User talk:Gabrielthursday

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome to WikiProject Catholicism! 2 Vote! 3 Napoleon 4 Move Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church 5 PZ Myers 6 My edits 7 NPOV 8 honourifics 9 Bloodless 10 Bad faith 11 Style of cooperation 12 plantinga 13 Going on a break 14 The Root of All Evil? 15 an admin deleted our discussion 16 Bill Gates 17 Diocesan Infobox 18 Hi 19 Re: Revert on Bobby Jindal article. 20 NPOV tag, Babington Plot 21 WikiProject Christianity

[edit] Welcome to WikiProject Catholicism!

Hello, Gabrielthursday, and welcome to Wikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Catholic Project Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your edits. Again, welcome, and happy editing!

[edit] Vote!

This is a reminder to go vote for the Catholic Collaboration Effort. Support or comment on the current nominations, or nominate an article for collaboration. Current nominations:

[edit] Napoleon

Hello Gabrielthursday, one comment to your post (I don't have time with more becuase like many others I need to sleep, but I will write more later). You should not be blinded with the common notion of a monarch; behind almost every dynasty there stands a man (or more rarely a woman) with a strong sword arm. Carl Logan 22:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church

There is a vote at Talk:Roman Catholic Church: A Vote on the Title of this Article on moving Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church. You are invited to review it. --WikiCats 04:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PZ Myers

Thanks for your support. Robert O'Brien 18:00 September 8, 2006 (PDT)

[edit] My edits

I have rved myself. (And no admins should not be given leeway). I'll discuss tommorow why I disagree with most of your edits. Need sleep now. Have a goodnight. JoshuaZ 04:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Please read the WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience before attempting to redefine them in terms of your own m:MPOV. — Dunc|☺ 22:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You're awfully willing to assume the worst of me. I'm aware of the principles of NPOV, and the specific policy you point to doesn't address the specific situation. I won't restate my arguments here, as they are properly on the relevant talk page. Gabrielthursday 00:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC) (Originally posted on Dunc's talk page.)

No you're clearly not aware of principles of WP:NPOV because you are demonstrating a profound misunderstanding of what they mean. Like I say, RTFM.

Do you really think that we've not had trolls around here before claiming that reporting that something is considered pseudoscience by scientific community "violates NPOV", even when it's backed up with WP:CITE and WP:V, in line with WP:NPOV#Undue weight (not to mention common sense)? — Dunc|☺ 09:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

For someone so rightly insistent on adherence to WP:NPOV (though in this case, imho, misapplied), I find it a little odd you should be so cavalier about WP:CIV and WP:NPA Gabrielthursday 10:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] honourifics

Father is functionally the same as Doctor or Professor, so it does not belong. We already get the point by the SJ after his name, "is a Jesuit priest" in the intro, and the "Priesthood and theological study" section. •Jim62sch• 12:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Again using the analogy from Knights, they are referred to as Sir Adolphus Wigginbotham, KB, KCMG. The Sir is the title- the KB illustrates where it is derived from. So too with the SJ- I'd note, however, that for priests there are those who will have no initials, being secular priests. I'd agree that the "is a Jesuit priest" would be redundant if I thought most everyone was aware of the meaning of SJ, but I rather doubt it- and it would result in a problem with consistency if applied to, say, Norbertine priests. The headnote is a summary of the specifics, so I don't see any important redundancy with regard to the "priesthood" section. While the question of exactly why Father is different than Doctor or Professor may be complex- I'll try and hint at it. One is not made a Doctor, but rather becomes one on account of having earned a Ph.D. One is made a Knight; one is ordained a priest. Such distinctions may seem nonsensical to you, but I suggest that that's the reason why they have come to have different usages- and why Fr and Sir are "stickier" than Doctor. Gabrielthursday 12:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Gabriel, OK, that's a good idea (raising it at MOS). "Pastor" should be included in the discussion as well, because most Protestants refer to their ministers as "Pastor" Doe. Maybe reverend too, although if I remember correctly, calling the minister "Reverend" Doe is an older practice that has fallen out of favour. Might as well cover the whole shebang so other Wikipedians have clearer guidelines than we did, and they won't have to rely on an interpretation. In the end Father Coyne might yet do another service.  ;) (BTW, in colloquial speech I have no problem calling him father in certain contexts, even though I'm an agnostic/non-theist.) •Jim62sch• 09:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bloodless

You asked on my talk page: "Isn't there some level below which the usage is insignificant?". Yes: less than 1 good reference. The Columbia University Press published an encyclopedia that clearly states what I reinserted in the Glorious Revolution article. Google hit counts have nothing to do with quality and very little with significance. Please note that the article puts it, as it was before, as 'sometimes' – even less strong than the Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. And for 'sometimes', the 980 or so 'hits' I got (and I did not check the relevance of each, thank you) will be sufficient. — SomeHuman 28 Sep 2006 22:32 (UTC)

(copy of reply and further reply, from SomeHuman's talk page:)

Well, accuracy is one thing, significance is another. The Columbia Encyclopedia certainly establishes its accuracy, but I continue wonder about its significance. This little debate of ours is incredibly minor- I'm less concerned about the immediate case than I am to know if there's some formal or informal standard which determines significance. Best, Gabrielthursday 23:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The Columbia Encyclopedia states it is significant by mentioning it, if it's noteworthy for that encyclopaedia then it is sufficiently significant for 'ours'. For a guideline, see WP:Notability, and further considerations e.g. by Uncle G: On notability, by Stifle: Don't say non-notable.

(PS: The above handle especially what makes it worth having a whole article on a topic; having just a mere mention of some fact in an article will not need to qualify by such high standards, but it gives a hint what to pay attention to.) — SomeHuman 28 Sep 2006 23:39 (UTC)

(copy of reply from SomeHuman's talk page, and further reply)

I was about to make that very point before you posted your postscript. I agree about the reduced standards, but I'm afraid that still does leave us with very little guidance. That the Columbia Encyclopedia includes it is a significant point, but not determinative in my view- other encyclopedias can include insignificant facts as well as ourselves. Perhaps the most significant thing about its inclusion is the statement that "bloodless revolution" reflects the whig interpretation. Gabrielthursday 23:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

...which is not even specified by the Columbia Encyclopedia's article – but 'ours' is more comprehensive. Then surely it should not leave out this alternative 'Bloodless Revolution' name. The 6th edition of a work that involves the reputation of the Columbia University, should not contain too many needless statements anyway. — SomeHuman 29 Sep 2006 00:07 (UTC)

Sure. I wish there was some indication of wider use of "Bloodless Revolution", but one can't have everything. I remain a little skeptical, but I'm not going to revert the thing. Gabrielthursday 00:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad faith

The following conversation took place on both Starghost & my talk pages. I've put all the posts together here. -Gabriel

So, on the critique of atheism talk page you say "I agree. Anyway, feel free to create the article.", but now you're voting to delete it. Frankly, I'm having difficulty interpreting that as anything but bad faith. Cordially, Gabrielthursday 21:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. I encouraged you to create the article because as I see it is consistent with the bureaucratic process. First, we decided that it did not belong in the Critique of Atheism article. I agreed it should me moved to somewhere else, but you can see the discussion was more complex than that, I was disputing not only it's presence in that article but it's validity as a whole. Moving it to a new article would solve half the problem, now I voted to delete to solve the other half. I dont know why you're so surprised, I thought I made my position pretty clear from the start. Or you would think just because it's been moved to another article suddenly all the disputes over it would vanish? I didn't accuse you of being trigger happy with tagging both the Critique of atheism and the Persecution of atheism articles (initially with poor justification, something I would personally regard as baiting), the fact that you selectively picked atheism related articles to dispute, while leaving other articles such as metaphysical naturalism with a different handling of the same matter, and the fact that after removing material from the persecution of atheism article in the manner of get things done, ask questions later, and then completely forgot about the follow-up weeks after. I could very well claim bad faith, but I've tried my hardest to keep the discussion civil. I must say your lack of faith in me comes off as in really poor etiquette, but this is irrelevant, I hope you are satisfied with an answer, as a token of courtesy, since I probably shouldnt be explaining myself anyway. Starghost (talk | contribs) 02:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, you approved the spin off at the Talk:Critique of atheism page and then took an opposing position on the AfD page. You admit you didn't really agree with the spin off- even though you claimed that was largely what you meant by "move".

On a brighter note, I think that for two editors who so very clearly get under each others' skin, I'm pleased that we've been able to be cordial. Gabrielthursday 05:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It's like I said on the AfD, I'm looking for a precedent to establish the argument is rubbish. If it's deleted my position is strenghtened. You can see this method works better than limiting the discussion to what we were doing beforen and you can see the discussion there is somewhat different. Surely you can see how I was being pragmatic. And in case it doesn't get deleted, I still think it's better than just leaving it there, so either way I would approve the spin off. The spin off was a half-assed temporary solution. It basically comes down to number 1: take it out of the Critique of atheism(CoA) article, number 2: dispute it's status all toghether. By agreeing to move it I fullfilled number 1, by voting to delete I am working on number 2. Approving the spin off was productive for the CoA article as I see it, so I'm acting on good faith there. On another note, I as well appreciate the fact we have been able to sustain a discussion for so long. Starghost (talk | contribs) 17:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand I can see that decent responses are being posted to the EAAN and they are indeed making me change my feelings about it. It seems all is working for the best of outcomes. Starghost (talk | contribs) 17:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style of cooperation

Hi, I happened to see this edit of yours : [1]. Just a note to mention my appreciation for the way you seem to cooperate on Wikipedia. -- ➌  LucVerhelst  11:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear! — SomeHuman 7 Oct 2006 20:44 (UTC)

ditto even tho I disagree with you on almost everything :) Poujeaux 14:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] plantinga

Thanks for your comment. sorry to see your eaan page is now up for deletion. i've given it partial support. Poujeaux 14:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Going on a break

I am going to be without internet access from October 15-20. I don't expect anything really radical to go on at EAAN or Critique of atheism, which seem to have stabalized a bit. However, if anything extreme is being proposed (i.e., something like the recent AFD), I'd appreciate it if you would mention my absence. Not that my absence should necessarily hold things up, it's just that I've occasionally seen major changes proposed, voted on, and adopted in very short order. I'm not concerned about content, which can always be fixed, but rather things that alter the article at a foundational level. Thanks, Lamont A Cranston 16:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Have a good time. Gabrielthursday 19:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Root of All Evil?

Are you sure? Haggard's words are as follows:

Haggard: But, you see, you do understand. You do understand that this issue right here of intellectual arrogance is the reason why people like you have a difficult problem with people of faith. I [note: this means him, Haggard, and it is Haggard who is talking] don't communicate an air of superiority over the people because I [it's still Haggard speaking] know so much more. And if you only read the books that I knew, and if you only, knew the scientists I knew, then you would be great like me [this entire thing is Haggards words].

It's copied straight from the clip (about 5 minutes in, you can't miss it)!

I can only assume that by "me" Haggard means himself. For example, when I talk to someone, I don't say "me" or "I" when I really mean them! If I went and said to you "If you did X then you would be great like me", you wouldn't assume that I actually meant "You act as if people aren't as great as you because they don't do/know X".

I'm struggling to think of a way to describe what Haggard said without making him look like some kind of hypocrite, but it was a notable part of the show and deserves a presence within the article. --203.59.166.123 08:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I'm sure. Haggard is speaking in the persona of Dawkins- which is why he ends that line with (from memory): "that's your problem: arrogance". It's a useful rhetorical device, though the editing of the scene makes it confusing, I grant you. Gabrielthursday 16:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] an admin deleted our discussion

I've moved it to User:Coelacan/Ted Haggard if you want to continue. — Coelacan | talk 21:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw that. Thanks. Gabrielthursday 21:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Gates

The factual and legal conclusions of the district court were never vacated. The order was. As you can now see in the article history, adding "allegedly," in addition to being misleading, encourages people to add stronger wording. Gazpacho 22:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diocesan Infobox

To the Members of the WikiProject Catholicism

I have proposed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism an infobox for Catholic Dioceses. I have not gotten any feedback on this proposal, so I’m culling feedback, advice, corrections, etc. for this. If you have the time, would you check out User:SkierRMH/Diocese_Infobox and give me some feedback! Thanks much!!

[edit] Hi

Do you still want help with Intelligent Design, or is the situation handled? I think I can help as a member of the neutrality project. give me a jingle on my talk page.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • logs) 07:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Revert on Bobby Jindal article.

I had previously removed the block of text and had requested a reason for reverting it back. And while it isn't required, since no good reason was provided for the inclusion of that block of text I didn't see any logic countering why it should be included. Had the user provided me with a logical reason as to why that text was relevant to Bobby Jindal then perhaps I would have agreed and kept it there.

On the selective data mining issue, please see the Bobby Jindal discussion page. I have left your edit because I don't want an "edit war", but I would like to discuss the idea that the inclusion of a sourced fact is somehow "selective." DanielZimmerman 14:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag, Babington Plot

The NPOV tag was applied without explanation, at 20:55, 14 November 2006 by User:Gabrielthursday, who has since made a single edit, in September 2007. A copy of this post will be posted at User talk:Gabrielthursday to ask for some details of what statements require more neutral expression, so that the tag can be removed.

Please reply at Talk:Babington Plot rather than directly to me, thank you. --Wetman (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Christianity

Hello Gabrielthursday!

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

You are receiving this invitation because you are a member of one of the related Christianity Projects and I thought that you might be interested in this project also - Tinucherian (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)