Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:42, 7 February 2009

User talk:Kenosis/Header

NPOV/FAQ

Thanks, I agree with you that it's getting a bit off track. The original intent was to discuss the Policy status of WP:NPOV/FAQ, which I don't think was ever meant to be an actual policy. Naturally, some of it should be moved to WP:NPOV since it's been written as policy. But the conversationn has veered a bit from its original intent. I was considering undoing the rediroect on the NPOV/FAQ talk page and moving some of the discussion there..and refactoring some of the..um..less than helpful comments that have cropped up. Sorry to revert your move, and thanks for your gracious commeents on my talk page. Dreadstar † 04:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, I've implimented my plan to undo the redirect on Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view/FAQ, and move the discussion so it can continue there. Thanks for prompting me to take action on something I was delaying doing... :) Hopefully it will actually stick. Dreadstar † 04:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.OrangeMarlin 21:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Seriously?

Talk:ID please.--Tznkai (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

NOR

I posted some proposals for the policy, on the talk page - perhaps you would want to comment? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe the plumber

Sorry 'bout that. I read the edit wrong; I thought I was removing that section. 66.177.105.166 (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. By the way, welcome to Misplaced Pages. Take care now. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been around a little while; I just don't edit much here (I'm an admin on Wiktionary) so I don't bother logging in. I'm Sewnmouthsecret. 66.177.105.166 (talk) 06:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'd mistaken you for the new user who inserted the original research (and I thought perhaps was subsequently seeking to self-remove it?). I didn't notice that you were in the mix there. Thanks for the note, Sewnmouthsecret. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy of Nature and Natural Philosophy

Hi, I just noticed this edit, which if I understand correctly states that the old Philosophy of Nature article's material, originally split out of the Nature article I believe, was being merged into Natural Philosophy. However I see none of it there, so it just looks like a big deletion? Could you explain further, because the material that was in there seems to be nowhere in Misplaced Pages now?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It was an article in bad form. It was really made of scraps. I have therefore started to build a new one, which contains what I thought was the necessary subject matter that is not currently in any other article as far as I can see.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I have reconstructed what has happened, and I'd like your comments on proposals to go forward. You did not merge to Natural Philosophy, but rather to Nature (Philosophy). So now I have accidentally made a new article called Natural Philosophy which overlaps a lot, too much, with Nature (Philosophy). This is not a bad result though, because I think the latter article was made of scraps, and certainly I had not gone far beyond that in previous efforts. So my first question is whether we should simply delete it and replace it with the new article. I ask someone else's opinion because the new article is basically just written by me so far. Secondly, in the meantime I also tried to follow your various comments on the discussion pages of all three articles concerning the older versions. To keep it simple, I do follow that sourcing was a problem, which was never denied. But for the rest I suspect that you misunderstood what my POV would have looked like should I have been guided more by it. I do think it would be POV for someone to say that "the solution to the a-priori/a-posteriori dilemma requires an understanding of obscure thinkers like Kant, deSaussure, Peirce and others to sort it out", because as you yourself say "indeed this debate is still not settled today". So hopefully that was not what you were insisting upon. I have some suspicions about what else might have caused concern, but perhaps it is easier to refer you to the new version of Philosophy of Nature. For example it was never my impression to say that Bacon had a theory of Platonic forms - only that he claimed to have something which could fill the role. That some of the first moderns cloaked themselves in medieval terminology such as "natural law" is a confusion which nevertheless needs handling.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. As you indicated that you might be interested, please contribute to the ongoing discussion here. DRosenbach 02:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I just did so, by placing the proposed new section on Talk so it could be viewed for discussion. Thanks. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Will you be contributing to the discussion at all? DRosenbach 03:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Most likely yes. I'd like to take some time to consider how it might reasonably be edited so as to provide added value to the existing article, and where it might best be placed in the article. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Not ah 'tall :) DRosenbach 17:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Great job -- thanx for helping! DRosenbach 04:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

National Criminal Science Education?

Thanks for fixing my embarrassing NCIS/NCSE brainfart. I have to admit I had a good laugh at my own expense when I saw your correction. -R. fiend (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

New WP:NOR footnote based on your previous footnote

I just added a footnote at the end of the 1st paragraph of WP:NOR that follows the precedent of a footnote that you previously added at the end of the 2nd paragraph of WP:SYN. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of "non-controversial" in footnote 2 of WP:NOR

Hi. With the term "non-controversial" in footnote 2, were you referring to the non-controversial aspect regarding the correctness of a proposed statement to an article? In the example of the subject sentence of the SKIP-BO article, does non-controversial mean that no one involved in editing the article disputes the correctness of the subject sentence, "Alternatively, the 162 cards could be comprised of 3 regular decks..." ? (I'll look here on your talk page for a response so that the discussion isn't fragmented, if that's OK.) Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It was pretty much what you say, though I'm not familiar with SKIP-BO myself. Non-controversial statements in articles are seldom contested. When statements are substantively uncontroversial and contested solely on the basis of an overly strict interpretation of WP:NOR (whatever exactly that may be), other editors will commonly react by simply removing the request or demand for citation from the article. The footnote is intended to reflect this widespread editing practice, as noted in the somewhat lengthy discussion I linked to in the WT:NOR archives. In general, it is only when a statement or set of statements is substantively controversial that WP:NOR and WP:SYN is needed anyway. In the case of many math articles, the community of math-interested generally know what's uncontroversial synthesis and what is controversial. Thus, when a similarly knowledgeable math observer sees a controversial synthesis, they tend to either fix it or flag it as needing verification or as original research. This is why the footnote reads the way it does. Although the footnote remains in place, we never really achieved a consensus for it. AFAICT, the "verdict" remains split, fairly consistently with the general flow of argument in the most recent WT:NOR thread about the issue. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Re "When statements are substantively uncontroversial and contested solely on the basis of an overly strict interpretation of WP:NOR (whatever exactly that may be), other editors will commonly react by simply removing the request or demand for citation from the article." - Would you happen to recall where this happened? I think these examples might be useful in the discussion. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I see no point in dragging in other instances. Disruption is disruption; spurious tag use has always been gently discouraged, as well as simple removal of tags. Do you contest the addition used? Please explain clearly here precisely what your objection or position is, thanks. KillerChihuahua 03:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Bob_ K31416 has previously put forward some of his reasoning at WT:NOR#New_footnote_at_end_of_first_paragraph. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes thanks, I read that. Perhaps my query was unclear. Bob wrote a good bit about skip-bo, and seems to be arguing that the sentence " Alternatively, the 162 cards could be comprised of 3 regular decks of playing cards, including the jokers, with ace to queen corresponding to 1 to 12 and the kings and jokers corresponding to the SKIP-BO cards" is the type sentence which requires sourcing. Then he goes on to argue that it should be removed. Am I following this correctly? KillerChihuahua 13:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The skip-bo example is hypothetical. The discussion is about whether to include footnote #2 (removed 22 December 2008 here) as a caveat at WP:NOR to legitimize situations where an uncontoversial synthesis occurs, as opposed to original synthesis. My argument was, essentially, that uncontroversial synthesis of simple "A+B=C" deductions is a common editorial practice, and that where a demand for citation of a simple, otherwise uncontroversial deduction is made by someone based simply on the rule that "no, you can't synthesize", it's commonly considered tendentious and the citation is simply removed. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

And you are correct. So which argument is Bob using skip-bo for? Keep footnote, lose footnote? It looks like Bob wants to deny the clarification offered by the footnote altogether. IMO, the footnote is silly and that situatiion should be addressed in the text, but if people prefer a footnote its no skin off my nose and certainly not worth arguing about. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 16:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Presently Bob appears to me to be advocating in favor of a caveat that gives explicit permission for uncontroversial syntheses. The more I think about it, the more I'm in favor of it too. (I was the one who put the footnote in, but I hadn't felt very strongly about it.) Several have argued sternly against any such reduction in the strength of the language of WP:SYN, apparently feeling they need the strongest possible rule to counteract editors seen as too fast-and-loose with their conclusions about what their cited sources are saying. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Then I repeat that Bob's arguments are, at least to me, unclear. He seems to me to be arguing the precise opposite, but his posts are so verbose I am having trouble winnowing the point from any of his entries. I'll wait for him to clarify. KillerChihuahua 18:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

His position appears to have shifted, upon gaining an understanding of some of the subtleties of the issue, to supporting a footnote of the kind we're talking about. This happened to me too-- the more I thought about it, the more VasileGeburci's now archived point about math articles and such made sense w.r.t. the "A+B=C" scenario that WP:SYN forbids. Problem is, simple deductions are part of standard editing practice. I recognize it's a rather long and somewhat confusing thread at WT:NOR. Perhaps we should let it go for now and pick it up again after Christmas. .. Kenosis (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(out)Hi Kenosis, I left a message on KillerChihuahua's talk page offering to answer, on his talk page, any questions that he might have regarding the footnote 2 discussion. I'm also glad that he apologized for interrupting our discussion. BTW how are things going regarding finding those examples? If I can help in any way let me know. I'm still very interested in them. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Which I promptly removed, per my standing notice at the top of my talk page that I prefer not to split discussions and will remove any posts which do so. Do try to read those notices when editors place them at the top of their pages; it is basic courtesy. thank you. KillerChihuahua 13:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Kenosis, The administrator KillerChihuahua has disrupted this discussion so much that I don't know where to put this message! Anyhow you don't have to look for those examples anymore. If you noticed my last message at the footnote 2 discussion, I'm not pursuing it anymore. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, I don't think you behaved properly here. First you interrupt a discussion, then you apologize for it, then you do the same thing again. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I view it as "butting into" a conversation, which I am now a part of - and the apology was a simple courtesy, much as "pardon me for butting in, but..." would be. There is no "did it again" since its still the same conversation. Do you have trouble following conversations with more than two participants? KillerChihuahua 21:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not come to my talk page to discuss the issues that we have between us? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Ye gods, to what purpose? I only wanted a clarification, which you seem unable or unwilling to give. I see no purpose in spreading our inability to communicate over yet more of WP. KillerChihuahua 06:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Okayyyyy....I agree with Kenosis that the material in footnote 2 should be part of WP:NOR. Aside from the language of your remark, I agree with you when you wrote, " IMO, the footnote is silly and that situatiion should be addressed in the text, but if people prefer a footnote its no skin off my nose and certainly not worth arguing about." Like you, I think it should be in the text too, rather than a footnote. I support the ideas in footnote 2 and I even tried to place a similar and more general idea in another part of WP:NOR, which is how all this ruckus got started. I suppose you can criticize me for that, whatever.

P.S. If you're interested in the topic, why not comment on it at the WP:NOR talk page? Footnote 2 could sure use your support. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Now that I know whether or not I agree or disagree with one of the primary voices there, I might. KillerChihuahua 15:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. One thing I may need to add for clarification is that footnote 2 was deleted by Tmore3 while the discussion was going on at WP:NOR. I restored it and then Tmore3 deleted it again. Not an edit war since there was discussion between those edits. It is presently not part of WP:NOR.

Also, of the people who commented over there, Blueboar, Kenosis, Bob K31416 and maybe Semitransgenic, are in favor of footnote 2 but Tmore3 and Professor marginalia are opposed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Now I feel caught in the middle. Anyway, KC made a point just above that might help to answer your initial question. I mentioned it in WT:NOR. Maybe I'll just copy and past the relevant part over there. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Request + question

apologies for butting in above; I have followed this rather confusing issue on NOR and arrived here. I hope you do not mind?

Also, please archive. Really. Some day soon. Thanks! KillerChihuahua 03:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I added MiszaBot, which I cribbed from your user talk page (yes, I did change User_talk:KillerChihuahua to User_talk:Kenosis in the script, so you won't be getting my old talk in your archives :-) . If I did it correctly, I imagine the bot will be along soon enough. Thanks for prompting me. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Good man. Many happy returns of the season, btw. KillerChihuahua 23:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ye gods, you just copied my whole header. No one has ever done that before. I'm flattered, but I also thought I was on my talk page not yours when I first arrived. KillerChihuahua 21:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

New thoughts regarding Footnote 2 and "unnoticed" issue

Hi Kenosis, I just inserted a message in the discussion of Footnote 2 which supports it and alleviates my recent concern. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: RFC policy list

Whatever happened to the rfc policy list of current discussions? Right now the link in the template for creating a policy rfc redirects right back to the template. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. —harej // change the rules 21:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It came to my attention here. When I clicked on the link to the RFCpolicy list, there's no list-- it just redirects back to the page with the RFCpolicy instructions. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That does not happen to me. —harej // change the rules 21:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The template didn't seem to auto generate any listing for the RFC policy list. I'll manually list it. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

When I attempted to add it manually via the "manual add" button, I really screwed it up. Something's haywire there. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed but I don't know how. —harej // change the rules 00:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! You have the magic touch, I guess. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome

And thank you too. Discussions about policy are important, but can be taxing, can't they? Professor marginalia (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. ... Kenosis, were you aware that the WP:UNDUE sentence about "premièring a proof" is also present in WP:SYNTH (right at the end)? Jayen466 00:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

request for suggestions

here when you have some time (concerns a proposal to Verifiability policy) Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Intelligent design

I'm honestly astounded that you feel I have attacked you, but can we please keep the discussion on-topic? I don't know if this is some kind of stalling tactic, but the constant chatter about bad faith and whatnot is detracting from the real discussion. Also, I have come into the discussion with an idea about where I stand, obviously I have, but that does not mean I will not change my mind. However, being willing to change my mind does not mean that I will accept any old invalid argument you choose to throw at me. Please stop trying to villify me, please stop patronising me and please keep on topic... J Milburn (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. You've used ridiculous terms like "vilify", "attack" and such. In the space of one not-very-lengthy talk thread, you've quickly turned simple disagreement with your explicitly stated agenda, to remove three images from the article, simple disagreements by two long-time editors at that article, into alleged ad hominems. No one is attacking you. On the other hand, as I pointed out on the talk thread at Talk:Intelligent design#Book_covers your agenda was quite demonstrably clear from the outset. Indeed you yourself made eminently clear at several points in the discussion what your agenda was, so pointing this out is by no stretch of reasonable imagination a personal attack. Problem is, in part, you're not the sole arbiter of what is and what is not an enhancement of readers' understanding, particularly given that you've not thus far demonstrated one whit of knowledge about the topic that might reasonably be interpreted as being anything but finding new excuses to support a decision you quite plainly already made at the outset. It is eminently clear that you have only one purpose at the article on intelligent design, which is to remove the book-cover images by whatever criterion you can find to do so. After your initial insistence that the images were in violation of NFCC #10 was shown to be clearly erroneous, you immediately proceeded to seek other reasons to remove them, and fell back on NFCC #8, which is basically an editorial judgment, and quite frankly a fairly subjective one because we cannot conduct a proper survey of readers so as to definitively learn whether they believed their understanding of the topic was in fact enhanced by the inclusion of the book-cover images. If you believe that arguments contrary to your insistence that the images will be removed are, as you've just said, "stalling", then by all means please proceed to implement what you appear to believe is inevitable. By all means call in further reinforcements among NFCC#8 interpreters and regular advocates of NFC removal, and remove, within appropriate WP process, the book-cover images in keeping with what you asserted in the talk thread you started, which was that the removal of the book-cover images at that article will happen if they are not needed. I should point out, though, that your statement that the removal "will happen if they are not needed" says nothing about the policy-- nowhere in the NFCC does the policy state that NFC images must be "needed" in order to merit inclusion. But your statement, among others you made, does make quite clear what your own intent is. Despite your attempt to characterize it as such, this is not a personal attack but rather is a simple identification of something you yourself have made quite explicit, which is what your own agenda is and what your own made-up standard is for removal of the three images the presence of which you've disputed at that article. .... Kenosis (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

My agenda is simple- remove the book covers, unless it can be demonstrated that their use meets our inclusion guidelines. This is an aim clearly supportive of policy- the burden of proof lies with those wishing to include the images. I do not use terms like "vilify" lightly- claiming I have joined the article with "one purpose, with one agenda only" is clearly an attempt to vilify me, as it has the connotation that this purpose is a malevolent, perhaps ulterior one

As I have stated more than once, your belief that I know nothing about the topic not only counts for nothing (I don't need to know about a topic to attempt to enforce policy, and it often helps to prevent a potential conflict of interest, or reading into a subject too far- instead, to use this current case, the purpose of the covers should be clear to everyone, not just self proclaimed experts) but is wrong. I'm fairly well read on the subject, and recently sat an exam where I discussed it at length. I used the claim that the covers had no rationales as an aside- it was never the main thrust of my argument. Note that my initialy comment says that the covers "did not even" have rationales, while I actually focussed on the fact they weren't necessary. Also note I was happy to admit my mistake and apologise further down- don't crucify me for being human. Further, I doubt I used the word "stalling", as it's not a word that I ever really use. I have not once called anyone in specifically- instead, I have posted neutral comments for further input on public talk pages- pages habituated by those who normally fall on the "include images" side of the debate (Jheald, 2008Olympian) as well as this perceived "cabal", not running off to friends, or anything of the sort.

As for "I should point out, though, that your statement that the removal "will happen if they are not needed" says nothing about the policy-- nowhere in the NFCC does the policy state that NFC images must be "needed" in order to merit inclusion."- Grow up. I'm not going to rise to that kind of crap. J Milburn (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Check your attitude at the door. Your post is in violation of WP:NPA. •Jim62sch• 13:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish. Kenosis attempts to provoke me, I state I am not going to rise to it. I have not made any comments about Kenosis, nor do I intend to- I do not know him or her, any judgements I make will be in response to their conduct on Misplaced Pages. J Milburn (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Kenosis made no such attempt as his history on WP will show.

By the way, judgments work both ways: right now, I'm afraid that your conduct re this issue has been less than sterling. Perhaps it might be best if you and Kenosis started over, without any animosity or ill-will. •Jim62sch• 17:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating logic - if someone "attempts to provoke you", that means that it's OK to reply with personal attacks and insults. Hmmm...think we need to change NPA and CIVIL..."The Milburn Exception", maybe?  :) Guettarda (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course "attempts to" is subjective in that it implies intent, which is one of the hardest things to prove. •Jim62sch• 17:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Jim62sch's statement "tarted over, without any..."? from what point? Is this a request to submit a pretense that I haven't read anything thus far? There's no personal animosity on my part, certainly not as of this point in time. Still, I reserve the right to point out anything I choose about statements that have been made, e.g. by J_Milburn, or any WP user, what their intent appears to be, whether on a simple reading of a statement clearly intended to make a demand or seek a result, or in the context of a pattern such as that displayed thus far as regards attempting to control the editorial content of the ID article. This user J_Milburn came into the ID article with one purpose only-- to remove three images. His reasoning and angle of argument against these images has changed repeatedly, and moreover a number of his comments have turned out in my estimation to be, frankly, not very forthright. Is this a request to start over and ignore these issues? For what purpose?
.....Stated a bit more simply: This guy comes into the article with one agenda, to remove three images, using several different reasons why and changing his approach and angle of argument depending on what the response is. After my being very deferential about it he demands that I (and/or other users) stop "patronising". Then when I respond directly and call to attention his purpose for being at the article, he calls it an attack, and here on this page, an attempt to "vilify". And he starts real assertive on both pages, like instructing participants on Talk:Intelligent design to "cut the crap", etc. etc. Do I need to continue to review the events thus far? At what stage in time should be "started over" from? W.r.t. what page(s)?... Kenosis (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The post was intended to be balanced, without casting aspersions on any specific editor. As I noted, I do not see that wou were being provocative. To understand my thoughts and opinions precisely, you must look at all of my posts on this issue and apply the appropriate analytical skills. ; ; ; . •Jim62sch• 18:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in continuing this discussion, as I do not feel it is particularly productive. I have taken into account that some people are not happy with my motives and my comments, and I'm sure others have taken into account my unhappiness about the comments they've made and the attitude that they have had. If someone has a serious concern about my conduct, please raise it on my talk page- the discussion can stay there. In the mean time, I request that you do not talk about me behind my back (such as continuing this discussion here, as I will no longer be reading this page). J Milburn (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

And the originator of this thread on my talk page writes: "I request that you do not talk about me behind my back (such as continuing this discussion here, as I will no longer be reading this page". I'll do best to respect this request. Show's over, folks--time to move along, citizens. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In that case, per his request, I suppose further discussion about J Milburn's incivility should re-locate to here. Guettarda (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me, although I could have sworn that Wiki is an open-source and anybody can read any non-admin page. I guess I was misled. •Jim62sch• 17:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops

I don't know how this mistake happened. I apologize and I'm glad you caught it quickly.   Will Beback  talk  05:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem-- I assumed it was inadvertent. ... Kenosis (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent design

Hi. Edits like this are in breach of our policies. If I see you make another edit like this I shall block you. Please let's not go there. Thank you. --John (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)