User talk:Ttiotsw/Archives/2007

Blank

Zoroastrianism

At The God Delusion you said something about "the Jewish tribal God" in relation to Christianity. However, I think the parallels between Zoroastrianism and Christianity are more interesting; to talk about the Jewish religion sort of misses some of the cultural exchanges between the Jews and the Persian empire around the time of Cyrus. There are lots of other observations like this which if you look at them through an atheist magnifying glass make a case against Christianity; I guess this was why I was expressing disbelief at what Wikipedia claimed were Dawkins' arguments, but now it appears that I just misunderstood Dawkins' style: he seems to think that Christianity is a myth and so not worth learning about even if it would enable him to make cogent arguments. A rather strange rhetorical style, reminds me of me actually in non-religious subjects, but whatever. I suppose I should tell you to censor all the Muslim articles but it looks like the other Christians have beaten me to the punch. - Connelly 08:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Also I thought I would be able to make a sane case for atheism being a former atheist, rather than using a theological argument for the non-existence of God by infinite descent. Perhaps I can try the latter argument though and invoke teapots and undiscovered da Vinci paintings orbiting in deep space several times as premises for an extremely surreal argument. I think the really interesting part about this theological argument would be that the da Vinci painting: is it or is it not art, if it doesn't have an audience, and if you don't have sufficient spaceship fuel to get to your destination, is it worth it to blast the original da Vinci painting out of existence with lasers? Or would it be better to die for the sake of art? - Connelly 09:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Messiah and messenger Ali sina for athiests...lol

Looking at above comments and ur work i other articles i can only say i might hate ali sina but i am trying to be neutral thats what i did in his article. but ur hatred towards islam, just seems to have taken over you. u seems to me as a member of the bias and islamophobic group. what can i say. wikipedia is full of people like you mate. Mak82hyd 15:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not full, yet. Arrow740 11:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, what more can I say - Wikipedia is not a SMS text service. Learn to spell. Ttiotsw

You're trying to be nuetral? I wonder why you deleted that link in FFI here then. This was the link you deleted:

WorldNetDaily: Ex-Muslim's site trashes Muhammad

--Matt57 03:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia is losing its credibility because it has become a heaven for Islam Haters. They are like bacteria, multiplying manyfolds. VirtualEye 10:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Like Islam, what people think and what is reality are two separate concepts. I feel all religion places humanity in danger and especially Abrahamaic ones of which Judaism, Christianity and Islam are cast from the same flawed mold though they are presented in different packaging. Ttiotsw 05:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the soviet union was an aetheist (cant even spell it right) country, what contributions to humanity is accorded to them ? Do you know any aetheist who has contributed to humanity and any follower of religion who has not? please dont use the sucide bombers example.Z2qc1

Please start a new section or use indents and you can spell it right; in Firefox it is trivial to add dictionary packs (in Windows or Linux) so the technology is available for free (grammar and apostrophes I won't care about). That aside I don't see why it is relevant to your Wikipedia edits why I should compare the two examples that you have presented. I don't see how they are related to Faith Freedom International ?. Ttiotsw 23:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

As a former agnostic, I often wonder how athiests decide that they're sure there is no God, or are no gods. Feel free to respond on my talk page if you wish. Or here. Or not at all.... RobertAustin 17:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No I'm happy to answer this one. There is never a degree of absolute certainty that there is no god (or gods). Christians would have me know that their God does exist, Muslims that Allah exists, and in fact conflate God and Allah as the same - the Jewish God is the same as the Christian one too. That being said, what of the Hindi gods ?, the Norse gods, the ancient Roman, Greek, Egyptian ones ?

So I do have a very large pantheon to say in all probability does not exist whereas Christian, Muslim and Jewish theists only deny that existance of the non-Abramaic gods (though they will argue - truthfully - that most pantheons have a single god and other lesser gods). I have no luxury of picking the one that I like but either must agree that all are possible or none are possible as it is illogical to simply choose the one that is in vogue today on no evidence. This is a hard task but it can be reasoned that it is in fact an easier position to sustain. That the old testament refers to worshiping other gods and that we have tangible evidence in the form of statues in Egypt of the physical form of these gods would imply that there was a time when these competing gods equally existed in the minds of man. Fate picked one simply because it coincided with the zenith of the Roman empire and furthered its delusion through a process of politics and war through Europe. It could have been repeated with any god at the helm - a god which hated all others helped remove the others within.

So in the end I have evidence (the Bible) of competition between gods and evidence of their form (statues) but no evidence of their existance outside of mans own cultural products. The probability is thus that all gods are all just mans own culture too. This is not to say that I do not appreciate these cultural artifacts but I appreciate them for the human endevour that has created them and do not discounted this effort to god. Allah as a cultural product is also doomed as the Quran actually holds the key to it's own demise in its claims. Suras have already been created that are close but they have been disregarded so we need a non-human to create suras to overcome prejudice; in the future when we have more complex computers then I would bet that the Quran will equally be shown to be a fraud manufactured by humans but that is another story.

As with all of science this is not an absolute belief but a long-running hypothesis being tested. The above answer is just one of many that I could give but it hopefully is a reasonable summary. For a Christian to doubt my position they have to deny those other gods, that caused in the minds of man, the statues of those gods, to exist. I thus await their answer whilst I await their evidence of their own god. That is quite a hard position to support; mine is actually quite easy to support. Ttiotsw 08:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

An excellent response. Your statements about the Abrahamic religions are right on the money. The religions that came out of India are different however. Hinduism is easy to discount because of the polytheist aspect of the holy books, Jainism because of the clearly unreasonable demands, but it will be much, much harder for you to discount Buddhism and Sikhism. Your central argument is that any religion you have examined is false, and so it is more logical to be an atheist than to be an adherent of one of these religions. You are right. That doesn't mean that no theist religion is right, or that a branch of Buddhism isn't right. You have not proof that either one is wrong (though one must be because they contradict each other). Arrow740 10:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Buddhism is of great cultural interest to me though does not add to the question of why the 'a' in atheist as it too does not propose any god or gods. It is a philosophy of living (as are all religions) and that it is deemed a religion even without gods is probably because it proposes concepts which are supernatural - namely samsara. Again, without evidence I will state that I'm confident that this concept of reincarnation is an unlikely scenario other than in the practical sense of re-use of your physical parts through the process of decay. I do not subscribe to the concept of a soul or essence nor the persistence of this soul or essence into a hearafter or a future life.

The god in Sikhism is certainly a hard concept more in line with the Intelligent Designer than the God of the Christians or Allah. Truthfully I like Sikhs as they are quite happy to have a beer and what I personally believe in they do not see as a threat so at least in our Western society they are, in the words of Douglas Adams - "mostly harmless".

So why am I interested in what Buddhism and similar propose ?. (The following is now speculation)... We need to step forward in time and extrapolate our technology to the point of what is refered to as the technological singularity and specifically when the core memories of our mind could be retained in a non-volatile storage. It need not be a perfect copy and it will not be us but will contain the essence of us. It is this technological achievement which I predict will bring to fruition the end of physical suffering and embody the concept of reincarnation. It is technology that has allowed us to leave Africa so many years ago and occupy the world. The progress of man is measured by our technological acheivements be they as primative as the cloth loom, or the wheel or as complex as the screen you are using to read this message and the network that transported it. The construction of our minds though is that they are are still as primative as the day we left Africa whereas our technology races ahead. Once we hit a technological singularity it is quite possible that certain religions could contribute philosophy which will allow humanity to weather the transition. I would place my money on aspects of Buddhism as being successful here though wouldn't glorify its charms. A neo-Buddhist synthesis is needed. We live in interesting times. Ttiotsw 00:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Every religion but Islam is mostly harmless, that's not the point. Regarding the science fiction part, it may become possible to store our memories, but we are much more than our memories. Some research suggests that true AI is theoretically unattainable, which in turn suggests that if we're ever going to be immortal it will be hard to accomplish. But the possibility of human immortality doesn't cast doubt on any of the religions you don't have an answer for. Arrow740 09:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

If I may interject, I believe the cultural differences don't separate theisms enough for any one version to be immune from the following critique. For the purposes of generalization let us recognize that even polytheisms have one powerful god who is responsible for creation, and this is the one I shall address, for both monotheisms and polytheisms. There are three possibilities: 1) there is no creator god, 2) a creator god exists who is loving, or 3) a creator god exists who is unloving. It appears highly unlikely that a creator god would not be loving. When we note that a human is unloving, it is generally a result of mistreatment by others. But who can mistreat a creator god? Who can cause a creator god to be incapable of love, or to decide to withhold love? The notion is quite absurd, so it's safe to strike possibility 3. We are left with 1 and 2. Does a creator god exist who is loving? How can we gauge this? Is there anything that would not happen in a universe with a loving creator god? Yes, and the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake is such an event. So we can strike possibility 2. Only possibility 1 remains: there is no creator god. And in the absence of a creator god, even if other supernatural beings existed, of what pedigree could they be that would justify calling them "gods"? That's just peacockery. So there are no other gods either. And just for the record, Christianity is not "mostly harmless". — coelacan talk — 13:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That verse is not interpreted as justification for war. Look at the stance of the Vatican on wars these days. Bad things have to happen in the world because the alternatives are unattractive. We need to have complete free will, for one thing, and complete freedom in the universe. Orson Scott Card wrote an interesting short story on this topic. As regards "Acts of God" like the tsunami, if God micromanaged physics, then that would deny mankind the possibility of eventually controlling it ourselves, and God wouldn't limit us in that way. Also if God manifested him/herself blatantly by violating the laws of physics for our benefit, that would distract us from having a direct mystical connection with him. If we reincarnate the bad things that happen to us in one particular life aren't final. Anyway your discussion of love is anthropocentric, and God is transcendental. In many Eastern traditions he is beyond duality, at least in essence. Arrow740 11:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That reasoning is faulty on the grounds that there are things that humans could have which would make human to human relationships less abrasive (consider the basis of the Hutterite daughter colony formation). Humans have evolved limits to how we interact with each other. The side effect of which is poor co-operation within groups above a certain size and between groups. For instance a coastal early-warning system would have helped prevented a significant number of deaths from the Indonesian tsunami and that current efforts for a warning system are still hampered by poor inter-group communication with the sharing of data. If "God" created (or evolved) us then there would have been many changes that could have been done which would have not detracted from human-god spiritual relations but would have bettered human-human relations. That we are what we are is because we have evolved without any input from any god as our human-human interpersonal and inter-group relationships simply reflect standard primate pack relationships. Ttiotsw 07:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The universe is balanced very delicately and it is impossible for you to propose changes. Arrow740 00:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

On the faith freedom article, my bad.

I only looked at my watchlist and saw a red negative number, and when I check diff it should the removal of a template. I reverted your edit based on those observations. But now that I have looked more carefully I see that I was in error. I apologize. Cheers, Happy New Year. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 11:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

apologies

thank you for your message. i was not aware that this point had been brought up on talk, i have commented now. thank you. ITAQALLAH 15:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

i anticipate your response at Talk:List of former Muslims. if there are no further objections, i intend to remove Ali Sina from the list. ITAQALLAH 21:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't really just up to just me but what the consensus view is. The view seems mixed and so if there is no clear consensus the content should stay. I have replied back again anyway noting that notability in the field of apostacy itself is not grounds for exclusion in the list and have offered an alternative entry that removes the reference to the FFI site. I see a vandal has finally got around to sticking a redirect on the http://www.faith-freedom.org site to http://www.answering-christianity.com I feel that makes www.answering-christianity.com clearly a poor external link as it has stated publicly that it intends to mislead web users. As a longtime user of the Intenet (nearly 16 years - yes pre-Web !) I hate anything that is associated with the nasty side of the net like mis-use of redirects. I didn't care much for them before as the content is not relevant to me anyway but now they have flipped over to promoting the disruption of content and the web user experience and don't see why we should promote them anywhere in Wikipedia. Ttiotsw 06:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of Windows and Linux

Hey, I noticed that you've been poking around on the wiki page, and actually read through the entire article. Perhaps you would like to stay and help? =) -Slash-^μιλώ 05:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Anyways, you have a lot of patience.

Yes I usually read the lot and hope to add my bit into this page. I believe that the 2 operating systems can be compared where they have commonality i.e. as human-computer oriented, or as firmware and on the specific chipsets i.e. Intel/AMD (now that MS don't really care for Alpha chips). I use Windows but am a fan of Linux. My 2 oldest kids (7 and 10 now) can use either OS on dual-boot systems and have used them for about 3 years (young kids don't care as long as they can find games). It is obviously difficult to compare the two where there is no or very little common ground e.g Supercomputers, virtualised systems, usermode Linux and other oddball things. Ttiotsw 07:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I hid some talk here as it was praise for edits but I don't deserve it as it wasn't my edits !. Ttiotsw 09:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Different people

sigh, excuse me, Ttiotsw, but in response to your comment in that debate about whether to delete the f*** page, I was wondering if you ever have heard of me having family members that use Wikipedia, too. I have two younger brothers and an elder brother, also a father who constantly uses and contributes to Wikipedia. So, yes we do share one IP address. If those other users you spoke of were actually me, they would've long put arguments on the page suggesting strong deletes on that page. So, this is the explanation for that issue you were discussing. Uioh 16:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well then use different account logons and get them to logon. This is trivial in either Windows or Linux (or Mac I guess but I don't use that); that's what our family does on our systems. Then the browser will use different user hive in Windows registry or home path in Linux and thus a logon in one account will be different from another. Ttiotsw 18:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The relation between Islam and Science

As you know, there have been complaints on the Golshani sections of the article. It might interest you to summarize and condense his views on the influence of the Biblical worldview on science. Would you please do that? Please give me a yes or no answer. Arrow740 09:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppets

Excuse me, Ttiotsw,, I have been reading what you wrote on the user called User: Uioh's talk page, and I must point out similar writing style is no evidence of the user in question of being a sockpuppet. For all you know, he may be telling the truth. I am not saying he is, but you should not have just jumped to conclusions. The other users you spoke of may really be his brothers, or someone he may not even know at all! If the other users were his brothers, then naturally, they may share common interests and writing styles, but I repeat, they may be no one he knows at all. You should not have merely accused other users of being sockpuppets with no good piece of evidence that they are! Thanks very much! 24.193.35.176 16:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Do your research ! Check the edit history of and you will find the only post I have to his page is [1]. I have NOT mentioned the word "sockpuppet" but commented on the weird edit he did to another user's page. Ttiotsw 16:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahtisaari

Yes, also it is about impossible to do the reverting in the long run anyway, as this misbelief/whichfull thinking seems to be quite widespread in serbia.

But i am not familiar with the process of getting a page protected, is it just about messaging an admin?

Gillis 02:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

figured it out and requested it to be protected, regrettably that seldom happens... Gillis 02:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Your input is requested at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Suggestion. --Hojimachong^talk_con 23:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"a"

Ttotsw, you shouldn't have told him! (See the actual contributions if there is any remaining doubt.) Based upon what I've seen in the past few days, I have a feeling that VirtualEye may wind up creating a number of sockpuppets in the coming days, so let's not tip him off as to the many different ways he gives himself away; instead log such idiosyncrasies and share them with one another/relevant admins via e-mail. Thanks for your help, though.Proabivouac 08:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought that but it's not really in good faith to do that. A person only changes their behaviour from inside so by hinting what we know about their behaviour they may change their ways (I am ever the optimist). I also like people to evolve their behaviour as it allows me to evolve mine in response. With this one though their English grammar will always trip them up. Ttiotsw 08:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

On balance I don't really think he is based on [2]. Using "non insultarlo" is rather interesting language !. Ttiotsw 09:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to say too much more about VirtualEye's language usage in wikispace, except to note that vocabulary isn't at all his shortcoming.Proabivouac 09:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad clothes used to have patches. Have you seen any patches there? What make you think they are so old that getting tearing apart. --- ALM 10:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Again find someone notable who has critiqued the images. Otherwise I'd just have to say that a good tailor would match the fabric and use good stitching (it's not as if they had that many modern dyes and fabric types to match) which only a photograph would capture in any detail. Ttiotsw 10:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It is recorded that, in the final years of his life, he'd taken to wearing luxurious robes given to him by foreign emissaries. The image depicts him in Mecca in the year 631; he died in 632.[3]ProabivouacProabivouac 22:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism undeletion?

Hello Ttiotsw, is there any chance that the original version that I created of this article could be undeleted? Thanks. (→Netscott) 22:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

See this as well.. (no one ever informed me of the AfD unfortunately). (→Netscott) 23:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about how to undelete but the Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy#Restoring_the_page_.28for_admins.29 seems to need quite a lot of support for undelete. Wouldn't *that* version be the one that was "deleted" for various reasons e.g. copyvio on the text itself or no references. I also didn't know about the original AfD when I added the article, I just wanted to fix a redlink and I had 3 inbound references (2 x sources) so I felt it would stick if an AfD came up and in the spirit f the semantic web it allows us to wikilink the signatories. BTW: I did not paste the essay text so happy that it is removed if that is deemed copyvio. Ttiotsw 08:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

From ALM Talk page

Here is the diff. [4]. In its context, you've made a general (and incorrect) statement about Muslim attitude towards Bahais. I don't think the Muslim attitude is something of "hate". They reject Bahaism. Some Muslims persecute them. Many just don't care. I am Iranian and I don't "hate" Bahais. In fact I have a good Bahai friend. --Aminz 09:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

OK next time I will use "Some Muslims reject or persecute Baha'is ..." as opposed to the blanket "hate" claim. I was thinking that the treatment of Baha'is in Iran was true when in fact I may be mistaken and they are treated as any other citizen though reliable news sources seem to contradict this view on their treatment. The problem is that Iran as an Islamic Republic I feel is indicative of modern Islamic thinking towards others. For people to contradict this and state that Iran is not a representative Muslim nation then does that mean that Iran is not made up of a majority of Muslims ? What are they then ? There is nothing specifically anti-Islamic in what I say as I am against the idea that any religion imparts a degree of moral superiority to its followers or that it protects them from criticism or that it requires respect. I am equally critical of the claims of so-called Christians. I only consider human originated ethical frameworks, such as the UNHRC and the ECHR as valid, though they may derive their roots in religious texts, the authority must come from the broad consensus of people and not be imposed de facto with claims to be from an unquestionable supernatural source.Ttiotsw 10:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ttiotsw. Of course, the "govermental" treatment of Bahais in Iran is bad and perhaps one might consider them as "second-class" citizens. But that attitude is not one of "hate". Those who persecute want to control and restrict Bahais.

Ttiotsw, the picture is far more than simple. There are all differents sorts of Muslims, even among the clergy community. One example is Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri. A shia jurist who is currently under house arrest by the government.

Ttiotsw, in your evaluation that " I only consider human originated ethical frameworks", I think you have a point though I don't completely agree. First of all, I think "historically", your position is not tenable. To cite an example, Martin Goodman, Professor of Jewish studies at the Oriental Institude at Oxford, writes about the following about the different conception of charity in Judaism and Christianity and Roman Paganism:

Charity in the Jewish and Christian sense was unknown to the pagan world. Pagans did not notice the very poor at all except when they became politically threatening. Assistance was almost always confined to citizens. Slaves and outsiders were ignored when in distress; except in special circumstances, their problems were not the concern of the ordinary man. In Rome the very poor either starved or left the city. Begging was a hazardous occupation; in the eyes of a moralist like Seneca, it was in order but neither necessary nor important to be kind to the poor and the miserable. Free men preferred to surround themselves with their fellow-citizens and to direct their gifts to those whose social and political standing mattered. Both in the city of Rome and in Egyptian township of Oxyrhynchyus free corn was given not to the povetry-stricken but to the privileged among the plebs.

Islam, like the two other monotheist religions, had a great influence in ethinical improvements: Islam from the first denounced aristocratic privilege, rejected hierarchy, and adopted a formula of the career open to the talents. Lewis however notes that the equality in Islam was restricted to free adult male Muslims, but even that "represented a very considerable advance on the practice of both the Greco-Roman and the ancient Iranian world."[5]

But as I said, you have a point. An unquestionable supernatural source might say things which used to be reasonable in their historical context but are outdated today. We are also more civilized. We are living in the age of science. One can argue that we didn't have enough time to learn the bugs of the scientific approach since it is so young compared to religion. I think we are in a transition state and should wait and see where we end up with. --Aminz 10:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

re: months

Ramadan was always the name given to one of the months in the Arab calendar - the names of the months didn't change with the onset of the new Islamic calendar. all that changed was the removal of the thirteenth intercalatary month of the luni-solar calendar which was used by most pre-Islamic nations, and would be implemented after every 2-3 years to compensate the difference between the two. fasting, when the command for it was revealed, was allocated to the month of Ramadan. does that clarify the issue? ITAQALLAH 13:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Atheism

I added a very important clarification to my argument on the Talk:Atheism page, and I am interested in your response with respect to it. --24.57.157.81 01:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

HI

You left me a message and i replied to it on my talk page. Did you expect you receive a reply on your talk page or what ?? i dont know whats the norm for replying to messages on mytalk pages.Z2qc1

Talk page messages usually reply on the same page. Use indents i.e. 1 or more : (colons) at the start of each reply text and always use 4 tildes after each reply i.e. ~~~~ as that places username and timestamp. Ttiotsw 19:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

unbalanced in your favor making it neutral?

Your revision to Unreached people group: "However, many countries have cultures or religions that pre-date Christianity and these unique cultures are still extant today more or less uninfluenced by Christianity foundation mythology. Some nations also have restrictive policies regarding proselytizing to help protect the political or cultural life of their citizens."

...and the original sentence: "However, among the diverse languages and ethnicities of isolated peoples, as well as in countries with restrictive policies regarding proselytizing, information about the Gospel is still scarce or nonexistent."

Do yourself some credit and please refrain if you disagree with the subject.Brian0324 21:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not see why I should refrain from editing as I see fit. The whole idea of consensus is that many changes over many editors will settle on a collective view of what is neutral. If this fails then there is a mediation process that can be used. Use that; the process is not one editor telling another to stop editing unless it is clearly vandalism, original research et al. I do not see my edits as vandalism nor OR and I highlighted the lack of cites in the edit summary. If it is vandalism then be clear exactly where, if it is WP:OR then be clear what it is. Switching my "commentary" for your "commentary" (BOTH without cites I'm happy to admit) is just two opinions. Ttiotsw 22:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Christianity foundation mythology"? Sounds like WP:OR at best or clearly a POV issue. All this is to say, if you disagree with the subject you make your case poorly by using neologisms.Brian0324 14:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

10/40 window

Hi Ttiotsw,

I could really use some help editing the 10/40 Window article and would like to request your aid. Pianoguy 01:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That article appears in my watchlist anyway so I would notice any changes and will edit as I see necessary though it may also appear as WP:WFTE. Ttiotsw 08:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Great- if you could be especially attentive to the talk page for this article over the next couple of days that would be great. The current article tries to promote a correlation between Christianity and economic prosperity, which I feel is both irresponsible, racist, and extremely bad science. I am attempting to remove this statement, and am being fanatically opposed by somebody whom I believe most likely wrote the entire article. We are having a good and mostly civil discussion, but most of his attacks have centered on me being "ignorant of the Christian worldview" (which I am not and has no bearing on Wikipedia anyways) and me trying to promote my own viewpoint, as though it is okay for him to promote his viewpoint, which he can't back up with good science.

It would be great if you could comment in the discussion occasionally, as he is starting to claim that I am the only one that thinks this way. Also, I don't have much time to devote to these discussions and can only work on Wikipedia once or twice a month at best. I understand if this is distasteful to you or if you have better things to do, but I would really appreciate it if you could comment once in a while. Pianoguy 03:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll sweep around. The problem is that in Wikipedia it may not be "true" as long as someone notable said it and we can verify it was said from reliable sources etc etc etc (you would have heard that many times !). My personal theory on the issues on the 10/40 window as a concept are that it is unrelated to Christanity but quite simply the weather in that region. The equatorial regions (Parts of Africa especially) are the only place on Earth where humans can live with absolutely no technology (I include wearing skins, using stone tools, wood spears to be technology). Everywhere else on Earth is not suitable due to the climate. As we evolved out of Africa (human migration patterns are supported by science) to other climates there would have been a gradual progression of technology to support that migration, until today where humans can live in the vacuum of space, the frozen wastes of Antarctica and the extreme deeps of the oceans. I won't try and explain why we wander around (I've only been around the world 5 times and lived in 4 different countries and I have no idea). The parasites, bugs and diseases also find 10/40 friendly but you need science and technology to kill those.

In the region there is also a lack of Atheism and as Atheism is the product of the post-Enlightenment world (including the industrial revolution) and goes hand-in-hand with the Scientific method I'd argue that it is not Christianity they need but the post-Enlightenment worldview (which includes separation of church and state, science and technology etc). To me the GIS maps of the world show the out-of-Africa idea not lack of Christianity (which is a lie anyway as missionaries have been going to all parts of the world). Ttiotsw 08:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Notice

Having seen you on the deletion review, I thought you might want to be made aware of the relisted AfD for Nicholas Beale. It can be found here. Pastor David ^† _(Review) 18:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"Alleged"

Why don't you take a look at the edits before that? Either remove the word from both sections or keep them. You can't have it half and half buddy. As you can see from the edit history, this is what Sefringle is trying to do - I've never done that. MomoShomo 04:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I did and decided to ignore that because you started the mud-slinging on people's talk pages alleging poor faith on their part. So either you edited the page adding in the word "Alleged" for some point or you too use that word to spin a particular POV. I'm not going to judge which one it is as both are dubious but adding "Alleged" as far as I know isn't against any guidelines and consensus would revert it. BTW: I don't consider how you use "buddy" to be civil; it just feels kind of threatening. Ttiotsw 05:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle added the word "alleged" to a section that gives a relatively positive light to Muslims, "Trends." I added the same word to a section that does the opposite, "statistics", in order to see if it would be removed. It was removed right away, so I removed the "alleged" from "Trends." It's as simple as that. There are people who are guided by bad faith to push as many anti-Islamic edits as possible. Don't expect me to ignore that. I don't mean "buddy" in a threatening way and I'm sorry if it came across that way. MomoShomo 05:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, it would seem you didn't think of this guideline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words MomoShomo 05:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes the bit about "Allegedly"..."often qualify for weasel words by vaguely attributing a statement to no source in particular:" ..."It is acceptable to use some of these phrases, if they are accompanied by a citation that supports the claim". I would revert use of "alleged" if it was not backed by a cite of some kind and you can do the same. Ttiotsw 05:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Lost limb in the Dominion War

Nog lost his leg in the Siege of AR-558. --OuroborosCobra 04:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, true I forgot that bit. I remember now Nog got a bit dazed in that episode. I still feel the delete I did removed extraneous information. Ttiotsw 07:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

genome sequencing infobox

(reposting response from my talk page Madeleine 18:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

That sounds great to me! Expert is a relative term, I really don't think I'm much of one here -- George Church has an account, you could try asking him. I've bit sitting here trying to think of anything to add... seems to me like the list seems to cover all the important points. Maybe percent completion? That seems like a nice caveat to have. (I guess there's two numbers for that — percent completion at the year of "completion" and the current/most recent percent completion.) Madeleine 15:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Although the "relevance" is nice in that table, I think that could eventually become problematic for the infobox. (I had this thought after looking at the discussion on that talk page.) As sequencing becomes cheaper, I'm sure more things are going to get sequenced that aren't going to fall into neat "pathogen" or "model organism" labels... "We sequenced it because it lives in a weird environment and we thought that sounded interesting."... "We sequenced it because no one knew what it was." ... "We sequenced it because we were bored, curious, and had the cash."  :-) Madeleine 16:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

...or it would make for better cosmetics. I'll have a go with a small draft and see what we can add. Ttiotsw 15:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional fields,

• Strain = string
• G C content = percentage
• plasmid = Yes (bp count) /No
• BLAST link = URL

Ttiotsw 15:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Bus Stop

I've thought about ducking out of the discussion regarding Bus stop. The man obviously has problems. I will possibly file a report. I read his talk page and noticed how he pulled the race card and called someone an anti-semite for referring to him as a "mad hatter". At the risk of sounding anti-semitic myself (and that risk is not intended, but I can see how a certain editor might try to construe it that way), I've been in several such arguments with Orthodox Jews and so I am familiar with the logic -- if you disagree with some of them, you're a racist (not always, but many times). I have no problem with any race, but the belief that he has that he can force Jewish ideas and protocol on to Wikipedia is revolting, in my opinion. The man will not compromise and obviously ignores Wikipedia rules regarding consensus. I think its high time he has a report filed against him. Drumpler 13:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

comments

hello Ttiotsw, i was hoping you'd able to comment on what i wrote several days ago on Talk:Faith Freedom International about what the paper says about the wiki. i wouldn't want to institute any changes only for them to be contested and us back at square one. thanks ITAQALLAH 01:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the text of the article is as neutral as it'll ever be given that one reference. It says it is Islamophobic if certain criteria are used but not fully Islamophobic (The same on-the-fence point-of-view could be aimed at the Vatican). We can't really expand that any more unless we can get more references i.e. it is giving undue weight to just one reference. Ttiotsw 09:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal page

Sorry about leaving your name out on the page. I wasn't sure exactly who should be indicated as interested so I included the names of the most frequent and most recently active editors only. Thank you though for showing an interest in resolving the dispute, one way or another. I hope someone comes along and picks the case up shortly. :) John Carter 22:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine. We have consensus except for a few. We don't need all to be satisfied only enough to be satisfied. Ttiotsw 03:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User suspected of using IPs on reverts

{{helpme}}. Whats the best place for me to bring my concerns up on this.... A certain template gets reverted by variety of IPs (in same address block) and it just happens that a user is also in this same address block (I looked at edits to their personal userpage and they made the mistake of editing that once without signing in thus I know of an IP they use) and uses similar worded edit summary on their reverts and style (e.g. use of lowercase letters). It isn't sock as that's about different user names but the result is the same. The issue isn't one of me verses them as other editors are involved and they support a consensus view that's at odds with the IPs. Do I leave it as a slow revert war or do I go to the userpage and say to stop that (e.g. by using {{subst:uw-npov2}} or do I use Wikinetiquette and get another editor to see what I have written and ask them to stop ? . Ttiotsw 03:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Report it on WP:ANI. Miranda 03:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

They

Good thoughts. Also, feel free to use "he."[6] Cheers, Mackan79 21:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Not good to edit other people's talk page contributions.

Go back are read over the refs, its clear those that new of him new he was an atheist:

1. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,748144,00.html?promoid=googlep

:# CANABAL. Handsome as the Hollywood villain of Mexican cinema, His Excellency Tomas Garrido Canabal has been the terror of Catholics as Governor of the State of Tabasco. "What is God?", Canabal is fond of sneering. "Nobody can tell me, but God has cost Mexico billions! We are going to stop that waste." Most people thought Canabal would pop up in the Cardenas Cabinet as Minister of Education, to scourge the pious with fresh assaults of Godless teaching.

Its becoming clear that your personal religious beliefs motivate your edits.

Hardyplants 00:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is my browser (Firefox) or something but where exactly is the word "atheist" in that quote ? Do I have to interpret the rhetorical question "What is God?" or do I have to extrapolate "Godless teaching" to mean that he was an atheist. I have no problems that he was an atheist it is the relevance of that to this article.

It is becoming clear that your personal religious beliefs motivate your edits is rather weird personal attack; you must explain sometime what they are ! Ttiotsw 01:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

List of designated terrorist organizations

I've put a proposal at Talk:List of designated terrorist organizations to improve the page. Your input is appreciated. CG 22:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

I have submitted a report on User:Bus stop on the ArbCom page here. As an individual who was involved in this debate, your participation would be appreciated. Thanks. Drumpler 17:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, yes, I like editors who really fight and bring in new approaches, facets, nuances or spin to an argument but User:Bus stop just re-words the same stuff. This is what is frustrating so I'm happy he gets 0wn3d by ArbCom. Ttiotsw 17:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Taliban article images.

At 22:20, 22 June 2007 you, Ttiotsw, reverted an edit made by myself on the Taliban page with the comment of: (RV - I don't think it's advertising rawa.org)

The images were removed because they advertise the website 'rawa.org'. The URL 'rawa.org' is stamped on every image being removed, clearly, in bold font. If you cannot see this, perhaps you are having some kind of graphical problem or need to ctrl-refresh the page to view the images properly. 211.30.73.30 15:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

One moment - I have egg shell in my mouth. You need to look at the idea of copyright and attribution. Some images are released for use and they will have the copyright holder embedded in the image. Wikipedia allows for a variety of licenses, one of which refers to "Attribution". Acknowledging copyright or attribution is not advertising. Ttiotsw 15:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Show me another image branded with an advertising logo on wikipedia. Jachin 03:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There are many e.g. Supercomputers has a picture of a supercomputer with a clear product-placement brand logo of "NASA" in the image and Cola has pictures with brands showing. "Advertising" need not be a copyright tag on the image but product placement. I am aware that product placement is a more powerful means of delivery of a message but that doesn't mean that watermark/imprinting of images with a logo is wrong. Ttiotsw 07:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Porches

This is an obvious sock. Arrow740 21:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

RE:

I didn't understand half of your posts, you seem to be touching two subjects but not completely explaining either. -PatPeter 20:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

OK I'll explain it step by step -

• "You're hitting my radar PatPeter." means you're on my watchlists. Don't worry I have hundreds of pages on my watchlists. It isn't "stalking" as you are just one of many.
• "I'd avoid WP:DGAF as you won't get much traction on any TfD." means that the {{User DGAF2}} was the userbox you tried to delete (even though it doesn't actually use much of a swear word!) and I'm watching stuff related to DGAF as (IMHO) misguided people-on-a-mission want to censor that page. It doesn't work and you won't be able to win that one; people have been there-done-that and have not won consensus.
• "I think some of your concern with DGAF is drifting into WP:POINT"...was me looking at your contributions (I use WP:POPUPS so this is trivial for me and I do this for EVERYONE I don't recognise who edits pages that hit my radar as it allows me to make a call on consensus) and especially noticed [7] which I felt was anti-gay and combining that with your MfD/TfD on userbox DGAF I felt you were in fact trying to disrupt Wikipedia. This is called WP:POINT.

I call what you have written anti-gay and if you have a problem with that then I'd revise your userbox. Your claim as to what the opposite forgets that in English we simply NEGATE the sentence thus I claim it should be ....

• The negation of [8] is "This user does not supports equal rights for queer people.
• The negation of [9] is "This user is not a supporter of the LGBT community."
• The negation of [10] is "This user does not supports the legalization of same-sex marriage."

...all of which obviously do not read right so you have invented your own and claim it is opposite in meaning. This is morally wrong and I'll explain. Whereas UBX's userboxes are positive and pro-right your attempt of, "This user opposes gay rights and marriage, but definitely not their human rights." is negative and presumes that gay rights and marriage are not their human rights; it is unclear why your view carries equal weight to UBX's view. Where does your authority come from to claim that gay rights are not human rights ? Is the origin of your moral code on opposing gay rights religious such as the Qur'an or the Bible ? Is so then which Sura or verse is the basis of your claim ? Is it legal opinion ? - if so then which law ? Is it reasonable for such moral codes or laws to extend to all of Wikipedia (especially minority views within religions or parochial laws) ? Ttiotsw 07:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: on Userbox Thanks

Yeah I put that comment on there temporarily until other POV users would stop harassing me that I am divisive and guilty of bigotry when they are the guilty ones. Thanks. -PatPeter 01:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR and Template:Religious persecution

Thank you for the warning and your oh so civil tone. Quite frankly I would have gladly self reverted but you did the revert prior to posting the warning on my page. Mamalujo 20:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Precedence over user talk pages the article takes. Self reverts in split second only work - "Heck, write that I did not want !" so 2 hours after, split second it was not. Warned you before I have. - Warnings no more you'll have. Uncivil my informal tone be then more civil I be. Ttiotsw 07:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, talk like that do you always? :) Amit@Talk 11:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Strangely enough, hard it is ! Like RPN and stack operations it be. Ttiotsw 13:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, hate RPN I too. A computer professional are you too? Amit@Talk 13:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

DGAF templates up for deletion.. again...

Hi Ttiotsw,

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:User DGAF. Later! :-) -- Ling.Nut 16:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Raelianism is atheist

It's founder says so, it's members don't believe in God, the media says so including Time magazine and WorldNetDaily. I have added 12 references to the article affiriming that Raelianism is atheist.

I'm glad you want to contribute to Wikipedia; however, I would appreciate it if you do not remove the article from Category:Atheism anymore.

In conclusion, I would like to wish you a good day and say that Raelians are in fact rational atheists.

--RucasHost 05:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I see you have spammed the article with 13 references to one point. Please don't disrupt article like that. Next time back your claims with 1 or two good quality references - that is all we ask for ! instead of reverting Ttiotsw 09:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

FFI

I can understand your edit here.[11]

But, if we were to begin including material solely because it is published by FFI, then we might as well flood the article with material from the website. This is because there are pages after pages of Sina's views on the website.

Behnam has proposed that we only include material that is notable (i.e. has been published by reliable third party sources), and I agree with that view. What about you?Bless sins 18:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins

Seems like Dawkins is a sacred cow here. Doubt that ANYTHING negative about him will be allowed in the article. Dontletmedown 16:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me be the first to say: Welcome to Wikipedia....and your first post as a signed-in user is to my talkpage. OK, my ego aside, Cows are not sacred here (I've just had 7 go through my garden an hour ago that have broken a fence to get in) and I love steaks. Simple really; Dawkins writes and says stuff, some relevant, some not. We have articles on the big-ticket stuff that he writes as only that is notable. Summarise the critiques and mix it in to the articles. I know it's harder but it's more worthwhile as that way the articles get a chance to get FA status. Ttiotsw 01:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 05:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas Beale

You were involved in this article's Deletion Review. User:NBeale complained that the AFD was closed too early, and so it was reopened. Please leave your opinion at the second nomination for AFD. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-05 18:34Z