Talk:James Maxwell - Revision history

Ronburk: /* quotation/reference problem */ new section

2014-08-17T19:25:21Z

quotation/reference problem: new section

Philip J. Rayment: Remove test

2008-08-27T11:58:26Z

Remove test

Kia: /* Not locked */ new section

2008-08-27T03:35:41Z

Not locked: new section

Aschlafly: Unprotected "Talk:James Maxwell": per request

2008-08-27T00:33:05Z

Unprotected "Talk:James Maxwell": per request

TK: Talk:James Clerk Maxwell moved to Talk:James Maxwell

2007-07-26T07:47:19Z

Talk:James Clerk Maxwell moved to Talk:James Maxwell

Philip J. Rayment: Talk:James Maxwell moved to Talk:James Clerk Maxwell: Full name

2007-07-26T07:26:36Z

Talk:James Maxwell moved to Talk:James Clerk Maxwell: Full name

TK: Protected "Talk:James Maxwell" [edit=sysop:move=sysop]

2007-07-26T05:57:51Z

Protected "Talk:James Maxwell" [edit=sysop:move=sysop]

HeartOfGold: Applying nowikis to talk page to remove this talk page from a category it does not belong (the article may belong to the category, but the talk page does not).

2007-05-20T21:26:13Z

Applying nowikis to talk page to remove this talk page from a category it does not belong (the article may belong to the category, but the talk page does not).

Jtl: /* Creationist? */

2007-04-10T22:04:51Z

Creationist?

TK: /* Strictly historical disclaimer needed. */

2007-04-10T21:52:38Z

Strictly historical disclaimer needed.

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:25, August 17, 2014
Line 334:		Line 334:

	Another mockery, Ames? You really want to be a martyr bad, don't you? It won't legitimize your point of view, because other than marginalizing others, and insulting them, you don't have one. --~ [[User:TK\|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK\|MyTalk]]</sup> 17:52, 10 April 2007 (EDT)		Another mockery, Ames? You really want to be a martyr bad, don't you? It won't legitimize your point of view, because other than marginalizing others, and insulting them, you don't have one. --~ [[User:TK\|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK\|MyTalk]]</sup> 17:52, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	== quotation/reference problem ==
		+
		+	This link appears to be broken:
		+	http://www.gluegrant.org/cam.htm
		+
		+	It is the reference supplied for this quote:
		+
		+	"The true logic of this world is in the calculus of probabilities."
		+
		+	This quotation appears to be botched. Here is the exact quotation
		+	taken from page 143 of the copy of The Life of James Clerk Maxwell in front of me:
		+
		+	Therefore the true Logic for this world is the Calculus of Probabilities,
		+	which takes account of the magnitude of the probability
		+	(which is, or ought to be in a reasonable man's mind).
		+
		+	Note the subtle change of connotation between "of" and "for".
		+	My bibliographic information for this book (the 1969 reprint) looks like this:
		+
		+	<Book
		+	id="b:LifeOfMaxwell"
		+	year="1882"
		+	>
		+	<Publisher>MacMillan</Publisher>
		+	<Author>Campbell, Lewis</Author>
		+	<Author>Garnett, William</Author>
		+	<Title>The Life of James Clerk Maxwell</Title>
		+	<SubTitle>With a Selection from His Correspondence and
		+	Occasional Writings and a Sketch of His Contributions
		+	to Science</SubTitle>
		+	</Book>

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:58, August 27, 2008
Line 334:		Line 334:

	Another mockery, Ames? You really want to be a martyr bad, don't you? It won't legitimize your point of view, because other than marginalizing others, and insulting them, you don't have one. --~ [[User:TK\|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK\|MyTalk]]</sup> 17:52, 10 April 2007 (EDT)		Another mockery, Ames? You really want to be a martyr bad, don't you? It won't legitimize your point of view, because other than marginalizing others, and insulting them, you don't have one. --~ [[User:TK\|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK\|MyTalk]]</sup> 17:52, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
−
−	~~== Not locked ==~~
−
−	~~Just a test.~~

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:35, August 27, 2008
Line 334:		Line 334:

	Another mockery, Ames? You really want to be a martyr bad, don't you? It won't legitimize your point of view, because other than marginalizing others, and insulting them, you don't have one. --~ [[User:TK\|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK\|MyTalk]]</sup> 17:52, 10 April 2007 (EDT)		Another mockery, Ames? You really want to be a martyr bad, don't you? It won't legitimize your point of view, because other than marginalizing others, and insulting them, you don't have one. --~ [[User:TK\|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK\|MyTalk]]</sup> 17:52, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	== Not locked ==
		+
		+	Just a test.

@@ Line 220: / Line 220: @@
 ::: If you are going to have the category of Creationists, then it should be reserved for individuals who have expressed more than a belief in a creator (and thus a creation) but that they are advocates of creation and write about it or have spoken about it.  Otherwise, every single biography here would likely have such a category which would make it nearly identical to the union of "Creationist" and "Atheist", and that isn't that helpful at all. It would make more sense to add the category of Creationist to [[Zach Johnson]], [[St. Augustine]] and [[Martin Luther]] who has said more about creation than James Maxwell has. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
-::::Sounds like you've got a handle on this. Would you like to take charge of [[:Category:Creationists]] then? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
+::::Sounds like you've got a handle on this. Would you like to take charge of <nowiki>[[:Category:Creationists]]</nowiki> then? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
 ::::: Nope.  I don't know the where abouts to find out the philosophical leanings of various Christian writers (or Jewish writers? or Islamic writers (they've got essentially the same creation story)?).  It is much easier to find the negation - "this person wrote nothing about creation" than trying to dig through everything published about [[Zach Johnson]] to see if he did say anything about creation.  This is much better left up to the experts on the various fields who is writing about the person. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
@@ Line 248: / Line 248: @@
 It seems to me that you can't be an anti-evolutionist or a creationist before the two distinctions existed, especially not on incidental evidence.  That's like saying that George Washington would've been a Republican, because he loves America & favors a strong army.  The correlation is tenuous, and it's just guesswork anyways.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 23:29, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
-TK, Andy <i>never said anything</i> about the <nowki>{{category:creationist}}</nowiki> tag.  He spoke about the quote, which is still there.  Ed Poor added the creationist tag originally and then tried to remove it, but you keep reverting it based on a misunderstanding of what Andy was talking about. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 23:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
+TK, Andy <i>never said anything</i> about the <nowiki>{{category:creationist}}</nowiki> tag.  He spoke about the quote, which is still there.  Ed Poor added the creationist tag originally and then tried to remove it, but you keep reverting it based on a misunderstanding of what Andy was talking about. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 23:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
 :*I think whenever any Sysop decides upon his own, or in consultation with users, to reverse any action by another Sysop, there isn't any misunderstanding, other than a total lack of respect.  I think whenever any small group of users decides, on their own, to move categories or disambiguation pages, it shows an elitist and disrespectful attitude, as well.  Such actions are no different, logically, than the high-handed attitude some of you complain about, in talking of the actions of a "certain Sysop", in my humble opinion.  You gentlemen cannot have your cake, and eat it to, you know.  Either the little clique of technocrats school the rest of us, or stop your unilateral actions without discussing it fully, and in public. Yes, this means whatever is considered "housekeeping" chores as well.  Otherwise we are indeed acting elitist and self-centered, no?  --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 23:47, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
@@ Line 296: / Line 296: @@
 ::: Ahhh, I see.....nothing useful on that subject, eh? Just as I thought. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 18:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
-:: Do you have any indication that he did not believe in biological evolution?  He only mentions molecules in the quote.  Do you have any work that shows he believed in Creation as specified in the Bible?  If not, then almost every single biography should be labeled as a Creationist at which point it becomes meaningless.  I would be happy to add 150+ Category:Creationist tags to every single one of the biographies that is not a person who is an atheist.  The level of evidence for adding such a tag should be more than just saying "creation" or "a theory of evolution cannot be applied to <nowiki>{something not biological}</nowiki>".  Lacking this, it is devoid of any educational value. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:17, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
+:: Do you have any indication that he did not believe in biological evolution?  He only mentions molecules in the quote.  Do you have any work that shows he believed in Creation as specified in the Bible?  If not, then almost every single biography should be labeled as a Creationist at which point it becomes meaningless.  I would be happy to add 150+ <nowiki>Category:Creationist</nowiki> tags to every single one of the biographies that is not a person who is an atheist.  The level of evidence for adding such a tag should be more than just saying "creation" or "a theory of evolution cannot be applied to <nowiki>{something not biological}</nowiki>".  Lacking this, it is devoid of any educational value. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:17, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
 Odd, according to whom?  Oh, yes, YOU!  Andy and I disagree.  But I can understand your insistence that you and Jtl are the ones seeing it "correctly", and perhaps you think Andy and I are merely "confused"?  Thinking clouded out of some Bible-thumping zeal? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 16:23, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:04, April 10, 2007
Line 293:		Line 293:

	:: It, it would be a great help, if you paid attention here, and responded to questions. Restating doesn't answer the question. What part of the quote makes you think he's talking about anything other than evolution-of-molecules? Alternately, do you actually believe that Darwinian evolution includes evolution of molecules? Those seem like simple questions to me; the second one is even a yes/no. Can I have answers, pretty pretty please? --[[User:Jtl\|Jtl]] 16:44, 10 April 2007 (EDT)		:: It, it would be a great help, if you paid attention here, and responded to questions. Restating doesn't answer the question. What part of the quote makes you think he's talking about anything other than evolution-of-molecules? Alternately, do you actually believe that Darwinian evolution includes evolution of molecules? Those seem like simple questions to me; the second one is even a yes/no. Can I have answers, pretty pretty please? --[[User:Jtl\|Jtl]] 16:44, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	::: Ahhh, I see.....nothing useful on that subject, eh? Just as I thought. --[[User:Jtl\|Jtl]] 18:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

	:: Do you have any indication that he did not believe in biological evolution? He only mentions molecules in the quote. Do you have any work that shows he believed in Creation as specified in the Bible? If not, then almost every single biography should be labeled as a Creationist at which point it becomes meaningless. I would be happy to add 150+ Category:Creationist tags to every single one of the biographies that is not a person who is an atheist. The level of evidence for adding such a tag should be more than just saying "creation" or "a theory of evolution cannot be applied to <nowiki>{something not biological}</nowiki>". Lacking this, it is devoid of any educational value. --[[User:Mtur\|Mtur]] 16:17, 10 April 2007 (EDT)		:: Do you have any indication that he did not believe in biological evolution? He only mentions molecules in the quote. Do you have any work that shows he believed in Creation as specified in the Bible? If not, then almost every single biography should be labeled as a Creationist at which point it becomes meaningless. I would be happy to add 150+ Category:Creationist tags to every single one of the biographies that is not a person who is an atheist. The level of evidence for adding such a tag should be more than just saying "creation" or "a theory of evolution cannot be applied to <nowiki>{something not biological}</nowiki>". Lacking this, it is devoid of any educational value. --[[User:Mtur\|Mtur]] 16:17, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision	Revision as of 00:33, August 27, 2008
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 07:47, July 26, 2007
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 07:26, July 26, 2007
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 05:57, July 26, 2007
(No difference)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:52, April 10, 2007
Line 330:		Line 330:

	Another spelling error... tee hee. I'll let it stand. Good luck in the real world, TK. You're going to need it away from this tiny little haven.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 17:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)		Another spelling error... tee hee. I'll let it stand. Good luck in the real world, TK. You're going to need it away from this tiny little haven.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 17:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	Another mockery, Ames? You really want to be a martyr bad, don't you? It won't legitimize your point of view, because other than marginalizing others, and insulting them, you don't have one. --~ [[User:TK\|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK\|MyTalk]]</sup> 17:52, 10 April 2007 (EDT)