User talk:Somerset219

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Somerset219, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Ned Scott 03:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donnie Darko

I noticed you edited the trivia about the words Cellar Door. I'm not saying your'e wrong, but where did you find that info, i havent found anything saying that. I've heard that it was noam chomskey, which i doubt, j r tolkein and Poe. Could you give some insight on your descion, so maybe i could reference it, thanks! Somerset219 20:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The info was on the cellar door page, check it yourself.Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 16:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day of the Dead Celebration?

Is this really one of the "largest holidays celebrated" in Tucson? I've lived in Tucson for almost 20 years and I've never heard of any significant recognition given to this event. Where exactly do these "thousands" of people gather and where do they go? User: 70.171.210.35

Perhaps it's invisibility has something to do with the fact that Hispanic families, primarily Mexican, engage in a relatively private, family celebration of the Day of the Dead. They bring food and drink to the grave sites of deceased relatives and essentailly picnic with the dead as part of their extended families.

Just because a celebration doesn't involve major production parades doesn't mean the celebration is not a large celebration. In this case, it's a large celebration that manifests itself on a private, family level rather than a big public display with parades down "Main Street". If one only counts the showiness of it, your point is well taken. However, I suspect if one considers the number of people involved (and Tucson has a significant population with a Mexican heritage) perhaps it might be a reason to re-calculate it's significance.

With the exception of a few public aspects of the celebration of the Day of the Dead in Tucson, I can see how the celebration might be virtually invisible to the average Anglo who's attention is drawn elsewhere. However, just because one does not see it, does not mean it's not there. The significant recognition of the celebration is primarily among those of the community that celebrates it. If you're not a member of that community, you might miss it altogether. --Joekoz451 16:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say The day of the dead is a popular celebration, not one of the largest holidays celebrated.

has something to do with the fact that Hispanic families, primarily Mexican, engage in a relatively private, family celebration of the Day of the Dead.,

You're right in stating it's a popular hispanic holiday that has been incorpurated in Tucson, however thats exactly the reason it should not be singled out as one of the largest holidays celebrated, because not everyone is hispanic, and it's not an official American holiday. It is however original to Tucson and should be mentioned as a holiday celebrated, so perhaps some re-wording is in order. On a side note: I feel there is no racism in his question, drawing the race card here is a bit ridiculous Somerset219 02:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly agree that "drawing a race card" is ridiculous but I'm not sure where your coming from when you mention it. Tucson is multi cultural and it's not uncommon for people of one culture to miss things that are happening in other cultures. In this case, non-hispanics who don't observe the Day of the Dead celebration are pretty much oblivious to it. I believe that's a valid observation and not "drawing a race card".

How many non-Chinese are tuned into Chinese New Year? Would it be racist to say that Hispanics are pretty oblivious to that celebration?

Or, perhaps the objection is to the term "Anglo", a term used by many Central and South Americans when refering to North Americans of other than Spanish heritage. I happen to be of Polish heritage ... however, being an English speaker, I feel the term "Anglo" is a relatively accurate assessment and, in the Southwest particularly, an appropriate discriptor (though not the only one). "Anglo" certainly doesn't bother me as much as "Gringo" might. A peek at the etymology of both terms would probably give a clue as to why that might be and to why the term "Gringo" might be a either a racial or cultural slur while "Anglo" proabably isn't.

That aside, I think you're probably correct and the article might be better served if it were edited to read, "The Day of the Dead is a popular celebration" rather than characterizing it as one of the biggest. The statistics to support the latter proposition would probably hard to come by given the relatively non-public nature of the celebration. --Joekoz451 14:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason i felt you were drawing the race card was because of the lack of knowlegde you have about the race of the person who identified the issue. Another reason would be that I celebrate The Day of the Dead, along with other people whom are from other cultures other than hispanic. Granted you didn't use racially slanderous language to identify with the person making the inquiry, however you brought up that A: Only Mexicans care about it. B: They celebrate in private. C: the person asking if he/she could edit "the largest holiday celebrated" is white.

I would certainly agree that "drawing a race card" is ridiculous but I'm not sure where your coming from when you mention it. Tucson is multi cultural and it's not uncommon for people of one culture to miss things that are happening in other cultures. In this case, non-hispanics who don't observe the Day of the Dead celebration are pretty much oblivious to it. I believe that's a valid observation and not "drawing a race card".

Dawing a race card is bringing up a racial observation based a non-racial question. It may be a valid observation, but one that didn't have anything to do with the question.

anyways this is turning into a bitchfest, so lets just let bygones be bygones. Somerset219 01:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you'd like to explain to me how you got what you got from what I wrote on my Discussion page (without the ad hominum attacks and insinuations). It would speak far better of you than the tactic of making your points in public and then unilaterally declaring the discussion closed because it's become a "bitchfest". I'll copy my original comments there and we can take this up in private. --Joekoz451 22:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. You'll have to excuse me then, for i'm a bit new at this and never thought of the aternative to just discussing it on your private discussion page. now, I got what i got because you say "mexican" and "anglo" in your original response, which is bringing up race. As for you defending yourself by saying nobody celebrates the chinese new year but chinese people, is racial in itself, perhaps you should visit San Fransisco. I don't know where you think i insinuated anything, I'm simply telling you that it was inappropriate to bring up race when a question was declared that had nothing to do with it. These are the areas in which you insinuate about the original questioneer:

Just because a celebration doesn't involve major production parades doesn't mean the celebration is not a large celebration -- he/she mentions nothing about production parades.
I suspect if one considers the number of people involved (and Tucson has a significant population with a Mexican heritage) perhaps it might be a reason to re-calculate it's significance. -- you insinuate mexicans to be the only celebrators of this holiday
I can see how the celebration might be virtually invisible to the average Anglo who's attention is drawn elsewher -- you insinuate he/she is an average "anglo" whos attention is drawn elsewhere.

Thats where I got my insinuations. Somerset219 02:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

+++++++++

Neither "Mexican" nor "Anglo" have anything to do with race. If you think they do, then you know little about what is supposed to constitutes "race" in the general public mind. "Mexican" is a nationality. The races .. and I think race is an artificial construct that has little or no biological meaning ... are generally outlined as: Caucasoid (white), Negro (black), American Indian (red), Mongoloid (yellow) or as some would have it Oriental. "Mexicans" range through thses poorly differentiated so called "racial groups" and include Caucasians, American Indians as well as a displaced Negroid population much like that of the United States - though for different reasons. There are also Mexicans with Oriental heritages. A Mexican can be of any race and, therefore, to refer to Mexican is to refer to a national origin or background and not a racial slur. I believe Mexican people actually refer to themselves as "Mexicano" (me-he-'can-o). Correct me if I'm wrong.

No, the OP didn't mention "parades" specifically ... but if the celebration had them, I suspect the question would not have been posted in the first place. Cross culturally, public celebrations generally entail public displays. The fact that the celebration of the Day of the Dead has a more significant private component that it does a public component - i.e. minimal public displays - leads me to refer to "parades" when, perhaps I should have said "public displays". But, geeeeze ... dosen't that strike you as a pissy little point with minimal signifant meaning?

If anything, I'm the "average Anglo". It refers to the fact that I'm primarily an English speaker. Many people in this country have a fascination with England and thrie royalty (I'm not one of them) and those people are referred to as "Anglophiles". Is that racist? If I had used the term "gringo" which is a perjorative, you'd have a case .... but the fact is, I used a word "Anglo", which refers to a language background (rather than racial, as youd like to have it) ... and, in my estimation, its relatively accurate. In the meantime, the English speaking community's participation in the DOTD celebrations is both minimal and marginal at best and pretty much limited to buying candy skelitons where there is any "participation" at all. I dare say that the English speaking population of Tucson (those who speak English as their primary or only language - Anglos, for short) are by and large, pretty oblivious to the DOTD celebration unless they actively seek out signs of it. In many cases, particularly among those who've been here a relatively short time, I wouldn't be surprised to find a certain level of puzzlement over what those quaint little skeliton figures are all about. (Their view point, not mine ... I have three of them sitting on a dresser across from my bed to remind me that death is our constant companion and that its wise to be on good terms with it, for it comes for us all sooner or later.)

I don't insinuate that Mexicans are the ONLY ones who celebrate the Day of the Dead. If you go back and actually READ the original wording I say:

"Perhaps it's invisibility has something to do with the fact that Hispanic families, primarily Mexican, engage in a relatively private, family celebration of the Day of the Dead."

Tucson has a large Hispanic community and by far the largest segment is made up of people of Mexican national heritage. In that the Day of the Dead has its origins in Mexico - a carry over from the pre-Spanish Aztec culture (and other related cultural groups indigenous to Meso-America) AND the largest segment of the Tucson Hispanic polulation is, in fact, of Mexican origin or background (Tucson, after all was a part of Mexico until the Gadsden Purchase in 1848). They may not be the only ones who celebrate the occasion but, in Tucson, the population of people with Mexican heritage would, by its sheer numbers, make up more than 90% of the celebrants. (That's a guess, not a demonstrable statistical fact.)

... and what the HELL does knowing the ethnic or racial or national origin of the original poster have to do with anything. Either I outlined the facts of the situation (that the DOTD is celebrated primarily in the Mexican community of Tucson - because they are bay far the largest Hispanic segment - and that he celebration is primarily a private, family oriented thing without a big public display component) ... or I didn't outline facts ... and those facts don't change with the ethnicity of the poster.

In the meantime, why are you so defensive on behalf of the OP? Do you imagine they can't speak on their own behalf? If I have somehow insulted THEM, don't you think it would be more appropriate for THEM to take issue with me rather than some third party like yourself? I believe you are suffering from a hyper-sensitive case of political correctness which pleagues our times. I will say, after MANY years of experience and a political awareness that started when I marched with C.O.R.E. in the 1960s, you will be able to find slurs and insults whereever you look ... if you look hard enough. I believe everyting I said is pretty factual and where anything has been left to interpretation, you've elected to read the most negative things into it. The world needs men and women with moral courage but, with all the troubles in the world, this level on nit picking does not constitute moral courage. It comes on more like someone who has a chip on thier shoulder. I am not saying tht you have one. I am refering to the impression the tactic leaves.

With all due respect, I offer the following example:

During part of the month of May, I traveled through the Pueblo areas around Albuquerque and into the Four Corners region in the company of one of the elders of Cocheti Pueblo. He's also a full professor in the UNM Department of Education (or whatever their formal designation of the area of study is). On our sixth night together we were joined by a historian who specializes in border history - the history of the areas of the American Southwest and Northern Mexico. During dinner he regailed us with a monologue, putting forth the proposition that the Spanish were not as cruel in their treatment of the Pueblo peoples as is commonly thought. He pointed out that he'd done many years of research through the records of the period.

As we listened, I could feel the tension building within my traveling companion but, he waited patiently for the end of the apology for the Spanish colonizers. At the end of the diatribe, my friend rose and thanked the historian for his talk on the history of the tribes. He recognized and honored the scholars years of research. Then he framed a simple question. "All of your research is in the written records. But the Spanish were the only ones who wrote the records. Our people have an oral tradition. Are you aware that there's a European cultural bias to the effect that if it's not written, it's not real? Is it possible that you've only studied one side of the story?"

The historian was devistated ... totally undone by a single simple question that totally undermined his years of research. There were no accusation, no ad hominum attacks, no insinuations and there was no hostility.

My point is that you can probably get further with questions that you can by making assumptions and coming in the door with guns blazing. If you ask questions you tend to get answers. If you come in with assumptions and guns blazing, you run the risk of misinterpreting ... because assumptions generally entail reading your own baggage into the situation. As I said, one can find insults where ever one looks ... if one looks hard enough.

Please note, I don't question your character nor do I impune you motives (as you have mine by suggesting I'm some sort of died-in-the-wool racist). I suspect you are a decent, honest person and that your motives are as nobel as any. What I seriously question is your choice of tactics. --Joekoz451 11:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying your racist, all i said was it was inappropriate to bring up race, in which you did. The context of your original statements say this. refering to chinese and mexican may not be technically "race", however, you are still being biased and misleading in your statements, which was the freakin point! I was simple telling you that instead of going off about how mexicans enjoy the holiday and then talking about your self in third person (I guess "Gringo" is supposed to mean yourself, which makes no sense), perhaps you could have answered his question. I'm so glad you're not racist, didn't really care, but I guess i'm happy for you. Somerset219 03:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tucson edit

You're right; the name of the festival (Dia de los muertos) is better in the body of the section, not the heading. Good call. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About those voices in your head: I've always found that a good stiff drink or three takes care of them. I might suggest palinka or rakia in particular (you may know it better as slivovitz). And I'll leave you with this little ditty:

Roses are red, violets are blue,

I'm schizophrenic. And so am I!

Hey, but seriously: forget the Day of the Dead. You want to see a real cultural event that will knock your socks off? Open your eyes up? If you're around there next Easter, go check out the Yaqui Easter celebration, in the Pascua Yaqui village, south of Grant Rd. near the freeway, out where the people are poor, the houses are dilapidated and the dust blows (don't have a map handy, but you'll easily find it). It goes on for a whole week. It's the most incredible cultural happening in Tucson. Of course, there's no article on it here, so don't bother looking. (Someone would probably fuck it up, anyhow.) A must-see. Just remember to behave yourself there, and eat a lot of fry bread. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wow, never heard of it. Sounds like fun! Thanks I'll definitely check it out next time it comes around. Somerset219 06:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham McClellan Deletion Proposal

I noticed you nominated the article I created on Missouri State Treasurer Abraham McClellan for proposed deletion on July 27, 2006. In your edit summary you noted "Its small and only about his time in office". Small articles on Wikipedia are permitted on Wikipedia, they are called stubs. Most articles on Wikipedia start out as stubs and are expanded on later by other editors. Having said that, I have expanded the article to the best of my ability, and removed it from proposed deletion. --TommyBoy 01:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand stubs, thank you for your interest in the article. Awesome job! Somerset219 01:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Agnostic theism

I'm probably not going to be of much help for you--in my experience, philosophy students mainly use the term as a nitpicky way to claim superiority to we peons who would dare claim the term "agnostic" without using it as a qualifier for theism or atheism. But this has happened more than a few times for me in college (both in Alabama and Oregon) and on message boards, so I'm pretty sure it's an established term. A quick Google Book search[1] doesn't yield an awful lot of hits, but some books by and referring to T. H. Huxley appear to attribute the term to first-century Jewish philosopher Philo. There is also some discussion of the term on the main page for agnosticism. Hope that helps! -- H·G (^words/_works) 05:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Atheism - I think the paragraph does make sense. Basically it says that:

Some say atheism leads to Nihilism, an absence of values.
Others argue that they have values, ie secular philosophies.
Other others argue that those values are arbitrary, not being grounded in anything eternal like what God says...

Evercat 22:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is redundant, its already said
Perhaps rewording would be in order; statement says there is no basis for these values.
but previous statement proves they are not, hence why it doesn't make sense.

Somerset219 22:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really following you to be honest. "previous statement proves they are not".... not what? Evercat 22:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be the previous statment: Some atheists also believe that some acts are wrong by their very definition (for example, murder is defined as the unjustified killing of another person)., it was taken out, which is why i reacted so quickly, thinking it was vandalism. to answer your not what?, I meant not arbitrary. Somerset219 22:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? I wasn't aware we'd come to a concensus, but anyway I'm off to bed. I likewise apologise if I was rude... Evercat 03:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism Reverts

Seriously, cut it out. You obviously do not have the necessary knowledge of philosophy yet to be making the kinds of modifications you are making in atheism criticisms. Read more about philosophy before attempting to cut out relevant material. You, Jim, and a couple of others appear to be atheist apologists and you are merely attempting to make atheism look good rather than allowing the truth to be presented so that others may judge for themselves. 67.187.9.149 00:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have not cited your sources, and you constantly add weasle words to make your POV. I actually cited your sources for you and you still reverted it. It doesnt matter how much philosophy I've read, that is irrelevant. You are obviously trying to make a scene, considering we have already discussed this on the talk page, and you refuse to contribute. Please read citing your sources, being civil and the 3 revert rule. Somerset219 00:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are Nietsche. Hello? How plain does that have to be? I use no "weasel words". In fact, you and a few others are using the weasel words and making apologetic excuses for every single criticism of atheism just to make it look good. Ha! When philosophy IS the issue, then philosophy IS relevant. You most certainly need to have read more philosophy in order to make the kinds of judgements you have been making. I have contributed on the talk page and no one has responded to me. I am new to the whole errant Wiki thing, so I am just getting my bearings on where to go to post. Someone says go to "Talk", so where do I go? My Talk? Your Talk? Someone else's Talk? Oh...must be the "Discussion" page. Can you guys be a little more clear in what you are asking? And, by the way, for someone who can't seem to spell very well, please never accuse me of writing poorly again. The only "scene" I am trying to make is to get people who don't know what they're doing to leave good information alone.

You writing poorly has nothing to do with me mis-spelling a word, which is something that has nothing to do with this debate. You questioning where to go to "discuss things", I find to hard to believe, considering you have been discussing things there for many days. There is a reason you have a long list of reverts on the atheism page, that speaks for itself. I have addressed the issues at hand, My knowledge of philosophy is irrelevant. The issues are citation. the 3 revert rule, and using a neutral point of view. Somerset219 01:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the first place, I write quite well and have been awarded for my writing, so your opinion is simply hogwash being thrown out because you have no true arguments. Your writing is quite relevant. Someone who cannot spell and does not have a decent grasp of the subject matter at hand should not be modifying anything. The material I have added has been continually deleted or modified in an apologetic fashion favorable to atheism, so my own reverts are totally justified and will continue until and unless I am unreasonably banned. I have already explained the supposed "citation" violation. It is a no-brainer that there is in fact no violation. Finally, there is NO such thing as a "neutral point of view", especially with respect to controversial subjects, so one should get used to information with which one does not agree.

Tucson Transportation

Seems petty to argue about. An award was issued that seems notable enough. SunTran thought it important enough to paint on the side of the bus. I dont work for SunTran. I just enjoy the ride. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Randywilliams1975 (talk • contribs)

Ya i comprimised, it just looked tacky the way it was. at any point sorry for being rude. Somerset219 03:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tucson In General

Have you ever marched in the all souls, or even seen the procession, doubtful. do you just wait for the holiday and then add it. Vandalism is a strong word (I have seen some of your "contributions"). There are lots of other things maybe you will eventually see: Dillinger Days for example, Presidio Trail.... go downtown experience the culture.Randywilliams1975 05:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Randy, don't be an asshole. -- Ned Scott 05:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a nice enough guy.Randywilliams1975 05:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from Randywilliams1975 user page

please give a reason for an edit in the comment box. This will help in knowing your reasons, otherwise it may be construed as vandalism. Thanks! Somerset219 02:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

umm... I'm sorry if I came across as rude, however, I feel I was pretty clear and gave you the benefit of the doubt. I gave valid reasons for my revert, as a courtesy to other users like yourself. You gave no reasons; what else could I have done? Somerset219 06:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

on a side note, I lived downtown, I experienced the culture, good and bad. I like Tucson, I don't see what you're getting at here. Somerset219 06:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought the the holiday should be added not just the "parade".Randywilliams1975 06:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings; I'm sure you're a great editor with a lot of knowledge on the topic, I can't wait to see your future contributions. If you feel like you have a good reason or purpose for an edit, don't be afraid to get a discussion going on the talk page. We're all here to make Wikipedia a great online resource. :) Somerset219 06:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Climate: average and range are two different things. please revert to previous. I provided some definitions average: a single value that summarizes or represents the general significance of a set of unequal values. range: the distance or extent between possible extremes.Randywilliams1975 15:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, chill out. I think you may be confused. The temperatures that were ranged were averages, not the extremes. However if you want that to change, by all means change it. I simply added nesessary info, I did not change definitions, nor take out info that was needed. Perhaps re-reading the section might help you out. It bewilders me how simular your arguments tend to be of ILike2BeAnonymous. Somerset219 22:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!

Hi,

Thank you for creating a userbox for Wikiproject Atheism. Your contributions are extremely valuable and I hope you will continue to contribute in the future. In the mean time, please accept this Mooncake as a token of my gratitude. Hezzy 02:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orange, CA

I am all for the be bold idea with this wikipedia, but please be careful too. You have part of image caption lying around in demographics and there were images broken before. Maybe you're in the middle of editing it so I wait til tomorrow to look at it.

You mentioned some good undebatable things to remove (attractions not in the city, etc.) but I would be careful mixing in debatable stuff without doing a little discussion before hand. I think you might have people reverting the whole thing. Especially if you re-arrange stuff at the same time and cannot just change the parts you have problems with. fyi, I have lived in Orange for a while so I familar with the downtown circle. Not that its the Taj Mahal but it the signurare area and deserves some attention (blurb about movies, picture, etc.) --MarsRover 06:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia flacked out on me, sorry for the screw up. if it defines the orange circle, then perhaps making a little blurb w/ the orange circle is appropriate. Somerset219 06:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism

Please oh please, when making a largely impactful edit, like the one about Religion and Atheism, read prior discussions on it. It is an intro, not to an argument, but to information about atheism and religion. This was summed up already:

The historical context of how each theistic sect has defined and dealt with atheism is significant. Although atheism is often accompanied by a total lack of spiritual beliefs, this is not an aspect, or even a necessary consequence, of atheism. Indeed, some atheists do believe in a spiritual realm (see afterlife) and may or may not belong to any religious group. Atheists can also be found in several sects of Buddhism and Taoism that do not have theism as a doctrine, and even in religions in which theism has been taught as doctrine.

There is nothing wrong with this statement, it is utterly NPOV. It gives multiple directions for an atheist, and does not preclude/include him/her of anything. Yours however:

Most Christian and Islamic sects require belief in God as a core dogma, and condemn such intentional denial. A monotheistic belief is at the core of traditional Judaism, but some modern interpretations consider a person's actions rather than their beliefs to determine who is an adherent of Judaism. Leniency is granted in the afterlife to non-believers who lead moral lives, in some versions of Christian theology. Certain eastern religions, such as Samkhya (a form of Hinduism), Carvaka, and Buddhism, might be considered atheistic because they do not have a singular anthropomorphic diety. Not everyone (including believers in those faiths) are comfortable labeling adherents of those traditions as atheistic, because they find atheism to have a connotation of total non-spirituality.

This is the statement to an argument, not an intro to the following text. In which the latter prescribes. if you want to discuss how atheism interacts with certain religions, please do so in the actual article;i.e. under the Christianity section, Judasim section, or Asian Spirituality section. It took a long time to come to a consensus and figure out a consensual intro, please do not just revert the whole thing with no valid reasoning. I have seen the atheism talk page, and it is very ridiculously innappropriate, please see monkey brains talk page. The intro is not their to try to defend positions, thats what the article is their for. It is there to give necessary background info to the reader, so they know what to expect. The only thing I see in your paragraph that could be construed in the intro, is the statement on the negative connotation of atheism. Thank you for understanding. Somerset219 23:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I came to this article because of your request for assistance. I went through the previous discussion and it sounded like the intro to that section was still unsettled. I wrote that prose from scratch (not reverting) because I thought the previous version had not taken into account your point of view. But if you liked the old way of phrasing things, it's fine by me to put it back. There is a slight distinction to be made between the introduction of an article and a summary of a subarticle. Though in both cases, I guess you should assume that some people will stop reading after the first paragraph. (See Wikipedia:Summary style.) But I was thinking that maybe it would be a good idea to add more details to the summary, on the assumption that many people will not read the subarticle. It's a little dry and boring to tell people that some people in some religions are like X, and it's much more interesting and informative to get them some concrete examples. If you think the paragraph sounds like it is cramming in too much detail, please feel free to thin it out a bit. Certainly WP:NPOV demands that it should not be making an argument for anything in particular, but just giving information as you say. -- Beland 00:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I will edit it, plus i really like the negative connotaion things, so I think I'll incorporate it. I have no problem with you interjecting, hence the request, i feel the more the merrier. Thank you. Somerset219 00:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't say non-religiousness is necessarily a negative thing; that depends on your perspective. -- Beland 01:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone (including believers in those faiths) are comfortable labeling adherents of those traditions as atheistic, because they find atheism to have a connotation of total non-spirituality I think i find that negative to believers, in the sense they are being "wrongly' categorized. Which, your right, does depend on perspective; ie. that of a believer. Somerset219 01:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding being civil, is it right to suggest to someone in response to a criticism that they should look for a refund for their degree? That was the extent of your argument in the Agnostic Theism debate? Had you any knowledge of the UK and had read my user description you might know that I didn't pay for my degree in any event. Please review your own behaviour before condemning others AlecMcEachra 11:11 19 October 2006 (BST)

Christian revert

Your revert reasons were justified, however, you did not revert anything according to those reasons. Please see talk page if you disagree with editing concerns, try to refrain from editing from POV and not giving reasons for it, at least reasons that are relevant to the edit. However I do appreciate your edits, and hope to see more of them in the future. Thanks! Somerset219 22:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Somerset219! The reason I made the revert was because you changed my edits by making a fullstop and then inserting "Other sects..." ([2]). The reason why I did this is because most Christians believe in the Holy Trinity. It is generally considered one of the central beliefs to Christianity. By making the full stop and starting a new sentence, it sounded like most Christians beleived in a non-trinitarian God while other Christians believed in a trinitarian God. Because of your edit, I added a comma and took out the "Other sects..." to describe God as Christianity views Him. I apologize if my edit explanation (The majority of Christians are Trinitarian (excluding Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses))was not clear. My edit summary was trying to say that because most Christians are trinitarian, I thought describing God with a trinitarian description was appropriate. However when you changed the word "Other" to "Most", the paragraph was factually correct and is now fine ([3]). I hope this helps explain myself. It was nice hearing from you and I hope you have a good day. God Bless. Jdas07 01:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your insight. Somerset219 01:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

atheism page/group

Hi somerset thanks for your encouraging comment. I have joined the atheism 'group' and will add more stuff when I have time. Someone with more time and experience needs to get the POV tag taken off the IPU page. Poujeaux 14:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A word to the wise

It's pretty clear from the other comments made herein that you lack the tact and experience to make the order of magnitude of edits you are currently attempting to make on Wikipedia. Perhaps spending some time doing minor cleanup chores and leaving the rest to experienced editors is appropriate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.72.78.66 (talk • contribs) .

Like what? What mistakes have I made, all it looks like to me is that I make bold edits. Perhaps learning how to read, citing your argument with examples, and signing your comments may help you out in the future. Somerset219 05:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced editors know about the no personal attacks policy and how to sign their comments. Sounds to me like 12.72.78.66 is the one who needs to spend more time in the sandbox and not the other way around. -- Ned Scott 06:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orange revert

What the hell is this about? [4] I gave proper editing reasoning. Please see this for some insight on how to deal with edits. Somerset219 05:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, "What the hell is this about?" is no way to open up a dialogue. I suggest that you step back a moment, take a deep breath, and allow the article to develop organically, as opposed to the scattergun way you are making wholesale edits. Your rude behavior and reaction in this regard demonstrates that you are the one who feels "ownership" for the article.--Lord Kinbote 22:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was mad, considering you gave no reason for reverting all the work I did on the article. I don't understand what you mean by "organically" or why being bold is bad. You had no reason to revert, and you still give no reason, which makes me thinks one of two things; either you have ownership issues, or you vandalized the article. What does "scattergun" mean? whats with all the bizzare analogies? Somerset219 22:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Careful with saying the word vandalism so much. Style disputes aren't considered vandalism and people usually just get madder when you suggest that's what they've done. -- Ned Scott 22:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

insertion of nonsense or irrelevant content: I took out irrelevant content, by his revert, he put it back in, which is vandalism. Please see all parts of the argument before interjecting your opinion on someones talk page. Somerset219 22:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you meant to indicate that you were angry, and not demented, over the revert—granted, I probably shouldn't have used VP to revert the change, that way I could have left a more meaningful edit summary. MarsRover has tried to give you some sound advice above (and on the article's talk page) and has asked that you be more careful in your endeavors so as not to disrupt formatting or unnecessarily delete material (you as much admit this is the case in your statement "Sorry for barging in here and running a muck [sic]"); you don't seem to have taken that to heart, yet. By your own admissions much of your reasoning when editing appears to be based on whether or not you personally are familiar with something, which is not an encyclopedic basis for the same. There is nothing wrong is being bold, just so long as some forethought is applied as well. When you've got some more time under your belt here this should become apparant--Lord Kinbote 22:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So again, you give no reason for your revert. Iv'e read the discussion page, and edited accordingly, it seems you did not. much of your reasoning when editing appears to be based on whether or not you personally are familiar with something -- You are refering to the "plaza fountain" which is the only thing that was based on familiarity, plus I thought it unnecessary due to all the other pictures. Also there is nothing wrong with that type of editing, as you can see with the first discussiong on the talk page: "often" referred to as Plaza City?!?... Somerset219 22:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The line:"Sorry for barging in here and running a muck [sic]") was in reference to me editing a picture out, but left part of the paragraph description of it in the article. It was an easy mistake. Somerset219 23:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a user with some "time under my belt" and I found Somerset's edits are not bad at all. They might not be perfect, but they are an improvement to those articles. -- Ned Scott 22:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"is generally defined as editing a wiki in a way that is intentionally disruptive or destructive." My point is that people on Wikipedia can get touchy when you start to call them vandals in a content/style dispute. It doesn't matter what it actually is, what matters is that it does nothing but piss people off, because they don't see themselves as a vandal or intentionally hurting the article. -- Ned Scott 22:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By reverting something back to a sloppy article, I thought it to be intentional, hence why I brought it up, especially considering there was no reason given. You are assuming this was a style dispute... He has yet to say anything of the sort. Somerset219 22:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is a really stupid argument. Just next time, say something when you revert so much info, and I'll try to make my edits more clear. I'de hate to make an enemy over something trivial like this. Somerset219 23:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you ever sometimes get the feeling that you are talking to a wall? Mr Snrub 23:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... or that they don't sign in when making personal attacks . Somerset219 01:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know, I talk to walls all the time; it's only when thay talk back that I get perturbed. Check your email.--Lord Kinbote 04:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A contrast of my contributions [5]. What the article looked like prior [6] and after: [7]. Boy was I way out of line?.... Somerset219 01:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ENOUGH. I have grown weary of this exchange.--Lord Kinbote 04:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for editing your majesty... Somerset219 22:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism revert

Thanks for the feedback. Glad I didn't offend. JEREMY 02:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

You requested mediation but I am unsure as to wether somone has actually taken the case. So have they? If not I would like to help. Viridae ^Talk 04:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

im afraid your'e too late?

Somerset219 03:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New info for reconsidering a vote

Hi Somerset! I have provided additional information to support International Institute of Management article. I have listed the new information for verifying sources and notability at this article's entry . I kindly ask your support this article by reconsidering your vote. I'm hoping you gave your recommendation in good faith and you will reconsider it in the light of new information. Miro.gal

i looked at your info, however, your sources are from the same page. If it was notable, many people/ many sites would know about it. Also, your links state the institute by name, but give no other notability of how it's involved. Somerset219 04:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bot

Thank you for experimenting with the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. - Glen 03:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism Template

editing for wikiproject atheism

HI JMcD, I nabbed this nifty info box from the Digimon wikiproject, we could turn it into a good tool. Right now it has digimon stuff on it, but that can give us ideas, and help us out. Heres the template: [[8]]. If you could tell as many people as possible, that would be great. Perhaps we could replace the existing one at some point. Somerset219 08:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey hey, I noticed the new "template", it's a great template, however i think it would be best to consolidate everything into a "one size fits all" template, like the one being worked on in my sandbox. Considering it will be replacing the other ones. Please help with the above template so we may get things better organized. I know you mean well but the more obscure templates we make, the harder to organize all the info. Its one thing with a user box, It tends to be a little more touchy with an article template. At any rate, you're obviously anxious to help, please do, I offer my sandbox, but you could also use yours, perhaps collaborate, and then edit an awesome one! Thanks! Somerset219 03:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sorry fair enough piont, i don't want confuse things just thought we needed to despritly get rid of the other templates or create a less offensive template in the mean time before other users get the wrong idea about the project, i will look at your sand box and discuss things before hand. thanks JMcD 17:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand! Don't be sorry, I commend your boldness, without it we'd all be lost! Keep on contributing, your doing a great job. Somerset219 08:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save the IPU

URGENT - THE IPU (BBHHH) IS UNDER THREAT OF DELETION! SEE HER PAGE. PLEASE RALLY TO HER DEFENCE! Poujeaux 13:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible Pink Unicorn: Non-notable in-joke among some Usenet members. Only 682 unique Google hits, and there are even duplicates among those. (Incidentally, two of the three "references" in the article do not mention the IPU at all, and the third is a personal Geocities site of one of the members of this quaint little club.) wikipediatrix 04:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only 682 google hits? This is small? reference.com books; these seem like credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Somerset219 02:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two things

Can you prove atheism? Also the article The Quran and science may be of interest to you, either in helping with it or weighing in on my nomination to delete it. If you care to respond, please use my talk page.Arrow740 01:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant, can you prove that atheism as (roughly) defined in Theism is true. I.e. can you prove that there is no deity. Thanks for the link to God of the gaps though, that's an interesting article. Arrow740 03:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is not up to you to prove that there is no deity; I was merely interested to know if you had a proof. As regards "arguments of proof" of the existence of God, I think that Thomas Aquinas' five ways cannot be explained away using "natural laws." That's not saying that they are all valid, though I personally believe that at the very least, even if there is an infinite regress of causes, there has to be something which causes the chain.

By the way, the existence of natural laws cannot be proven. Any natural laws that we have deduced are nothing more than the result of scientists saying, "this appears to be how things work." I'm not saying that they're not right, I believe in science as much as the next reasonable person. I'm just saying that science is based on assumptions.

Outside of the realm of science, it is not always reasonable to demand proof. There are some things which, even if false, cannot be falsified. So if you believe in the law of excluded middle, this means that there could be things that, even if true, can't be proven. For example, I didn't demand proof that there is no god, only asked for it (haha).

My best friend fed a ganesha idol milk during that day that ganeshas all around the world were drinking milk, and I have no explanation for that. Because of that and other things which I have been convinced are miracles, I believe in the supernatural. I hesitate to call this proof of god's existence, though I hope to find some eventually. Arrow740 06:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to butt in here, but Arrow, this is not the place to be having these kinds of discussions. If you wish to have these kinds of discussions do so off of Wikipedia. Wikipedia talk pages are where we talk about articles and editing and all that good stuff, and is not the place for debate or even social networking. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"People want the easy answer, there is none, and believing someones answer with out understanding why is not only stupid but can be dangerous (religious terrorism)." Very true. However in my mind believing that there is no diety is an easy answer. Arrow740 04:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tucson

Apparently, you do not know what an off road motorcycle is. The two motorcycles on the back side of Mt. Lemmon are BMW GS models, which are dual purpose, off-road/on-road motorcycles. Check this out:

http://www.bmwmotorcycles.com/bikes/bike.jsp?b=r1200gs http://bmwdean.home.att.net/r1200gs-rocks.jpg http://bmwdean.home.att.net/r1200gs.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Jeff dean (talk • contribs)

for one, a bmw touring bike is not an off-roading bike, but i bet it can handle a dirt road.... secondly sign your fuckin posts and tell me what your talking about. Your pics of your motorcycles isn't relevant to Tucson, which is why I cut it. Somerset219 00:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I found that relevant and interesting - even more so with your addition of a Mt. Lemmon paragraph. Mount Lemmon is certainly a major recreation area for metro Tucson, and for many years I've been curious about that back way up. (No way I'd ever drive it, though.) I appreciate that someone's pic of their motorcycles may be a bit self-aggrandizing, but if a similar pic of someone else's bikes with an appropriate caption would be considered relevant (and I think it would), then we probably should not assume that they have no value if we assume the bikes are his. Regards.... Karen | Talk | contribs 00:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO, the fact that it's a picture of motorcycles, with no relevance to Tucson is why it is not a good picture, reguardless of whos it is. I'm mad because he is consistantly trying to sneak it back in, hence the personal attack. The picture does not enhance the article, it does not give it any perspective when all you see is a shot of "anytown" dirt road w/ 2 avg motorcycles, it was, and still is, clear self gratification. My blurb gave is some anchor, but it's weak at best. Somerset219 00:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it were just of bikes on a dirt road I'd agree, but this shot shows mountains and scrub. No photo that looked like that would be possible in Florida, Syracuse, NY or Columbus, Ohio, for example. It is very much a Tucson flavored view. However, I see that we are unlikely to agree, so I'll not argue further. Karen | Talk | contribs 01:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

uh, no, because you see my point, which is why we wouldn't agree. California, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Montana, W Virginia, Flagstaff, could be where it was taken, but I guess I can see your point, that it obviosly couldn't be the middle of the Atlantic?... of course not every place has this, but a lot do! (Personal attack removed) Somerset219 01:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tripoli

Hi! I've noticed that you coloured in the New York City weatherbox. I made a similar weather box for Tripoli, Libya but the colours are wrong. The data is however correct, could you please colour co-ordinate the two if you have time, Here's the page Template:Tripoli weatherbox Thanks a lot! Jaw101ie 15:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skepticism

Hello! I was the one who originally added the {{verify}} template to the Skepticism article. It's there for the same reason that the Recursion article has a "See also" link to Recursion. There's a long history of such things in Wikipedia. Best, --Shirahadasha 07:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

make it efficent, don't just do it because someone else did it. Somerset219 05:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Donnie Darko Film Poster.jpg

Hello, Somerset219. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Donnie Darko Film Poster.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Somerset219/sandbox3. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Donniedarkoskelcostume.jpg

Hello, Somerset219. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Donniedarkoskelcostume.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Somerset219/sandbox3. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 01:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]