User talk:Tznkai/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Tznkai/Archive 1, and

to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Dave (talk) 02:03, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

PS thanks for cleaning up the Reagan vandalism.

Hi, welcome to wikipedia. You seem to be a rather nice and sane person, let's see how you do on the wiki too! :-)

Kim Bruning 21:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• kerblink* Looks like SPUI is going crazy again with his wierd edits. How odd... ;-) Kim Bruning 19:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting my candidacy for administrator. Kelly Martin 15:12, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Robert consistently remove facts from reliable sources. His personal opinions are unreference and often out of date. He is not an expert in this field but he consistently remove quotes by the leading experts Gallo, Fauci, Weiss and others.

I am not an AIDS denialist and resent this ad hominum attack.

We should be discussing the article!

Fred2005 14:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is not relevant. Refrain, refrain, refrain, from inflammitory statements--Tznkai 14:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just thought I'd let you know - subpages are case sensitive. I've corrected the template call on the VFD page. Cheers, Alphax ^τεχ 14:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for getting snippy and inflamatory on the vfd page. I tend to get defensive of my articles. I appreciate your open-mindedness on the topic, and willingness to be persuaded by contrary arguments - those are the marks of a great contributor. Cheers. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:46, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

• Thank you for withdrawing the VfD. I assure you that I will continue to work on improving and substantiating the article. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:17, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider that dispute resolution doesn't magically happen simply because you "excise" a section from an article and ask everyone to talk about it. Maybe that's all well and good when you're dealing with rational users. The

16:41, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I am acting in good faith and for a better article.

I'm sure you are acting in good faith, but your actions themselves are detrimental. Rhobite 17:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Double pro-life

Sorry for messing things up in editing this section. Gone for today. Str1977 22:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Been a little frustrated, i've been working on that article all day. sorry if I seemed snappy--Tznkai 22:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's all right. I think it's difficult to walk the fine line between reducing and including. Also thanks for deleting the cynicism section on religion and abortion - I reduced it considerably a few weeks ago, cutting out, well, quite cynic language, and cut it down the things actually saying something about the issue. However, I didn't dare deleting it all, lest I be accused of "religious imperialism" or something like that. So thanks. Str1977 07:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome, although it may be premature... but always nice to know I'm doing something useful around here. :-D - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see 3RRs on Intelligent design. I got it from here for a couple hours. Can you report this? I haven't had too before.--ghost 20:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort. I'm glad we got him to talk.--ghost 21:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LOL. Not a problem. Goes with the territory.--ghost 30 June 2005 14:49 (UTC)

You wrote: Glanced over your bit on the talk page about presenting ID as a philisophical idea. I'd like to work with you on this, while I, llke the majority of the eitors detest ID as a scientific theory, I personaly subscribe to the general concept philosphically (stacked deck). I think it'd be an intresting article to write on. Any ideas?

LOL. Sure. Lots. Some are Original Research though. Did the notice the reference to Joseph Campbell? Actually, Dembski's The Design Inference is not a bad reference, provided that one remembers to read it through the lens of a philosopher. User:Dave Bergan might be someone else to touch base with. Let me know what you want to do. BTW, most of the ID editors share your core belief, including me and FW.--ghost 30 June 2005 20:26 (UTC)

Yeah, my faith brought me to view of Creation (oops! I said a naughty word.  ;-] ) as a Tapestry about 10years ago. This Tapestry helps me understand the concept of all things being interconnected. What's funny is that this fits nicely into

M-Theory. And since I'm also an astrophysics nut, that's just way kool. BTW, feel free to email me.--ghost

30 June 2005 21:30 (UTC)

Belated thanks

Thanks for your kind words of support on my RFA nearly a month ago. I appreciated the compliment you left, and I am trying to keep living up to it in my dealings with other editors. Unfortunately a sad event occurred at that time in my family, and I have not been able to participate in Wikipedia as much as I would like. I hope to get back to active contribution soon. Thanks again! FreplySpang (talk) 01:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering what exactly you objected to in my revised intro for the intelligent design article. You deleted the whole thing, when I'm sure there were some parts that even you could have seen as accurate (especially on the philosophy of science, etc.)

Micah Fitch 28 June 2005 19:53 (UTC)

ok then, if it doesnt go there, where DOES it go?

i think it should go wherei put it because it has some relevencey to where the notion comes from. Gabrielsimon 3 July 2005 03:57 (UTC)

Thanks. It wasn't really revert, more like step-by-step removal. But I get your point, perhaps I should have just reverted once. I am sure you will agree as you seem fair in your edits so far. Thanks for warning me though. Anonymous editor July 3, 2005 04:32 (UTC)

Not only would it be beyond boring if we always agreed with each other, but little would be accomplished as well I think. It's by challenging each other that arrive at the best articles, don't you agree? Big thanks for all your hard work and keeping a cool head on a genuine hot-button topic. Lesser editors would have descended into rants long ago... And a genuine heart-felt thanks for the kind words left on my talk page, that was absolutely uncalled for... and I do so appreciate it. Thanks again. FeloniousMonk 4 July 2005 02:32 (UTC)

Did you eat my comment deliberatly? And RPA makes me very nervous.--Tznkai 5 July 2005 05:29 (UTC)

Yes, I ate the comment because it was a reference to the personal attacks that I deleted. Remove one, remove another. I know a lot of people don't like RPA but honestly I don't know a better way to keep crap off the talk page and keep discussion focussed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 06:26 (UTC)

Sorry I inadvertently put this on your user page. You can make this kind of thing less likely to happen if you put a talk link into your signature. Enter Tznkai]]|[[User talk:Tznkai|Talk into Nickname in preferences. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 12:16 (UTC)

I deleted a redirect you created that went from article space to your userspace. They're generally discouraged. Best wishes and happy editing, Meelar (talk) July 6, 2005 15:56 (UTC)

The article was Tznkai/playground, and it redirected to User:Tznkai/playground. Best, Meelar (talk) July 6, 2005 16:03 (UTC)

No problem. Yours, Meelar (talk) July 6, 2005 16:15 (UTC)

I appreciate your suggestions. FW reverts everything I do. I agree, the article is not about the design argument, so why is it introduced as Aquinas's fifth proof? That's what I was trying to change. Can you just change the language rather than a full revert? David Bergan 6 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much how I read Dembski on this. I'm making another run at it, and keeping the Aquinas reference. This should be more in line with the comments you raised. David Bergan 6 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)

I agree, this is getting to be a lot more fun since you and started seeing eye-to-eye. Maybe we should hash some issues out on our talk pages or through email where there is less noise. It sure is interesting stuff once you get past this mentality FW expresses where he doesn't seem to want to give ID a gram of credibility. We wields concepts like observation/intuition/repeatability/a priori/etc around without fully thinking how they apply to other things in science. The claim that natural selection gave rise to different phylums is not observable or repeatable, but most would consider it scientific. Again, it seems more like forensic science to me, though, and the rules are slightly different.

Or consider the term "irreducible complexity". FW says it's an a priori concept. And it is... you make the definition and then see what things fall into that category. But the term "mammal" is also an a priori concept. You make the def and then apply it to monkeys, porcupines, kangaroos, and platipi. Either way you make up the classification first.

Anyway, I would love to discuss these philosophy of science issues if you're interested. David Bergan 7 July 2005 21:17 (UTC)

once you get past this mentality FW expresses where he doesn't seem to want to give ID a gram of credibility. Most of the scientific community doesn't give ID a gram of credibility, but somehow my mentality is the problem. Whatever. FuelWagon 7 July 2005 23:28 (UTC)

He wields concepts like observation/intuition/repeatability/a priori/etc around without fully thinking how they apply to other things in science. I would be so happy if you could, at some point in the future, actually grasp the concept of what it means to know something. When you talk about knowing something, you talk about a religious, dogmatic, absolute meaning of "knowing" something. And then you talk about the scientific community says it "knows" something as if they mean they know it absolutely. This is a religious version of science, and it isn't science. Until you get the distinction, we will forever be butting heads. FuelWagon 7 July 2005 23:28 (UTC)

it seems more like forensic science to me, though, and the rules are slightly different. Read the ID article again. It says ID is attempting to redefine NATURAL SCIENCE. Then go look up the wikipedia entry for natural science. There are many different flavors of science. evolution and similar theories are in the realm of natural science. Not all science is natural science. But natural science is specifically defined as a posteriori, observation only, science. because of this, natural science is filled mostly with hypothesis and theories, and very few hard laws. ID attempts to redefine natural science to include a priori ideas that have no direct observation to back them up. learn the difference between natural science (a posteriori, observation only) and other sciences such as mathematics, which are a priori and no observation. FuelWagon 7 July 2005 23:28 (UTC)

FW, you are formally to stop this discussion here. This is not your place to debate other people's ideas. Do that in your own talk space.--Tznkai 8 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)

As far as I know, it isn't bad manners to take part in a thread on someone else's talk page, especially if you happen to be the topic of conversation/flame/slam. Nor is it a breach of wiki-policy that I know of. But I have no problem honoring your request that I not post on your talk page. Consider it done. FuelWagon 8 July 2005 17:19 (UTC)

Re:

Alright. This is the last time I'll say it (today anyway) but you have got to start being more civil on talk:intelligent design People who disagree are not the enemy. Wikipedians are not the enemy. I'm not going to bother with wikipolcies or guidelines, if you keep this up, you will lose sympathy, and you and the article will suffer because of it.

Its not what your opinions are, its how you express them that matters. You definatly owe goethan an apology for the internet equivlent of yelling, and probably one to dbergan as well.--Tznkai 7 July 2005 22:43 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FuelWagon"

If you and David Bergan want to start secret correspondence about ID, fine. If the two of you want to discuss how moronic I am, go for it. I see you've already started some of it above. Whatever. But if you're going to make the article suffer because you don't like my tone, then you have lost sight of the point. Articles must be useful and informative. Everything else is secondary. Goethean was being a righteous ass, and his question that is answered in the article showed he was ubstructing for no valid reason other than to be right. he also changed the intro and put "critics claim" in front of facts four times.[1][2][3][4] and then he reports me for 3rr violation [5]. Apparently he feels he can violate 3RR, but I can't. He then refutes facts with "that's your opinion" [6] apparently his opinion is simply right and logic doesn't matter. he quotes the last half of a sentence, ignoring that the first half completely changes the meaning [7] and gets in my face about it. And you want me to apologize to him? Nice to see you being "neutral" in the midst of the storm. FuelWagon 7 July 2005 23:12 (UTC)

I remain surprised that you object to my behavior. It is FuelWagon who feels no responsibility to respond to anyone in an adult manner, and until that changes, I see no reason to show him any more respect than he does to others. --goethean ॐ 8 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)

I've tried to be very specific with him now, let's hope he can be pinned down to something concrete. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 17:52 (UTC)

You might want to read what Haiduc recently posted about you and the debate in Homosexuality on the

: aside from the insulting description, he's also mobilizing the base for action (i.e., the local LGBT posse which attempts to control articles on these subjects). For his edit, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ALGBT_notice_board&diff=18575293&oldid=18508904

Unsigned comment by User:66.216.226.34, attempted deletion by User:67.41.236.211[8]

Duly noted and filed, thanks for the notification although I don't really think they're a "posse" really. 211, I don't allow censorship on my talk page.--Tznkai 14:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's awesome. I'll admit it, I have a CS Lewis fetish... I own nearly everything he has written, including diaries and personal letters. Here's how I rank the books in your new collection:

1. The Great Divorce: I love this book. In my estimation, it is the greatest book written outside the Bible. It's a quick one or two evening read that I relish at least once a year. It's a fiction book - a story of a bus load of people from Hell that get to experience Heaven and how they react. Really drives home Lewis's point that people in Hell choose to be there. What's scary is that each character you meet in this book will almost certainly remind you of a real-life person... and sometimes yourself.
2. The Problem of Pain: Lewis considers the Problem of Evil to be readily explained by Free Will... but Free Will doesn't explain why we suffer at nature's hand. He tells us that the reason he was an atheist: he looked at the vast cold uncaring universe and found nothing but a preponderance of emptiness and pain. How could there be a God that allows, much less design, that? Read just chapter 1 to see his powerful feelings as an atheist. The rest of the book answers that feeling, including a defense for why Christians believe in damnation... which is the intellectual foundations for The Great Divorce.
3. The Abolition of Man: How far should science go? Lewis takes on relativism, genetic engineering and its inevitable conclusions. Pretty intellectual, but not too tough. A good reminder to read every 5 years or so. (I heard that this was the first book of Lewis's to make it in the Great Books series... although I haven't been able to confirm that through the Internet.)
4. Miracles: A tough read. Especially chapters 3 and 4 (ground-and-consequence Vs. cause-and-effect). However, it is worth it. A whole book called CS Lewis's Dangerous Idea [9] has been written on just those chapters. Be prepared to re-read chapters over and over for understanding. And it would help to have someone to discuss it with. (This idea has taken rent in my brain for years... I refused to skim past it, and thus became obsessed with understanding it.) For sure give this book a shot, but it's not light. Every intelligent person should read it before they die.
5. Mere Christianity: An excellent, lucid, defense of his faith. I don't read it that often because it is sort of basic, but it's the ideal book for any non-Christian intellectual to find deep answers for what Christianity is really about.
6. The Screwtape Letters: Fiction. Lewis's most widely-sold book... or at least it was. He wrote about being surprised by how much it sold and how it almost instantly earned the status of being a classic, because he didn't think it was his best. Mere Christianity has probably out-sold Screwtape in the long run, though. It's a collection of letters from a senior devil instructing a junior devil how to tempt his patient. Very insightful look at how temptation can be seen in so many subtle things. A good book, however, I prefer the more intellectual works.
7. A Grief Observed: This book comes in first if you are going though a time of grief or pain. It's excerpts from an older Lewis's diary after his wife died of cancer. They were only married a couple years, and he was very much in love even though he was in his 50s. It's a struggle of emotions against intellect where he refers to his faith (especially the things he said in The Problem of Pain) as a house of cards that just collapsed.

David Bergan 17:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

My edit fixed the numbering. No, Clive didn't do formal logic, but that doesn't mean his arguments are illogical. I find his reasoning to be completely legit. I would even go so far as to say that there isn't a single opinion he shares in his books that I don't hold myself. My father read the Narnia books to me as a child, but I should go through them again now that the movies are coming out. How much CS have you read? David Bergan 17:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this notice due to a consideration that has come up during a VFD for the article

]

Can you please take a look at the editor's poll I posted at the Jihad talk page here? BrandonYusufToropov 15:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[[10]]

The information was too detailed for the intro, and belonged, if anywhere, in the Historicity article. Remember, it's an intro - the scope of the argument was already covered, and specific scholars and their poisitions are brought in more detailed sections/articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but your insulting revert of the talk page rather than just repairing the glitch has shown me you're nothing but a POV warrior in sheep's clothing. Feel free to prove me wrong, but I doubt you will, you're just another BYT crony.Existentializer 18:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Consensus requires that all editors are operating in good faith, and Assuming Good Faith does NOT mean that we ignore common sense or bad actions. Given the way BYT has acted and has treated me and others, I am fully sure that he and his fellow Holy POV Warrior Brigade are NOT operating in good faith.

Creating a mockery of a poll and then sending out a call to arms is NOT acting in good faith.

I want this article to be NPOV. At the moment in its locked form, it's a hell of a lot better than the version Islamic POV Warriors like BYT would keep reverting to, although it still would need a lot of work and some more references by modern Islamic scholars (although to be fair, most of them wind up simply quoting older Islamic scholars, and Sayyed Qutb is pretty damn recent by Islamic standards, not to mention needing to be included since it's HIS school of Islamic jurispridence that most jihadi groups like Al-Qaeda and Hamas follow).Existentializer 19:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, to answer your other statement: if you were sincerely just trying to reconcile I apologize, though I would prefer you re-integrate comments rather than just deleting should that bug pop up again. There seem to be a number of editing bugs with this Wikipedia software, I spent a good deal of time the other day trying to fix a nasty duplication bug on the 3RR report page.Existentializer 19:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It has been like this for months and months on end. There are a couple of us trying to sort through the mess. You may (or may not) be interested in the disposition of the case of User:Enviroknot. (aka User:KaintheScion).

[| Not a pleasant fellow].

After such a proceeding, and such a result, one outcome is that the person goes away and obeys the ban. That is not, alas, the only possible outcome. BrandonYusufToropov 22:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tznkai: Please see the VfD on

]

Sam Spade

"If I see him being an asshole, I'll toss him up on RFC too."[11]

No, problem, here you go: [12]. This RFC should be a slam dunk for you; Sam calling me an "asshole" is by definition a personal attack, as opposed my demanding an apology and identifying the hypocrisy of his failing to refrain from abuse. Let me know if you need help drafting it. FeloniousMonk 18:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion as to whether Sam Spade has been uncivil to you, and unless I see it by accident, I am not going to look for it unless I happen to be browsing RFCs. There is a time and place for everything, and article talk pages are the wrong place. I don't care if it was Sam, Jesus, or Saddam Hussien, not on the talk pages. I thought I was doing you a favor by taking this up with you on your talk page, inviting you to show yourself mature and withdraw your comments from a public forum. I can see you did not take this as courtesy but as troll enabling.

As for

WP:NPA

I will not discuss at length the nuances of the policy with you, I will state my case with two quotes.

• "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Nobody likes abuse." (emphasis added)
• There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. (emphasis added)

You have repeatedly brought up the insulting e-mail. This is missing the point. I am not defending Sam in anyway. Calling you an asshole was uneeded and counter productive. This is not under debate. He may or may not be a troll, or the devil himself. I do not care. This diff [13] that you cite illustrates my exact point. Sam may be a hypocrite. You are welcome to remind him of your opinion on the matter on his talk page. If you feel it is a severe detriment to Wikipedia, post evidence on an

WP:NOT

: "Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles.". While this does not expliclty state that article talk pages are exclusivly for discussion on the article, I think that is implied there and in half a dozen other wikipedia policies and guidelines.

And since I tell it to all my middle schoolers, I might as well tell it to you. I don't care who started it, because two wrongs don't make a right.

Then again, you know everything I'm telling you, I'm sure. So let me make it clear. My stance on

WP:NPA is very strict concerning article talk pages. Don't do it don't do it, don't do it. Article talk pages are for comments on teh contributions themselves, not the contributors, except for positive interactions (complments and thanks). I have made an exception for this on Talk:homosexuality

in response to two disruptive editors. I have since regretted that action.

This is the last time I will say this, barring an attempt at dialogue, or my involvment, direct or as a 3rd party in an offical process. You are welcome to delete this if you feel it is unwelcome, but I will be keeping my own copy in my user space. I'm sure you understand why.--Tznkai 20:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! You're online, but not on IRC! Care to log in? Kim Bruning 20:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! In an effort to make the article here on

page to see how you can help. One rather large source of confusion and complication, the References/External Links section, has just been cleaned and polished, thus your experience should be much more tolerable in general ;).

17:53, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Family problems

... fairly serious ones, I'm afraid, necessitate a wiki-break. You're doing a superb job, and I'm very very grateful to you for all the help. Prayers, please; Godwilling I'll be back eventually. BrandonYusufToropov 15:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I can I am up for it. Write me an email,

17:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Because I am convinced you seek a non-POV presentation in articles, I hope you will leap over to wikiquote. I have been active there, and (shocker) the editors there invented a slate of unique rules for the abortion page designed to shield abortion advocacy from the statements made by their own leaders. I hope you will weigh in there assist the editors there to treat the topic like any other - no special rules that obfuscate facts. 214.13.4.151 15:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tznkai, could you take a look at the talk section of the IC page? Duncharris is reverting edits like he owns the place, and I don't think he has logical grounds for doing so. [14] Thanks. David Bergan 18:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can it wait 12 hours? Of course. In my opinion, real life always trumps wikipedia. David Bergan 18:44, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True story. I got engaged on July 15... looking to have the wedding on Dec 31 or sometime in January. I'll link some pictures of us from my user page. David Bergan 19:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have issued something that you call a "warning" to Zeno on his talkpage. Personally, after reading the discussion, I can't see that Zeno has made any uncivil remarks and he has obviously explained all of his actions on the Template talk:Islam, this unlike some of his opponents there. Could you please substantiate your claims and provide some evidence, before making any allegations? Or maybe you should just stick to (and start to respect) Wikipedia's policies regarding assume good faith? Your uncivil remarks labeling Zeno's edits as "ugly" [15] on the Template talk:Islam are not very helpful eighter. Please cease and desist. -- Karl Meier 09:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please make your voice heard and "vote" on the deletion of vfd. I was going to put you down in italics as opposing, but I wasn't sure if you objected to the fact or the method. Uncle Ed 21:06, August 1, 2005 (UTC)