This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Teledildonix314 (talk | contribs) at 22:54, 29 January 2009 (page layout). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:54, 29 January 2009 by Teledildonix314 (talk | contribs) (page layout)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Who am i ?
Teledildonix314 My personal information is on my User Page
Please keep new messages at the end of any topic of discussion, or add a New Section if you need to discuss an entirely new subject. Here are former or ongoing discussions:
excellent criteria for debunking superstition and religion
The following is copied and pasted directly from User:Mccready because it is so awesome to find such a concise summary of logic which works for most any dispute in which evidence-based activity (e.g., scientific research) is in conflict with fantasy-based notions (e.g., religions and superstitions):
Points commonly made by pseudoscientists
1. Pseudoscience is an offensive word and a POV label.
- Wrong. It's a perfectly useful word and should be used when appropriate. If other people find it offensive, we can't help that. As encyclopedists we don't pander to people's feelings. We describe things accurately.
2. You need to cite a source before using the word.
- No. We are perfectly at liberty to draw inferences in writing an encyclopedic article. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc. If it fits the definition as above then use it.
3. My pseudoscience has lots of scientists working on it. But I know it's a possibility that it's not fully supported by science.
- Yes there is enormous effort being put into research in all sorts of areas. Usually the underlying theories (eg meridians in acupuncture or vertebral subluxation in chiropractic) are not supported by the scientific method and studies are usually disputed. The fact that research exists, even in peer reviewed journals may not be enough to avoid fitting the definition of pseudoscience.
4. My pseudoscience is supported by governments or universities.
- Governments usually make decisions for political, not scientific, reasons. The lobbying power of some psuedosciences is enormous and of course we have the problem of cultural memes. Universities these days are unfortunately more market driven than otherwise. Thus government or university support does not change the fact that your field may be a pseudoscience. Don't forget how many people thought the world was flat.
5. My career is built on this pseudoscience. I've been trained. I'm an expert. I've seen with my own eyes.
- See regressive fallacy. Anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron. We need replicability before such claims can be accepted in an encyclopedia or by science.
6. You can't say that one day my pseudoscience might be proven and we are working on it. Scientists say further research needs to be done.
- True. But in the meantime the appellation might fit and we are writing an encyclopedia here not speculating and not providing material for scientists to pad their research applications with. Perhaps enough research has been done to conclude that your pseudoscience is not a good bet.
7. The onus is on you to disprove my pseudoscience.
- No. You can't prove a negative.
8. You're not being balanced about my pseudoscience.
- Balance is a weasel word which people seem to prefer instead of truth or accuracy. The notion that balance has to be given to the idea, to pick an example I hope will offend nobody, that the moon is made of blue cheese is unacceptable. Maybe it is legitimate to put more brickbats than bouquets in an article about your pseudoscience.
9. Whether the moon is made of blue cheese is subject to scientific research. There is no scientific consensus over whether or not evidence supports this. Please replace the bolded words with your pseudoscience. You may then be able to see that perhaps this form of words is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. It may be a POVish attempt to place your pseudoscience within the realms of science, as noted variously above.
- copied and pasted on 090103_0559PST Teledildonix314 13:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Teledildonix314 19:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Greater Victoria, British Columbia
Thanks for finding what you called an exhortation. In fact, it was political. I find comments like that all over wikipedia regarding Canadian sites that have land claim disputes. This particular one was added 2008-02-13, but somehow I missed it. I guess I will have to check my watchlist more often. I already do it at least once a day, but if two changes are made on the same day I might not see the first one. Then again, it was right before Valentine's Day... my mind might have been elsewhere!!! LOL -CubBC (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Rick Warren
Apologists for despicable charlatans (i.e., christians and other religious people who can't distinguish supernaturalism from realism) managed to prolong an edit-war until it led to a lockdown on the article. Sadly, the bio reads like a puff-piece written by a minion of Warren's public-relations office, and his contributions to the deaths and suffering and denial of basic human rights to millions of people (in American and Africa, or anywhere else where his tentacles reach) will be judged by history as monstrous. It might appear polemic to point out the criticisms of the man while the news about his activities is still "controversial" (i.e., unflattering to christians such as Warren and his anti-humanist ilk); however, in the future, people will come to realize that only an apologist would write such a toadying article about such an odious person, while forbidding any reports which cast Warren and the other anti-secularists in a poor light! Teledildonix314 13:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I have again removed "reactionary" from the article. You have not provided any citation for any work that might support this characterization of Warren; it is something entirely of your doing, unsupported by anything resembling a reliable source. Further, as I look over the article for reactionary, I think it is clearly incorrect to say that Warren "seeks a return to a previous state." This would require some kind of false history in which Christians were running some kind of dictatorship here in the U.S., which has clearly not ever been the case. Warren and others like him often put forward this false notion that he is putting things back to where they were, when in fact they propose something completely new that has never existed before (and never could have, for that matter.) This is a ploy for legitimacy on Warren's part, falsely asserting a return to something that once was; I take it you would not be one to help prop him up and inflate his status (already overinflated as it is) by buying such a ploy.
If you are expecting other editors who support Warren to withdraw edits (such as the "America's Pastor" nonsense) for which they cannot put forward reliable sources, you will also have to abide by the requirement for reliable sources, particularly in this most glaring instance. You have today added some other material that also doesn't seem to refer to any reliable source but that draws associations and conclusions of your own. I will also eventually be removing those. Mike Doughney (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- You (Mike Doughney) are clearly mistaken here, with demonstrable evidence and a most unambiguous example to refute your stance. The passage of Proposition 8 to strip people of civil rights when they had already been upheld by the state's high court is one of the most explicit and overt examples of 'Reactionary' politics we could possibly see in our country. The Reactionary voters are trying to force the community to revert to a previous state of affairs in which the progressive secular values are destroyed and oppressed. How is that not the most obvious sort of Reactionary behavior you've ever heard?!? You are wrong, Mike Doughney, and you don't have to argue with my choice of words, you can look up the definitions in any dictionary and learn for yourself. Once again, here is the actual article: Reactionary!
- Your regurgitation of what I suppose is Marxist terminology is quite quaint. Again, let me say this very slowly and in small words in a short sentence so perhaps this time you'll understand what I'm saying. You will need a citation from a reliable source that indicates that Warren is a reactionary. Without that, the term is inappropriate, and it doesn't matter what you or I think of the guy, you will need a citation to support using that term.
- I will also caution you that since what you are editing is a biography of a living person, the Biographies of living persons policy applies. I suggest you go back and read that policy before making any further edits. That policy prohibits you from adding characterizations of living persons that are not verifiable. In particular, your accusation that what Warren is doing is slanderous had to come out of the article. I think it also applies to your characterization of Warren as a reactionary sans verifiable sources to support that. Repeated violations of the BLP policy could get you blocked or banned. I will start that process without hesitation if you continue to add such BLP policy violating material to the article. Mike Doughney (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
January 2009
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Rick Warren. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Willking1979 (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Please do not violate Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Rick Warren. Thank you. Willking1979 (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Misplaced Pages's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Misplaced Pages page, as you did to Rick Warren, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Mike Doughney (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rick Warren. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Mike Doughney (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is unfortunate that you feel compelled to destroy my contributions. Rather than argue with you, rather than dispute some choice of words, i have merely added direct quotations and verifiable citations. But you keep erasing my citations and overt attributions. This makes it impossible to contribute constructively to the improvement of any article. If you don't like my contributions, why don't you just offer some of your own to counter mine? Why do you have to keep erasing all of the links and footnotes which i've added? What is the point of having an encyclopedia which is supposed to be open to any editor, if you just destroy each of my edits and my citations? Teledildonix314 (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Of course you have the right to edit on Misplaced Pages. I am not here to destroy your work or reputation. All I am telling you is to follow the rules carefully. I sincerely and strongly apologize if your edits are good faith. But you need to think carefully about what you are working on before you edit. Willking1979 (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is unfortunate that you feel compelled to destroy my contributions. Rather than argue with you, rather than dispute some choice of words, i have merely added direct quotations and verifiable citations. But you keep erasing my citations and overt attributions. This makes it impossible to contribute constructively to the improvement of any article. If you don't like my contributions, why don't you just offer some of your own to counter mine? Why do you have to keep erasing all of the links and footnotes which i've added? What is the point of having an encyclopedia which is supposed to be open to any editor, if you just destroy each of my edits and my citations? Teledildonix314 (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you make a personal attack, as you did with this edit to Talk:Rick Warren. PXK /C 00:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see this. PXK /C 00:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Please, back away from User:Straight Edge PXK. If they are causing some sort of problem let me or any other administrator know and we will deal with it. Thank you. Jehochman 01:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
You are being discussed at WP:ANI
Please see (URL edited 2009-01-04 by Teledildonix314) Also, when given a final warning, making a personal attack against a user is a bad idea. PXK /C 00:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I did those warnings because it is poilcy to report any incivilty. The personal attack you did was my editor review. And for the record, I'm not an adult, I'm 15. PXK /C 00:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- PXK, please back away from this editor. You have filed a report. Now let it run its course. Further fighting will not help anybody. Jehochman 05:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:ANI#User:Manutdglory_-_another_issue_of__bad_editor_behavior_connected_with_the_Rick_Warren_article And now i've felt the need to comment further there. Sigh. Teledildonix314 23:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Re: thanks
You're welcome. By the way, I have an email set. Just look at the bar on my talk page. PXK /C 19:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
You're not helping
Hi. You are doing your cause no good by editing under a username that people are likely to find offensive, and by not adhering to basic good Wikisense in your edits. Listen to what people are telling you, provide references, etc. then you can object about ideological bias if you're reverted. In the meantime, I suggest you change your username -- what's wrong with "Kevin Hutchins"? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Anybody offended by a word as innocuous as Teledildonix314 is obviously too prudish and hypersensitive to be able to deal with the realities of reading an encyclopedia. Fear of human form and function is no basis for education nor editorializing. Teledildonix314 19:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hopefully this can end a bad beginning, and begin a good New Year. I need to improve civility, and i need to stick strictly to trivial edits which will trouble no squawking hordes! I must raise my ethical standards, never lower them. I have much learning to do. Teledildonix314 04:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Good research. You might also want to look into the effort to delete Saddlebacking. It doesn't look like it can succeed, but every bit of support helps. Spotfixer (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I think he's trying to trick me into violating WP:3RR, so I'm going to have to let the whitewashed version stand. Sorry. Spotfixer (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it's probably a simple tactic, and i'm getting dragged into the 3RR situation as well, so if they delete the latest citation, i'll probably have to let it stand for a while until other editors can be brought in to fix it. Teledildonix314 05:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- As you may have noticed, I decided to report him after his 5th revert. His behavior is unacceptable, and he had many chances to stop and undo. Spotfixer (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Although you have not crossed the 3RR line you have still been engaged in edit warring. I strongly suggest that you make greater attempts to find a consensus on the article talk pages instead of using multiple reverts. If that fails, then there are better methods of dispute resolution available. Kevin (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
COI request
I've noticed on spme of your recent edits, you've accused another editor of a pretty major conflict of interest, being a part of one of the churches discussed. Do you have any DIFFs that show where he admitted that? It would certainly help your case. Dayewalker (talk) 06:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- The example i find here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Saddleback_Church&diff=prev&oldid=234207404
- It doesn't imply that they are a senior administrator or owner, but i surmise they might be in some kind of Public Relations department (given the type of edits they did). Teledildonix314 06:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nice catch. Dayewalker (talk) 07:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)