User talk:Yopienso/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Yopienso. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Intelligent Design

Thank you for your message on my talk page.

Sorry that I was chiding, but I honestly thought your intentions were to turn this article into one on "intelligent design" in general, and not only ID.However, after reading your response to Dave ont he talk page, I see that we are indeed on the same page, just looking at it from very different perspectives.

I am a scientist (microbiologist), so I am very clear about the scientific issues involved, both in ID and in the Creation Science that preceeded it. I also have a a pretty solid background in the history of religion, though that is highly concentrated on the history of the Roman Catholic Church up until the Reformation. I am somewhat familiar with the evolution of American Protestantism after the second great awakening, though.

We also seem to be starting at different ends of the string. I'm starting with modern ID, and working my way back, whereas you seem to be starting with Enlightenment era Christianity and working your way forward. And that's where I think our main differences lie.

When I start with modern ID and go back, I see that it is based on the Creation Science of the 1960, which in turn was based on the Creationism of the 1920s, which in turn was based on the Fundamentalism of the 1870s, which in turn was based on ..... NOTHING!!!!! Fundametalism is by its very nature ahistorical, and basically rejects all Christian theology and philosophy on the 18th and 19th centuries. Fundamentalism is not a branch on the bush of Historical Christianity; it's a whole seperate bush. The break between Fundamentalism and Historical Christianity is therefore so radical, that it would be misleading to characterize it as a mere fork. It was really a new beginning of a whole new and different form of Christianity that really had no historical predecessors since the early Reformation. No movement of the Enlightenment Era is part of its pedigree. THIS IS WHAT I MEAN BY "COMPLETE BREAK".

When I start in the Enlightenment era and work forward, I find that the Natual Theology of Paley and the kind had essentially stopped playing a significant role in scientific thought by the beginning of the 20th century. There was no longer any equivalent of "Creation Science" at that point. Granted, not everybody accepted evolution, but nobody who rejected evolution used scientific or quasi-scientific arguments, but justified their rejection solely on biblical innerancy. Trying to justify their rejection with evidence from natural science was an idea that never would have entered their heads; that sort of thinking had essentially dided out without leaving any descendants.

That idea would have to wait until the resurgence of Fundamentalism, and the concomittant resurgence in Creationism, in the 1920s. It was at this time that the roots of modern Creation Science, including ID, were first laid down by George McCready Price, William Bell Riley and Harry Rimmer. Their forms of "Creation Science" were based on fundamentalist reasoning, and cannot be considered in any way a continuation of early 19th century thought, including Paley's Natural Theology, which was antitheical to their own respective theologies. If the Creation Science(s) of the 1920s resembled Natural Theology in any way, the similarities were either coincidental, or based on borrowing of superficial elements such as analogies and terminology, while rejecting the core elements of the philosphy and theology.

You mention Wilberforce and Spurgeon.

Wilberforce has absolutely nothing to do with modern Creationism, Creation Science or ID. He was a High Church Anglican; granted with significant Low Church sympathies, but nonetheless far removed from Fundamentalist thought. By 1900, his line of reasoning had died out, and had very little influence on the Creationism and Creation Science of the 1920s, 1960s or the 1980s (ID).

Spurgeon is a more interesting case. Like the American Fundamentalists, he completely broke with Historical Christianity, and indeed it was over the mater of evolution. He was not at all interested in science or anything resembling Creation Science, though, and thus has nothing to do with modern ID or Creation Science.

This is what I mean when I say that there is no continuity between modern ID and Natural Theology, and why I disagree with your observation of a "fork". I hope that I've made things clearer. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Nine?

You may have made a good argument for 10 not 9, with the addition of AP. Partial list from Appendix A in the OIG report:

Dec 2009: Associated Press, Seth Borenstein, Raphael Satter and Malcolm Ritter
Feb 2010: United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Minority Staff
Feb 2010: Pennsylvania State University, University Administrators
Mar 2010: United Kingdom House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee
Apr 2010: University of East Anglia, Oxburgh Panel
Jun 2010: Pennsylvania State University, Faculty Members
Jul 2010: University of East Anglia, Muir Russell Panel
Aug 2010: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Aug 2010: InterAcademy Council
Feb 2011: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General

We can discuss this here or on my talk page if you like. Viriditas (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I'm a little hesitant to engage with you on this since you're "taking a break," but I find it interesting, and this is my talk page, not the article talk page. Hmmm. Not sure, though; probably I'll hang back after this.

I didn't add the AP report; I was saying it should not be included. You had mentioned it on 04:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC).
You dismissed the Inhofe report on 23:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC). My understanding was that the strong arms were keeping it out, but I would be very happy to include it. However, it can't be construed to say "none of the inquiries found evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct." Excerpts:

The report finds that some of the scientists involved in the CRU controversy violated ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and possibly federal laws. In addition, the Minority Staff believes the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC-based "consensus" and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes.

In its examination of the controversy, the Minority Staff found that the scientists:

- Obstructed release of damaging data and information;

- Manipulated data to reach preconceived conclusions;

- Colluded to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science "consensus"; and

- Assumed activist roles to influence the political process.

The report also shows the world's leading climate scientists acting like political scientists, with an agenda disconnected from the principles of good science.

3. Mann only.

4. Valid.

5. Valid.

6. Mann only. This was an extension of Penn State's original, incomplete inquiry, not a "separate, independent" one.

7. Valid.

8. I found an EPA report that dismisses the charge of "evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate global temperature data." It says nothing of whether or not the scientists were "suppressing their critics." I cannot find that the EPA "investigated the allegations and published reports detailing their findings."

9. I cannot find a report on the CRU from the InterAcademy Council. I find a report on the IPCC.

10. I could not find the U.S. Department of Commerce's report; the link here is dead. Obviously there was one, but reports are ambiguous. This one looks reasonable, but says, "It also noted that NOAA did not review its climate change data specifically as a result of the climategate controversy but that the agency does that anyway as part of a normal scientific process." This is contrary to other claims that it was made at Inhofe's request. The investigation was of scientists at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

OK, I've been working at this off and on for hours now. :) It was a good exercise. My last link on #10 says, "The climategate incident has also been investigated by a British parliamentary inquiry, former U.K. civil servant Muir Russell, a panel of experts recommended by the U.K.'s Royal Society and Penn State University." I was counting only investigations of the scientists who work at the CRU in East Anglia. Now I see we should also count the investigations into US scientists. That would make 5 investigations: Parliament's, Russell's, Oxburgh's, Penn State's, and NOAA's.

I wish you well there in balmy Hawaii; frigid Alaska is still warming to the idea of summer--we're up to 61 today! Yopienso (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is very strange how the Department of Commerce deleted their report page from the website just after dozens of news sources linked to it from their news pages. Readers are met with a dead link to the report, leaving thousands wondering what happened to it. It's possible that it was just the wrong URL to begin with or there was a site overhaul that changed the layout. However, a little sleuthing shows that they did not delete the PDF report from their site, only their web page pointing to it. You can find it still located on their site here. Why they would make it so difficult for the public to review a public document hosted by a public agency boggles the mind. After you read it, I'll address your points. Viriditas (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

OK; do you think we're circumventing NW's request to take a break by discussing this here and now? Yopienso (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really. He asked a group of editors to take a break from the article; this isn't a sitewide topic ban. You and I aren't arguing about anything. We're just trying to find out exactly how many investigations occurred and what we should say about them. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

So be it. First, I think I got the NOAA and Dept. of Commerce reports mixed up wrt Inhofe's request. I've skimmed, not read, the DoC's report. It investigated only employees of the NOAA, so we can't make a blanket statement of the entire controversy based on it. Here's something I hadn't thought about before today: I have considered "Climategate" as a UK problem, likely because it happened at the UEA and, with the exception of Mann, the focus has been on British scientists. The emails, though, were not exclusively among Brits. We show a photo of the Hubert Lamb Building; should we also include an image of the hockey stick so readers don't see this as something peculiar to the UK? After all this time, I for one was still thinking that way. Yopienso (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see how images help here. I would prefer to see an infobox in the lead with vital statistics, such as the number of investigations, and the conclusion, "no evidence of scientific malfeasance". Viriditas (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to say, the whole tenor of that DoC rpt. seems to be, "Whew! Our guys didn't do any of that bad stuff." Dr. Lubchencotold us she personally read some ofthe emails and was relieved because they indicated that NOAA scientists had not done anything inappropriate involving their scientific work. Also, the inquiry resulted in a suspension of funding from the US. I looked but couldn't find that funding has been resumed; perhaps it has. Do you know? Point: Seems to me the DoC smelled a rat and was glad no Americans got caught in the trap. Yopienso (talk) 03:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

YEC, OEC, or Evo?

Can you make clear your beliefs regarding the origin of the universe on my talk page? Thank you. Weknreven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 08:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Santorum discussion

Please move your comment to the "threaded discussion" section. Everyone else so far has managed to play by the (entirely sensible) rules; please don't open the floodgates. Thanks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Whoops--missed that. Done! Yopienso (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- much appreciated. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

RE: History lesson

That was meant as a hyperbole. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Australian feral camel

hi, i've tagged Australian feral camel (the article, not the animal itself) for copyvio. Since you've commented on the talk page there, you may be interested. Boud (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Boud. I'm interested but busy/lazy. I don't know how to deal with that; maybe I'll mention it to an administrator. Or you can. Yopienso (talk) 03:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

your 8 point summary

Hi Yopienso, I noted your 8 point summary in small font in the 'Climategate' talk page. I'd like to say that I think you have every point spot on. It's so rare that I find myself in broad agreement with anyone in this topic area that I felt I just had to share that with you. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex. Happy editing! Yopienso (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This should probably go to ANI

There's no evidence of sockpuppetry and no evidence of meatpuppetry. Cerejota abused the SPI process and smeared you. At least one admin supported this smear. The SPI should be deleted. You need to file a report at WP:ANI. Viriditas (talk) 07:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I just finished responding to him at Annyong's talk page. Maybe I should have just ignored him and dropped it. Right now I'm going to bed. Tomorrow I'll decide whether to take action or just merrily go my way. I wish to goodness I could edit as fast as Gise! It's crazy to think we're the same person. One little note like this one takes me several minutes to write and post. To add and delete and rearrange would take me all day! Oh well, sweet dreams. :) It's dropped below 50 here tonight and we've lit the barrel stove in our cozy little cabin. Very best wishes, 07:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

No hay aguardiente...

asi que esto sera el substituto... Cerejota (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Creo que con eso podemos. Gracias. ¡Salud! Yopienso (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Pocillo

List of coffee beverages#Pocillo - I added this, but need sourcing in order to make a break-out article. Want to help? --Cerejota (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to help, but you've already discovered stuff I didn't know. To me, a pocillo is a coffee cup of any size (except they don't come very big; anything big's a taza); tinto is the drink itself, and pocillo tintero is the demitasse cup. I'm off to lunch now. Yopienso (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Slightly belated, but...

Mmm...I haven't had baklava in ages. Many thanks! (You really don't seem the sort to get up to that kind of antic anyway, so I was mighty glad things were cleared up for you).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Page titles

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Koguis a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Kogis. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yay! Thank you for coming to my rescue. I'm a very helpless damsel in distress. I've never moved an article before and got all confuzzled. I totally lost the talk page, and I can't tell if it's all been found and restored or if some of it is still missing. I've just looked at several random articles and can't find a "Move" tab on any of them. !!! I did not know the WP "hospital" existed; will transport my patient over there, sirens wailing. Yopienso (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

That's because its been put in a drop-down menu, probably. It depends on which skin you're using. It would be to the right of Read, Edit, View history, a star (for adding to your watch list) - there should be a little down arrow. click it, and you'll see the Move option. Mind you, if you figured all this out ages ago and I'm coming in late to the party to no purpose, just ignore all this. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, bless my buttons! There it is! Thank you very much. Also, thanks for fixing my user boxes, even edged in my preferred green. I see you did it with Userboxtop|bordercolor=#008000|align=right inside double braces. I'd snooped around and thought I had to have a bunch of characters and "float," which was too complicated to contemplate. Is there a WP page about this, or do you "just know" it? Regards, Yopienso (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Its a template; you can find it at {{Userboxtop}}; there are others but that one has the color border option. :-D I went looking for it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

McKinley

I already renamed the image File:President McKinley as Old Mother Hubbard 1897 cartoon.jpg. Kudos to Rjensen for scanning and uploading the cartoon; I agree speculation doesn't belong in the file title. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. I'm familiar with this cartoon, and feel quite certain the dog is Uncle Sam. See the goatee? The President, as Old Mother Hubbard, is showing her poor nation that the treasury is depleted. Dr. Jensen earned his Ph.D. in American studies from Yale when I was still in pigtails, but I don't know where he's coming from on this one. Yopienso (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't feel too bad

re[1]: It wasn't just you, it was you and three other editors, including the first person to respond. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, KC. I was just following that lead. . . stupidly. :0 Yopienso (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Alaska map

If you dislike the map proposed by the Doctor, consider choosing that one, which is pretty much the same map that is now showing the location of Alaska. No wonder: same template was used. However, colors were changed in order to match common style of wikipedia location maps (cf. Juneau, Alaska-map) and all the other U.S. state location maps. You decide. Have a nice day. Greetings from Germany.--TUBS (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for dropping by. I see Dr. Blofeld has systematically gone through and ~~messed up~~ changed all the state maps, not just Alaska's. ~~What a shame! I don't have time to fix them.~~ I wish he hadn't, but will not revert them. My reversion was to the long-standing "common style" that he, apparently on his own, decided to change. I strongly disagree with that decision. Tschüss! Yopienso (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

TUBS has already explained the reason for the change, to match the pin locator maps. God frowns down on those who fail to assume good faith Yopienso. Personally I would consider a sea full of white lines far more ugly, but each to his own. Your idea of "messed up" may be somebody else's idea of improvement. I resent your comment, it shows a very narrow way of looking at things. And since when did wikipedia become the free encyclopedia that nobody can edit unless they ask permission first? Nobody owns an article, even US states.

I just realised that you are the guy kicking up a fuss over the musical bio infobox. You know you have a real problem with seeing things form other perspectives and that other people may think differently to you and that thousands of other people use wikipedia aside from yourself. You don't own any article, so stop acting as if your opinion is fact. May the Lord bless you. ♦ Dr. Blofeld

Welcome, Dr. Blofeld! I'm sorry you're resentful. Maybe we can clear up a few things here.

TUBS told me you changed the Alaska map in order to match common style of wikipedia location maps (cf. Juneau, Alaska-map) and all the other U.S. state location maps. Not a word about "pin locator," and the only reason it matches "all the other U.S. state location maps" is because you decided to change them all. I was unaware of your recent changes, not having consulted one of those articles in the last week. I don't happen to agree that it was necessary to match the pin locator maps, but that's only my preference against yours.

I don't know how you fail to see I was assuming good faith: If you have a good reason for the change, I'd be happy to hear it and cooperate with your improvement.

The "sea full of white lines" is essential to indicate latitude; otherwise, we have North America floating on an uncharted sea. (You might be surprised at how many users would not realize where the North Pole is on your map.)

I do not own any articles. Imo, setting about to change a long-standing format across 50 articles is something an editor would not do unilaterally. Obviously, we differ on how bold we should be.

Yes, I'm the gal who asked Jimbo or any page watchers to comment on the blocking of infoboxes on opera pages. Personally, I don't describe that as "kicking up a fuss." I could agree that I kicked up a small fuss on the article talk page before quickly adjusting my tone. I am known for my ability and willingness to see an issue from many angles, and ended my communication on Jimbo's page with, Well, in any case, as a drive-by editor, I'm respecting the consensus on those pages. Thanks to each for your perspective and best wishes to all.

Some other editors did, again imo and from my limited perspective, kick up a small fuss on Jimbo's page. I thought your comment was excellent and would love to see your suggestion implemented:

Given the division of opinion over infoboxes I'm not sure why the option in "my preferences" isn't introduced to hide all infoboxes and those who want them can have them and those who detest them can simply hide them and by default just feature whatever photo is in the infobox to be thumb nailed at the top. Flexibility is the key...

May the Lord bless you, too, and may God smile on you. Yopienso (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I in fact have no problems with the ALaska map you like. But as I say it was to make the maps consistent with the pin maps. I'm not resentful, in fact I'd have been perfectly nice but for your comment "I see Dr. Blofeld has systematically gone through and messed up all the state maps, not just Alaska's. What a shame! I don't have time to fix them." the tone of which I found rather unpleasant. I seriously doubt many readers of wikipedia would consider the maps "creating a mess". It was to be expected though as they have a lot of editors watching the pages. I encountered similar difficulties with the settlement articles. Personally I think the census maps look awful and unprofessional and I think the US maps for American settlements need sorting out big time. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

"Creating a mess" is a bit more than I said. To me, "mess up" meant the opposite of "improve." I honestly think the old ones look better. But I can see your objection to my tone and am willing to refactor to, "I see Dr. Blofeld has systematically gone through and changed all the state maps, not just Alaska's. I wish he hadn't, but will not revert them." Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Here's some of my history with the Alaska map. How it was. How Weetoddid changed it since I have zero technical expertise in that area. A note I found but don't really remember. Ciao. Yopienso (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever, my intention was just to let you know that there may be feasible alternatives to that initially introduced map. I'm not really interested in becoming an en-Wikipedia participator. I prefer drawing maps. And I certaninly don't bother, if my maps don't work for the en-Wikipedia. If you have any suggestions of how to improve the US locator maps series, please let me know --> Commons:User:TUBS. As Heid would say: Auf Wiedersehen. --TUBS (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for composer-infobox comments

Thank you for noting the rejection of infoboxes for composers on enwiki: I see the Spanish Wikipedia does not have that restriction. I have found most infoboxes to be helpful, as they encourage abstraction of important details, such as "Known for" major compositions, "Influenced by" prior composers or schools, and "Influenced" some other notable composers (or "many"). When infoboxes are omitted, then some other-language Wikipedias would likely omit "1812 Overture" or "Swan Lake" with no infobox to show "Composer's favorite: The Sleeping Beauty". Always remember how quickly such infoboxes can be translated into other languages, for perhaps 50 film composers such as John Barry (composer), in a relatively short amount of time, where each language could list a few popular compositions. Also, as you are likely aware, some pages to discuss issues are "feeding grounds for trolls" and it is difficult to get others to respond there, candidly, when words are often twisted by troublemakers. Perhaps if WP had a no-password username "anonymous" (with no IP-address tracking), then we could get more all-the-truth replies, whereas users are always in danger of being censored, but trolls would likely abuse that faster than others could post helpful comments. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, although I must say I had no idea I was stepping into a minefield. Why does Tarc call you "Wnt"? That confused me. The translating bit is really over my head. Yo hablo espanol perfectamente bien, pero mis contribuciones son casi enteramente en ingles. Yopienso (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The mention of "Wnt" confused me as well, but there might have been a psychological misfire because Tarc is among a group of people who, for years, have opposed explaining the lack of detailed evidence against U.S. student Amanda Knox and recommended that I be topic-banned from discussing the "Murder of Meredith Kercher" and related people; they actively worked to delete the Amanda Knox article (now deleted) and insisted she was non-notable despite having a higher TV rating in Italy than Carla Bruni (in 2009). Many people tried to emphasize that the American student is the major reason for the worldwide notability of the Kercher murder, so the event has questioned the very foundations of how notability is assessed in WP, such as no separate article for Casey Anthony (acquitted of Florida murder in July 2011 but now on trial again for another charge). Meanwhile, one admin issued a topic-ban against me while I was edit-blocked for a month (by User:Fram) and on wikibreak, so I responded that the topic-ban was not valid without giving me time to reject the false information posted about me. Anyway, in translations to other languages, an infobox is often already available in the other-language Wikipedia, so all that is needed is to put a one-line intro to a musician and fill-in-the-blanks. It can take just a matter of minutes to put Simon and Garfunkel into another language Wikipedia and list "Bridge over Troubled Water" when there is a row for popular songs, etc. The infoboxes allow creating simple foreign articles in an easy copy-cat manner. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Notre Dame school

Thanks for your message, but I don't know anything about this. Sorry! -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks anyway. Yopienso (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Bundle up and stay warm. I hope you have a wonderful year! Viriditas (talk) 10:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Persistence

Don't give up, just because a dozen or so contributors appear to be gaming the system. Let's help each other keep Wikipedia neutral.

(signed) A contributor with over 10 years experience here. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Ed, I know who you are, both here and at Conservapedia.

My philosophy about the entrenched biases I encounter in controversial subjects at WP is to not ruffle any feathers, and to pay attention to what's being said or done so I can learn something. I've learned a great deal by hanging around here. First, I've learned a lot of technology, even if I'm still in the bottom percentile of tech-savvy here! (LOL) I've learned about secular bias, for one thing, but I've also learned a great deal about Christian bias and blind spots. I've learned a lot of history and earth science.

When I log on to WP, I enter the secular world and agree to abide by its dicta. "When in Rome, do as the Romans." Doing so has greatly broadened by perspectives and revealed some inconsistencies in my own beliefs. It has helped me to reason more clearly and to discipline myself.

About 7-8 years ago I cautiously started using WP as a reference source. In the summer of 2009 I watched Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and quite naturally turned to WP to check out it claims. Oh, my! That was my true induction into the labyrinths of secular bias. Since I'd shattered a toe and couldn't get around much, I dedicated much time to the article. There I learned what strong control some editors hold over certain articles, and how they "politicize" (not exactly the right word) them, but I also learned how much of the movie was not true.

Fast forward to this past summer when Sarah Palin referred to Paul Revere's ride. (My husband is a fishing friend of her parents, and we were following their trek--they're right there in that infamous clip.) Professors at both Boston U. and Suffolk supported her mistakes! (Why didn't she admit, "Yeah, I was getting lunch and not paying much attention and just goofed"?)

I went over to Conservapedia to see how they were responding to the flap surrounding their darling. (Earlier nosing into that preserve had convinced me it wasn't worth spending my time there.) Apparently, some vandal had edited the Paul Revere article to make CP sound really stupid. I registered and tried to fix it. Oh, my! But not the same "Oh, my!" occasioned by my first real engagement with WP. I figure the general consensus here is that Christianity is irrelevant or absurd or detrimental to civilization; at CP, I thought Christianity dictated the thoughts and words of each editor. If it does, it's not the Christianity I know. Editors, including Andy Schlafly himself, were as nasty as the worst I've seen here except they did not use profanity. I wish to distance myself as far as possible from that project and from the mindset that drives the editors I encountered.

I do not have any mission to reshape Wikipedia. I work to improve its articles and occasionally join discussions aimed at improving its mechanisms. My comment at the climate change article was stronger than I usually permit myself. I didn't have to call it silliness. Butting out, I've learned, almost always seems to be the wisest move.

Wikipedia cannot not be any more neutral than I can be. I see my place as accepting it for what it is and adapting myself to its confines. My only persistence, I hope, will be in upholding the Five Pillars.

Well, I guess I wrote you quite an essay! From what I know of you, you must be a fine person. Thank you for stopping by. Yopienso (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am remiss in not acknowledging that after, as I perceived it, Schlafly bit me as a newbie, I was able to convince him I was not an enemy. He then became friendly. Yopienso (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

time scale condensed into a single day

As I have posted on Talk:Geologic time scale, I am not at all convinced of the value of adding analogy sections to science articles. But by all means let us discuss there and see what consensus emerges. Babakathy (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

PC police...

Hi Yopienso! To avoid derailing the discussion at t:tj, I thought I'd mention it here. I'm not usually PC sensitive, but I think it a bit too flippant to refer to the slaves brought in with Martha Wayles as "baggage". You might want to consider changing that. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks! I can't help but say that it's anachronistic not to say baggage, but I certainly don't want to offend present-day sensibilities. How's my fix? I'll be off for the next several hours. Cheers! Yopienso (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Much better. And I see no anachronism there - I'm not aware of the term "baggage" used for slaves or lifestock at Jefferson's time, or indeed any time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

(Don't know if you're watching; if you're not, I figure you wouldn't want this on your talk page, either.)

I've given this some thought this afternoon, and realized how fortunate I was that you saved me from my infelicitous choice of words. There was no need for me to insert what I understand to be the prevailing 18th-century Southern aristocratic view into what, in Bernstein's book, was a discussion of the impact of slavery on debt, not on Southern racism, and on the talk page, was bound to offend and also stigmatize me as a racist, which is the furthest thing from the truth. Again, thanks--with no self-justifications this time. Yopienso (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Will miss you at Thomas Jefferson; do check back in and thanks for your work.Parkwells (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks for your own good work and collaboration. I use WP often as a reference, so will be around. My occasional participation helps me use it better, and repays in small measure the benefits so freely given. Yopienso (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm watching. You're welcome. It's always a pleasure to work with reasonable people! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject Cooperation

I just recently started Wikiproject Cooperation and I thought you would be interested. Thanks for your time. Silver seren^C 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk back notice

I replied to you on my talk page. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

On linking to cats

When trying to wikilink to a category you should put a colon before the category like so - Category:Monkeys. --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting; I did a little fiddling around here to see how that works. I never would have guessed I needed a colon to make a link--thanks! Yopienso (talk) 04:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I figured that out when I went to Categories for Discussion to rename a category. Basically, you put a colon before "category" in the wikilink.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth

Thank you for looking out for a new Wikipedia editor and explaining some of the policies. These are the kinds of efforts that make Wikipedia better. Kmpolacek (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation comments?

Hi! How about being a test bunny for me? As a formerly perplexed user of citation I'd like your take on an essay I'm developing at User:J. Johnson/Introduction to citation. Comments can be left on the talk page there. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson

Hi, thanks for your participation on this article. I have a draft for appeal on the sources argument to the RS Noticeboard at <User:Parkwells/sandbox> and would appreciate your taking a look before I send it on. I have not used this route before (but should have). The disruption at the Thomas Jefferson article has gone on far too long, with at least three persistent editors refusing to acknowledge current scholarship, or arguing an NPOV means ignoring the consensus among historians because some disagree.Parkwells (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you please provide a link to your post at the RS Noticeboard? I've wasted a quarter of an hour looking for it. Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - was trying to cut it back and just stopped. Gwillhickers submitted a different one with his argument on "self-published," as he defines the TJF. Several editors on the TJ article had disagreed with this interpretation. "I have just submitted a question about self published web page articles that use no expert/author for their summary claims on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC) I commented on this, trying to provide cites about the historiography prior to the article/web page in question, which was posted in 2010. Parkwells (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Missed message

Finally read your message, somehow I missed it until now. Just want to say thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. :-) Yopienso (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Yopienso. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Climategate NPOV (again)

Knowing of your interest, this is a heads-up that I'm making yet another attempt to improve this POV-pushers delight, at least a little. Stop by if you have time and/or inclination. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC on the spelling of Vietnamese names

RfC: Should the spelling of Vietnamese names follow the general usage of English-language reliable sources? Examples: Ngo Dinh Diem, Ho Chi Minh, and Saigon, or Ngô Đình Diệm, Hồ Chí Minh, and Sài Gòn. The RfC is here. Kauffner (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Skeptics converting en masse

Update. :) Viriditas (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh -- Climate sceptics unmoved by scientist's about-face --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Tillman, nice to see you back. You do know that this op-ed you offer is a political stunt, don't you? Australia's current economic growth is tied to their fossil fuel industry. They are not going to say "thank you scientists, we will shut down our economy now". Viriditas (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. Either I'm a psychic, or there was news of this months ago. Don't have time to be on the computer right now. Cheers! Yopienso (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. It was first reported in late 2011. The significance is that this was a Koch-funded study. Viriditas (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The more info I collect, the less I understand; this whole thing reminds me of Thomas Stockmann and, conversely, Hank Reardon.

As Viriditas says, it's a political-economic problem more than anything. (Muller sort of says that, too: "Then comes the difficult part: agreeing across the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and should be done.") The IPCC, of course, wrote a "Summary for the Policy Makers."

I'm still not settled on the "past 250 years" part--I see huge additions of fossil fuels 100 years ago, not 250. The Industrial Revolution was confined first to England and then to the northeastern USA for over 100 years. It was when cars and trucks (figuratively) and airplanes (literally) took off that we had such a huge increase in the use of petroleum products, which, unless I'm mistaken, is far greater worldwide since 1950 than the consumption of coal from 1750-1900. (The first trains, remember, burned wood. And yes, there was deforestation beginning c. 1750.) Correct me if I'm wrong. Yopienso (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There were only 791 million people on the entire planet in 1750. Now we've got 7 billion, all wanting food, electricity, and cars. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. That's why I can't quite accept the 250-yr. figure for anthropogenic warming. Muller reports, "Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years." I think the last 50 years have been much, much more impacted by human activity that the last 250. Yet the temperature rise supposedly started 250 yrs. ago. ???

Pete will like this from the same article by Muller:

It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed.

Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035. And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or “Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to “global” warming is weaker than tenuous.

Why was it so warm 1000 years ago?

Poor old Yopienso will just keep reading books and poking around WP and watching David Attenborough (not Alec Baldwin) and scratching her old gray head. And she just lit her wood-burning barrel stove cuz it's too cool for comfort here in south-central Alaska today. Best to both! Yopienso (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oldest universities

Hello. You have shown in the past an interest in the subject of the oldest universities. I am therefore notifying you of an ongoing discussion concerning the topic here. Regards. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It's been going on interminably and I've already put in my 2 cents. I don't think your canvassing will go over too great. You haven't taken my suggestion of making a goodwill gesture, which, frankly, makes me doubt your good will. Yopienso (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I am in full accordance with WP:Canvass. In fact, I have only notified those users which Omar-Toons, for some unknown reasons, did not notify yesterday...PS: I did not edit Al-Azhar because this article is still relatively calm and it could have increased tensions. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Czech vs Vietnamese

Hi Yopienso, your comments about Czech vs Vietnamese weren't totally clear. Would you mind filling in either box (B) or (C) on Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Vietnamese)#Census. Many thanks! In ictu oculi (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't addressing Czech (or Turkish or Scandinavian or any other language); I was specifically saying that imho Vietnamese diacritical markings are foreign to the Latin alphabet as commonly used in English and should not appear in the English Wikipedia. Yopienso (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't really address Vietnamese in isolation - "I'm against use of this language but don't have an opinion on any other language" since the first question anyone will ask is "Why is Vietnamese being singled out when all other Latin alphabet alphabets are accepted??" But otherwise no one has to have an opinion. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The reason I'm addressing only Vietnamese is because when I went to the Ngo Dinh Diem article the diacritical markings were distracting. I haven't had that experience elsewhere on Wikipedia: it's a huge project and I've seen only a small percentage of total articles. My goal isn't to instigate any sweeping reforms, but to make that article more readable for English readers. You see, I'm not "singling out" anything, but simply responding to a troublesome article. I fear you may be sensing discrimination where there is none. Yopienso (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

You may be interested in adding your voice to the discussion that is continuing here. LittleBen (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I wouldn't touch it with a 10-ft. pole. Yopienso (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Kerfuffle

Hi, thanks for your comments, and for commenting on The New Yorker blog. Perhaps I will, too. Parkwells (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Yopienso. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Syntax differentiation in editing window.
Message added 05:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Yopienso. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 14:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Some views

A variety of views with some similarities from 2008, 2011 + and recently. Mere opinions, but thought you might like to read them. All quite topical. dave souza, talk 22:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. I'm astonished to read, "Last year's Theos study, for example, showed something like 40% of the UK's adult population unclear on the concept. There are also stupefying numbers for the proportion of the British population who think, or who at least will assent to the proposition, that the Earth is around 10,000 years old." I thought we were the last hold-out.

I actually voted once ( but never thereafter!) for the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation who famously called the internet "a series of tubes."

OK, I'm going to drop this into the tube and get back to work. Hope it doesn't get stuck. Yopienso (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Regrettably, I've been stuck a bit lately though I can't blame the intertubes – didn't know the origin of that term! Issues keep flooding in, and I've found an evangelical viewpoint particularly interesting: as reviewed, disputed and welcomed in various places. Gives some useful perspectives and a lot of info to digest, but a good read. . . dave souza, talk 09:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave! I'm a little busy now to read all that, but it's interesting to me (OK, I had to peek if not read) and I will pull it out on a rainy day.

Wrt Michael Mann, I'm glad we can disagree while remaining amiable. I have to say that I'm surprised you're suspending the very strict adherence to RS and WP:V you demand for facts you don't like. Also, let me say I don't "like" or "dislike" Michael Mann or his achievements, though he does make himself look overweeningly proud by claiming that co-award. I sincerely disbelieve, for example, that the thousands (or maybe millions) of individuals who worked for the Red Cross in 1963 could in any manner claim a co-award. So why should he? Yopienso (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

See talk page re Octavian never being used by Augustus.

Info added. There are also a few points of Roman onomastic style that are currently incorrect ('F.' for 'filius', instead of the proper 'f.', for example). Kind regards. Catiline63 (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I've responded at Augustus. I'm not knowledgeable on capital and lower-case "f"s. Best, Yopienso (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

thank you

For one of the most unneeded apologies ever! It is always difficult trying to intervene a little (as we both were) when people get irritated with each other. I should have taken time to explain more. --BozMo talk 05:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you're a kind gentleman. I was galled at my obtuseness and the unnecessary blither it caused. Yopienso (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

David

Hello my friend

as to this edit, I did nothing in any way harmful to the article.

I went trhrough it, checked the sources and edited the places where sources were missing.

This is important to give the article a structure from beginning to end.

So your comment seems to be insubstantial, but I may be wrong of course.

Therefore the edits seem to have justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahk7 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN

You deleted a section of comments by others here [2] so I reverted it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, wow--how did I do that?? Sorry. And thanks. Yopienso (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It happens, that is why you have be careful if you get an "edit conflict", and go back, copy your text, reload the page, then add it again. Otherwise you delete text. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't get an edit conflict. I happened to be the first one to respond. But, the little [edit] thing was missing by the title, "Confidence in the arbcom, and confidence in one particular arbitrator," so I edited from the top. Maybe there was a glitch when I posted? (Obviously there was a glitch--I'm wondering if I did something wrong or not. I wouldn't want to do it again if I did.) Yopienso (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Now, this is bizarre! I just now got an edit conflict notice posting that to my own talk page. There was, however, no edit conflict. Something's weird here. Yopienso (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It's the WikiGremlins! :) Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

On authority, anarchy, civility and the golden rule

Of whom would you request all the rights you name if there's no authority structure? You are describing anarchy. We're close enough already, what with having major Pillars that support the whole project being flouted....Civility can most certainly be enforced; I've seen it on other sites. Expecting people to voluntarily adhere to the golden rule is unrealistic, as has been fully demonstrated.

I hope you don't mind, but I thought it would be best to address these questions here; I know you love a good discussion! :) Viriditas (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Authority

We already have an existing structure in place for distributing user rights by request. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. All we would need to do is decouple the administrative rights from the RfA process and expand the simple RfP process with the addition of these individual admin rights. It would streamline the process and make it highly efficient. With that said there really isn't any single person in charge or in authority on Wikipedia. We have, in theory, a massively distributed collaboration system. Viriditas (talk) 03:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Anarchy

When you say I am describing anarchy, do you mean anarchy like Christian anarchism, practiced by the early Christians, according to Trappist monk Thomas Merton? Viriditas (talk) 03:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Civility

Tell me about how civility is enforced on other sites. It certainly can't be enforced here. Instead, we need to promote kindness by being kind, not just talking about it. Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Golden rule

You say it is unrealistic to expect people to voluntarily adhere to the golden rule. Do you remember when you were unfairly accused of being a sock puppet? Do you remember when I stepped forward to defend you against a CU/admin, and spoke as a lone voice in the wilderness until finally, much later, another admin finally came forward to defend you as well? Why did I defend you? The golden rule. If I was unfairly accused, I would hope you would speak out for me. Viriditas (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do love a good discussion! :-)

Authority

I'll have to spend more time studying the page you point me to; I really don't understand how all that works. I don't get who the "who" is that dispenses rights.

Anarchy

No, I mean the garden variety. :-) I think what's described in the first paragraph of the lead would happen if we had no admins, and I guess you expect what's described in the second.

Civility

Here's the other site, Fun Trivia, which I haven't visited for a couple of weeks. I joined years ago, though, and have seen new members abruptly terminated at the hint of rudeness. There is absolutely no nastiness there. I call myself "queproblema" over there. Another site was much smaller, and about a very heated subject. The moderator (one young man) decided which nonsense to bear with and which to cut off. I briefly had an account at Conservapedia but they must have closed my account or else I can't remember what it was. In any case, I can't find myself over there. :P Andy Schlafly runs a very tight ship. They aren't necessarily civil, but he and his minions tightly control participation.

Golden rule

Yes, how well I remember your coming to my aid! <3 <3 <3 (Those are s'posed to be hearts.) Yes, you did unto me as you would have me do unto you, and I certainly would stand up for you in a similar circumstance. Yet, as you say, you were the lone voice in the wilderness. I know other very nice people here who would have done the same if they'd seen the problem, but most people (here and everywhere) are not good Samaritans; they're busy, important priests and Levites. Well, and some are thieves and robbers, too.

Thanks for stopping by, and, again, congrats on that fine article about The Magpie. Best, Yopienso (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

A pastry for you!

	A sweet pastry for a sweet grandma
	Stay warm this winter! Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! I like pastries ever so much more than kittens! It's 2 below 0 F. right now, but we have a new Blaze King that burns half the firewood the old barrel stove did.
I see you're speaking up in my behalf again. Thanks; I'm just going to let it go. It's true that I'm much more of a wiki-gnome than anything else, and some light copy editing. All of which I think is useful.
I should have been in bed 3 hours ago. Zzzz. Yopienso (talk) 09:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear you are warm and rested. Sweet dreams! :) Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Three ring circus

Don't think you've visited Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sally Season yet. It's the longest MfD I can remember, and quite acrimonious in places. (This isn't canvassing - just passing on a free ticket...) It's hailing big hail stones here. I ought to be packing up to go to Bridgewater for the Guy Fawkes Carnival. Too sniffley to go camping. Peridon (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, I did notice that. Sally would seem to be an experienced user using WP as a playground, no? (Now you've entrapped me into a PA!)

I have a 3-ring circus of my own here--a paper in each of 3 classes! Aaaacckk. Stuff I would very much enjoy with 3 times as long to do them in. Tentative (but almost certainly not final) titles: How the Heavenly Jerusalem Became a Secular Power. The Forced Assimilation of the American Indian. What the Thirty Years' War Was Really About.

No hail here; snow yesterday and the day before. Presently at 10:19 am, -2 F. (-19 C.) All hail, Yopienso (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to tell you I have Tomato on my watchlist. I was looking up something about tomatoes last summer or the summer before--Who knows! Time flies.--and noticed a lot of activity. I almost never look at the article, but hardly a day goes by without some editing there. How much, now, can be said about the tomato? Vandals love that page, but there are a lot of serious edits, and interminable ones about fruit v. vegetable. Another page I watch just to see drama is Jell-o. Googd grief.

Drink a hot toddy for your sniffles! Yopienso (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Tim Ball, again

Knowing of your interest, please have a look at User talk:Tillman/Tim Ball and contribute if you see fit. The "article" page is Lucy Skywalker's last draft, at present. You might also look in at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lucy Skywalker/Timothy Ball -- which strikes me as absurd -- and add your opinion if you so wish.

Hope all is well with you. The Wiki Climate Wars are so... interesting, eh? Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Pete. I don't care to go on record wrt my understanding of what editors can keep in our sandboxes. Long ago I copied the Tim Ball article and am storing it on my computer and in Dropbox.

I will gladly go on record as saying imho Tim Ball is sufficiently notable to have a WP biography. That does not mean I think his opinions are correct; the more I read them the more I think they're wrong. His notability has nothing to do with the value of his opinions but with his place in the public sphere.

Are you aware the Northwest Passage is open for the first time in western history? Not wide open like the Straits of Florida, no, but navigable with the right ship, the right captain, the right time.

I've watched David Attenborough's The Frozen Planet once and discussed it with my husband, who has watched all four discs at least half a dozen times, and we feel quite sure our end of the globe (we live in Alaska) is warming. I also took a college course in physical geography last spring and have followed developments like the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. I tend to think most of the warming is natural, but may well be wrong. I am aware of political, economic, and career pressures to conclude the warming is a result of human activity. Although these pressures are real, they don't automatically make the AGW conclusions false.

In sum: I came to these articles to learn precisely because I didn't know the facts. I know more now, but not enough to weigh the evidence intelligently. My tentative conclusion is that AGW is a fact.

I have watchlisted the pages you linked to so you don't run the risk of accusations of canvassing in the future. However, every time I dabble at WP I get behind in real-world work, so I am trying not to dabble! Translation: I may not participate.

Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and understood. And thanks for the xref to WP:MERCILESS!

I'm half-sick with GI problems -- and the barium residue from the xray stuff -- so this started out to be a welcome distraction. Now it's turning into YA PITA. Sigh.

"The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up. " -- Yogi Berra, maybe? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

PS: Your experience with Ball reminds me of mine with Ian Plimer, on whose wikibio I spent way more time than it merited. Plimer is a mining geologist (as am I) and a very good one. But when he ventured into the CC arena he went pretty far astray (imo), and I found myself not much liking the big, bluff blowhard.

I know very little about Ball, though the bits of his (non-polemical) writing I've seen seem interesting and sensible. And it's cool that he's worked in historical climatology, a neglected (or "inconvenient") part of the discipline of late. But it sounds like he may also have feet of clay?

I'll probably still go ahead and try to resurrect his wikibio, since I've already done much of the work -- and maybe I can rope Lucy S into helping (hope, hope). Ah weel, no deadlines here! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Collaboration?

I was wondering if you might want to work on Tommaso Campanella with me over the next few weeks. If you aren't familiar with the topic, check out this overview. No hurry on this at all, just wondering if you have any interest. Viriditas (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation; it's right up my alley. I've put it on my watchlist, but I'm going to be really busy until next summer and won't have time for more than copyediting, if that. Maybe copyediting is what you have in mind? I'm just signing off for 6-10 hours. Yopienso (talk) 09:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm very glad it's on your watchlist. At this point, my primary interest is in seeing the article improve. Anything you can do to help is appreciated. One thing I noticed is that the current image is a poor copy. If you have any experience in locating the best images for uploading to Wikipedia, let me know where I can find the best copy to replace it. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I also created a Wikiquote page. I really like this quote, but I'm looking for other notable quotes, particularly from his defense of Galileo. Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a nice image, but I don't know anything about copyrights and so forth. Yopienso (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Cookies for you!

		Viriditas is wishing you Happy Holidays!
		Enjoy your cookies and have a great 2013!

Oh, thank you! Glad I checked in today. Yopienso (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Almost an edit conflict

I saw the spelling error, clicked edit, and the error wasn't there. You were too fast for me.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 00:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Just call me Speedy Gonzales! ;) Yopienso (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Belated Happy New Year

(or early for the Chinese one?) An interesting start to the year here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexually active popes (2nd nomination). Just thought you might be interested... Peridon (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail. Yopienso (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

RE: NYT

My "indignant and inexplicable reversion" was made because of this: [3] [4]. I don't live in the US, and other oountries in the world may don't care about the NYT political ideas. On the other hand, I never said the NYT isn't liberal, I said it is unsourced, and I explained it twice:

"One word: Verifiability", and in response to "nobody in the media is going to label a paper as 'liberal'", I said: "Then why do we? Wikipedia goes by references not "the truth". You [called them] "extreme liberal and marxists" before, now you changed *your view* [to simply 'liberal']".

If you are going to add quotes I never said, I recommend you to re-read the BLP policy. Unless you are new here, I recommend you to read WP:V policy in a nutshell: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.". Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Please read (or re-read more attentively, as the case may be) the note I left on your talk page and check the sourcing at The New York Times. Que tenga muy feliz día. Yopienso (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Barton

You maybe right, and I believe you. But I would just suggest you cite a source when you make that kind of broad claim (see BLP policy) or link to a sourced article. Also, since the discussion is only theoretical, the claim probably does not need to be made there at all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll just strike it; I don't have time for this. Yopienso (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Good to have met you!

Oh brother, what a f****** a******. But it is really good to have met you! It would be nice to run into you once and awhile, but as I said, I hate philosophy. But you seem like a person that I'd just love to talk to in real life. Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; I appreciate your friendliness. I try not to spend much time here anymore and more time in real life. Ignoring unpleasantness makes what time I do spend here more enjoyable for me, and I think, others. Regards, Yopienso (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Tudor Road

I first showed up in Anchorage around 1977/1978. My recollection is that Tudor Road was much the same as it is today, excepting much to do in the years since about the Lake Otis intersection, and perhaps a few other turn lanes here and there. The only thing I can tell you is that a large gravel pit operated in what is now Tudor Centre/ANMC (which created University Lake). Seeing trucks turning in and out of a busy multi-lane road at all hours of the day and night is something which still sticks out vividly. Anchorage essentially banished most gravel pits not too many years later. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 16:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Assuming the professor's right (which I do), I'd guess it was paved after oil was found on the Slope. We came in 1992. Yopienso (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The Move

Worked on fixing the cites for this. A project you may be interested in is the World Digital Library- Sara Streich is working to promote its resources for Wikipedia editors, and there is a project page - has some interesting items: ancient maps and manuscripts brought together from major libraries across the world. All the best - Parkwells (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for both. I couldn't find any edits to The Move page, though. How do I access the WDL? Best, Yopienso (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Bibliodrama

Peridon mentioned your name as someone interested in Bible-related topics. A so-far single-purpose editor has created articles three or four times, in Icelandic and English, most recently at BASICS - Bibliodrama, on this project; also reported on here. I'm not sure it's notable, but Bible-related topics are not my thing. If you or anyone you know thinks an article on bibliodrama would be justified (I see we have maybe 3 mentions of the term), I'd be willing to help find sources and turn some of the previous titles, such as that one, into redirects, or even to write a basic stub. I searched on "BASICS, Grundtvig" but there are names of academics there that might yield more sources. Let me know if you do think it justifies an article. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting. I'm going on a short trip tomorrow, but will try to check into it. A quick google shows it's real; I'd have to look longer to see how notable. Yopienso (talk) 06:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking! I tend to be inclusionist too - see relevant userbox in my small collection - but Christian and Jewish topics are among those I try to avoid writing on. Or I would already have done something about this, because I agree, it looks as if it might squeeze past notability. The deleted Icelandic and English articles have been on a related book series, which is useful insofar as it gives further international evidence and names to search on. But I agree, it should be Bibliodrama in general. I hadn't thought to check de.wikipedia, good, there may be useful stuff there. So do you want me to write up a basic article or would you rather do that yourself? I would much prefer you to do it, but can then help with work based on the German article and any German-language sources, if that's not one of your languages, and can also undelete one or more of the BASICS articles as a redirect. Let me know. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry I would be unable to write an article. No hablo más que inglés y español. Good luck! Yopienso (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Alger Hiss

I have no problem saying that "most historians believe Hiss was a spy", because that is what good sources say. My understanding of an academic consensus is that scholars stop arguing about something, at least in academic writing, such as the Steady State theory or whether there are canals on Mars, or even more recent politically sensitive topics such as climate change. That does not appear to be the case here.

I have come across a number of cases where editors have written to scholars and unfortunately the correspondence does not meet rs. If Schrecker wrote her opinion about a consensus in an academic journal then we could obviously use it. But then the claim would have been reviewed prior to publication and later scholarship could either agree or disagree. I Would be appreciate though if you could forward a copy to me which you can do by clicking "Email this user" on the left side of my talk page under "Toolbox".

TFD (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Happy to oblige. Yes, as I said, Schrecker's opinion in an email holds no weight at WP; it just confirms to me that I understood what she meant by what she wrote.

I believe my understanding of "academic consensus" comports with the way it is used at WP:

The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. (Note there is no requirement for the specific words "academic consensus.") See WP:RS/AC.

Since we have several good sources that say most scholars hold the view that Hiss was a spy, I understand there is an academic consensus that he was, even if some reputable scholars disagree.

Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Alger Hiss

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Alger Hiss and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,

CJK (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration case declined

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

groundbreaking

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

ID dispute resolution

As you know, we have frequent disputes on the Talk:Intelligent design page that focus on distinguishing Intelligent design from the teleological argument. I have started a new section on the dispute resolution noticeboard for this and listed you as a participant in these disputes. If you have some time, please stop over and explain what your proposed resolution is and why you believe this to be the case. Thank you! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Intelligent design". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 23:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC relating to Vietnamese geo article titles

Since you participated in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)/Archive 2 you may wish to be informed of Talk:Gia Bình District#RfC: Should non-exonym Vietnam geo article titles have Vietnamese alphabet spellings?. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Gwhillickers topic ban

Not sure what to do on the Gwhillickers topic ban, but I wanted to weigh in. I wrote there,

Question - Gwhillickers central objection seems to be over whether an academic controversy can be described in the Thomas Jefferson article, or whether only the majority of recent scholarship can be represented, which seems to be within WP policy. Exchanges have not been collegial. I agree with Jprg1966 to question a ban for Gwhillickers on Jefferson altogether. As to slavery, as I remember, the quote objecting to ‘modern day stigma’ against slavery was an objection to anachronistic narrative inappropriately condemning Jefferson, not Gwhillickers advocating race-based slavery in the modern day. I’m interested in what Yopienso has to say. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Yopienso. It looks as if GW has continued to tie up the page with arguments that refuse to acknowledge consensus scholarship.Parkwells (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

After multiple edit conflicts I am out of time to post my recommendation. Anyone may do it for me if they wish, as I will be away from the computer for many hours.

Support, sadly. Gwillhickers edits in good faith, but seems unable to distinguish between opinions of WP editors and opinions of scholars. Dedicated to upholding a sterling legacy for TJ, he rejects scholars' opinions with which he disagrees. He does not realize that the article isn't supposed to decide whether or not current scholarship may be flawed, but simply reflect that scholarship for better or for worse.

I believe the ban should be on Jefferson and slavery since his take on both is outmoded. Yopienso (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

A diversionary stroll..

Returning to the fray after my weekly constitutional, I've added a note to talk:intelligent design citing good authority that ID does indeed involve the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the prohibition against the establishment of religion applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. That section and the preceding one do indeed point to legal cases after the time when I went to school, but I'd imagine that Jones has it right.

You obviously know much more about this than me, but I'm not so sure that Engel v. Vitale was an interpretation of the Constitution never imagined by its framers. From the first page of the very interesting article you linked, the Virginia Ratifying Convention of 1788 appears to have proposed an amendment with the phrase: "that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by Law in preference to others". In the Engels case, Jewish families considered the prayer contradicted their religious beliefs, and so favoured other religious sects. Similarly, laws promoting creation science favor fundamentalist sects.

Interesting that in 1788 it was Baptists rather than Jews who were concerned, with the Baptist preacher John Leland writing "if a Majority of Congress with the President favour one System more than another, they may oblige all others to pay to the support of their System as much as they please". In the way that Dover School Board used school resources to support promotion of ID. This brings to mind Charles Darwin's defence of Baptist schoolchildren when a new vicar tried to enforce Anglican indoctrination in the (Church of England) parish school, the only school in the village. But I ramble a bit. Had a good walk along a canal and riverbank in central Glasgow yesterday. Hope you're also doing well, . dave souza, talk 19:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'm honored (most sincerely) to read a full three paragraphs of your thoughts. Happy for you that you take the time for hiking. I took an aerobic walking course, more for college credit than my health, but the benefits were great. It just finished and I find myself tightly glued to my chair desperately writing two papers due in a week and a half, one on Thomas Jefferson and one on Newt Gingrich's view of the expression of Christianity in the American public square. Both are for a brilliant young woman, Ph.D. Temple Univ. 2010, my daughter's age, who will not let any sloppiness pass.

I have just this morning, (It's forenoon here) read in Fawn Brodie, p. 326, the context of Jefferson's famous "I have sworn upon the altar of God [transcribers vary on capitalizing], eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." It is the following, which you can read more of online:

the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro' the U. S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists.

The establishment to which the framers of the Constitution were so opposed had nothing to do with the free expression of Christianity in public discourse nor in forbidding religious monuments, etc., but all to do with disestablishing the Episc. in the South and the Cong. in the North, which were supported by taxes and whose clergy was widely viewed as abusive. Indeed, the Baptists were discriminated against.

Yes, laws promoting creation science do favor fundamentalist sects. And many of them are Southern Baptists! Ironic, no? They have a muddled view of the history of scientific thought of origins, causing them to believe they are upholding what has always been taught in schools. Clearly, Tennessee (and other states) taught creationism 100 years ago, so there is quite a precedent for today's fundamentalist howling.

The framers' intent is obvious by the fact that they invoked the Christian God and allowed church services right in the Capitol: they did not want religion forced on people nor did they want the clergy to be paid from the public treasury. A Judeo-Christian chapel was installed in the Capitol about the time I was born. No accommodations for Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, etc. The Constitution does not forbid the will of the majority; it supports it, and the majority has long been of the Judeo-Christian tradition. That is beginning to change, and so these matters are coming up and the Constitution, as per design, is being reinterpreted. The Warren court was responsible for decisions that swept away centuries of practice. When I was in the early school grades, Florida state law required each day begin with Bible reading. That legislation was overturned by Engel v. Vitale and raised a huge ruckus.

I may be overly strict in confining "constitutional law" to the actual words of the Constitution, omitting the great volume of case law. And, my head being full of all this, I probably jumped in gratuitously with my comment. But, I have found that when people actually know the history of these customs and changes they are more rational about the historical actors that effected them.

Very best wishes Yopienso (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that very detailed response, it makes me appreciate that there's a lot I don't know, and I'll have to take care to phrase things very exactly! As you may know, we don't have a written constitution in the UK, and religion is part of schools but not taken very seriously. As a "non-denominational school" we had a school chaplain giving a short sermon at assembly on one or two days a week, can't remember exactly, and he was from the established Kirk, the Church of Scotland. I think they try to include ministers or clergymen from more sects nowadays, but when my wife was doing yoga and suggested inviting a Buddhist priest that got turned down. The effect of this small dose of religion in schools, as well as religious education about the history of all the various religions, appears to be a sort of inoculation as religion seems to be a minority thing now, with churches having to merge or close due to small congregations.

The clarification of which establishment the framers of the Constitution were opposing was helpful, for some reason I thought it went back to the UK established churches, the Church of England and the Kirk. We have the double absurdity of Church of England bishops in the House of Lords which is part of the government.

On the more general topic of Paley and co., it's quite hard to appreciate the mindset of those times. In natural theology, God was automatically taken to be the prime mover, and science was part of religion but dealt only with "secondary causes". Hence Sir John Hershel was interested in scientific speculation on "that mystery of mysteries, the replacement of extinct species by others", which he expected "would be found to be a natural in contradistinction to a miraculous process" if ever discovered. He'd earlier inspired Darwin to take up science, and Darwin quoted the phrase "mystery of mysteries" in On the Origin of Species. Which is where I think I came in! Glad to hear you've done well with the aerobic walking course, we tend to take things more gently at this time of year with our unpredictable weather. Thanks again, . dave souza, talk 21:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prince William Sound Community College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Anderson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Done Fixed it. Thanks for letting me know. Yopienso (talk) 10:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI

I have mentioned you at ANI.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Old English literature, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Done

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Irena Sendler may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

was officially supported by the State of Israel through its prime minister, [[Ehud Olmert]],} and the Organization of Holocaust Survivors in Israel residents.{{Citation needed|date=January

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, BB! Fixed it. Yopienso (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Mann's advocacy

Thanks for the support re this. I won't speculate on motives, but Prof. Mann's recent op-eds -- well, Prof. McKittrick's remark comes to mind. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)