User talk:Ivar Y

Welcome!

Hello, Ivar Y, 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:

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:Where to ask a question, 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! Dunc|☺ 19:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi Ivar,

Just wanted to drop you a note because we seem to have some common interests. If I can help you in any way, please let me know. Kind regards, David Bergan 15:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

specified complexity

This edit deleted a sourced quote from a notable expert and replaced it with criticism written as a "view from nowhere". Please read up on NPOV policy. FuelWagon 21:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent comments at Talk:Intelligent design

Your comments that my goal and that of others at the Intelligent design article is to persuade people that ID proponents deceive, lie, and defraud constitutes an ad hominem, as well as being straw man. Just because you disagree with the article's content and have not found sufficient traction for your arguments for changing it does not entitle you to misrepresent the work of other good-faith editors such as myself. This needs to stop. Read WP:FAITH and WP:NPA. I'm working to assume your good faith, I can't help but conclude that you're simply mischaracterizing our objections to further your efforts to delete well-supported and necessary content. In which case you're also grinding an ideological ax, a separate but equally troubling issue. Also, I'm cautioning you that just because your proposals fail to gain consensus does not mean that there is no consensus.

Lastly, others and I have made the case for the current article's content long before you arrived. It is factual and well-supported. We have patiently explained to you why it is there and presented all over again the support and justifications for your benefit. That you do not either get them, willfully ignore the or don't find them compelling does not give you the right to malign those who do. You need to reign in your rhetoric if you want to continue participating; the article is no place for that sort of personal attack. FeloniousMonk 08:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Methodological Naturalism Article

I and a few other contributors to the Philosophical Naturalism article believe that methodological naturalism is worthy of its own page. I've therefore started a draft you are free to edit before I submit after of few weeks. Cheers. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Philocentric/methodological_naturalism Philocentric (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]