User talk:WikiPedant

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pomonomo2003 (talk | contribs) at 19:42, 22 December 2006 (→‎Aristotelianism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello WikiPedant, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

Remember to place any articles you create into a category so we don't get orphans.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 03:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and..

I changed Doomsday event to disambiguate and directly link to related terms. The mention of civilization being destroyed no doubt might better link to end of civilization than to civilization —destruction and contstruction being so.. different. Of course using the revert button (youre not a newbie apparently) is usually poor form. Regards, -Ste|vertigo 23:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ste|vertigo -- You're right. I should have edited your changes to the opening sentence of Doomsday event rather than reverting them. Sorry. I removed your changes because I believe you made the opening sentence unnecessarily complex and a bit illogical. It doesn't really make sense to follow the expression "at the least" with two alternatives. Besides, internal links to End of civilization and Human extinction were already present under "See also." In the opening sentence, I think that the internal link really should be to "Civilization" since that is the basic concept which the reader needs to understand in order to understand the opening sentence. I'll watch my step from now on... WikiPedant 04:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the edit was a little unwieldy. "Internal links to End of civilization and Human extinction were already present under "See also." Yeah, well they belong in the lede. Disambiguation is useless if its done after the fact. Maybe you can figure something out. Regards. -Ste|vertigo 04:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doomsday films

Dear WikiPedant,

Hello and thank you for your note on Talk:Doomsday film about my attempts to categorise the list. You made some good points, and I admit that I was struggling a bit to assign the movies; The Day After Tomorrow did look odd on its own, and the less said about The Day of the Triffids, the better. The reason I added the categories was to break up the list which, when I first saw it, didn't quite meet WP:STYLE. I'm happy that you've removed any arbitrary category added by me, and I think that your new 'decade' system works well.

Nevertheless (there's always a 'nevertheless') I'm sure that there is still room in the article to address the theme of doomsday for each movie. This could be difficult to achieve, and could lead to another arbitrary categorisation, but I think it is important that some link is drawn between the year the movie was issued and the mood of Western Civilisation. For example, most Nuclear Weapons movies were released in the 1960s or 1980s (but why not the 1970s?) reflecting obvious concerns. Since the end of the Cold War, most doomsday films have concentrated on Celestial Impact, Disease, or Alien Invasion; all good metaphors, but which fears are being tickled? There's an interesting little essay for someone.

One final note for the time being; the definition of Doomsday. I believe a 'Doomsday Movie' should deal directly with the build-up to or consequences of the end of civilisation itself, and not with 'a more localized catastrophe—such as the destruction of a city.' I'm not convinced that the following movies should be on the list, and would welcome your thoughts:

  • The Beginning or the End: only oblique references to Doomsday in this Hiroshima story.
  • Seven Days to Noon while dealing with what would now be classed as an act of terrorism, does not quite threaten Doomsday.
  • Above and Beyond is really a bio-pic of Paul Tibbets.
  • Special Bulletin is more of a terrorist movie; Doomsday itself is not threatened.
  • The Matrix, while set in a post-apocalytic world, deals more with rebellion against a totalitarain régime.

Let me know what you think. --die Baumfabrik 16:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I haven't seen Last Night yet: is it a good show? --die Baumfabrik 16:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aristotle as Polymath

Hi WikiPedant

In the Aristotle article you removed the description "universal" from my comment that Aristotle was a "universal polymath" saying "universal" was redundant. But a polymath couild be good at, say, only three or four subjects. The point I was stressing that Aristotle was good at ALL subjects (at least as much as any human has been!) If you are being really pedantic you might say no one is absolutely good in absolutely every subject, therefore a universal polymath is an impossibility. But, I suggest, you should replace my hyperbole with something to indicate that Aristotle was more than the average polymath.

- User:Mal4mac

P.S. i couldn't see how to email you, hope this way of commenting isn't too deviant!

See User_talk:Mal4mac for my reply. -- WikiPedant 19:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict in need of resolution/request for comment

You are requested to offer your comment in the dispute, involving inter alia your name, outlined here. It was originally your post on my talkpage on 10 September 2006 (07:44 UTC), and subsequently on the talkpages of two other users, that precipitated the series of events that constitute the core of the dispute in question, and it would therefore be helpful if you could state whether you are content with the present outcome and with the actions that the two administrators named in the dispute had taken with regard of one of my user subpages on 13 September, and if you are not content, whether you see a way to resolving the impasse. Thank you. — Prof02 08:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Aristotelianism

Thank you for your help on the Aristotelianism page. I appreciate it. Deletions and reversions without explanation are ridiculous. You have more faith, btw, in the Wiki system than I do. Eventually Wikipedia itself will only be an opinion poll... Pomonomo2003 20:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely about unexplained deletions/reversions, and am not terribly inclined to "assume good faith" when edits of this sort are made by unregistered users. The development of Wikipedia is certainly fascinating to watch, and, on balance, I think there really is progress (2 steps forward and anywhere from 1 to 1.99 back, but progress). It's planet Earth's grandest experiment in the democratization of knowledge dissemination. But there is a kind of overseer mechanism evolving, since watchlists allow those most invested in an article to "guard" it, and the admins and higher functionaries do have a capability to deal with destructive editors. WikiPedant 14:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two steps forward, 1.9 steps back would be wonderful! But what is to keep the 'admins and higher functionaries' from themselves eventually becoming the barbarians? Regarding the Aristotelianism page I am waiting for the book by Kevin Knight to come out. At some point Amazon was reporting its title as 'Revolutionary Aristotelianism' but it seems cooler heads prevailed... Pomonomo2003 19:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WikiPedant&oldid=95971041"