User talk:Merzul/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Thanks

Thanks!

A big pixelated WikiThanks for the Editor's Barnstar. Now hopefully the article can get through FAC! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-23 17:18Z

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atheism

NBeale has opposed for the same reasons he revert warred in the article. Please leave a comment at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Atheism#NBeale. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-24 13:38Z

William L. Rowe

Glad to have been able to help. 8-) I'll be watching for your Trakakis article. Mwelch 21:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I recgonized the name since I've come across him a couple of times in readings on things like the study of evil. But definitely haven't familiarized myself with his background with respect to evaluating him as WP:N or not. But as you say, if he's not today . . . perhaps at some point! Mwelch 22:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the article. But my take on it (similar to yours) is that rather than any polishing of it I'd feel comfortable in doing, it really needs to be rebuilt from the ground up — a task for which I am decidedly unqualified, I'm sure. But that said, I'd like to think I might indeed be able to do that aforementioned polishing if it were in a better initial state, a la what you're thinking. I'll add it to my watchlist and be happy to contribute if/when I can. Mwelch 22:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Random thanks!

Your comment here on piped links is what made me realize what a piped link actually is. Not having a actuall good example on the policy page (just an explanation) made it hard to understand until I saw the talk page. Thank you! —ScouterSig 15:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, Merzul. NBeale 16:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your kind words on my editor review. I am flattered to have found a place on your userpage; and I also have enjoyed working with you. I have been giving some though to your question question regarding IAR, and I will get to answering it soon. Pastor David ^† _(Review) 15:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to your question about IAR on my editor review. Pastor David ^† _(Review) 22:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas Beale

You were involved in this article's Deletion Review. User:NBeale complained that the AFD was closed too early, and so it was reopened. Please leave your opinion at the second nomination for AFD. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-05 18:34Z

Thanks

Merzul, thank you for your kind words in support of my RfA - and yes, the principle of charity is how I understand WP:AGF. As always, please continue to feel free to drop me a note any time if there is anything that I might be able to do for you. Pastordavid 15:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Intro to Evo

Slowly chipping away at your list of suggestions on the Introduction to Evolution. My efforts and your suggestions are noted on that discussion page in a to-do-list. Just so you would know your time was not wasted! --Random Replicator 03:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you again! A barnstar, and on my half-birthday too! Mind you, I will never again believe any stories about you taking a wikibreak! Snalwibma 18:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, let's just say Wikibreaks aren't my strongest side... it's easy to put that template up there, it's a lot harder to stay away ;) --Merzul 18:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the acknowledgement of our effort on Introduction to evolution.--Filll 16:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I really like the banner. Dawkins has the ability to clarify complex topics so I am indeed honored. However, I do wish he would stop with the attempts to disprove God ... guess that is what sells books. I think your suggestions are working out well; albeit, you created alot of work for us :) I will be sure to allocate more time the next time I ask for your suggestions. Thanks again! --Random Replicator 14:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Disputed Dalai Lama Letter

Hallo dear Merzul, Thank you very much for taking the time to contact me with your important information and experience on this matter. In view of what you have shown me, it does look as though that "Message" is indeed a fake (as I always suspected). I think we need to remove this fake message from Wiki now - although it will be interesting to see if I myself hear from the Dalai Lama's secretary/translator! Warm wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 18:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks again, dear Merzul. At first I did not notice your highly important link to the Tibetan Government in Exile website - but now I have looked at that, and it seems certain that the message is totally fraudulent. I always noted how strongly different in style and content it was from the Dalai Lama's usual fare. I think I'll post this vital link on the discussion page of "God in Buddhism" and see what people think. Many thanks again, Merzul, for your great help. Warm best wishes - from Tony. TonyMPNS 19:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• It's me again, dear Merzul! Just to let you know that I have now had word from the Dalai Lama's Secretary - who has confirmed (as we suspected) that the "Message from the Dalai Lama" is indeed a fraud. Again, as I think you and I noticed, the affirmative mention of "God" was very uncharacteristic of the DL.

Thanks for all your help in this matter. Warm wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 13:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Didn't know if you had seen it yet, but I responded to your request on my talk page. Enjoy your wikibreak. Pastordavid 16:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Excellent arguments...

Thank you for your kind comments. I'll also take the time to read more about the proposal, particularly the pages on validation, stable versions, and static versions, as well as possible ways to address my concerns. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC) By the way, since I'm rather erratic as to the topics I edit, I think there's a good chance that we may indeed meet on some article. :)

Dawkins' quote

Hi! Nice job integrating the criticisms. :-) After NBeal removed your addition of Dawkins' probabilistic viewpoint, I salvaged it. Yet I don't have Dawkins' book(I'd ordered it, but I'm broke), thus I am curious what else I should know about Dawkins' position or what was slightly misleading. I am fine with removing the quote. _Modocc 01:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC) I see you already addressed this on the talk page. I'm not paying close enough attention tonight. _Modocc 01:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Err, in my haste, I struck too many bits above(I unstruck them), nor did I note your prompt replies on my talk page until later. Thanks and I agree. _Modocc 21:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins de facto label, initially referenced by NBeal, and the quote of what one was(which I added to clarify his reference) left out the statement that Dawkins is a de facto atheist "leaning toward" a strong atheist in the Spectrum of Theistic Probability article. I should have realized that this would be a problem. The phrase "leaning toward" is not specific, as it could mean leaning somewhat, moderately or even very heavily towards strong atheism. Perhaps the STP article needs to mention that he is uncertain in the same way that he is "uncertain about the Juju on the top of the mountain." _Modocc 21:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That said, its not a good indication that a label that he advocates is not completely indicative of his position. He can neither be said to be a strong or "de facto" atheist, but an unnamed position. The term "pseudostrong" atheist comes to mind as an appropriate label, in the sense that his position is "close to or deceptively similar" to strong atheism. Strong atheists normally assume fallibility and assert the nonexistence of the common conceptions, deferring to the rejection position only when naturalistic conceptions such as pantheism require it. The idea of pseudostrong atheism is similar, since it affirms the nonexistence of gods as probable, and also defers to rejection when necessary. _Modocc 21:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to move what I wrote, or quote whatever is important to the talk page. Not sure what needs to be discussed there though, and I have other things to do this evening. _Modocc 22:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Went ahead and copied my comments to the talkpage, I suppose it will help clarify the debacle, and that we aren't going mad, although I have a couple of times. :-) _Modocc 22:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Sorry about that. It is difficult to tell what topics are still being discussed, and others that aren't anymore. –Sebi ~ 23:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

merzul I have tried unsuccessfully to list Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures as a reference for two quotes under Trinity ,(unorthodox), Christian Science. not sure what I´m doing wrong. I´m in Guatemala and some of the keys are different. how do I create a reference? 66.82.9.88 15:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC) simplywater66.82.9.88 15:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello again ...

... and good to see you in action on the same old warpath! Maybe we were both a little hasty in our reactions to the sudden appearance of the Darwin's Angel article. It seems clear that there won't be a consensus to delete, and in truth there's no real reason why such a book shouldn't have a little article describing it... But we both know what our friend is up to, and what really lies behind the article - the problem is to get others to see it. Snalwibma 12:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Hello. Nontheism and List of nontheists have been nominated for deletion. As an editor of one or both of these articles, I thought you should know. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nontheists. Thanks. Nick Graves 19:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Why weak keep?

Hello Merzul! Why did you voted weak keep for List of nontheists? Was that because of your friendship with the other guys?

Merzul, let me ask you a question: How do you define the term 'atheist'? A person who do not believe in God or Gods is called an atheist. It is simply a straightforward definition. On the other hand, non-theist is not a widely used term and calling someone a non-theist is not correct, simply because they may reject the label themselves. I would like you to reconsider your decision. You can remain neutral, or, you can support. All the best! RS1900 02:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The definition of atheism is not straight-forward... see the atheism article, and the corresponding talk page archives and all disputes about it. I'm not a "friend" with those guys, but I (sometimes) respect their POV. --Merzul 14:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I respect your POV. I am talking about the term 'atheist'. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, atheist is a person who does not believe in God. This definition of atheist is usually accepted. RS1900 03:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins (again!)

Why, thank you kind sir (or madam)! I know I come across as a rabid Dawkins-worshipper. It's not that at all - just that he attracts the most abominable rants from people who see him as a hate figure. My objection to all this stuff is mainly to do with WP:BLP, I think. Ah well. I look forward to playing the guessing game of Spot-the-New-Merzul. Ah go on, give us a clue! Snalwibma 21:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Disappeared.

Sorry to see you evaporate! Your contributions to the Introduction to Evolution Article were most note-worthy. It is possible to respect someones religious values while focusing on the real science. I thought you did an excellent job in the separation of faith and science. In fact, we managed G/A status and are dueling it out for F/A and there has been little criticism from the creationist group; primarily due to your insightful suggestions on how to make a point without stepping on toes. I do think there is merit in operating under your real name. I also wonder if I would write differently if my name was linked to my commentaries. Let me know how it turns out ... Peace --Random Replicator (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

hello...

... again! Snalwibma (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome Back

Good to see that you have returned. Trust me, I understand, and I regularly just disappear for a few months at a time. Glad to see your name pop up on my watchlist, and I'm sure we will cross paths. Pastordavid (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

reply- welcome back!

Oh, thanks for your message. I had given up hope of you coming back under this account, or of my spotting you under any new account you had. Great to see you back- I find I actually do o.k. on wiki. It's a nice change from the short life I usually have on some messageboards etc due to my mocking them, rebelliousness or opinions.:) I suppose because for some reason I enjoy it more if I avoid rows on here, some fanatics about a particular subject, such as religion or fringe views, can get really evil. So I don't tend to stick around on articles like that, the most fanatic-attracting article I keep quite a regular eye on is Tony Robbins. I hope you stick around this time on wiki and that the challenge of it makes you feel better about yourself, rather than worse, this time round.:) Merkin's mum 17:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed or registered that before in the film, but just googled it and it's already in there lol [1] Merkin's mum 17:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

rofl, some things about his relationships already had to be removed in the past, due to contact from his lawyers. Tragic! Merkin's mum 18:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Your coming back is of course an act of kindness to the wiki, and after reading your userpage I'll now be sure to give you more for your many good deeds:) Merkin's mum 23:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

-Now I understand why I don't get many barnstars lol, I felt discouraged by it but maybe you're right and you have to get in a war to gain some. We will have to make sure that changes in this wikiworld lol. Have you heard of Wikipedia:Kindness_Campaign? There's also User:Elipongo/SmileyAward, that is slightly cheesy though I know:) Hey you are a WikiSloth too:)Merkin's mum 23:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol I suppose you're right, all my 'wikifriends' I've met through being on the same side in a dispute. Except User:TharkunColl who I had met in real life before I joined wiki, and we became friends because we had a mutual enemy in real life! lol:) So there's no solution to that particular dilemma, except to seek to remain Wikisloths and WP:DGAF. P.S. I see you are diving back into the religion etc. articles.:) You can't keep away.:) Merkin's mum 00:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't exist in my reality lol:) Goodnight for now- I will mail you in future if I want to whitter on lol, save me clogging up your talk page. Feel free to archive any of this.:) Merkin's mum 01:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)