandalism of the Creationism article, random RFM vs seven people without even speaking to them prior to the RFM, and general disruption and trollishness, I'd like to start a RFA against him - it may not be necessary (he seems destined for a banning anyway), but *shrugs*. Who else would sign to one? Titanium Dragon 01:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• He's gone overboard IMHO. I'm with you. Orangemarlin 02:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• I would sign one. I think this guy is trying to disrupt things. He is not interested in being productive.--Filll 02:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)