User talk:Deist
Hello Deist, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them;
If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
Angela 13:06, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)
Hello Deist, and welcome on Wikipedia !
it seems that Universism hold essentially the same views as mine. I'm glad to see that ! The only slightly annoying point then is: why make it a religion ? Isn't the very word "religion" a first step on a dangerous slippery slope ? Isn't that somehow closing the openness ? --FvdP 21:56, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Hey FvdP, religion is dangerous stuff, but I don't think we can get rid of it, rather we have to change it, by expanding the definition into 'rational religion.' I think Faith can be replaced with Uncertainty, to the improved safety and happiness of us all. Check out E.O. Wilson's 1998 Atlantic Monthly articles on the biological basis of morality, they are online. It's a simple idea that religion could be based on reason, that evolution is more inspiring than eden, that the wonder manifested in carl sagan's "billions and billions" is infinitely more fascinating and more relevant to the modern world than the limited worlds of ancient faith-based revealed religions. Deist Nov. 2, 2003
Please consider joining the Wikidocs Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine Kd4ttc 03:25, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
This user has been signing comments with your user name at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Universism. If this is you please make sure you log in so your contributions are properly marked; otherwise you may want to see a sysop to take action aginst this user. Regards, Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:25, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Universism
[edit]Your continued personal attacks on BM and other users are unacceptable. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and please adhere to the policies of this website. Gamaliel 21:23, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- BM's terrible editing has been reprimanded by another administrator (see Universism talk page). Did you even read his version of the article? You are aware it was bleeding his POV aren't you? Pointing out BM's apparent lack of writing skill (shocking for a harvard philosophy grad, really) and his both admitted and apparent prejudice against the subject are not personal but professional criticisms - if amateur editing of a fake encylopedia can be considered professional. --Deist 16:20, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Universism
[edit]More to the point, if another Universism article is created at some future point, you will not be the one determining when the article is "A-OK" and when it is not. For all that you complained about BM "vandalizing" the article (showing your non-understanding of what "vandalism" means on Wikipedia, to go along with your non-understanding of Wikipedia's policies on creating articles about yourself, your non-understanding of the influence wielded by people who show up only to influence a vote, and your non-understanding of whether your insults were acceptable behavior) you never once that I can determine identified any actual error of fact in BM's version of the page, just that he wrote about your movement with a "suspicious voice", which apparently is what led you and other Universists to revert him wholesale numerous times. If that is the level of control that you demand over any "Universism" article then I agree that you'll be happier not having one at all, because that level of control will not be yours to command.
P.S. Op-ed writers write about a variety of topics. Very often they will write about a specific individual, organization, or incident in order to illustrate an opinion they are expressing. If an op-ed writer writes an editorial about the prevalence and shamelessness of spam on the Internet, he may well cite and quote liberally from a letter from the famous MRS. MBOTHO UBUNTU of Nigeria to make his point -- does this mean that MRS. UBUNTU is clearly a notable person? This opinion piece by John Horgan only proves that Universism was at some point brought to Mr. Horgan's attention -- not too unusual, or too significant, considering the "insanely active promoter" who founded it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
re: Universism
[edit]Good morning. Thank you for that link. I will look it up. I've been off-line for a few days but hope to finish digging through this by tonight (assuming some other admin hasn't beat me to it...)
As a side note, please remember that "notability" is really a proxy for "Is this topic well-known enough and widely discussed enough that there will be a critical mass of reader/editors who will ensure that the content of the article is kept verifiable and NPOV." We do not do a very good job explaining that in VfD threads. Also remember that we are not just talking about fixing the current content but also about the need to keep the article safe from subtle vandalism over time (for example, the insertion of a plausible but false sentence in the middle of the article). Someone and preferably several someones must stand ready to keep each article on their Watchlist in order to revert such vandalism. New contributors voting "keep" provide some evidence that the topic may be "notable" but if they don't stay around and become contributing members of the Wikipedia community, the implied promise of protection is weak.
That said, "notability" is a standard which everyone expects to change over time. Topics that are "not sufficiently notable" today can become widely discussed (and therefore defensible) tomorrow. If the current version of the article is deleted, you can always propose it for undeletion when there is enough new evidence to support the argument that the topic is now widely discussed. Hope that helps. If I am the one to sort out the discussion thread, I'll drop you a line about my conclusions. Rossami (talk) 16:29, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)