User talk:Proxima Centauri

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives for this talk page: <2>, <1>, <3>, <4>, (new)

Contents

[edit] Editing articles about yourself

Please read RationalWiki:Guide for individuals or companies we cover. This applies to everyone, regardless of whether they have an account here. You don't get to control what people say about you in a mainspace article. No doubt Kirk Cameron & Ray Comfort wouldn't like some of what we write about them, but if they came here & started rewriting the content about them, we wouldn't just let it happen. Same goes for you. Take it up on the talk page & stop edit warring. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I took it up on the talk page. A kid started Secular Wiki, it's not mine the article was wrong. Gastornisguy. Proxima Centauri (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Et tu?

Really, Prox? Even though I've stood up for you? I listened to you when nobody else would. I did my best to incorporate your edits in such a fashion that they wouldn't be reverted. Is this because I'm an accomodationist? I thought you and I could look past each other's differences. Is this a cynical attempt to curry favor with those that have treated you like shit? I am disappointed. --"Shut up, Brx." 18:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic subjects

I am curious why you have been inserting so much poorly written and even more poorly researched drivel into these articles. It looks like you made some of this stuff up. I take it you had a bad experience with the Church, possibly one that halted your Catholic education very early. What is your answer? Nate Keaton (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I spent a year at a convent school where I had first hand experience of sexually frustrated nuns or sisters) making themselves and others miserable. I don't think my writing is poorly researches, if you think so please check my references, many are good sources like the BBC.

I don't make stuff up but I know Roman Catholics do their best to keep what's bad under cover. Here's Cardinal O'Brien complainant 'warned' of risk of damage to Church and that just happens to be a fresh story out today. You won't admit to yourself or to others how much dirt there is in the Roman Catholic Church. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

"poorly researched" includes citing a Princeton University page that says at the bottom "The article content of this page came from Wikipedia and is governed by CC-BY-SA." Also, not only is there not a concept of "natural justice" in UK law, because there isn't a "UK law", just English law and Scots law; O'Brien is covered by Scots law, why doesn't have "natural justice" in its setup. SophieWilder 12:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
"I know Roman Catholics do their best to keep what's bad under cover" - all of them? i think not. what I do think is that you hate the RC church so much that you will say anyhing and believe anything negative about it. Get over yourself. SophieWilder 12:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I know some criticism of Roman Catholicism are extreme and unreasonable, I've read the Anti-Catholicism article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Consider this

If I were reading an article about Proxima Centauri, I would assume that any time the article mentions "the star" it would be talking about the star Proxima Centauri, since that is the subject of the article. That's where I am going with my reverting of your adding the word "Roman" before Catholic in the article. If you are reading an article about Roman Catholics, it's fairly obvious, unless otherwise noted, which Catholics you are talking about. Why remove the word "Roman" then? Because it makes the article cumbersome to read. Robot Opera Singer Who Fights Crime (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic stuff, snark, inflammatory junk, and sourcing

I've gone back and tuned up some of your recent work. I have to say that I find a some of your edits to Catholic stuff to be frankly horrendous. I really respect you as an extremely devoted and prolific editor, but some of this stuff is poorly written or just beyond the pale. Can you please keep the hyperbolic personal narrative ("It is not surprising ...") stuff to yourself and try finding better cites than blogs - you might also read your sources a little more carefully. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg (formerly Ghostface Editah) 15:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Nutty's Revisions

I'm not really sure where to bring this up, so I'll post it here, and leave a note for nutty and weaseloid on their pages to talk here. Your edits were out of control this week, and no one was watching, apparently - I know I wasn't around and Ty wasn't around. Some of what you edited was probably decent, but it was a melange of stuff that included more crap that decent writing. Following Weasel's approach, i just reverted it all to a point when what had been added had actually been edited by other editors. If you want to add individual pieces back, that's fine. Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 19:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't need a note on my talk page. The point of my point-making exercise was crystal clear. What Proxima's foisting on these articles reflects a deep personal bias that is totally uninteresting to me, and I imagine any of the hundreds of thousands of unique visitors RW gets a month. Given how she seems to be missing the point of what pretty much anyone ever says to her about her contentious editing and nobody else apparently gives a shit until there's the wiki equivalent of busy work to do, finally relinquishing control of these articles to an out-of-control editor seems like a far better solution than picking the turds out of her good edits. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 20:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Strongly anti-religious sites can be popular, the sites of Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers get very many visitors. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
"Restoring to a pre-Proxima state" was a ... complete failure - I give up. Proxima has taken a giant shit on RW's credibility with anyone but ... what? Anti-theists? Anti-Catholics? How much opinion, speculation, shitty sources, and obvious personal bias can a person possibly think is appropriate to shit into these articles. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 20:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I get that. I've been chasing her around for 2 years now. But I don't think you just dump the article(s), cause some of them (the Roman Catholic Church) for example were quite decent (well, by our standards, not say WP standards). I really don't know what you do. Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 21:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Several people were following her around making sure some of these articles were ok but she doesn't listen and apparently either has an axe to grind or bad judgment and it's making these articles shitty. So-so articles that are at most support articles for apologetics articles that are ... n't here ... offer nothing that WP doesn't do better. We're not an encyclopedia, so following this person around to make sure she doesn't take a squat on her religious bete-noir isn't worth it. Do you notice that she's got nothing to contribute to a discussion about her contentious editing? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Proxima, please stop editing Catholic-related articles until this community can figure out what to do about it. You would be blocked on WP for continuing to edit like this. We're not WP and have no strict editorial policy beyond editor fiat, but hearing people complain about you for years and seeing what amounts to vandalism with my own eyes is too much. We've never had anyone as single-mindedly contentious as you touching so many articles. It's too hard even for people who edit a lot to keep up with you. Please just stop. Find something else on another wiki to carry out an embarrassing vendetta on. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
At the moment because of the change in the papacy a great deal is being written about Roman Catholicism, about Ratzinger and Pope Francis, also general background. I suspect information won't be so easy to find later. Also we don't know yet if Francis will be better than Bergoglio was. I'm trying to research that. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
How do you research something that hasn't happened yet? And why do think information will be hard to find later? SophieWilder 09:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
You can research the background of Bergoglio. Information will be harder to find later because fewer people will be interested. Fewer new articles will be published, existing articles will find their way to page 10 of Google or further back where they are harder to find. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The point you seem to be missing is that a lot of the people who are putting out "information" are random yahoos with axes to grind. At least those seem to be the sources you pick. Quite frankly, I think the opposite approach (i.e. wait for some more scholarly inquiry into Francis' background) would be a better approach. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 19:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit] The question at hand is not whether or not RW should expand its articles on Catholicism-related subjects

The question people are asking you is about YOUR work on those articles, and what you can do to make that work better. Responding to suggestions that your work is sub-par with an assertion that we should expect more of it doesn't really address the issue. Inspiration Move me brightly. 13:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit] You've been Cooped

I have nothing to do with it, but someone is supposed to tell you that you've been brought to the Coop. Inspiration Move me brightly. 22:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Cafeteria Christians.

There is no such thing. It is a snarl word. Therefore, you cannot make meaningful statements about them. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 23:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a real phenomenon, people develop their own ideas and are less inclined to accept authority without question. This leads to increased atheism and freethought among some people. Among those with faith there is more tendency to decide for oneself what to believe. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
That's nice.But it's a separate issue from the use of a snarl word, unless a significant cohort of people self-identify with the term. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 15:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
No it's not. It's a contentless partisan term. Jean Calvin, Martin Luther, early Church fathers, Jesus. All cafeteria religionists. Get over your fucking vendetta and use some critical thinking skills. ToP, please force PC to edit religion articles responsibly. She won't talk to anyone else. Thanks. Lol. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
You are falling into the same position you took with "sophisticated Theology", thinking it is (or at least treating as if it were) a real thing. Cafetiera Christian is a term used by OTHER PEOPLE, to whine about what some people do. It is not a real thing; there are no actual descriptions of this "thing" or it's theology or practice or rituals, cause it doesn't exist. So when you try to make a comment about what motivates someone "within the cafeteria christian world", you are missing the point. Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 15:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Should Cafeteria Christian be deleted? Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
No, it should accurately reflect what the term means and how it's used rather than be yet another opportunity for you to stick your irritating bias into yet another RW article. Christianity is obviously 2,000 years of highly divergent opinions. The Calvinists are heretics by Catholic dogma. The Catholics aren't Christian by some protestant assessments. They've all employed their own non-frivolous hermeneutics that don't necessarily result in obvious interpretations of the bible ... and others' faith positions. Your edits consistently convey an alienating bias that I do not believe is consistent with RW's mission. The people who read this website are not the people who edit it. You have absolutely no idea whether they self-select for Aspergers, anti-theism, and leftist politics, do you? No. You don't. Fine, be critical and even harsh on religion. But offer some fucking analysis instead of your bullshit self-serving link dumps, irrelevant and irritating personal opinions, and sometimes unsupported factual claims. You suck at editing christianity articles and it's becoming difficult to believe you're engaging this discussion in good faith. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
EC Of course not. It's a commonly-used term that lets us say something about the people who use it. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 16:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
ECx2 I think we do a pretty good job of saying it's a "snarl word" and not taking it seriously as a "thing" that can be analyzed. If a term is used out there in the real world, we can address it - but just keep in mind that all you are doing is describing how its used. As Sophie and Nutty have both said, assuming it's a real thing, and not just a snarl word, would mean every person who has ever changed his or her religion, much less started a new branch of a religion is a "cafeteria Religionist". Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 16:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
It's impossible not to be a Cafeteria Christian, considering how self-contradictory the Bible is. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but Furs Cafetiera, the allyou can eat chinese-indian place, or the school cafeteria. the distinction matters!
Why not edit the Bible? ;-D --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 18:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Already done. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I actually have a PDF of that on my Smartphone. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 19:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Liberapedia lifting RW content without attribution.

Much of this article is a verbatim reproduction of this article. Is this common across your website, or what? Did he doubt/Or did he try? 21:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Attribution is here. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I see citations, but not attribution. SophieWilder 10:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Go on with you. It says "adapted from RationalWiki". One might hope that the attribution could be a little more prominent than in small writing at the bottom, but there you have it. --DamoHi 10:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Whoops, didn't see that, I blame...er... staying up late to watch Troll Hunter. Small print attribution is fine. SophieWilder 11:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Apologies. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 13:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Forcing things in places they don't fit

Instead of adding an out-of-place paragraph to Extraterrestrial, why don't you start an article about Greer's film itself? It's apparent that you are trying to do some kind of rebuttal, but that "species" probably won't stay relevant enough to be on that list.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't watched the film. Proxima Centauri (talk) 04:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure somebody has blogged about it. that could be a source. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 04:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Why don't you do the research? Proxima Centauri (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
You haven't watched the film, but apparently felt compelled to add new material to an unrelated article based on a post on the Huffington Post? Does this make sense to you?
As the film hasn't been released, a potential article could describe its alleged contents according to the promotional materials. Such as your "tiny alien" story.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

[edit] The concern Pope Francis has for poor people...

Shorter version of your prediction: One man will not be able to undo global capitalism. Very perceptive. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 14:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Francis will even try and move things in that direction. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I also don't think he'll help the Montreal Canadiens win the Stanley Cup this year. Do you know why? Because revolution, like playing hockey, is not one of the main tasks on the Pontiff's to-do list. He may or may not inspire Catholics to think differently about their relationship with wealth, but to give him one year to do even that and then crow in victory when there isn't concrete evidence that a global community of faith has become something different in 365 days is a pretty stupid move. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 14:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
On these kinds of social issues, the main thing you *can* hope for, is that individual leaders influence the population. Be it Obama saying "I've evolved on gay rights" or Paris' mayor saying "fine, so marriage, but what is wrong with us that we can't adopt children", or Japan's president saying "we are a nation that has a history of racism, and I want that to change". --Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 15:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
You're right, Francis may change Roman Catholic attitudes to wealth significantly over 10 years or so. Then we'll have a new pope. Will Francis reduce the suffering of poor people and very poor people? Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Face.gif. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 16:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Will Francis support Liberation theology? If that's too Marxist for him will he find alternative ways of empowering poor people that work? Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Tune in next week: Same Pope-time, same Pope-channel! --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 16:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Will Francis, as the leader of a religion, support a dissident movement that peaked in the mid-1980s? Once he gets the flux capacitor fixed on his Pope Time Machine, maybe? Did he doubt/Or did he try? 16:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps there isn't much that Francis can do for poor people since changing the doctrine on contraception is ruled out. If he can't do much he shouldn't have raised expectations as the pope of poor people. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
You need to be careful about asserting a direct relationship between contraception and poverty. Try running your farm in Kenya without children to work for you. Also, you're assuming that "poor people" are as lacking in critical thinking skills as you are. They probably have a way better idea of what the Pope is capable of doing than you are demonstrating. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 16:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
No one is saying poor people should have no children, only poor people should have fewer children. It's not their faults when Third world people or poor people in the developed world who went to sink schools don't learn critical thinking. Still I'm concerned the Roman Catholic Church can deceive poor people. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
"He shouldn't have rasied the expectations of poor people'. first of all, who the hell are these "poor people" you are talking about, and what do you think they need from him? how do you think he can help them? Secondly, the entire conversation you are making is so flipping general, as it always is. 1) there are no such thing as "THE poor people", 2) you cannot ask "will he help them", cause that means zilch. you need to be specific. "will he spend more money on aid than his predicessors did?" "will he build new hospitals and orphnages" "will he continue to adopt the idea that he seems ready to adopt, that contraception is useable to prevent AIDS". those kinds of questions can be answered. Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 17:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You're right, we shouldn't generalise about poor people, there are very many different poor people worldwide with different problems. Francis generalized when he spoke about "a poor church for the poor" and no one criticised him, that was a good soundbite. Still Francis didn't specify the different problems of different poor people in that soundbite, he raised the expectations of all poor people who hear of read the soundbite. Francis generalised and I reacted to his generalisation. There is a strong meme among religious people and atheist accomodationists to hold opponents of religion to higher moral standards than supporters of religion. When opponents of religion don't meet these high standards we are accused of moral failing. Francis and I both generalised about poor people, I got blamed and Francis didn't. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Francis will probably give higher priority to finding aid for poor people. The people who use RC hospitals and their relatives are more likely to follow RC teaching on contraception, that means using them perhaps to prevent disease but not to prevent pregnancy. The same goes for people who spent their childhood in RC orphanages. What proportion of Third World orphanages are like Irish orphanages? In the Third World it's easier to cover up what's wrong. Francis may be better than his predecessors but the euphoria round him isn't justified and he isn't as marvelous as the RC's try to make out. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

" Still I'm concerned the Roman Catholic Church can deceive poor people" sighs. as much as i dislike the RCC, it actually does lots of good around the world. This idea you have that they are evil incarnate is silly, PC. Your own government decieves people, including poor people. more than the RCC, THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS are doing some of the largest deceptions. Not to mention CORPORATIONS which are all more "evil" than the RCC. You look at the world in such black and white terms. the world is not only scales of grey, but color. until you understand how complex these issues are, you get caught up in silly "is the sun really hot, or is it green - cause those are the only choices." kinds of arguments.Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 17:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know who does worse deception, or who is more evil. If I spouted value judgements and presented them as facts about who is more evil you'd be down on me and rightly. I don't support my government but at least democracy limits the power of bad people in the UK parliament and there is no democracy in the RC church. The fact that other people also deceive doesn't excuse Francis for raising the hopes of poor people. After all it's unlikely more will happen than a relatively small increase in charitable work by the RC church and some charitable work may be as flawed as the Irish orphanages. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The RC's aren't evil incarnate, I know they do quite a bit of good. RC's try to present themselves as good with minor flaws when there are major flaws. I work to counter the way the RC's present themselves. I don't give both sides because the religions tell people effectively how good they think they are and atheist accommodationists help. I try to make sure at least some people find out there's another side to religions. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Since writing the section above I came across the following:

Despite Bergoglio's reputation as an opponent of liberation theology during the 1970s, Bosca insists that wasn't actually the case. He said Bergoglio accepted the premise of liberation theology, especially the option for the poor, but in a "nonideological" fashion. Hard questions about Francis in Argentina and a lesson from Chile

I don't know how reliable Roberto Bosca is but we'll have to check if this nonideological support for liberation theology leads anywhere. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Will Francis merely push for Catholics and other religious individuals to be more charitable and giving at the individual level or will he push for government policies that do the same (or, perhaps, advocate a mixture of the two)? Is Pope Francis a Socialist Who Will Allow Liberation Theology to Infiltrate the Catholic Church?

We don't know yet. The Blaze is by Glenn Beck so it's biased in a different direction from National Catholic Reporter. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Look, we're not here to do primary research (and based upon the work you've displayed thus far, thank God we aren't). Deciding whether or not he is a credible source is not our job. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 05:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

[edit] I am vengeance

I am the NIGHT. I'M THE GODDAMN...well you know Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 15:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

SCARY!!! Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

[edit] "Cafeteria Catholics"

Nuns and priests -- people who formally dedicate their lives to serving God and His Church -- do not fit the definition of the term. They may well be dissidents. That is not at all the same thing. Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 13:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

[edit] I actually need your help.

Please accept this peace offering. What do you know about/what dirt can you dig up on the "Marians of the Immaculate Conception"? Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 01:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't heard or read about them, this dirt is all I can find at short notice. Have you any reason to suspect serious problems connected with the Marians? If you know/suspect anything that will help me make a successful search.

  1. I found Homosexual "Divine Intimacy" linked to “Seeds of Hope” and this webpage is clearly unreliable, the first few paragraphs misrepresent paedophiles and gays.
  2. I also found Lying To Protect False Apparition from the same suspect website above, the author may be traumatised through abuse and may not be responsible for unreasonableness.

I haven't read either through, I'm busy digging up other dirt over the RC's in areas where dirt is easier to find like Hypocritical Keith. If you really need dirt about those Marians I suggest you check out that website but it's not likely to be a reliable source. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The only reason I think there may be something odd about them is that this seems like an odd way to help fund a religious institution. That said, I'm actually off to your side of the pond for a few days starting tomorrow, so I probably won't get a chance to do much with this until next week. Thanks for your help. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 18:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Were you serious about that peace offering? I hope you won't restart warfare the moment it suits you. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
When you come back from Europe perhaps you can do a bit of research. If you find evidence the "Marians of the Immaculate Conception" are doing anything worse than what we know I'll be happy to investigate. Meanwhile promoting physical fitness and making a profit through it isn't heinously wrong. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not, ot course it's not. But a big, international Catholic organization running a one-off gym way out on the outskirts of a totally unremarkable American Midwest town is...unexpected. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 13:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Give me evidence there's anything bad and I'll research it. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It's possible to speculate that a fitness center could be a front for sex, after all saunas and massage parlors are notorious for straight and gay sex. Some RC priests are also notorious for finding ways to break celibacy. Still without evidence we can't do more than write entertaining fiction. Researchers beware! Roman Catholics may be reluctant to use condoms. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

[edit] I think this is important social commentary/All of this is references from the BBC, a reliable source

Yes. I agree on both counts. However, all of this is written very poorly, and people are tired of cleaning up after you. Sorry. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 15:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

[edit] just saying

im not actually going to know if you post something on my LQT archive. and i scroll down, its there, got a bunch of votes already and everything like a week before you posted about it--MikallakiM 07:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

RE: Linking to WP. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 17:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

[edit] "A group acting for abuse victims worldwide may have filed charges at The Hague International Court...."

You're referring to the infamous International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State case? You should probably have read our article on them before trying to refer to that case. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 14:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Since Aliens of the Flaming Red Sun isn't directly related to Speculative Evolution, can I delete the mirror of it over at Speculative Evolution Wikia? -- Citrakayah

It isn't a mirror, if you read what's there you'll see what's in Speculative Evolution Wiki is speculation about how life might evolve in a Red Dwarf star system and that's relevant to speculative evolution. The story is at Novelas. I'd rather you keep it but if you're sure you want it deleted please tell me so I can copy it to Novelas. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It does look decent enough to keep. -- Citrakayah

Thanks! Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

[edit] NOMA

It looks like you have done a lot of research on NOMA, PC. You should add all the stuff you put on Religion's talk page to NOMA. it's not that your criticisms are wrong, they seem very valid and well structured. It's that they don't belong on the religion page. I don't know much about NOMA, but you really seem to have lots to add. Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 18:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

[edit] How many times do you need to be asked?

DON'T USE BLOGS AS NEWS SOURCE WHEN YOU CAN LINK TO AN ACTUAL NEWS SOURCE. LIKE I DID HERE. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 18:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop citing blog posts

This is getting old. I removed your last edit to the Francis article because it was about a blog post. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 17:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

[edit] On Style, content

I think what you added/wanted to add to Randi is important. Something that would have helped you avoid the "you're just using blogs", is to opnely say this is an issue in the blogosphere. When you add things, try to add the time frame "In 2012" or "in august of 2013". Also, when adding a name we don't know - any name - it's worth identifying them. "blogger Pz Myers" (or in that cause, as you note, we have a link), "former Foundation employee, Carrie". This helps give your additiosn substance. Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 15:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Please fix dead links, not delete them

Those apparently made it past the link checking script I wrote for the dead links project a few people are working on. All 2 of our active volunteers are ... finding to where dead resources were moved or alternatives to use in their places. Citations give people this odd irrational sense of confidence that you know what you're talking about. Also keep in mind that David Gerard mentions RW in his blog posts, which is in a completely different market space than RW. Keep up the crusade! Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you want to revert to the previous version? Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

[edit] FGM

What the fuck do you think you are you doing? Do not edit the FGM page again to reinstate disputed material - Read the talk page! Have you lost your mind? I've made it very clear what I intend to do with the material I originally added to the page. And furthermore - why would you insert yourself into a dispute between two editors over the inclusion of material.. have you nothing better to do with your time? Stay out of it. Refugeetalk page 08:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

[edit] "Young Earth Creationism" vs."young Earth creationism"

It's because ideologies/ideas are usually not capitalised. So "communism," "liberalism," "conservative," "radical," "creationism." Note the exceptions like "Marxism" and "Darwinism," because they're named after people. Note also that political party names are capitalised: "The Conservatives are taking an increasingly liberal approach to the question of taxation in this year's budget." TeenageWasteland (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Modern geogentrism

Thank you for your cleaning up what I wrote. I realized that it need a lot of work. TomS TDotO (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] You're getting better recently

Which makes my job a lot easier. I appreciate this may have taken a lot of effort. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Your writing

Judging from your writing, I get the impression that you are perhaps a teenager in the seventh or eighth grade, or, perhaps, an ESL student later in high school or perhaps in your freshman college year. Either way, you are to be commended for deciding to work so hard for a project when writing is obviously a skill that you struggle with. That said, a few things you might want to keep in mind:

  1. . The first sentence of an article needs to tell us what the thing in question is. That's why taking the bit about the Templeton folks being a phlanthropic organization was a problem. You cant just say "The Templeton group sets itself the goal of..." and expect the reader to have any idea what you're talking about.
  2. . You wrote : " Some fits what a boy growing up ..." Some WHAT fits? Better: "Some of the scenes are reminiscent of..." Of course, the next problem is ..
  3. . "what a boy growing up in a patriarchal Christian household might imagine." On what authority do you speak about what a particular boy might imagine? And what leads you to say he grew up in a particularly patriarchal household? That's an assertion that needs support.
  4. . Later in that sentence you mention he describes the Holy Ghost as being blue. What does that have to do with the boy's allegedly patriarchal upbringing?
  5. . You wrote this: "The story has pleasant side about going to Heaven and meeting Jesus but it frightens the irreligious." How on earth does a children's book "frighten"non-religious people? If you want to make an assertion like that, you'll need some evidence that supports the claim.

Thanks for taking the time, let me know if there are any other writing things I can help you with.... TeenageWasteland (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] More about your writing

  • My version: The Templeton Foundation is a fundrasing organisation that secures money to advance "progress in spiritual discoveries.
  • Your version: "...is an organisation, claiming to be philanthropic that sets itself the goal of accelerating "progress in spiritual discoveries."

Please tell me how you think the latter is better-written than the former. TeenageWasteland (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

If they're into Global warming denialism they aren't philanthropic. Proxima Centauri (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
So what? Where do you see the word "philanthropic" in my version? TeenageWasteland (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to have a sentence that gets at their claim to be a philanthropic organization, you don't do that in the very first sentence. You give it its own sentence. And you always make the mistake of using the infinitive: "an organization, claiming to be" is horrible, horrible writing. "While the group claims to be philanthropic, their stance on global warming something something about how that makes that claim a problem..." is how that should get written. TeenageWasteland (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You have helped by offering constructive criticism, I'll think this through and come back later. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Before I started editing it Templeton Foundation stated, "The Templeton Foundation is a philanthropic organisation that sets itself the goal of accelerating "progress in spiritual discoveries.". I didn't like calling it philanthropic so I changed it to, "The Templeton Foundation sets itself the goal of accelerating "progress in spiritual discoveries." You disagreed with that and changed it to, "The Templeton Foundation is a fundrasing organisation that secures money to advance "progress in spiritual discoveries.". That was definitely an improvement on what I wrote but unfortunately you added a comment, "Undo revision 1314250 by Proxima Centauri (talk) The first sentence has to tell us what the group is, Proxima" [1]. That mislead me and made me believe you had restored the suggestion the TF is philanthropic. I tried to compromise and wrote, "The Templeton Foundation is an organisation, claiming to be philanthropic that sets itself the goal of accelerating "progress in spiritual discoveries." You hadn't undone my edit, you replaced "philanthropic" with "fundraising". if I'd seen that I wouldn't have changed what you wrote. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] I'm going to teach you how to read a newspaper

You can only say "The Washington Post" holds a position if that position is expressed in an editorial appearing on the editorial page. Such editorials are typically unsigned, though not always. What you were doing was quoting a blogger named Ishaan Tharnoor, who writes a blog for WaPo's website -- that piece didn't actually even appear in the newspaper. Now tell me why we should care what Ishaan Tharnoor thinks. Is it just that he said something that supports your argument and that he's loosely attached with what you perceive to be an authoritative source? What are his professional/academic qualifications to write on ethical matters? (In a similar vein, PZ Meyers is not a great source for an ethical debate about capital punishment. He is a cellular biologist. His opinion on the question of human suffering is no more relevant than anyone else's.) TeenageWasteland (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Your edit about Ishaan Tharnoor was better than what I wrote, he's a blogger but the Washington Post respects him sufficiently to let him blog there. You explained all that neatly and I've taken note.

I disagree with you over Myers, he's a cellular biologist but he knows more than a typical person about how humans and animals can be killed gently.

Also, another thing that strikes me about these many stories of botched executions, is why is this so difficult? We have countries and a few states with legal euthanasia, practically every veterinarian has put pets to sleep without this ghastly botch, and I’ve personally euthanized many large lab animals — killing gently is easy. There are many drugs that are dangerous because they can kill you quietly, painlessly, almost without you noticing; people buy them, often illegally, for the pleasant effects at low doses. (PZ Myers Charles Pierce is a bit angry)

Is there any way to work what Myers wrote into the article? Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there any reason to when there are may people who actually do ethics for a living writing about the topic in actual peer-reviewed philosophical journals? Why use the blog of a guy with a fairly average academic career in a largely unrelated field? TeenageWasteland (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Writing.

"The people who wrote the Old Testament believed the earth is generally flat and fixed while the sun moves, they wrote what they (and their audience) believed."

Would you actually say that out loud, with two distinct ideas separated by a comma? Why not: "Reflecting the predominant of their time, the authors of the Old Testament believed that...."

And why do you argue that "complex figurative interpretations of the Bible" are less likely to be correct? If it's a figurative interpretation -- ie one based on acknowledging that much of the text is metaphoric and symbolic, and not to be taken literally -- the idea of "correctness" goes out the window and is replaced by "interpretation." Or do I have something wrong there?

Also, I'm not sure about the relevance of the Ray Comfort bit.

I'm removing that whole section because I cannot figure out how to make it make sense. You have to write for your audience, which is people like me, who are obviously not as smart and/or educated as you. You're going over my head here. TeenageWasteland (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I explained in User:Proxima Centauri/The Bible says the earth is fixed why I feel Occam's razor favours literal interpretation of geocentric Bible passages. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but you're wrong No, it's not that you're wrong, it's that it is completely unclear what you are writing. Can you maybe please write it in your first language, and, if it's one I can read, maybe I'll have a clearer idea of what it is you're trying to say? Your prose is pretty incomprehensible there, and I can't discern an argument. TeenageWasteland (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll deal with the Ray Comfort stuff and the geocentric stuff tomorrow, I haven't got time now. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
TW, there are several threads in PC's talk archives that all go "please improve your writing style" "I can't, I'm too busy writing." SophieWilderModerator 20:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

[edit] A mistake you constantly make.

You wrote: "Arkansas is one of the poorest states, one quarter of Children in Arkansas live in poverty." That is not proper use of a comma. That either has to be two distinct sentences, or one sentence with a semicolon separaqting the two clauses. Please stop doing that; now that it's been pointed out to you, I will be less inclined to fix it for you and more inclined to revert any and all edits that contain similar mistakes until you get it right. (...never mind the fact that "children" is not a proper noun). TeenageWasteland (talk) 14:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Can you do one simple thing?

Learn to use the "cquote" trmplate when you drop in a big block quotation, and stop putting inverted commas AND italic markings around quotes? Okay, tat's technically two things. But still. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Julian Assange

I would love to know what your logic was there. Father Vivian O'Blivion talkModerator 16:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean this? If so, I'd like to know that too.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
My bet: "Assange lives at an embassy, and Ishag sought refuge at an embassy." Father Vivian O'Blivion talkModerator 17:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
ZooGuard is right. This isn't worth another edit war, if Mariam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag and her family end up at the embassy for months or longer I'll put the link back. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
That's stupid. ωεαşεζόίďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support