Difference between revisions of "User talk:TerryH"
(Bdobbs banned for using templates?) |
|||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
Seeing how nobody MENTIONED they were sysop-only, that seems a trifle harsh. --[[User:Cdobbs|Cdobbs]] 16:02, 6 April 2007 (EDT) | Seeing how nobody MENTIONED they were sysop-only, that seems a trifle harsh. --[[User:Cdobbs|Cdobbs]] 16:02, 6 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
(I think you were the sysop that did it, but I don't know how to find out for sure.) | (I think you were the sysop that did it, but I don't know how to find out for sure.) | ||
| + | :The order came down from [[User:TK|TerryK]], not from me. You might want to address your protest [[User talk:TK|here]]. For the record, your block will come off in three days.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 16:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 20:08, April 6, 2007
Talk to me! Am I right? Wrong? Any suggestions? --TerryH 18:24, 5 March 2007 (EST)
Administrative Office
The door is always open. Please place questions, suggestions, complaints, et cetera, here.--TerryHTalk 13:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Welcome as Sysop!
Terry, you have indeed been promoted to Sysop, in recognition of your numerous high-quality edits. Welcome!
As Sysop, you can and should block vandals and obscene users by checking "Recent Changes," and you can also edit locked pages. In terms of blocking, please block for immediate duration any user who posts obscenity, or has obscenity in his user id. Don't all those users to return with a shorter block. The same is true for clear vandalism. Silliness, inappropriate entries, or repeatedly unproductive edits should be addressed by a warning on their talk page and/or a short block. Many Sysops have access to Checkuser and IP addresses, but use those only to track down and report vandalism to the appropriate entities.
The pages are locked for reasons including repeated vandalism or, in a few cases, high-quality efforts that should not be diluted or degraded. Caution should be exercised before editing them, and feel free to ask me first if there is any doubt. You can probably sense why a page was locked, and if it was due to vandalism then please feel free to improve it however you like.
Again, welcome, and a good Easter to you!--Aschlafly 10:22, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Materialism
Hi, I'm another sysop. I used to be a sysop, bureaucrat and Developer at Wikipedia, but I fell afoul of The Cabal. ;-)
Anyway I wanted to ask you about a phrase you wrote which piqued my interest.
- the sufficiency of total materialism to explain anything and everything
I think this is good material for our Materialism article. Materialists don't just sit around believing in materialism. They used their beliefs as justification. They speak, write and act. I'd like to know more about what materialists use their perspective for. --Ed Poor 14:39, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
- Hello, Ed. Thanks for dropping in.
- My experience with "materialists" is, I admit, limited to sitting in a classroom and getting the materialistic perspective on biology--from teachers who expressed that supreme confidence that matter was everything and matter could explain everything. But it also comes from viewing so many television shows that took a materialistic perspective, and checking up on how other shows dealt with issues of evolution. The Star Trek franchise, for example, was as materialistic as it ever got. They ended up going with Francis Crick's directed-panspermia hypothesis, and featuring a race calling themselves "The Progenitors." Check it out on Wikipedia, if you like.
- The materialist perspective justifies--or at least removes a key objection to--the use of human fetal tissue not only for stem-cell extraction but also for transplant sources. The materialist says, "A person is not a person until it behooves the state to grant him personhood." Materialist morality's standard-of-value is "the greatest good for the greatest number," and thinks nothing of sacrificing the individual.
- Even Objectivist morality would have a problem with pure materialism--which is why Objectivism is not a purely materialist discipline. Materialism says that all we are, are collections of chemicals. Objectivism says that we have minds, and that mind and matter are not the same.
- Materialism is very close to modernism, about which we really need an article. Modernism says that, given enough research time, grant moneys, et cetera, we will find the relentlessly rational answers to every problem. Postmodernism says that some answers are unobtainable, and that there is no such thing as truth. But modernism says that the truth is that there is nothing beyond the natural and material, and that what is unknown today--say about life origins--will become known tomorrow.
- I admit that I have no references. All I have are my personal impressions from having had materialist professors, in high school, college, and medical school. Maybe this will help.--TerryHTalk 15:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Bdobbs banned for using templates?
Hi, same user as BDobbs here. I got a bnotice I was banned, and my IP was banned, for using the "Bias" template without being a Sysop.
Seeing how nobody MENTIONED they were sysop-only, that seems a trifle harsh. --Cdobbs 16:02, 6 April 2007 (EDT) (I think you were the sysop that did it, but I don't know how to find out for sure.)