User talk:Ec5618

Welcome to my talk page. Please post new messages at the bottom, and use descriptive headlines when starting new topics.
I also prefer to contain discussions to a single Talk page. Thank you.

---

Archive

1. /Human - Archive development and human interaction.
2. /Technical - Where I keep all references to PUI, AFD, TFD, Stubs and the like.
3. /Dan Watts - I was asked to discuss my beliefs.
4. /Block - I was blocked.
5. /Adminship - My request for Adminship failed.

---

de | fr | nl | it

---

Moving Topics

The organization structure of the D&D classes section is haphazard at best. To make it uniform there are only two choices... either put (Dungeons & Dragons) at the end of each topic, or take them all off... The second option isn't really an option because topics like Shaman, Cleric, Crusader, Monk, etc. already exist in Wikipedia... so I elected to move them all into one topic... If there's some sort of problem (which I don't see why there would be) with imposing uniformity then I'll have to rethink the structure...

Also, is there any reason to leave comments on talk pages that have either been addressed or are rendered meaningless by changes (or in one of the cases for which you reverted, was me deleting my own question that I figured out the answer for)... seems like unnecessary clutter

Thanks for the heads up though... --Laxrulz777 18:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your desire to create unity. And in this case, you have a definate point, as most of these topics are of interest only to people interested in Dungeons & Dragons related content. It is not policy, however. Consider that if it were to become policy to add 'Dungeons & Dragons' or 'Star Trek' to all relevant articles, an automated bot could quickly finish the job, 'pedia-wide. I again urge you to visit the Manual of Style. There are a large number of bots around, and finding one willing to help your project shouldn't be dificult, once policy reflects your views.

As for the comments on Talk pages, it is prefered to leave comments where they are, or to move them to an archive subpage. Adding a note explaining that the issue has been addressed is certainly useful, but removing comments can be confusing (as it forces interested users to check the history to see which comments were removed and why). In some way, all comments on the Talk pages are a part of the history of an article, and should be easily reviewable. -- Ec5618 18:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I didn't see anything in the Manual of Style specifically opining on which way was best (there's some discussion of when to use parentheticals but nothing specific). There discussions of avoiding "heirarchy" structures which this may be bordering on. I'll look more into it... Thanks for the input.

I'll be more careful with the comments. Thanks for that. --Laxrulz777 18:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: welcome/ DNA repair

Thanks for the warm welcome. I'll see what I can do on DNA repair pages. My first idea was to just copy-paste the introduction to my thesis there, but I doubt anybody would appreciate it :P (thirty-odd pages, 300+ scientific references). Some trimming down will be required haha. Groeten, Marvol 21:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Devolution

Hi Ec5618,

I want to make you acquainted with the WP:NPOV policy. Sentence one of this policy states: 'The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted.' I have the impression that we are dealing with conflicting views at the moment. The article Devolution (fallacy) is dealing with the theme started by Max Nordau. I am a socialist and don't agree with the devolution theory, still i think that the history of the thought on devolution should be included into this article.--Daanschr 13:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Devolution refers to a fallacy, in which biological evolution is seen as progresssion to an ultimately superior form. Degeneration, as used by Max Nordau, refers to decaying moral standards and decadence. This is not an issue of neutral poin of view, this is an issue of irrelevance. Max Nordau's views on civilisation are irrelevant when discussing biological evolution. -- Ec5618 13:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I will copy these discussion to the subsequent talk page.--Daanschr 13:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Are we having fun yet?

You really walked into one of our high-bedlam periods on the ID, evolution and creation pages, eh? Glad to have your input because I was about to go crazy myself.  ;)

So have you become "acquainted" with NPOV yet? ROFL. •Jim62sch• 13:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I may have glanced at it at some point. Meaningless drivel, I'm sure. -- Ec5618 13:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. •Jim62sch• 14:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for archiving ID. Now we just need to see if the conversation rears it's ugly head again. •Jim62sch• 21:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, at one point, we will be able to resist explaining these things to people who refuse to ask real people. The archives are filled with people who seem unwilling to trust scientists. And according to polls, that includes just a few too many people for us to handle here. -- Ec5618 21:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I doubt it given that the first page many people turn to in the paper is their bloody horrorscope. •Jim62sch• 23:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I'll try to find a typo in that last word. -- Ec5618 23:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I didn't fat-finger that one. Thanks for the tip on using <cite>! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)