User talk:Ttiotsw/Archives/2008

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Maybe you missed the question I posted at Talk:Faith Freedom International#What is the evidence that "Ali Sina" is an ex-Muslim?. Please respond on that talk page.

I further think that you misunderstood the notion of "weasel word". When a statement is ascribed to "some people", as in "according to some people, Ali Sina is an ex-Muslim", the word "some" is a weasel word. There is no weasel word in a sentence like "Ali Sina claims he is an ex-Muslim".  --Lambiam 13:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No I didn't miss your question - I work on my own schedule so I reply when I want (Wikipedia is a volunteer effort etc etc etc AKA we're not paid to insert stuff).

Anyway, I don't think it is you that understands the spirit of weasel word. It isn't the exact wording that is used but the intent. The intent of using the word "claims" doesn't enhance the verisimilitude of the wording of "ex-Muslim" but de-emphasises it. Thus weasel wording. Ttiotsw (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be more civil in the wording of your edit summaries than this. Thank you. Nick Graves (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with what you are saying. The editor isn't new and should be expected to know about previews and formatting pages. The wording was deliberate. I could have just said "rvv etc etc" but from previous experience with some editors I find the editing tedious at best. 90% of my last edits are "rvv" and "rv" of edits. My wording was,

"Rv. That looks fucking messy. Spend a bit of effort please in your tagging"

So "rv" just means revert and it allows people like IBM or whoever to metastudy edits.

The "That looks fucking messy." is my assessment. It's my opinion and given Wikipedia isn't censored it's OK to use. Obviously not overuse, (a'la Jerry Springer), but once in a year or two is OK. The Wikipedia reader doesn't see this metadata, only editors who are looking at this page or edit summaries.

Then finally, "Spend a bit of effort please in your tagging" is the uncivil bit I'm guessing but only if I italic the please. I didn't. It's not. Ttiotsw (talk) 07:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you please tell me why this evidence does not count? I thought that "Scientists" beleived in carbon dating. If not then all of science would be practically wrong. Please tell me why this evidence of a 120 million year old 3D Map of the Earth does not count. It was carbon dated to 120 million years old, just like other artifacts. Why doesn't it count.Maldek (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Simple; please read up about carbon dating. Carbon dating uses the ratio of two isotopes of carbon to determine the age of an organic i.e. contains carbon, object. Anyone who says that they have used 14C dating to date a rock to 120 million years isn't making sense. As it relies on ratios it works by comparing two carbons, one of which will have decayed with a half life. At best it can go to say 50,000 years max but you are proposing a time scale 3,000 times that. That's not the only show-stopper; the 14c dating also needs the object to absorb 14C through e.g. breathing or similar with plants. The object had to have been alive. Not even pet rocks are alive. Sorry but it's true. Other methods are used to date rocks (e.g. K/Ar or 40Ar/39Ar) not radiocarbon dating but there is a problem; in the end though, Michelangelo's David which is carved in marble would always be dated to before the 1500's by many hundreds of thousands to millions of years no matter what dating was used yet we know this to be impossible.

Now it is quite possible that you accidental copied in carbon dating when you meant radiometric dating in general but I'd already hinted that 14C dating was crap for those dates when I deleted your stuff last time so I'd have expected that you'd have reconsidered what you had posted instead of reposting it. A glance at your linkfarm you posted doesn't show anything creditable or reliable. Ttiotsw (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I see you took some time to write to me. You have done it mainly because you disagree with my view that favors the use of the term GNU/Linux in wikipedia. I am not in charge of wikipedia but I am certainly sure there are many other users that would fit what you describe as single purpose accounts. Even those that though may have written a few words here and there on different articles. There are some users with one single purpose: to remove the use of the term GNU/Linux. I joined wikipedia at the time the long discussion about the GNU/Linux naming question started. I took part in the discussion. My articles and contributions will come in due time. Meanwhile I am free to participate and support the positions of other users that also think GNU/Linux is the name that should be used to call the OS that uses the GNU system and the kernel linux. --Grandscribe (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh and by the way I am just following wikipedia rules. There is no rule against me taking part in a discussion before doing edits to articles.--Grandscribe (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Then you still misunderstand how consensus works. I have "informed you of the relevant policies and content guidelines in a civil and courteous manner" (quoted from WP:SPA) and I have not yet tagged anything you have edited as I'm somewhat sympathetic to GNU+Linux (as I had mentioned I have been working with Linux since '96 (obviously Slackware) so I want to see how it goes but equally I feel that you're doing wrong here with focus on one tiny aspect of a huge project.

You have said very clearly above "I am free to participate and support the positions of other users that also think GNU/Linux is the name that should be used to call the OS that uses the GNU system and the kernel linux".

From that it appears that you are here to push a particular point of view. Without *any* other edit history that would suggest otherwise, I do not yet believe you could write for the enemy. Don't try the "just following rules" angle - there are very few rules but lots of guidelines. Please take this onboard by not replying but just start editing articles. Ttiotsw (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not here to push any point of view but I expect everyone to do the same. You surely know that one single user backed by a few went around wikipedia deleting the word GNU from multiple articles. That was reported by other users and so the current discussion started. Please do not attempt to force a user when he or she has to write an article because YOU think so. I will start publishing articles when I want to. There is no policy that requires any number of edits before taking part in a discussion. A discussion is open to everyone not just to people who write comments according to your own point of view. --Grandscribe (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hiyah, I am the ego of Ttiotsw: I must thank you for spending all your time chatting with me, yup I greatly appreciate the attention given my talk page represents the majority of your additions in the past 5 days. I'm on a roll. My master does feel that you probably should spend time elsewhere but I disagree but what the feck would he know, just keep talking to me OK ?. Signed: ego of Ttiotsw (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You're losing money. You should have been a street comedian.--Grandscribe (talk) 06:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What is money ? Is that what poor people want ?. I'm an ego and you're turning me on. Keep it coming. Overawed ego of Ttiotsw (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Really, trying to guess each others' hidden agendas is just futile. C'mon, let's focus on the encyclopedia. Paul Beardsell (talk) 11:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the correct mediation process? How do I invoke it? Paul Beardsell (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, sorry I didn't know what it was, thank you for pointing that out and for your untrigintillion question I could try and find that out for you but not all languages have such advanced numbering systems as the American Systemm. Thanks.Maldek (talk) 02:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see you prove that Dawkins Senior was not a conscription-evader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.158.174 (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't care less what we think; reliable sources have to say this. Your talk post fails to provide any sources reliable or otherwise for your bizarre POV. AFAIKS his father was in the British colonial service (remember the United Kingdom actually had an Empire then !), so this is like saying all the foreign office, embassy staff, and any civil service posted in what was arguably the worlds largest or at least most far-flung British Empire were...conscription-evaders ! Gee that makes sense. Ttiotsw (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)