User talk:Mred64/Archive 1
Messages posted on my user talk page during 2005.
I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:
For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.
Sam Spade 11:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Watchlist edit
I have searched so many subjects my search history is a mess. Is it possible to clear my search history, so I can start fresh? Please post a reply on this page.
- Look at the top of your watchlist. You'll see a long link that says display and edit the complete list. Click that, and check off the pages you don't want to watch anymore.
- Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which makes it clear who said what, and when. Thank you.
Harmonious Editing Club edit
I just joined that today, but most of the messages give me the feeling that it no longer does anything. I have no legal background. However, I try to remain neutral and like to mediate. Should I join the AMA or your detective agency? Please respond on my user or user talk page.Mred64 02:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The harmonious club is just a pledge that you won't revert a given article more than once a day. I expected more when I joined, and when I saw they wern't interested in doing anything, I quit. The AMA involves advocating for a particular user, often representing them or speaking for them in hotly contested circumstances. I'm not sure how neutral that is ;) My detective agency is neutral in my eyes, but certainly not in the eyes of my critics. It is also primarilly geared towards information gathering, networking, and upholding wiki-policy. That doesn't mean we don't do a decent amount of mediation, but i admit its not our emphasis. Finially, there is the Wikipedia:Mediation commitee. They are a bit difficult to join, and in the opinions of many get precious little done, but their emphasis is on neutral mediation. So... give it a bit of thought and research, and I'm sure you'll find a wiki-organisation for you. I'll be glad to help w any questions you have, and would love to have you if my organisation is right for you. Cheers,
- Sam Spade 11:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion. Do you know of any other clubs and voluntary associations on wikipedia? I would like to help contribute in any way. However, I'm basically a newbie, having only registered for a few months, if even that long. I think I'm going to drop out of the Harmonious Editing Club, though. It seems like a wonderful idea, but I have not heard of any impact it has made. Not to mention I haven't seen any messages from this year, so I fear it it may not be active. I have seen potential disputes brewing on the Creation-evolution controversy article and its talk page (it has been archived or deleted at least three times since I checked it in the last two or so weeks). Mred64 22:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- There are a number, but most see little use. Some are based on ideology, like M:inclusionism and M:deletionism, and there are service organisations such as Wikipedia:RC patrol and Welcoming Commitee. I'll list more as I think of them. Cheers,
- Sam Spade 22:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Aha, see:
- Sam Spade 23:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ungtss edit
I'm involved with an ongoing discussion with Ungtss, so I noticed your posts on his talk page. Thought I'd weigh in on some points you brought up:
<<There is a great section dealing with probability in a book I am reading showing how hard it would be for many animals to evolve in the time seen in the fossil record by pure chance (as mainstream science says).>>
This is the general form of a lot of Creationist agruments. Essentially, they say that a particular transition is too unlikely to have been found in x number of years.
What mainstream science says is that the transition was done in stages, with each stage giving survival benefits over the previous one. So the transition looks like this:
(Number of years needed to develop Trait 1) + (Number of years needed to develop Trait 2) = a large but managable number.
Creationists, on the other hand, are usually saying that the transition was done in one stage:
(Number of years needed to develop Trait 1) x (Number of years needed to develop Trait 2) = a really freaking huge number.
I'm not a scientist of any sort, but if you give me an example of this argument, I'll try to give you the way mainstream science breaks down the transition into smaller stages.
<<If uranium-236 (or some other uranium isotope) has a half life of 4.6 billion years, how can we verify that?>>
We can hold onto a hunk for a year, and then see how much is left. Since radioactive decay is a constant, if we know that if there is 99.999% (or whatever) left, we can work out the half-life, or the time it takes for there to be only 50% left. How accurate and precise we are depends on how accurately and precisely we can measure how much is left.
<<Some models of the Big Bang based on quantum mechanics require energy to be around before the big bang, which supposedly made all matter and energy in the universe.>>
The Big Bang didn't make all the matter and energy in the universe. At the time of the Big Bang, all matter/energy was crammed into a single point of infinite temperture and density. The Big Bang isn't so much the beginning of the universe as it is the point where our current physical theories hit a brick wall. Our current theories aren't equipped to deal with infinite tempertures and densities. The Monoblock (as this point is called) is a singularity, a divide-by-zero error in our theories. Despite what the popular-science magazines and high school textbooks might have said, the only thing scientists can honestly say about what came before the Big Bang at this point is ?. We have no freakin' clue where the universe or all the stuff in it came from, not by current theories at least.
'Brane theory does resolve some difficulties, such as removing the need for infinite tempertures and densities. If 'brane theory is right, there was no Monoblock, no singularity. The universe at the time of the Big Bang (which was caused by a collision with another universe), was very hot and very dense, but not infinitely so. Matter/energy was created by the interaction of the two universe's vacuum energies. But 'brane theory is still in very early stages of development - it is very elegent, very sastisfying, but only time will tell if it is true or not. I certainly hope it is, because it and superstring theory (which 'brane theory is a subset of) will solve a heck of a lot of problems that have been bugging physicists since at least WWII. crazyeddie 18:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
<<What link led you to Ungtss talk page?>>
Ungtss helped out on an article I created: Fourth Great Awakening. After I found out that he had a reputation as a Creationist POV warrior, I engaged him in an ongoing discussion. (Note that I don't believe that a POV warrior is the same as a troll. A POV warrior is trying to make sure that their POV has accurate and fair representation, and is generally willing to compromise to some extent. A troll isn't willing to compromise.)
<<By the way, since you saw most of the chat, care to help Ungtss and I?>>
First off, I'm an atheist/naturalistic pantheist, and a staunch supporter of evolution. I'm confidant that my particular POV is rather well represented among Wikipedians. What's needed is more moderates in the discussion.
Secondly, I'd rather not get involved in the POV wars that surround Creationism related articles. Hmm. How to put this diplomatically? I'm perfectly willing to explain evolution and other scientific theories to the best of my ability and knowledge. Both of my parents are teachers, and I'm a pretty good tutor myself. But...
There's a saying that's popular in science fiction magazines and such: "A person who is ignorant hasn't had the opportunity to learn. A moron isn't able to learn. A fool is a person who had the opportunity and ability to learn, but didn't."
I don't mind educating the ignorant. There aren't many morons around here. But fools... It is most annoying arguing with the willingly ignorant - it is a lot easier to come up with illogical arguments than it is to use logic to refute them. And, quite frankly, most creationist arguments are illogical. Which means that arguing with creationists is about like banging your head against the wall - it feels so good when you stop.
Fortunately, we Wikipedians don't have to convince people about the truth of one side's argument, but only lay out the facts and what each side believes. But achieving NPOV requires a lot of arguing and negotiation. And considering that many Creationists, especially those who are so die-hard as to become POV warriors or outright trolls, are used to using illogic as an effective debating tool...
Also, a lot of pro-evolutionists have came to the same conclusion as I have. Which means that the pro-evolution POV warriors are probably pro-evolutionists with some sort of chip on their shoulder. They're just as bad, some of them.
If you're willing to step into that maelstrom, all I can say is good luck. You are exactly what the discussion needs, though. You aren't beholden to either side. You aren't a moron or a fool. You might be ignorant, but that's easily remedied. I'd recommend checking out http://www.talkorigins.org/ They have an index of the most commonly used Creationist arguments, along with Evolutionist rebuttals against them. If want, I can help explain the concepts to you, but the pro-Evolution POV warriors will probably do a pretty good job at that. I'm sure they'll be glad to explain their views to the merely ignorant, it's just that they are sick and tired of going up against fools. crazyeddie 03:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hello Mred64, I am pleased that you think that I am fairly neutral with regard to my editing. I do think that a society could help with writing articles on this topic. However, I think we should be careful in how we do things here. I think the main aim should be to reduce the amount of totally irrelevent discussion which occurs on the talk pages. We must remember that although many people find the discussions on these pages intensly annoying it is the wikipedia pages themselves that we should be concentrating on improving. I will not be able to do much in the way of work here until June 14th when my finals are over.
Also I'm afriad you may find that it is mainly the least neutral participants on this topic who are likely to join up. I can't think of any sensible way to stop this. Barnaby dawson 08:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Code Red edit
I redirected the Code Red article because there really wasn't any information there that wasn't covered in Mountain Dew, after I added in the (somewhat obvious) statement that it was red in color. It's not in wikipedia's best interests to have articles on every consumer product in the world, especially if they are mere variations on a more notable product. A separate article on Diet Mountain Dew, for instance, would probably say little except that it has fewer calories than the original. Feel free to add the the Code Red entry in the Mt. Dew article. If there's enough added that it seems it can no longer be contained within the larger article then we can start to work on a breakout. There's been discussion about the best policy for brand name products, and the general feeling was that covering such articles within the larger product was usually best. I haven't checked the other articles you mentioned, but I imagine those Pepsi articles might be well served by a merge/redirect as well. Tab, being it's own product, should probably have it's own article (though Cherry Tab, if such a thing exists, should redirect to the Tab article). If you can find an image of Code Red feel free to add it to the Varities section of the Dew article. Though I would suggest that a dozen pictures of slightly different cans for all the varities would be pushing it. -R. fiend 15:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Looking at the Pepsi articles they have more information, and their entries in the Pepsi article are just links; they don't provide the explanations like Mt. Dew did that made the Code Red article redundant. That being said some merging probably could be done. I've already merged Diet Pepsi Vanilla in Pepsi Vanilla as having two separate artciles was ridiculous (Diet Pepsi Free, however, was already a redirect to Pepsi Free). I might try as merge as many as possible into Pepsi, but it would take some work and might prove controversial, so I'll probably make inquiries on the talk page first. -R. fiend 17:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin, but I've been here more than a year and know how things work in general. The act of making a redirect is simple, just type: #redirect[[article to be redirected to]]. You can cut and paste content from one article to another, but it's always best to do some sort of rewriting to merge the content elegantly, rather than just dumping it. I wouldn't worry too much about people's feelings when doing merge/redirects, if no information is lost (or only the most trivial stuff is) they have no real cause to complain. Information is best when not spread out too much, at least in my opinion. I haven't examined the Coke articles yet, but merging is more problematic when the parent article and/or the offshoots are rather long. Certainly there is no need for a Diet Vanilla Coke article, it can certainly be merged into Vanilla Coke, if not Coca-Cola. I'll look into those at some point. They can be daunting though. -R. fiend 20:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Generation Y edit
The Generation Y article and title are offensive. As a millenial you should do something about it. -The Masked Millenial
Thank you!!! edit
The religion of Darwin really has a crusade to deal with now. Salva 01:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Wikipediholic Template edit
Actually there is a template already to mark your score as a Wikipediholic (courtesy of a User:Addaone). Find it at Template:Wikipediholic Avalon Bound 00:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Category:Millennial Wikipedians edit
Category:Millennial Wikipedians has been listed on categories for deletion. Since you are using it on your user page please weigh in on the vote and that of the other generational categories here. Thanks. -JCarriker 20:36, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
On the Catholic Church of Wikipedia edit
As you have described yourself as a Catholic, I thought I would alert you as a co-religionist to your opportunity to delete the particularly offensive article, Wikipedia:Catholic Church of Wikipedia.--Thomas Aquinas 21:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Offensive to some, parody to others. I have no idea how you delete something in the userspace. Also, I find the whole site some hyper-extension of the Wiki Prayer, and it was made to mock another parody site. Too much to keep track of for me. If someone pushes for a VfD, I may consider it, but only after I look at it more. Mred64 03:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
A Message to Pro-Life Wikipedians edit
The section "Foetal Pain" (Fetal Pain) has been deleted from the Abortion article. Could you help restore it? If you would like to see what was deleted, go to my talk page, scroll to "Fetal Pain," and click the provided link.--Thomas Aquinas 22:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- As much as I love current events and all, I cannot claim to know anything about fetal development and therefore cannot vouch for the accuracy of the section in question. Also, I am quite busy right now outside of Wikipedia, and therefore unable to do much. However, looking at the talk page, I agree with what seems to be group consensus. If this section is put in, get an accurate, unibiased source, and perhaps if you want to make it seem more worthwhile, put in more information. Mred64 03:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Your personal sandbox edit
Hi. Please note that it would be much better to have your sandbox at User:Mred64/sandbox rather than at User:Mred64's sandbox because the former is actually within your userspace while the latter is in a completely different userspace. Having it at the User:Mred64/sandbox helps with clarity and also gives you clear "ownership" of the page should it be sucked into some kind of dispute. Thanks, Yelyos 02:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oh. Thanks. Hey, do you know a way I can quickly delete my old sandbox then? Mred64 02:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- You can use the move tool (at the top of the screen if you're using monobook) to move it, and I'll delete the redirect after that. Yelyos 02:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you. I moved it, so you can delete the redirect now. Mred64 02:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
CAoW edit
Since you are listed as a Roman Catholic, I figured I'd send you this. Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia has been nominated for Deletion. Please vote and/or tell other people to vote to keep this organization on wikipedia. The link to the voting page is here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia --Shanedidona 03:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)