User talk:Merzul

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

I note that you removed {{tooshort}} from talk:problem of evil, saying 'not a talk page template]]. The template can be used wherever you like, and I almost always place it on the talk page to avoid making the article look ugly. Don't remove it again (and in the first place you should have moved it to the article, not deleted it). Richard001 (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Sorry about that, Richard. Merzul (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merzul,

I toned down my language. Thanks for the note. I did not mean to come across so aggressively. It is just particularly disturbing to see someone actively promoting the maintenance of a Wiki entry in order to further their own lobbying agendas. But you're right about the tone. Gracias.PelleSmith (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I misread you initially, now having seen the accusatory insinuation you responded to in my defense on the entry page :). Anyway I toned down my own responses, and I think that's good measure anyway, so thanks for writing something that in misreading it I took a more tactful response :).PelleSmith (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also explained in more detail what my objections are, and what my recommendations are for a list that would be informative. The problems with the present list can be overcome by applying precision, specificity and nuance to the list title and the explanatory text required with it. I fear however, to do so will require very strict guidelines and a thorough re-write.PelleSmith (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(From my talk page) What "talk page" do you mean? I just want to be clear before I respond to your last comment on the AfD. Thanks!PelleSmith (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link and the commentary as you're right its a distraction. Perhaps you understand my frustration in finding such things, however. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a thread where someone mentions you in connection with the Baggini saga etc. Wikipedia:ANI#Baggini_and_Stangroom:_The_problem_of_.27living_persons.27 I don't know if you want to get involved with it, but thought I'd make sure you knew. :) Sticky Parkin 01:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't, and WP:TL;DR should be promoted to official policy. Merzul (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol too true. It hardly impresses people. Anyway, hope all's well with you.:) Sticky Parkin 23:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it's good to know there are editors trying to improve the article as opposed to defending a POV. The whole business, alongside engagements on other articles, has me thinking about the distinction between upholding science and upholding scholarship. Since I am from a social science background I gravitate to the latter and sometimes find it hard to empathise with those who gravitate to the former. I also have a rather simplistic approach to article quality: identify the most appropriate and reliable sources (again, simplistic, check out the credentials of author and publisher), find out what they say, put together summaries of them and, hey presto!, a good article. Cheers. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting distinction. I think scientifically minded editors have a different perspective on good scholarship and article quality. In the natural sciences, very rarely does a bad theory survive for very long, hence there is more emphasis of stating the blatant truth than in softer sciences, where sound argumentation has a more central role, perhaps... Merzul (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate you both for your balance and civility. If I may, I don't really think the edit war issue has to do with Science vs. Scholarship, or Science vs. Religion. The editors that are so difficult to deal with seem to only have issue with articles that question Darwinism/evolution/ID and related subjects. It makes you wonder why they are so quick to be defensive and so slow to reason!!! What is their emotional stake? --DannyMuse (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danny, we should also ask ourselves whether our actions contribute to a more collaborative editing environment. I think there are complicated (and sadly highly addictive) dynamics on the wiki that result in some of the things you might have experienced. The editors you have issues with probably think of you as a POV-pusher and see resisting you as a noble cause. I recall fighting a POV-pusher. I somehow fooled myself to believe that saying anything to him was okay, because he was a POV-pusher (as opposed to human being?). However, you only perpetuate the us-vs-them mentality by comments like the above. I suggest you strike out the last two sentences. Be good! Merzul (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks for your recent edits to the Problem of evil page. Well done!!! -- DannyMuse (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... that article has a long way to go, and then Theodicy partially overlaps with it; I'm not sure if one is a sub-article of the other. I really should ignore all else, and focus on these two articles. I'm far more interested in this stuff than in intelligent design... Merzul (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Bagginni - who I count as a colelague if not a friend of mine... certainly I've nothing against him as has been alleged repeatedly.... far from it!

You have just deleted a quote that was complimentary to Baggini on the sole grounds that it had already been deleted by another editor. What does that make you?

To make your position worse, you falsely stated that no other edtors supported the quote!

Merzul, as far as I can see, your contributions are all self-serving and content-free. You seem to spend you time acting as a surrogate for other editors. Your last nonsense was to say that there was special style for pages about 'living people' which would nto include quotation. Your views were completely completely contrary to established policy, which talks of balancing both positive and 'legitimate' criticism.

If you are operating two or more accounts, (as implied earlier on this page), please indicate them to me. Otherwise, I shall request a checkuser.

Docmartincohen (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have another account on Wikipedia, which carries my real name. I prefer you did not try to go fishing for it, unless you really suspect I am a sock of a specific user. I have never used the accounts simultaneously and neither account have anything to hide. In particular, the other account has never crossed paths with you. As far as I recall, my other account hasn't even been in a content dispute.

And please install a browser with a spell-checker, such as Firefox; you're supposed to be a professional philosopher, after all. Merzul (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to do that, but my computer is too old... I'm a professional writer, I don't have a salary these days...

Thanks for your magnaminous gesture! I may yet reform...

Docmartincohen (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: "Dawkins on Darwin" to air August 4, 2008

I thought you might be interested in the following:

A July 18, 2008 Times-Online interview with Richard Dawkins discussed an upcoming television film entitled, "Dawkins on Darwin", which will air in the UK on Channel 4 from August 4. In the interview, Dawkins specifically states that his film is about Darwinism.

Given Dawkins' high profile in this controversy, it should be informative to watch and see how he currently uses the terms: Darwinism, evolution and natural-selection. Enjoy! - DannyMuse (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't get channel 4, it might well be viewable online here the day after or something [1] I hope. Sticky Parkin 02:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008 If getting beat up on Wikipedia Introduction to Evolution wasn't enough; I've come back and drag my darling little ones into the fray. I'm hoping it will be positive, especially if they follow my advice and stay off the controversial topics. Feel free to give them a hug if you see any drowning in despair! --JimmyButler (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merzul, we're having a bit of a dispute about the appropriateness of blogs as a Reliable Source in a BLP article. Since you contributed to this discussion previously and are well versed in the WP-policies related to this issue I was wondering if you'd take a look and perhaps make a comment. Thanks. - DannyMuse (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you pass this way... We still miss you. My own self-imposed Wiki-ban expired on the RR account. I'm currently struggling with the pro's and con's of the AP Biology project. The students may not be mature enough for the buzz saw of FA. This will cause mommy and daddy's wraith to be turned my way. I sense Dark times on the horizon and perhaps another retired account. --JimmyButler (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm missing you too Merze! If you have a new account, hope I run into you. Maybe on Gillian McKeith. :) Sticky Parkin 23:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Whom. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Whom redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. � (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive list long has been nominated for merging with Template:Archive list. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Resolved issues has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Talk archive navigation has been nominated for merging with Template:Automatic archive navigator. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. NYKevin 19:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Radical atheism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 16 § Radical atheism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]