User talk:Digitalican

Welcome!

Hello, Digitalican, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Rklawton 16:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a list of people, each entry needs to reference a Wikipedia:Reliable source that states that the person lived in Chapel Hill. Go on news.google.com and you can type the person's name + "Chapel Hill" and get a reference. To cite sources please read Wikipedia:Citing sources - As for the one entry I left, she needs a page number. (or another source that says the same thing) - The reason why I removed much of the list was because the list contains living people, and as per Wikipedia:BLP we should not have unsourced information about living people floating around. In unreferenced lists it is easy for people to slip in false information. We need to have the lists be well-referenced so the reader can rely on the content. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that then the readers will have to check the Wikipedia articles to see if they really are referenced, and that adds work for the reader. We want the reader to easily verify the information in the article, so the references all need to be attached to the list. In fact featured lists all have references. Adding additional references for these lists will not clog the articles containing the lists. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Protection

No problem! Feel free to call on me whenever you need help of any kind. :) Keep up the great work, Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 21:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection only stops IP addresses and non-autoconfirmed users from editing pages. SatanHelper666's account was autoconfirmed, so they were able to edit the page. Apologies for not blocking them sooner! Master of Puppets 12:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mary Baker Eddy. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. ClubOranje^T 10:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Digitalican. You have new messages at ClubOranje's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Page Lock

For Several months this war has been taking place on the Mary Baker Eddy page. Our IP address is that of all US Service Members in Kuwait. Can't you or someone semi-lock the page so vandals whom are unregistered cant make edits.

I went to do some work on a page this morning when I found out the IP was blocked for half a year!!

I took the morning to read the entire page, it's history and it's discussion page. I have no opinion whatsoever on the article however, it's completly biased, and managed by a flock of Christain Science Crusaders (SpinningSpark) WHO EVEN DELETED DISCUSSION FROM THE TALK PAGE??? Is that not vandalisim of another sort! No more free discussion?

Again, in no way advocation for the trolls, but when the page is so 1 sided, I can see why!

I'll have you know I will sign up today for my own accout (which is still linked to this IP) and will be blocked when the IP gets blocked again.

I was going to donate to Wiki-- But certainly not now.

Thanks, I'll be sending you my unblock requests once my account gets shut down. You can judge me by my edit history linked to my personal account.

I have no stock in the Mary Baker Eddy page. It's obvious her keepers wont even allow discusion. Fine! let them have the page! Just lock it so un-registered users from this IP can't edit it.

Thank you, Martin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.81.248.53 (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Local" Papers

Hey there... Hope all is well. I took News & Observer off of the Durham page. Since it is not published there, it isn't a local paper. It might have a bureau but it is still not published there. Q-Notes has a physical presence in Durham, Raleigh and Chapel Hill as well, as it is printed there and physical delivery is done by a circulation manager who lives and works in the area. Regardless, Q-Notes, like N&O, isn't published in Durham, therefore not a local paper. Matt (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peppermint Spring Farm

Peppermint Spring Farm has (a) a Chapel Hill Address and (b) is not iconic to Carrboro. While I realize the owner has had a legal dispute with the town of Carrboro and thus it is not in Carrboro, it still lacks significance for the town. Obviously if we include pictures of everything that is in Carrboro it will be impossible to find text. :) Digitalican (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Local farms and their products are iconic to Carrboro. The photo at the top of Carrboro's page is the Carrboro Farmer's Market, should that be deleted too? There is a website dedicated to preserving Carrboro farms, including Peppermint Spring Farm (I have no affiliation with the website, www.savecarrborosfarms.com). But my point is, farms and local businesses are significant to the town of Carrboro. And the Carrboro Wikipedia page doesn't have a problem with having too many photos (there are only three). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.69.167.207 (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your minidispute on the newly added phrase in the article on Christian Science

Hi, The presence or absence of the phrase in dispute I think is a small point. On the one hand, the phrase recently added could be taken to mean that the court ruling itself is a POV, and therefore the new phrase makes it NPOV. However, where the courts of the land have made a ruling, and this has been stated as a court ruling by the editor, then the phrase becomes a citation, and so is NPOV. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael J. Mullany (talk • contribs)

Hi

Hi Digitalican, as I am not in the USA, I may have misinterpreted this. However, what you may not know about the other editor is that (s)he is actually a supporter of Christian Science, possibly even a Christian Scientist: or so someone with that ISP Address claimed. I therefore think that you guys probably could reach an agreement, as I notice that you were raised in CS yourself.

I am somewhat more concerned about someone who has started editing the CS article, who was previously discredited as a vandal. However, the few changes (s)he made seem little more than cosmetic. As I know you take an ongoing interest in the CS article, perhaps you could join me in watching what this user might do to it in the future.

All the best. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 10:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point of view

I can't quarrel with that! All the best, Michael J. Mullany (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Digitalican. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last Edit by MJM

I seem to be missing something regarding my last edit. Would you give me more detail as to why you thought that my last edit was out of order? After all, I added nothing. I merely rearranged what was there.

If you think that we should go back to the last edit, how do we get rid of the 'who?' tag? I agree that the original word 'Some' could be taken as a weasel word.

November 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ElKevbo (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Science: The Hereafter

Hi Digitallican. Many thanks for your constructive critique.

When judging what is encyclopedic, I try to evaluate things from the perspective of a reader who is new to the topic. I believe that the editor has a job to do to relate the new material as a continuance or as a complement to what the reader probably already knows; a well-known procedure in education. It is highly likely that users who look up Christian Science have heard more about near-death experiences than they have about Christian Science. My aim here is to establish the nexus between the two, and so to open up the topic more effectively to the enquirer.

While I agree with your analysis of the term 'hereafter' and the Christian Science view of it, I note 1) that the reader will understand this term; and 2) that Christian Scientists often use terms which contraindicate their own beliefs. For example, the lesson sermon entitled, 'Probabtion after Death', when there is no death; class instruction on how to handle 'mortal mind', when mortal mind is a non-existent illusion; testimonies on how people were cured of certain illnesses when there is no illness; discussions of how to handle error, when error is an illusion, and so on. It can be argued that Christian Science hastens to show that these things are illusiory and to be seen through. However, the starting point is always on what the newcomer is likely to know and relate to, even if it is countermanded in the following discussion.

My mild objection to what the previous edits tried to do was also based on an apparent attempt to 'purge' from the article, non-Christian Science literature. That certainly would not be encyclopedic.

A more encyclopedic title than 'The Hereafter' might be, 'Beliefs in relation to Death', or something similar. What do you think?

:)Michael J. Mullany (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note

You are a WP:SPA Christian Scientist editor who edits Christian Scientist related articles only (despite your disclaimer that you wish to stay away from articles that you have too much knowledge of). You have removed material from the lead which reflects the material in the article (as expected by the manual of style WP:LEAD), but which doesn't put Christian Science in a positive light. And you accuse me of advocacy? I suggest reflecting on that. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can you highlight these two things "I understand the CS point of view but am not an advocate for it or against it", and "I try to stay away from contributing to articles about which I know nothing or, worse, know enough to have a specific point of view. It's important here to be aware of your own blind spots." You mentioned you still support this statement, can you explain how it doesn't contradict the other statement you made. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which other statement? I haven't changed anything of substance, only the (undocumented) assertion that Christian Science has been (generally) classified as a pseudoscience and some really awkward wording. I actually do not disagree with many of your edits and have left them alone. The article is inaccessible due to language and generally bad. That doesn't mean that all your edits are pristine, OK? Digitalican (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement "I understand the CS point of view but am not an advocate for it or against it", appears to contradict your other statement from your user page about when you "know enough to have a specific point of view". IRWolfie- (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually try to be neutral about Christian Science practice. I suspect you don't believe that, but I am. I got into this because I thought it ought not to be misrepresented by people with points of view. In my memory I have redacted both proponents and opponents of Christian Science (and have the scorch marks to prove it from both sides.) To use one of your scientific analogies -- that I understand how nuclear fission works does not mean I am in favor of nuclear warfare. Digitalican (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully believe that you try to be neutral. I think that there may be a misunderstanding of what neutral is. Neutrality means we discuss viewpoints only in their prominence in the reliable secondary sources. If 99.9% of sources say X, 0.1% say Y, we say X in wikipedias voice. If medical controversies are most prevalent in Christian Science, we devote more article space to that, than say theology (you mentioned few reliable sources exist) , we decrease the weight there. If most sources are critical of some aspect of Christian Science, we reflect that in the article, if the sources are positive of some aspect , we reflect that in the article. To be neutral you need to read WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE and understand what that means. In general you disregard your previous positions/convictions on a topic and just look for the sources; judge them for reliability, judge them for WP:WEIGHT by looking at the prevalence, and then essentially parrot what they say with little original input of your own beyond paraphrasing them in your own words. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You also will have to be that I am not trying to be contentious. I really do believe that most of your edits to Christian Science are good, making the article more accessible to people who want to learn what Christian Science is. My problem with your point of view (and it is a point of view) is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Much has been written (inaccurately by the way) about Christian Science's view and use of medicine because that is a contentious point. That 99% is critical does not mean that 99% is accurate. By anecdote I was, for example, vaccinated against smallpox at age 7 because it was the law and Christian Science does not go against the law, at least by church edict. Certainly there are social pressures that cause individual Christian Scientists to do weird things, but it's by no means universal and by no means church edict. This is where the expertise I was talking about comes in.

My view of Wikipedia is like my view of the Encyclopedia Britannica as I grew up. It was a place I went to find out about things, not to find out about things and all the argumentation that surrounded them. We all know full well that there's lots of Goofy stuff in the world, like Christian Science and like Astrology, but having to deal with the argumentation makes a resource less useful in understanding the principles. Does that make any sense? Sometimes the truth gets in the way of information. :) My take as an editor here is not to take a position, but to try to emphasize clarity and keep the worst of the advocacy at bay. That's so with The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Carrboro and even Froggy the Gremlin as well as Christian Science. Digitalican (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do distinguish that Christian Scientists aren't breaking the law by not vaccinating, and the reliable sources will most likely clarify any issue of it being social pressures. Wikipedia can't correct where 99% of the most reliable sources are incorrect; it's not our place to do that, we don't publish original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if I read what you're saying correctly that majority rule rather than accuracy or correctness is the determiner of "truth" on Wikipedia -- that what reliable sources "say" (though they may or may not be be wrong) is more useful that the documentable fact? It's sad to see a situation where our truths are determined by majority rule and certainly makes an encyclopedia much less useful than it might otherwise be. Digitalican (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially we aim for truth by working only with the reliable sources (particularly reliable secondary sources), and not making or adding our own deductions about what the truth is. So yes, majority rule; we aren't here to add do original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in this essay. For example, "If Wikipedia had been available around the fourth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and without qualification." That is how Wikipedia works - it reflects the current state of knowledge, and we determine what that is using reliable sources. Arc de Ciel (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the essay reference. I had read it before and really, at this point, understand full well how Wikipedia works. I also understand full well what is required of me if I am to modify the position taken by the page the Christian Science is universally considered a pseudo-science. Should I manage that (and it's possible that I can at this point after spending part of the day in the University Libarary) I feel doubtful that it will be taken seriously. Somehow, in this dispute, I became one of the 'bad guys' and the whacko fringe -- an SPA whose sole purpose in life was to push an agenda.

As I said on my (now expunged) comments on the Christian Science talk page it's probably safer and saner that I expend my efforts where they are more readily welcome and respected. Does that mean I'm going to pick up my ball and go home? No. It simply means that I am going to avoid encountering the kind of intellectual jackboot thuggery I have dealt with over the past few days. I got into this not to push an agenda about Christian Science, but simply because Christian Science was something I knew a bit about, whose language and principles I understood both of which gave me a footing to hold some of the vandals at bay. I think a close look at my edit record will indicate that. I take the same approach with any of the subjects I know something about.

Am I unhappy because I didn't get my way? No. I am unhappy because my views were taken derisively and not at all seriously. I am unhappy because the three of you waved your rulebooks in my face and completely disregarded what I was trying to say -- even though even I might not have been sure it's right. The damage has been done. I'm highly disinclined to put myself in a position where I would have to go through this again -- right or wrong. Digitalican (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's on those same links we gave you that you can check and ask for advice from other editors on the respective talkpages and noticeboards. You can show diffs and ask us if our interpretations are correct. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I ask you? The royal you has shown no indication that there is any introspection or even desire for discussion and introspection on whether your interpretations are correct. At this point all I feel I can expect from you is disrespect and derision. I have had no indication I should expect anything else. You and your colleagues have, in my view, failed to treat me as a person rather than just a screen name. I would be agreeable if I had any evidence that a dialog was possible. The whole business just makes me more sad than angry. It's symptomatic of our times (at least in the U.S. if not in Ireland.) I'm sorry for the snarky comment about the RFC but at some point my frustration with this whole experience just took over. Digitalican 13:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

By our I was referring to my, and Dominus (another experienced editor) who added his opinion. You can easily ask at other venues whether the interpretations are correct. Show a diff, ask if it's a correct interpretation. I am fully available for any discussion, and I have engaged in discussions on the talk page. The discussions are limited to centring around policy based and guideline based arguments, if another editor has reasoning based on his personal interpretation then this can't really be considered in discussion if it's to counter a reliable secondary source. A discussion of something is going to involve invoking policies and guidelines, and assumes familiarity with them. Ask at FTN as well, the editors there give good feedback to questions, or other noticeboards like RSN. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understood who you meant by our. Dominus Vobisdu (I don't know where Dominus is either :) ) was not exactly a help nor was Arc de Ceil. Both, as I saw it, were a bit high-handed. While at this point calmer, I'm very shy of asking help right now or negotiating with conflicting interpretations. That you flew directly in the face of the 5th pillar of Wikipedia (which someone very nicely put on my home page when I created a login) was both frustrating and confusing. (I'm not playing rulebook here nor will I ever, I'm just telling you what was frustrating.) It suggests that the rules and policies most of us read (or think we read) aren't the rules in general use. It suggests that, to paraphrase Orwell, some editors are more equal than others.

Too, there has been enough heat in this situation that I'm not willing to 'go to papa if I can't have my way with mama' (so to speak.) Trying, even inadertantly, to split editors into groups is not being a good citizen. Though it isn't always possible, as I've seen, I've always tried to work through consensus and compromise, not the blacks and whites of conflict and correctness.

I do appreciate your efforts to come back to this after the incident and I appreciate your trying to be clear. I'm just not sure my concerns can be addressed within the culture of Wikipedia. How, in the Wikipedia universe, do we build consensus? Democracy tends to be a system that builds and rigidifies warring camps, which really aren't what you (or we or anyone) want here. I understand the logic behind the democratization of knowledge, but am not sure it's an effective approach. I'm not sure it allows for the dissemination of truth. (One of my favorite quotes is "That's not the truth, that's just a fact.") I know, it's not the job of Wikipedia to discern truth. That almost, to me, defines irony.

Thanks, Digitalican 00:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Observations

Gads, man, chill on this. Glad you pointed me here (I could make a career out of the possibilities for publication) but it really is a tempest in a teapot -- a somewhat large teapot, but nevertheless a teapot. Remember that the autocracy of the emperor is inversely proportional to the size of the empire and have a beer. I've only been looking for a day but have some observations on my "home" page which I'll keep adding to. Heh! They have and article on Gerry but not on Amos. For shame. Observator Simiae (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Found Amos. He needs some work. I'm sure he'd be laughing at me or with me. Observator Simiae (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]