User talk:Tznkai

Leaving Community

I will no longer be participating in the Wikipedia community. I may change my mind, but probably not for a while. I will likley continue to edit articles, either signed in or not, depending on what I feel like, but I will no longer be interacting in the community at large, including policy discussions, votes for deltion, requests for adminship and the like.

~~The reason I have done this is because I feel like the community is ends oriented, with to many of its members unconcerned with the means.~~

~~This is related to the incident with User:Ed Poor, but it is not what he did, but how the community reacted to it.~~

~~I have never entertained the idea that poor conduct is justifyiable by seniority, a good laugh, or by the ends. The means never justify the end.~~

~~I could argue this, and hold my ground valiantly in the community.~~

~~Or, I can do what makes me happy, and not entertain something I feel deep at the core of my being is wrong.~~

~~So long, and thanks for all the fish.--Tznkai 22:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]

Addendum: User:Kim Bruning talked some sense into me, so I've decided to instead take a week long vacation from the community. I will still be editing articles, but I will not be participating in community activities. I'll see how I like it. The invalidations of my votes holds.--Tznkai 22:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

~~Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tznkai"~~ ~~Not sure how that got lost, probably got eaten during a database SNAFU--Tznkai 08:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]

Off vacation. --Tznkai 15:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

42

I am sorry to see you leaving the community. You have been a good editor and contributor to wikipedia and I hope that you will continue contributing to wikipedia and in time will feel comfortable returning to participating in things like VFD and RFA. If you decide to return remember to watch your step as there will be exploded sperm whales and pots of petunias scattered around. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:16, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Contributions

If you feel the community is too much to deal with, you should try focusing on researching/creating quality featured articles. This lets time pass and unless you choose a controversial topic, you'll have little interaction with the community until the time comes for FAC, but the people there are pretty reasonable. </ramble> -- BRIAN0918 23:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Take it easy! :-)

Kim Bruning 12:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

revert on God

Are you sure you wanted to add back all those rofls? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for your support on my RfA, even though you retracted it due to another user's very poor actions. It really does mean a lot to me to get that kind of trust. A wikibreak is always a good idea. humblefool ®^{Deletion Reform} 19:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What?

I'm fairly new, so I haven't been following wiki-politics... what happened? Lepidoptera 23:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jtkiefer's RFA

Thanks for your support on my RFA, I really appreciated it and again I hope that you will eventually come back to participating in things such as RFA. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 05:11, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

ID/Silverback's content

Since you've historically objected to Silverback's content in the article, upon seeing his latest reinsertion of it, I rolled it back (along with some additional 'example creep' added by some passersby). Silverback promptly reverted my reversion. Since I'm not inclined to participate in yet another revert war on this article, I've reverted the bits of example creep but let Silverback's content stand anticipating your return to the article. If you still object to the content, you have my endorsement, if for no other reason than it's rather long and the article is on a diet. FeloniousMonk 12:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like your decision is based more on allegience to a cabal than an independent assessment of my contribution. Why not edit in good faith instead?--Silverback 21:50, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor

Hi.

You may wish to take a look at my recent post to Ed's page, which I made before I happened across your departure note. You may find that I share some of your concerns. I suspect that many others do to, but I am among the few who is willing to speak up. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Theistic Evolution

Thanks for the note, Tznkai. I'm glad to see you're sticking around and would enjoy tag teaming on some non-controversial articles. ID-related articles have a twisted attraction to me... I'm like a moth attracted to the dazzle of a fire. I flicker around, dive in and out, and often get singed in the process. But I can't help it.

As for thesitic evolution... When it comes right down to it, I'm not quite sure what my answer is to a question of "How did all these diverse species come about?" ID (if successful) tells us that there was a designer(s), but it cannot tell us who or how. I am a Christian, but (like St. Jerome and CS Lewis) I think the creation story that starts Genesis is written in a poetic manner, not a scientific one. I do believe in a creator, but there are many way He could have done it. Here are my opinions on each.

6-Day creation. My fiancee holds this position, and I can see its appeal: God doesn't waste any time getting to the humans. Surely a God that can pull off creation in 6 days is a powerful and wonderful God... and if He could do it in 6 days, why would He choose to take billions of years? However, physicists triangulate stars to be more than 10 billion light years away. Meaning that the universe must at least be 10 billion years old. So long as the physicists are accurate (and I see no reason to doubt their calculations), believing in a 6-Day creation also means believing in a deceiving or trickster God. That's not for me. So even though I agree with Melita, that God could create it all in six days (I believe in His omnipotence), it just doesn't seem like He did.

Theistic evolution. Many of my friends take this position, and I can also see its appeal. God wound up all the universe at the beginning such that it would play itself out into human beings after several billions of years. Using Kenneth Miller's analogy, sure it's a great pool player that knocks a ball in with every shot, but it's an even greater player who can knock them all in with one shot. A great and brilliant God, in this vein, would set it up such that in the initial creation act (the Big Bang) it would all be taken care of. He never needs to intervene. He never needs to "cheat", so to speak, and break natural laws. He's like a genius chess player who can solve all the problems with one move, and doesn't need to *poof* any new pieces onto the board.

However, here again, I don't see the scientific evidence. The "theistic" in theistic evolution is meaningless in terms of the science, since it limits God's action to only the beginning. (Some theistic evolutionists also believe that God created the first cell, but either way they accept the evolutionary process as being wholly unaided by God.) So when it comes to things like the human eye and the bacterial flagellum, a theistic evolutionist is no different from an atheistic evolutionist. They both think that it came out of a series of mutations with no outside help. But as it stands, I am currently convinced that irreducible complexity nullifies natural selection... leaving IC components only able to be formed by pure randomness. (You can see my reasoning on the IC talk page, section "Justification".)

So I guess I would have to be considered an old-Earth creationist. The evidence (to me) points to a God who basically put together a miracle for the creation of each "type"* of living organism. The fossil record points to this. (If you think about it, the fossil record for old-earth creationism would look identical to the fossil record for puncuated equilibrium.) Irreducible complexity points to this. But old-Earth creationism really has no imaginative appeal. In comparison to 6-Day, the Old-Earth God is a lazy bum dinking around for millions of years between creating each species... taking His sweet time before making humans, the "crown of His creation." And in comparison to theistic evolution, the old-Earth God is a cheater. He wasn't smart enough to pull it off in one move, so He has to meddle all the time. The only thing one can say about the old-Earth God is that He is mysterious. But I don't pick my beliefs based on how they appeal to my imagination.

And to make things more complicated, the evidence for universal descent seems pretty convincing. (And I think Behe says he believes in universal descent, too.) Thus, we now have species-creating miracles that somehow come out of other existing species. Eagles hatching out of chicken eggs. David Bergan 06:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*I had previously said "species", but I know that some species have been observed to evolve out of others... many species have lots of things in common and going from one to the next doesn't involve leaps over IC components. But at some point in the tree of life (especially at the kingdom/phylum level, and usually at the class/family level) these leaps have to be made. Vertebraes from invertebreas. Four-chambered hearts from three-chambered hearts. Multiple-celled organisms from single-celled organisms. Warm-blooded from cold-blooded. Sexual reproduction from asexual reproduction. Hollow bones from solid bones. I don't think that natural selection is wrong, but I do think it has a limit. And these sorts of leaps are on the other side of that limit. David Bergan 15:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

God interacts with us in such a subtle and amazing way its impossible to know if it is God or Random Chance. This is exactly how my friend Ethan says it, one of the friends I mentioned above as believing theistic evolution. Ethan hesitates to say that God performs miracles, but loves to wax eloquently on God's providence and how he comes to belief through faith. To him, nature doesn't show us any deductive arguments that God exists, but it gives us lots of hints. He's a grad student in organic chemistry and feels that there is so much going on with DNA and the cell that it leads him to believe that God planned it from the beginning (ie. the Big Bang).

My belief in God comes through reason instead of faith and feelings. And I'm not talking about ID here. If the theory of evolution were a fact - the fossil record showed us all the transitions, all of biology turned out to be reducible, etc. - I would still believe in God. My belief in God is fully on philosophical grounds... which you can see at User:Dbergan/ImagoDei. It's a page I wrote out for a weekly worldview discussion group I attend. In fact, I'll toss up the major work I wrote for that group, too. User:Dbergan/SummaBergania Those will probably answer most of your questions about my beliefs... and you'll notice that ID/evolution is absent from my creed. It's interesting to me, but not something that would affect my core beliefs.

And no, I don't have a bunny sticker. Yet. David Bergan 18:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

YAY! You're back!

Hurrah! Kim Bruning 15:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

I have replied to your comment on my talk page. Cheers,

¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 15:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and again. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 15:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I don't recall the incident. But apology accepted. Generally, I expect people to bump into each other once in a while when working in close quarters, and I don't begrudge an occaisional stepping on toes since I know I'll probably step on some toes once in a while myself. Peace. FuelWagon 16:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion and User:LucaviX

Let's see here...

A recent study by Dr. Caroline Moreau --This is the name of the person who conducted the study, please do not remove-- suggested

Should the name be removed? I agree we should give studies equal treatment and such; but if this scientist does have a bias then she should be noted, nes pas? Or is the long list of scientists involved in the study sufficient to remove her... dunno. How bout?

A recent study by Dr. Caroline Moreau et al. suggested

And what's up with this?

--Temp link, please wait for discussion and collaboration to take its course to find it this will be remove, or become a footnote. -- -- Multiple sources exist, and were listed, but were removed--

Do you know what he is talking about, did anyone else do something? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me the policy? I wasn't aware of that till now. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, you're probably right but its ambiguous to me if that includes comments, coolcat to the rescue though. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it this way. Vandalism embedded in comments is still vandalism. Personal discussion in comments is still personal discussion--Tznkai 01:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Are you aware of this? [1] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:31, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Jihad

Regarding you suggestion about me as an intermediary, frankly, I think that it would just make things more complicated right now. In my opinion, the last responses on the talkpage also seems to indicate, that some progress might very well be made now. Things seems to have calmed down a bit, and Zeno ask for some more specific criticism that he can respond to/make changes according to. He also agree that the lead section should indeed be rewritten, to make it more readable and clarify some issues. Maybe you could do that, and post your suggestion on the discussionpage, so that we can discuss it? If we all remain calm, I am almost sure we can make some progress now, without any special arrangements. -- Karl Meier 07:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

Hi, I've seen you around mostly Jihad and Template:Islam and... well, when I saw your RfA I began to look into you more... I, of course, agree with you in not being too fond of Zeno's conduct at times and... well. Whem I see adins like dab or SlimVirgin reprimand someone it makes sense to me (the de facto power you talked about on RfA) but, you (pardon me) can seem a little argumentative at times... which isn't necessarily bad... but it's just a little disconcerting in a user as new as you. You also said you've been in conflict with Ed Poor (whose an admin but I've seen arguments of people with him before)... Felonious and Sam Spade... (I don't know about but both have been up for admin) and Zeno (I can personally understand that)... Maybe your tone is becuase you are that good and authoratative but... it does scare me a little. I'm going to see how Zora, dab, Mel and SlimVirgin vote... and their reasons (if they do vote)... because, most times I am in agreement with them... but... well, I'm very on the line with this... because I like you... and yet, some things worry me. I'm not sure why I wrote this... but, I figured it'd be a good idea to tell you my ideas in full since I work on articles with you. If you keep up the good work I see then I'd surely vote for you later... but, I think this request is a little early. gren グレン 10:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Noticeboard Revert

Hi, I've made a 3RR noticeboard report [2], and noticed that you've reverted it three minutes later [3]. Your comment was 'RV: template got eaten.' For future reference, can you explain to me what mistake that I've made in my 3RR report, so that I do not repeat my mistake in the future? --Bletch 14:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain [4] perhaps on your request for admin page where I have asked the question. It's all very well a template being allegedly eaten, but you doidn't fix it, and you let Cognition get off scott free. Now you claim you want to be an administrator. Can you not see how unready you are if you cannot even use the admin 3RR page without disaster. It was even poinmted out to you by Bletch. Why did you not fix it or get someone else to? SqueakBox 01:02, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I have restored it now 2 days on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Cognition , and he has been blocked. Can't see what the problem was, SqueakBox 03:01, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

In future either try to repair your mistake or ask someone else to. I think you did the right thing to withdraw your nomination, as this to me was evidence that you are not ready for enhanced technical powers yet. I hope you don't get put off being here as I know the Rfc can be a hard process, SqueakBox 16:02, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I do believe you should have restored what you deleted. Bletch did not delete it so it was not his responsibility to replace it. If we make mistakes handling the wiki technology we should correct them ourselves, with help from an admin if necessary. I hope and trust there won't be a repeat performance, SqueakBox 16:21, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Many Thanks

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 18:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Flew & Scientific Community

If you don't mind, I would like you drop me a message and tell me (a) Why you don't think Antony Flew is notable in light of his conversion and (b) Why you prefer "the scientific community" rejects it instead of "most of the scientific community" rejects it.

-Irishsgb

Article: Wrestling Rappers

This is the article I saw last night that I don't know what to do with. The only thing Wrestling Rappers really says is the existence of John Cena's album You Can't See Me which, as you can see, already has a sizable article going into much more detail. I don't know quite what to do with it. --AmyBeth 05:42:19, 2005-08-18 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Please check out this request for comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#User:Ombudsman--Agiantman 20:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gifted

On the gifted talk page, you indicate that you're working on a rewrite. Is this still the case? If not, I'll continue to work on it. If it is, though, I'll hold off until I see your contributions.

Phillip 22:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Wrongful abortion" rewrite

I retooled the "wrongful abortion" article after you marked it for clean-up. It's not a subject I'd normally tackle, I admit, but I thought that my contributions would be helpful. Apparently not. See the talk page and my revert of my own changes on the history page. Your direction would be appreciated. Thanks. --Kyd 19:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciated your comment,

Made here, and I wanted you to know that regardless of your intent (I assume you were making an entirely impartial comment), I took it well, and don't intend to oppose your next bid for adminship. In hindsight I think my unhappiness w you at that time was largely circumstantial, and not betraying any inherent failing of your character. My impression of you has now been raised to dead even, or perhaps even mildly favorable. Cheers, Sam Spade 16:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion

You most recent edit left something of a mess on the first sentence of the article. Also, I think that it removed valuable information from the first paragraph. Just an opinion.—Gaff ^ταλκ 00:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion addition removed

Exactly what was the problem with the submission I entered? It didn't have enough big words to confuse people? You claimed it was overly simplified, and non-topical for a summary article? Um, in the heading "Abortion Debate" under the article "Abortion", what exactly do you think a "this is what it boils down to" IS? I put the text in the abortion debate section fo the abortion article, and you remove it? I did exactly what you claimed I didn't do. PLUS you removed a link from a Pro-Life organization that was there before I even showed up on this topic.

I am reverting your changes to that link, and submitting my article in the talk section right now.ģ

Picture Abortion

Maybe I'm uploading the wrong pictures and I'm sorry but I really don't see copyrights on half of these pages. How can I tell if an Image is copyrighted? Chooserr

We Miss You

Thanks for the note. I'm sorry to hear about your troubles. I hope everything resolves for you quickly. Your absence is totally understandable and it's obvious why something non-essential, like Wikipedia, would have to take a backseat. Truth be told, you probably are the one keeping the article concise and informative and the discussion rational and on course. In the first day without you, I got embroiled in a silly edit war — which, I realize, was probably little more than a coincidence. We're lucky to have such a great team, though, and I look forward to you rejoining us when things have smoothed out. -Kyd 00:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

abortion talk

Do not remove comments about the article content, bias of sources and POV of edits/editors. Goodandevil 17:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you decide to Rfc, Tzn - thnx KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that. -Kyd 10:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I saw that Goodandevil deleted your comments and the others, I was in process of restoring them, but saw that you did it already. Thanks. I'm gathering up personal testimonies about what you asked. If I can find any statistics (which I think will be harder to find than a needle in 10,000 acres of hay) then I'll post them though.

Please stop deleting my comments and then blaming me moments later for restoring them and unintentionally losing comments posted by others after your vandalism. Your mess is not mine to clean up. This message concerns your recent blanking of all or part of Wikipedia pages - please stop. If you feel that the page should be deleted, please see the deletion policy. Goodandevil 17:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bias of edits is due to editor bias. When no user names are used, generic discussion of a general bias in an articel is precisely what talk pages are for. Your logic is quite twisted to not allow discussion of article bias in a particular article and its causes in the article talk page. I will Rfc if you continue to delete my pertinent comments from the talk page. I have already posted a vandalism in progress warning on the appropriate page noting your repeated disruptive deletions. Goodandevil 18:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the United Federation of Planets

What are you upto havent heard from you for ages. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

User_talk:KillerChihuahua#Try_to_be_civil

KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: abortion re: the to-do list

I'm not sure what the procedure is here to edit the page, but it's been a few days since I've posted the survey of general American's beliefs on "scientifically, what is a fetus/embryo?". Nobody's come out and denied anything, but again I think the poll shows the average person's (> 2/3rds of people) understanding of what a fetus/embryo is, is flawed. At this point I'd like your support to change the first sentence to the compromise version, without the words "being" in it, to satisfy the rest on there, as I really don't feel like debating for another few weeks over the word "being", although I think "human being" does a better job, I think just "unborn human" covers it adequately. Barwick 18:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

Are you one yet? Would you like to be? If so, I'll try to get someone who doesn't polarize votes (like I do) to nominate you. BYT 16:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any objection to me trying to get you nominated? On the clear understanding that you must call me out on strikes whenever you believe that I have swung and missed at something? BYT 16:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Hello!

Been busy and keeping my head down. About to get back into the mix though. And dear god your talk page looks pretty.--Tznkai 16:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What? You in a wiki-trench? O_o'

Oh thank you, actualy lots of userpages out there have been my design recently ^-^' --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hope all goes well for your father

Hi, Tznkai. Sorry to hear that your father has had a stroke. I hope that all goes well, and that we'll see you back regularly at the abortion page soon. By the way, I've changed my user name, but you can probably still work out who I am. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 09:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to express my sorrow and support for you at this time. You are in many people's thoughts. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

War on Christmas edits

Hi. I see you're doing some major edits on the War on Christmas article. I just wanted to let you know about something that's come up a few times already, before you were involved. Your current revision says:

"War on Christmas is a contraversial term reffering to an alleged campaign to remove the Christian religious elements from the celebration of Christmas in the United States of America. "

We've reverted several such intros because they say the War on Christmas is a "term". The article should be about the "alleged campaign", not the "controversial term referring to an alleged campaign". In other words, the concept, not the word. I'm telling you here because you have the major edit tag up, and I don't want to edit the article while you're moving furniture around. Merry Christmas, anyway, if you celebrate Christmas, that is. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand your reply... I just meant that Wikipedia articles are not about phrases, but about the concepts to which those phrases refer. Thus, the Statue of Liberty is a statue, not a term that refers to a statue, etc. Does that make sense? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I agree that this isn't the most clear-cut case. Writing about something whose very existence is disputed is difficult to do in a neutral way. For some, it's a real thing, for others, it's just a term for something made-up. How do we seem not to favor either side? I appreciate your major edits; that article has been in need of serious work for a while. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Transfer from Parayoxim(?)'s talk) I will revert your last edits to the target page, because they didn't create a new commercial specifically to include the Christians, and to say they did is a misrepresentation of the facts. Think, on the 12th the boycott started and when were the commercials released? Before Christmas several days so say they had 10...they dragged everyone out there, and spent all that money to film a new commercial? I don't think so. To make it more clear that same commercial branded as "new" was on before the 12th...meaning...that they just changed the end slide. Chooserr 23:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if my last edit was the 2nd or 3rd revert, I'll check, but if I have one more I will revert it for the reasons stated above. Chooserr 23:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]