User talk:Miketwo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Messages

[edit] Quintessence Skate?

Hi, I noticed you briefly mention the quintessence skate on the roller skating page, and I was hoping you could expand on its significance. To be honest, I first thought it may have been spam, but once I found out it was you who put the initial info in there (don't know about the link to the person's site though) I figured that wasn't the case, especially considering that I know little about skating besides how to use them (and not very well at that). Anyway, it could be interesting information to include so I thought I'd bring it up -- cheers. :) Justsomechick 20:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dotsix/Donald/Adrigo/anons

Thanks for the material :)

On the other hand, please do not engage in talk with him... he may be hopelessly biased and a troll, but he still knows some things. If you make mistakes in front of him you're not going to get out of it anytime soon. For example, please refer to article atheism for why might be is also an atheist position. It isn't my position to do it but I'd advise you to remove your comment on Talk:Theism together with his answer with diff comment "rv troll feeding"... No offense meant, but I think it would be more efficient here. See ya and thanks for the help in that battle against unilateralism. Jules LT 22:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Woops, sorry... I stopped at "To the atheist, deities are not (not "might be")", I hadn't seen that you later make the distinction... I'd still advise anything that can feed the troll. See ya Jules LT 22:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Richardson

Michael, Mark Richardson is not Donald Alford, he is a long-time opponent of Donald Alford. When he learned to stop debating the troll and just ignore him, he added to his posts a signature line saying that he is a reformed debater of Donald Alford meaning he no longer debates him, on analogy with a reformed alcoholic. --Nate Ladd 18:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyo AfD

Dear Sir, I do appreciate some of your comments regarding my case. It must be noted that Hungary was not and still isn't signficantly part of popular world intellectual culture awareness in Western Europe, The United States of America, The U.K. and Commonwealth countries (no thanks to Stalin and the Iron Curtain), and so it comes as no surprise that a name such as mine would have little or no relevance for much of the English-speaking world. Nevertheless, I would like to make the following perfectly clear: a) I am a philosopher is as much as I am a lover of knowledge and understanding, I have a number of things to say about the nature of life, existence, the universe (cosmological questions in particular) and in Hungary (primarily in the Hungarian language) more than a couple dozen write-ups, interviews and articles, not to mention several TV human interest stories and news reports, have been published about me and my ideas. That Hungary is a country of roughly 10 or 11 million is to be considered. b) I would very much appreciate it if you or one of your colleagues at Wikipedia would take the trouble of contacting Prof. Hernadi (Miklos) at priroda@office.mta.hu or by phone at (011-36-1) 302-5638 (if dialing from the Wash., D.C. area) OR if need be Prof. Howard M. Robinson at (011-36-1) 342-2307 (both people are phonable between 0900 and 1500 GMT...to be safe...and not on major holidays). Prof. Howard Robinson's info. can be found at www.ceu.hu/phil/robinson/index, he is the Head of the Dept. of Philosophy. c) Is there anybody else on the Internet or anywhere in English language world who has stated that the masses need to be made aware of the concept of infinity and its possible implications if we are to arrive at a state of true homosapiens and have sufficient wisdom to be able to make the world a better place through the tools of demcracy and freedom of expression??? Is anyone else claiming that no other concept than infinity has the ability to diminish ignorance (narrow-minded, short-term-oriented thinking)??? d) Finally, why don't you write me and ask my opinion on major philosophical issues concerning the nature of mind, thought, existence, metaphysics, epistemology, dualism, pantheism, atheism, theism, social-psychology, love, death, infinity??? See for yourself that just because many of my ideas are not yet avialable for publication in English that I have very serious and sometimes rather unique, original thoughts on these and other matters of consequence! I do admit that I resent the reference made by "Trovatore" using the term "homeless guy"... Such talk is not worthy of someone who thinks that they are sufficiently intellectual for the purposes of making decisions about who does and does not deserve a listing! Since I suppose you might be nearby you may want to visit my organization's web-site at www.infinitysociety.org and get my phone number... So many great thinkers were ignored, mocked or murdered in the course of human history, only for them to be praised later on... I am not a Professor at an institution, albeit I have an honorary degree, thus forgive me if I do not fit one's idea of an original intellectual thinker. With utmost confidence, Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyo, Philosopher 68.48.73.93 21:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Jean-Pierre, while I appreciate the thorough message, let me be clear -- your legitimacy as a philosopher is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not you are listed. Wikipedia has a policy that prohibits original research, the details of which can be found here. You wrote that "c) Is there anybody else on the Internet or anywhere in English language world who has stated that the masses need to be made aware of the concept of infinity and its possible implications..." and that "... I have very serious and sometimes rather unique, original thoughts [emphasis mine] on these and other matters of consequence!"

  It is specifically these unique, original thoughts that are not permitted on Wikipedia until they are cited by several reputable sources. I have voted to keep the article, but solely on the condition that these sources (such as news articles, peer-reviewed journals, and other similar things) can be identified and cited. Wikipedia is a place for researchers to find sources, not to explore new ideas. While I'm sure you are a very learned philosopher and have many interesting ideas, the venue for introducing those ideas to the world can not be Wikipedia. I would suggest that you provide in the article or in the AfD discussion as much information as possible about the "couple dozen write-ups, interviews and articles, not to mention several TV human interest stories and news reports" Even if they are in Hungarian, we have many Wikipedians who are multilingual and will be able to judge their authenticity.

  As an amateur philosopher, I look forward to reading about your ideas, but as a Wikipedian, I must insist that policy be followed. --Michael ^(talk)

• REPUTABLE SOURCES! WHO DETERMINES THAT?? AND WHAT IF ALL THE SO-CALLED REPUTABLE SOURCES ARE OUT TO CONTROL AND LIMIT THE DIRECTION OF THE EVOLUTION OF COMMON HUMAN KNOWLEDGE??? NO...THAT IS NOT WHAT I THINK "JIMBO" WOULD AGREE WITH. AND AS FOR THE SEPARATION OF "FINDING SOURCES" AND "EXPLORING NEW IDEAS"...THAT JUST IMPOSSIBLE...THERE IS NO LOGICAL WAY YOU CAN REALLY SEPARATE THOSE TWO (!). HOW ARE YOU TO CONTROL WHAT NEW IDEAS ONE FINDS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF SEEKING "SOURCES"??? SURE, I'M NOT DENYING THAT THE ABILITY TO PUT THINGS INTO AN ABSTRACT DISCIPLINE ON WIKIPEDIA IS VERY CHALLENGING AND RATHER NECESSARY, BUT REST ASSURED THAT NOT ONLY WILL YOU FIND VERIFIABLE SOURCES FOR ME (WORTHY OF MENTION ON WIKIPEDIA), BUT YOU WILL SOON REALIZE, AT LEAST I HAVE SOME HOPE, THAT EDITING AN ENCYCLOPEDIA SO AS TO KEEP WITH THE STANDARDS IS BECOMING MORE AND MORE DIFFICULT AND EASILY RISKS DISENFRANCHISING NOTABLES WHOSE ONLY SIN IS THAT THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO GET ATTENTION TO THEIR IDEAS IN THE MAINSTREAM...THEN WE MIGHT AS WELL CALL IT POPOPEDIA THE FREE SELF-LIMITING ENCYCLOPEDIA OF VETTED SOURCES!!!68.48.73.93 04:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Well, the community determines that, for the most part, following the guidelines located here. If eventually it is decided that the article does not deserve a listing, there are many avenues to follow for dispute resolution. The official policy on resolving disputes can be found here. As for all the reputable sources being "out to control and limit the direction ... of human knowledge" -- well, that would be regrettable, but again irrelevant. I don't make policy, I just follow it. If you have a problem with the policies of No Original Research or Verifiability, I would suggest you take it up with the admins and Jim himself. I agree with you that here on WIkipedia we run the risk of disenfranchising notables who can't afford other means of publication, but the policy is not about truth, it's about verifiability. Take a look at this quote from the policy page: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."

    --Michael ^(talk) 11:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Apology in order. We are probably within miles of one another, at least when you are at work in D.C., and so there is always the odd chance we might meet some day in person...my wife wonders about the eyes behind the sun-glasses...and it pains me that you have felt a personal attack on my part (an e-mail I sent earlier should have clarified that). Even "USER: Trovatore" has shown some sympathy. All I can say is that those of us who are dedicated to certain propositions concerning the rights of all humankind have a tendency to be over-sensitive and thus overreact to perceived attacks on our reputations. It reminds one of the bright young female university grad student who complains to her friend the following; "Life's not fair...the guys who are nice and considerate are way too sensitive and the guys who are brutish are the very opposite...why can't there be guys who are intelligent, understanding and affectionate with nerves of steel???" One who really thinks deeply is very likely to develop a significant level of neurosis (as is my case). Wise, humble and calm are what seem to be the characteristics of people like the Dalai Lama, but perhaps that is an illusion supported by a large entourage and plenty of funds to dip into to. So, please let me know that we might yet be friendly acquaintances over cyber-time-space.

  JP 68.48.73.93 01:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. It is to my inestimable fortune that I have contacted a number of "outside" parties and sources of information during the past day or so, many of whom are of the opinion that Wikipedia, based on more recent revelations, is no longer considered the benchmark of Internet encyclopedic reference sources (as it still should be...but, well, it is almost to be excpected that when a good idea gets to big really big the quality is evermoreso at risk). As I stated before (in different words), it will only be a loss to Wikipedia and its many fine USERs and visitors if my mention is deleted. For what it was all worth; at least I have found another threat to intellectual freedom and thus to the rights of all persons. Some of you seem to be fairly constructive sorts, but there are those of you who know next to nothing about real philosophers and what philosophy has always been about (at least this would seem to be the case; given that those in question seem to imply that a philosopher today has to be extensively published in academic journals and would therefor have to hold a PhD.). Last but not least, this obviously highly elitist prejudice against persons who sit out in public and engage people in philosophical discourse can only be the mark of someone who has yet to experience the real suffering of humanity (as I have). Again, some of you seem to be very well intended and to those persons I felt obliged to defend myself, my ideas and my noteworthyness. To those in the contrary probably anything I would try to communicate would be pointless (as it is the conclusion of several colleagues gathered around me at this table that such persons are by no means qualified to have been working on Wikipedia, in as much as Wikipedia is what it purports itself to be.) To Jimmy Wales, who may have a fair set of reasons for allegedly accepting resources from Bomis.com(which might be entirely legitimate and mind you I do not know to this be a fact conclusively nor would I necessarily consider this totally unnaceptable given the nature of information-control today), I wish only that he will find a way to better insure the reputability of his otherwise highly remarkable accomplishment. To MikeTwo I have a special addendum: be kind to those who have walked the road less travelled, for some day you will want to look back and know that IT was all very real, meaningful, and, last but not least, appreciated. So,I bid you all bon nuit et adieu. "Wikipedia...The Free Encyclopedia" (not the "PhD.s and other vetted persons" encyclopedia.). Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyo, Philosopher, Founder & Director of The Infinity Society, Washington, D.C., co-signed Colleagues of The Infinity Society (Andy E., Marianne, Joseph L.), Mrs. Katalin Fenyo.68.48.73.93 22:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Some editing problems occurred as I tried to enter my response earlier. Sorry but it was not my intention to repeat things. Any, as my ace up my sleeve I have asked USER: Teemeah, given her (his?) failure to make cautious inquiries, to contact in Budapest the people I listed, they are all really serious professionals and friends of mine and they will be quite unhappy to find out about the kind of insults and defamation of character taking place herein!

  They will all attest to the fact that I am a philosopher, albeit not formally accredited, and that I have had my views as a philosopher published from time to time, and that my own book is quite serious in its own right. And they are people who are all listed in the top Hungarian Who's Who! Look, I understand how difficult your sitaution has been; not having the benefit of knowing Hungarian and having to rely on Hungarians who are half my age and who just got into college or university. My relative heyday in Hungary was during the late 90s and not much since 2002 (I had to lay low because of threats from anti-Semitic mobsters). How interesting it will be if you and Trovatore have to change back to KEEP! I wonder if USER: Teemeah will oblige or if any of you will oblige (like I said, each of these fine gentlemen, friends of mine, speak fluent English). 68.48.73.93 13:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Hi!

  I have seen that you have managed to invite some other hungarians, who had (not so surprisingly) the same opinion as me, and also got insulted by Ady (I had a look at their Talk page). BTW, he called me an antisemite, which is funny, me being a jew. So please stop this nonsense, it has been going on for quite some time now. If you cannot do it for some reason, then please make a new AfD page, that is the exact copy of the original, without Ady's "comments" - they make the whole AfD totally unreadable. I can not think of any reasonable man looking through the opinions other than Ady's to decide for anything other than delete. Cheers! (and keep up the good work!)

  Máté Msoos

[edit] Philosophy (navigation) template AfD

Hi, I created the Philosophy (navigation) template, and I voted for saving it too (as an IP). However, when I duplicated the template to adopt a new tag name, Infinity0 had a cow. We've been in an edit war since I started the template, and we escalated our battle to TfD, which was a big mistake, for now the whole project (both templates) is at risk because some people are voting to delete both. Meanwhile Infinity0 and I are voting to delete each other's TfD candidates, ironically pushing the delete votes for both templates into the majority. We need your help. Neither of us want both templates to die.

Here are the reasons to choose the "Philosophy Quick Topic Guide" tag:

• Both templates are identical, as changes are ported after each round of disputes, to keep them that way. We've nearly come to a compromise on the few edits that we are still at odds over, but Infinity0 is one stubborn kid. Our competition has improved the template continuously, which is a good thing.
• The conversion of the old tag to the new tag is complete.
  • The new tag has placement in Wikipedia articles. It is hooked in to the top level of the Philosophy hierarchy, and then some.
  • The old tag has virtually no placement in any Wikipedia articles. It's discussion page link sits on a bunch of users' talk pages, and that's about it. And since I placed most of the old tags, it didn't seem out of place for me to upgrade them.
• Since the content of the templates are identical, and the fact that jousting will continue on whichever template wins, it makes sense to vote for the one that maintains the project's presence on Wikipedia.

Please vote to save the template: click here. For further discussions click here

Go for it! 03:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Babel

Hi! Please put babel templates (see my user page for how) into your user page, so people will know who to contact in what language. Not having one on people's user page was one reason it was so hard to find someone Hungarian for the Ady contraversy. Máté Msoos

[edit] List of Aggressive Inline Skating Tricks - grinds

Hey, I am new to this and was just wondering if I should add a list of inline skating grinds to either the current Aggressive Skating article, or create a new separate page for them all? --Churchill 16:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update

I have started to create a few pages with descriptions of tricks, check my contribs page for details! --Churchill 10:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Nomination: Agnostic theism

[edit] project portal

check it out and clean it up i started it but its not the best my practice portal on my usr page sandbox is better. can you help me fix it and update it i think i really messed up. its the extremesports portal im sorry if this is hard to read im not a good typer.--Bwyard 16:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)--Bwyard 16:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)