text:
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hermione1980

 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it .

Hermione1980
Final  (48/12/4) ending 11:55 October 18, 2005 (UTC)

– Hermione1980 should be an admin. She's been here since March, and is a greatly experienced editor. She has done a lot of work on Harry Potter -related articles and even admitted my addition of Hermione/Ginny shipping into her shipping listing. She is also very active on WP:AFD and has even started to close AfD discussions (that result in keep). Kate's tool says she has 911 edits, which isn't a lot, but who needs editcountitis anyway? — J I P | Talk 11:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thank you very much, JIP! H e rmione1980 13:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support as nominator. — J I P  | Talk 11:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Excellent candidate. Shimgray | talk | 13:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Ya-hoo! gkhan 13:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Merovingian (t) (c) 15:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. She's been asking all over the place on how to follow procedure properly, which tells me quite a bit about her being suitable for the mop and the flamethrower. You've got my support, just promise that you're going to wander away from Harry Potter every once in a while. Tito xd (?!?) 16:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I do already! (Occasionally.) H e rmione1980 17:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - In like her concise and convincing answer to my question. I see no reason to doubt that she'll use her newfound powers well. --Cel e stianpower hablamé 17:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support CambridgeBayWeather 19:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) I trust the nominator. →Jo urna list  >>talk<<  20:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) I trust her and the nominator but less than 1000 edits overall is a slight worry though. But Im nice and will vote support :) --JAranda'' | yeah 21:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Full Support. I'm confident in her abilities, and when she didn't know what to do, she would ask. So don't worry about edit count. R  e  dwolf24  (talk—How's my driving?) 23:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. I would point out that being useful and responsive on the Help Desk indicates a good admin temperament and intimate knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia. Low edits may mean inexperienced, but not in this case, and it doesn't look like the opposers have done much research if they really want to say that. Dmcdevit·t 02:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong support.  I have already seen her mediate and defuse a situation between   and  vs.  and handled herself admirably -- she really helped calm things down.  I look at her earlier edits and see her asking others before doing things the first time, out of an abundance of caution.  Looking at her edits, I see that it is strong on Talk, User Talk, and Wikipedia Talk.  She engages the community, which is a great sign.  I might oppose a candidate with low edit count (especially with low on talk pages) because there may be too little indication of how the person interacts with others.  However, I think Hermione1980's editing history gives us ample examples of how she would behave as an admin, and what they show is right on target. --Tabor 04:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Has well-demonstrated all the qualities needed in an admin. --Aquillion 05:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. From what I see, Hermione1980 has done plenty of good work and has plenty of experience, and that outweighs any concern about the edit count being fairly low. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) I've seen her around, and she's a good editor. Support.-gadfium 07:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Strongest possible support. Hermione is a prime example of applying editcount criteria for adminship can lead us to make poor decisions.  While the number of her edits is comparatively low, looking through them one can see a few things:  (1) the quality of her contributions is uniformly high.  This is someone who is careful and deliberate, and takes each submit seriously.  Such people are naturally going to have a lower edit count than someone else (like, uh, me) who fires off edits in staccato bursts.  (2) She has been here for a long time, and demonstrated her commitment to the project.  (3) Her willingness to seek consensus (for example, via article RfCs) rather than just hammering her opinions home mindlessly is great.  I think she absolutely shows the temperament and commitment needed to be an admin.  I urge those of you who are voting based solely on the number of her edits to go the extra mile and actually examine those edits more closely; I think if you do that, you'll consider changing your vote. Nandesuka 14:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Fir  e  Fo  x  16:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. I do like to see 1000 edits from a candidate, but I won't oppose her for being a few dozen short. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with being a low(er) activity admin. Carbonite | Talk 18:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support, this should be no big deal! This user has established her trustworthyness to my satisfaction and never before have editcounts have seemed so utterly frivolous... --Bjarki 02:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. El_C 03:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Trusted? Yes. Long term experience? Yes. Good at dealing with conflict? Yes. Quality edits? Oh yes. Has an arbitrary number of edits? Who cares! the wub  "?!"  11:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Alohamora. Quality user, and I find the opposition unconvincing. Radiant_ >|< 12:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Sure, could use a few more edits but it seems churlish to object on those grounds. Looks like a solid reliable contributor. And I hope you don't mind that I ship you with Ginny. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. Low edit count is meaningless if someone is committed, literate and willing. This candidate has given creditable, clear and concise answers to the questions posed below and seems, well, Wikipedia-minded. That should do.  Redvers 19:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support I like the answers to the q's. Borisblue 20:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. The "low" edit count doesn't concern me.  I like the answers, I like the attitude.  I feel she's demonstrated that she's trustworthy.  Friday (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support I see no good reason not to. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 01:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support, and damn the editcountitis.  Ral  315   WS  04:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) -- (drini's page| ☎ ) 04:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Tony Sidaway Talk 04:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Good candidate.
 * 26) Support. I've had the pleasure of getting to know Hermione1980 over at the Harry Potter WikiProject, but I have nonetheless run into her in a multitude of places across the wiki. She is a mature, thoughtful editor, and I have no doubt in my mind she is completely qualified to be an admin. She has been here for several months, one of my criteria. Personally, I like to see a higher edit count, but in this case, my personal knowledge of the user overrides that, and I can vouch for her that she is an excellent candidate. Wikipedia cannot have too many quality admins, and Hermione1980 would be a wonderful administrator, therefore her low edit count should be overlooked in recognition of the quality work she has been doing for Wikipedia. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 06:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Support From what I've seen of her, (mainly working on Harry Potter articles back in July), she definately seems to be admin material. Sonic Mew | talk to me 16:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 28)  Oppose Support. Advertising in one's sig strongly suggests that the candidate considers adminship more than "no big deal".   Further, such behavior suggests that the candidate does not have a full enough understanding of Wikipedia's culture at this time.  Otherwise appears to be a very good candidate.  Please remove the reference from your sig and return in a few short months.  Unfocused 15:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * See response to Rogerd above. H e rmione1980 15:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Responses to the comments here (including my own) prove that my initial impressions were very likely wrong, so I've changed my vote. Unfocused 00:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Normally, I would say there is nothing wrong in seeking a little more experience of pressing save and having to live with the consequences than this edit count implies. However, Hermione1980 demonstrates considerably maturity beyond her edit count, and I have been especially impressed at the responses to this RfA. If this RfA succeeds, she might consider branching out a little from Potter, and should be careful never to use the admin buttons to settle any disputes on those articles. -Splash talk 02:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. X factor. We require a reasonable edit count to provide the substrate to decide if a User is experienced and suitable. Once that is already clear, a high absolute count matters less. enceph  alon  07:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I have seen some good work done. Good editor. should make a good admin. ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  08:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Kirill Lokshin 14:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Great editor and contributor in all kinds of subjects. Chosen One 19:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. Lupin|talk|popups 03:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Extreme Wingardium Leviosa Support! Shauri  [[Image:Heart.gif|11px]]  smile!  05:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, it is the quality of the candidate and their contributions which should matter, not quantity.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 06:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Hermoine1980, oppose editcountitis.   [ +t, +c, +m,  +e  ] 11:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) I cannot believe I am going to Support. What is the world coming to? But seriously, Hermione is a great editor and can be trusted with the tools. A little while back, I was thinking of people that would make good admins and she was one of the first people I thought of (although an even lower edit count prevented me from doing so). -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark)  15:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support The edit count may be a little low, but I have found her to be circumspect and reasonable. Xoloz 15:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. A fine user, dedicated to Wikipedia's betterment. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support! Incidentally, she is now only 19 short of the magic number.  I trust those 19 edits will be good ones!  :)  Thatdog 22:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support edit count is irrelevent, user has done tons of good work. NSR (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support upgrade from comment to support...school comes first and surely she'll still have some time to be an admin...Good luck!MONGO 10:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Less than 1000 edits suggest lack of experience. Astrotrain 14:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Lacking edits, lacking experience. Privat  e   Butcher  20:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose too few edits. freestylefrappe 23:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose too inexperienced, also the "advertising" in her signature for this RfA I find distasteful. --Rogerd 01:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ouch Roger, you cut me. R  e  dwolf24  (talk—How's my driving?) 03:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh THAT signature. I thought you meant the Esperanza one. Anyways, I wouldn't hold it against her if she's excited, even if it is a mistake. R  e  dwolf24  (talk—How's my driving?) 03:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I really don't consider adminship that big a deal. I had seen some other users put a link to their RfA in their signatures before, so I didn't think that was that big a deal, either. H e rmione1980 15:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: nothing personal, but this is way too low a level of activity for adminship. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Fadix. I'll support in a while. --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 21:14, 12 October 2005 (CDT)
 * 3) Oppose. Seems like a very good editor, but not experienced enough in my opinion.  I'd like to see more edits to a wider variety of articles, but beyond that I don't see any reason I would oppose in the future. Gamaliel 20:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose for the time being until this editor gains more experience. Hall Monitor 22:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose too new, not enough edits... cant predict trends yet... sorry maybe later. ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 10:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Trends of what? I've noticed she has a trend of making good contributions, and there's no prediction involved there. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. As others, this is too early.  I also like to see a more regular level activity in admin candidates because the wiki world actually can change pretty fast.  (Though I totally understand and respect the need to devote much of one's time to college.)  Dragons flight 02:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What? SHe's made consistently good edits for several months. She's a good editor. We need good admins, regardless of how often they sign on. A good admin that signs on once a month is a good admin, period. Fortunately Hermione manages more time than that, despite being in college. Sure, Wikipedia changes fast, and we have people who watch IRC and the RC logs and keep an eye on that. Wikipedia also moves with slow, careful deliberation, and that side of the wiki will be Hermione's strength. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Evil, it's not RC and the like that I worry about. Its the fact that the policies themselves change over time.  Admins are supposed to be knowledgable in policy and a source of information for others.  However, things like CSD, deletion policy, image use policy, and others are themselves fluid and evolve with time.  An admin that only makes a couple edits a week (which is where Hermione was for several weeks) is likely to miss these changes.  I can think of several examples where admins who infrequently participate in Wikipedia have wrongly enforced old or changed policy due to their own ignorance.  It is a problem I would like to avoid.  If Hermione gains more experience and chooses to participate more often, I would reconsider in the future.  Dragons flight 18:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Check out her answer to question 4. No, she's not here as much as, say, Redwolf24, but she's also conscientous enough to pay attention to policy and policy changes. I understand your concern, but knowing how diligent Hermione1980 is, I don't think that's ever going to be a problem with her. Note that she reads AN/I regularly...she pays attention to whats going on. Sure she has periods of less activity, she's in college, but she is here enough to keep up with what's going on. She's not gonna wander off for three months and then show back up one day and start slashburning mass quantities of CSD's and images without checking out what's been going on. Admin actions are undoable, and in the highly unlikely case that she did make a mistake due to something changing and her not noticing, there's enough other people running around paying attention to what's happening that it's not going to escape notice and not get corrected. But policy doesn't change at a speed that Hermione1980 can't keep up with, I assure you. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 19:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - too few edits imo -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 23:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, don't really care for edit countitry, but sub 1000 would be a bad precedent Proto t c 12:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral with comment below. Marskell 13:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I'm sorry, this is editcountitis. I have nothing at all against your record.  I am, however, concerned about setting a precedent of having admins with fewer than 1000 edits, which, given the difficulty in removing admins who go on to show questionable judgement, could be a problem. --Scimitar parley 16:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As a rhetorical, stupid question, would you change your vote if I ran out and got 90 more edits before this RfA was up? H e rmione1980 16:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I actually prefer ~1500 edits for admin candidates, especially ones I'm not overly familiar with. The "hard line" at 1000 is like the legal drinking age- it's an arbitrary line, and although a good many younger than that age are responsible, and a good many older aren't, the line needs to be there.--Scimitar parley 19:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, why does the line need to be there? The system would seem to allow you to decide on a case-by-case basis. I could understand concerns over edit counts if you linked them to some specific problem with the nominee; but rejecting a qualified candidate simply because you're worried about the precedent it will set seems to me to, itself, set an exceptionally poor precedent. --Aquillion 05:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm changing my vote to neutral, because over the course (thus far) of this RfAr, Hermione has attempted to go into administrator areas (closing old afds, reverting, etc.) and maintained a sense of humour ("I swear I'm not trying to build up my edit count" - from an edit summary). I laughed at that comment, and frankly, she couldn't be any worse than some of our current admins (feel free to site me as one of those, if you like). Good luck.--Scimitar parley 15:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral — Hermione1980 is a great Wikipedian and has done some valuable work around here, and I have full confidence in her. However, I would like to see more experience. I will gladly support her in the future. And oh, just curious, but what do you do if you ever run across You-Know-Who? :-) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk |  WS 18:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, him. Mostly feign deference and respect :-) I mustn't get on the Dark Lord's bad side, you know... H e rmione1980 00:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "Feign"?! Hmm... I see how it's gonna be. :) -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark)  15:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose. Seems to be a good person, but some of her answers  to the concerns raised here, don't satisfy me. Maybe re-applying in a few months. Fadix 17:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC) I changed my vote, to contrast this one with my other votes, which were all oppose. And since I believe her to be more "Admin able" than the others I opposed, opposing her would be comparing her with those. Fadix 20:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * A chart showing this user's edits along with a total # of edits line and average edits per day line is available here: Image:Hermione1980-edits.png. I offer this not as a more refined version of editcountitis, but as just one tool to help evaluate an admin nominee with a somewhat low edit count on Wikipedia. --Durin 14:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've been fascinated with the RFA process ever since I came across it. Too bad an IP doesn't get much of a voice here, but I understand I can comment and speak my mind without fear of getting bitten. I strongly disagree with providing this information like this - it is targeted and selected information. I think it should either be given to all candidates, or not at all, or done on request by the candidate. Simply put, any particular representation of data is POV - it highlights particular information and suppresses others. Why should a particular representation of data be chosen to take priority? Even if a bar graph of edits per day may seem relevant, it does not reveal all information about a candidate. It is only partial information, and it is being used under a thinly veiled guise of "objectivity". And another thing about "editcountitis": Even *if* there was a historical trend of support for candidates after 2000 edits, this result is not independently verified. Using 2000 edits as a cutoff is poor use of statistics. It tells us nothing about the nature of the distributions, nor does it offer any insight as to the extent to which this is valid. And as far as I can tell, the results have not been verified independently, nor have they been officially sanctioned by the project. Simply put, these nice graphs are being presented as an objective measure of a candidates edit behaviour when clearly it is inadequate, incomplete, and biased. Shouldn't we be going through the edits and evaluating the quality of them? Seeing how the user interacts with others? Looking at the intellectual quality of contributions of the user? The graphs are nice, but I think are encouraging laziness on RFAs where Wikipedians aren't really looking at edit content, and only looking at an aggregate. Wikipedians - make sure you really know what you're doing if you are using edit counts like this to evaluate on RFAs. Can candidates really trust that you'll look at more than superficiality, especially when these graphs are floating around? That's all I've got to say, and I think I'm gonna move on to something else more interesting now. --216.191.200.1 14:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * First, have a look at User:Durin/Admin_nominee_charts and User:Durin/Admin voting measures. I have not and will not create these charts as an attempt to objectively measure a candidate. I have and continue to do these charts in an attempt to get people to not focus in on edit counts as a measure of acceptability of a candidate. I believe my notations regarding edit counts and having the graphs have resulted in more discussion about period of contributions and usage of edit summaries rather than just straight edit counts and time on Wikipedia, which was the metric previously used. For example, a user who signs up in 2004, makes a handful of edits, and then has a large number of edits over a 1 month time span (say, 3,000) could say "I've been here for a year, and have over 3,000 edits". Few RfA voters would check to see how long they've been actively contributing to the project. Having the graphs gives a rapid way in which people can evaluate that. Also, the data that I used for the study is available at User:Durin/RfA results. Lastly, I have never said and never implied that these tools are the best way to evaluate a nominee or should be used in isolation. I have continually encouraged people to use them (quoting myself) "as just one tool". I have not suggested any benchmarks that others should adhere to in considering this data. I provide the data. Others can do with it as they will. I have my own benchmarks regarding the data, but they are not absolutes. Those that are obsessed with edit counting alone are not going to be less obsessed by not having these charts available. Providing them under the basis that I have has encouraged more appropriate (in my opinion) reviews of candidates. I have never believed that we can determine the value of a single edit in any objective way. There is no way to gauge whether a stub-sort edit is worth more than a 30kb contribution to an article or less. There never will be. It's purely subjective and I've always recognized that. I am actively trying to get people to stop using edit counts alone as measure. The shocking reality is that 2,000 edits is the level at which suddenly nominees become (in the eyes of many) as suddenly capable of being an admin. That needs to change, in my opinion. My data and charts are part of my effort to change that. --Durin 16:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Use of edit summaries 90%, 94% over last 300 edits. Average edits per day at 4.4 --Durin 14:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I will make my mind up on hearing your answer of my question below. Thank you. --Cel e stianpower hablamé 15:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Everything looks fine but the low edit count and relatively low amount of recent activity indicates that the admin tools won't be used all that much, so I'm not sure what the point would be of becoming an admin. I'd like to see more contribution to the janitorial stuff and then I will gladly vote support:)--MONGO 01:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The reason I haven't been quite as active as some of the other really enthusiastic editors is I recently started college. I am more active in the summers. H e rmione1980 15:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Pretty much the same as above, I think Hermione is a great editor, but a wee bit more experience would be good.  Ban e  s  07:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Regarding the editicountitis, is the problem perhaps one of a patience with nominators? Has a 1000 which is low but they are good edits. Nominator doesn't think edit count all that important but knows that others do. So just wait a month or two, right? Why squeak through at 1000 or possibly be opposed when you can sail through at 2000? I'm neutral per Mongo, BTW. Marskell 13:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of questions I normally ask of candidates on IRC, but I don't think I've seen this one on IRC, so I'll ask them here instead. Kelly Martin 03:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Is anyone entitled to add questions? My major problem here, is that, I believe most of the RfA I've seen revolved around more administrative anti vandal tasks and measures etc, and few, more important things(in my opinion) like, the quality of articles in Wikipedia. We need also administrators that have worked in various articles beyond one subject in particular, and be able to sense quality, if the article is encyclopedic, and also, somehow being able to act in conflicts where the content of an article is concerned, even though they ignore the subject(sense, it does not take a knowledge of a particular subject, to know if an article in encyclopedic). Right now, the prime concerns seems to be vandalism, and it seems that articles contents involved disuptes(POV, NPOV etc.) are left to be handled by common users. That is why, I believe we also need administrators who have long experiences in this domain too. Fadix 18:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that kind of question might be good to add. However the qualities you describe are great, but they aren't required to be an administrator. Just about anybody with reasonable judgement can be an administrator.  The qualities you describe would make for a good mediator, an exceptional editor. --Tony Sidaway Talk  20:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I do occasionally participate in AfDs, so I have some idea of what is (un)encyclopedic. The reason I work mostly to Harry Potter-related articles is that is where I feel I can contribute the most. I hope to be slightly better educated after four years of torture, so I will certainly try to contribute to more areas as I gain more knowledge. H e rmione1980 00:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. I would close AfDs, for one thing. I have recently begun closing those that had a unanimous or near-unanimous result of keep, but I would like to help close those with a result of delete. I would also like to be able to block vandals instead of having to ask someone else to do so. I would never block someone who I was in a dispute with. I would also like to have the rollback button.

 * I was also recently granted admin privileges on the Harry Potter Wiki, which has given me a little knowledge of what adminship entails.

 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I mostly copyedit and revert vandalism, so I don't really have any contribution that I'm particularly proud of.

 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A. I and several other users were in a particularly heated dispute over a particular paragraph in the Clay Aiken article. I must admit, I started out far more patient than I got towards the middle of the discussion. I excused myself from the debate for a while to lower my Wikistress, but was able to come back in later and help form a consensus. My policy is to stay cool, but if I can't stay cool, I will back off and let other, cooler heads prevail.

 * 4. Very few editors are promoted at less than 1000 edits. In your eyes, what makes you more qualified for adminship than those other users?
 * A. I have spent a great deal of time researching what adminship entails. I am familiar with most Wikipedia policies and read the WP:AN/I daily, so that I know what admins deal with and how they deal with it. I do my best to stay cool when the editing gets hot and try to resolve issues rationally, which I think is a very important trait in an admin.

 * 5. Explain your point of view on the meaning of WP:IAR. How you will apply IAR to your activities as an admin (if at all)?
 * A. WP:IAR — while not necessarily a "last resort" — is a policy to be followed with great caution. Anyone citing IAR as a justification needs to be absolutely, 100% certain they are in the right. I honestly can't predict how I would apply it to my admin activities; most of the time, another policy/rule probably applies.

 * 6. How much time have you spent at MeatBall? What have you learned from MeatBall about being an administrator?
 * Can I suggest that time spent at meatball can be zero for all most people care? A better question would be "what have you learned from your time on Wikipedia about being an administrator". -Splash talk 21:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * A. (to original question) I have not spent any time on MeatBall at all. I have seen people linking to specific pages on MeatBall on pages like the admins' noticeboard, but I have never gone there. (to Splash's question) I have seen that being an admin is not always the most pleasant thing to do. I have learned that admins are nowhere near above Wikipedia rules — they are held to higher standards than the rest of us, and that is as it should be. Basically, admins are ordinary users with a few extra tabs at the top of their screens. Admins must be careful about the ways they exercise their powers, and those who aren't careful and judicious with such matters are not worthy of having admin powers.
 * I have wielded a mop and broom around here for sixteen thousand of your Earth years, and the time I've spent on meatball can be measured in terms of the time it took the last mammoth to breathe its last. Is that a serious question?  I mean, why not ask how long they've spent on Usenet or Slashdot while we're at it? --Tony Sidaway Talk  20:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jpractice

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — J I P | Talk 07:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Jpractice

 * Delete as it's utterly NN, not Googleable. Budgiekiller 11:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now.  Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP.  I'm surprised that the obligatory external link was missing. —Cryptic (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination. Eddie.willers 19:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom--Bkwillwm 23:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Perfect 10 (song)

"Perfect 10" is a song by English pop rock band the Beautiful South, released on 21 September 1998 as the first single from their sixth studio album, Quench (1998). It debuted at number two on the UK Singles Chart, selling 89,000 copies during its first week of release, and is the band's last UK top-10 single to date. It received a platinum certification from the British Phonographic Industry in 2021 for sales and streams exceeding 600,000 units.

Recording contributions
As well as the contributions from band members, in the documentary Paul Heaton: From Hull to Heatongrad, songwriter Paul Heaton refers to contributions to the recording from Norman Cook and Paul Weller, who offered production assistance and rhythm guitar, respectively. Their contributions are also mentioned on the liner notes for Quench.

Analysis
The verses of the song—sung alternately by Paul Heaton and Jacqui Abbott—are made up of a series of innuendos using clothing sizes and penis length to illustrate a loving relationship between two people who don't conform to modern stereotypes of physical perfection. The male vocal shows that although his partner is a little on the large side ("but she wears a 12"), she is a 'perfect 10' in his eyes. He also states, "the anorexic chicks, the model 6, they don't hold no weight with me," preferring instead to, "hold something I can see."

Likewise, the female vocal references penis size in several places, suggesting that "XXL" is unnecessary ("Every penny don't fit the slot") and that even when all her partner has to offer is "a poor poor 4, there ain't no man can replace."

The chorus to the song is sung by both male and female vocals, and confirms the theme of a happy and accepting relationship beyond ideas of conventional beauty, with Heaton and Abbott stating:

""We love our love, in different sizes I love her body, especially the lines Time takes its toll, but not on the eyes Promise me this, take me tonight.""

Critical reception
Scottish newspaper Daily Record described the song as "great" and "bitter-sweet". Caroline Sullivan from The Guardian called it "jazzy", noting that "Heaton's sweet-voiced 'I love her body, 'specially the lines', has one of the tenderest lines on an album full of memorable bons mots." Adrian Thrills from Daily Mail declared it as "a rasping musical debate about sexual politics, neatly driven along by funky piano and honking sax". Ian Hyland from Sunday Mirror rated the song nine out of ten, adding, "The funkier sound is new but their observations on the important things in life are sharp as ever. Almost perfect." Johnny Dee from The Times remarked that it "manages to be both funny and touching at the same time."

Track listings

 * UK CD1 and Australian CD single
 * 1) "Perfect 10"
 * 2) "If"
 * 3) "I'll Sail This Ship Alone"

 * UK CD2
 * 1) "Perfect 10"
 * 2) "Loving Arms"
 * 3) "One Last Love Song"

 * UK cassette single
 * 1) "Perfect 10"
 * 2) "If"

Personnel
Personnel are adapted from the Quench liner notes.

 * Paul Heaton – writing, vocals, production
 * Dave Rotheray – writing, guitar
 * Jacqueline Abbott – vocals
 * Dave Hemingway – vocals
 * Sean Welch – bass
 * David Stead – drums
 * Paul Weller – additional guitar
 * Damon Butcher – keyboards
 * Gary Hammond – percussion
 * Kick Horns – brass
 * Norman Cook – rhythm consultant
 * Jon Kelly – production
 * John Brough – engineering, mixing

In popular culture
"Perfect 10" was seen as a 'tour classic' by the Beautiful South and it has been stated by Dave Stead that, "There are certain songs you just can't leave out...I think we would be lynched if we didn't play "Keep It All In", "Don't Marry Her" and "Perfect 10"."

title: Perfect 10 (song)


text: User talk:70.33.88.63

title: User talk:70.33.88.63


text:
User talk:Wikipedia è comunismo

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia that people have worked hard to create. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. - ulayiti (talk)  11:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wikipedia è comunismo


text:
Wikipedia:Peer review/Ephrem the Syrian/archive1

Ephrem the Syrian
I put a lot of work into this article a good few months back. I'm quite happy with it, but a needs a little bit of something else. I'm posting for peer review because I would like to get some ideas of how to polish this one until it is very, very shiny! --Gareth Hughes 11:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * A few ideas (some of them quite minor):
 * The lead should be expanded to be a summary of the major points from the rest of the article.
 * The discussion of variations of his name should be merged into the lead, or possibly moved to a footnote if it is too long. Technical details of spelling are probably not the best thing to open the article with.
 * The infobox should probably be moved up to the top of the article (unless there's some standard for saints that suggests a different usage).
 * The quotes might be intergrated into the prose.
 * Overall, though, the article looks quite nice. Kirill Lokshin 18:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts, Kyrill. I've taken out the name section, and added it and some summary into the lead section. I've added a couple of photographs of Ephrem's church in Nisibis. The WikiProject Saints suggests the seperation of veneration from life in articles on saints (quite understandably!), and suggests that the infobox goes in that later section. I'll keep working away at it. Let me know if you have any other suggestions. --Gareth Hughes 23:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Ryan Norton T 21:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Lead seems short for the article, but its not too bad
 * 2) "Life" - last paragraph too short
 * 3) "Writings" - Paragraphs 3,4,5 too short and 6 is even a one-sentence paragraph
 * 4) "Veneration as a saint" - Paragraphs 3,4,5 too short
 * 5) " Quotations" - these should only be here if you REALLY need them - otherwise they should be on wikiquote

Thanks, Ryan. I've attached the last paragraph of Life onto the end of the previous one. However, it seems a bit abrupt to me, so I might rewrite the demise. The short paragraphs in Writings are begging to be expanded really. I've combined two more short paras in Veneration, but I think I can write some more on his place in the Syriac churches and in the wider world, and as seperate paragraphs. The quotations could be worked into the article somewhere. Is there anything in particular that you would like to see in this article? --Gareth Hughes 22:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Gareth, I have a couple of problems with the section "Life". The first is that the focus appears to be more on the world of Ephrem than on Ephrem: a sentence tells us "It was a time of great religious and political tension" -- yet there is no explanation what this tension was, nor how it affected Ephrem. For example, did the Diocletian persecution touch Ephrem's life or his community? I know that it was far more savage in the eastern part of the Empire than in the western.

 * The following paragraphs have the smae problem. I had to read them twice to realize that Ephrem was mentioned in them; their emphasis seems to be on the ongoing war. (BTW, the link to Constantius should be to Constantius II.)

 * Also, I don't get a sense for the person after reading this article: there is little if anything to distinguish him from the dozens of other churchmen of the period. If you could find something to give him a bit of personality -- a physical description, an anecdote of his life, or a discussion of his writings -- that would make this a strong candidate for FAC. -- llywrch 19:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I can see exactly what you mean: the Life section focuses more on the political history during Ephrem's life than his actual life. The problem I have is that the more vivid accounts of Ephrem's life are late and unreliable. I have mentioned them in the Veneration section instead, where I felt that they shed more light on how people have felt about Ephrem rather than his actual life. The Life section is drawn from the internal evidence of Ephrem's genuine works with a strong current of local contemporary history. I think the solution would be to include more from Ephrem's own works and less history. The Diocletian persecution, Shapur's sieges and the deportation of the Christians to the west are themes in Ephrem's hymnody, and must have had a profound effect on his life. I could make this more vivid in the account. The reliable anecdotes and descriptions are all of others: Ephrem doesn't write much about himself. --Gareth Hughes 14:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Grutness/archive11

This file is an archive - please do not add new discussion here - add it to my Talk page

Japan-geo-stub
Hello! Can you put some nice image of Japan to Template:Japan-geo-stub ? Server isn't already overloaded. -- Darwinek 14:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

relativity-stub
Hi Grutness. Thanks for fixing the category. I suppose I should have read through the details of creating stubs more carefully. Regarding the image issue, if there's a problem with browsers, that's ok, the image can be changed to a static pic. - I don't mind. ---Mpatel (talk) 13:41, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Question about stubs
Hello again. :) Do you plan to include Tibet to your Geo-stub tallying page? There are stubs created for Mainland China and for Taiwan, for Tibet there is only a Template:Tibet-stub. You like to count :), so if you want you can add Tibet to your counting. Some Tibet locations are included in Template:China-geo-stub. Cheers mate! - Darwinek 21:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I hadn't intended to, no. Tibet-stub is for things specifically Tibetan about the culture, and can be added without stepping off that line of trying on to offend anyone. Making a separate Tibet-geo-stub, though, is likely to cause offence to someone somewhere. The China geo-stub category's not so big that it needs splitting yet, anyway. Maybe sometime, but it's not a high priority - for now Tibetan stubs can quite happily stay in there. In any case, I have enouh of a job keeping up with other geo-stub splits! Grutness...  wha?

England-geo-stub
Fair enough. By the way, I really do like the stub sorting project. It is kind of sad though that the stub sorting project is better at categorising articles than the rest of wikipedia. Hopefully that sort of methodology can be applied elsewhere. Morwen - Talk 14:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd argue that enough categories should be created so that England-geo-stub can be emptied. Maybe on a per-region basis. Morwen - Talk 14:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

OK I was mostly moving Wiltshire stubs which isn't on your immediate list for sub-categorisation. Is the intent to remove all individual entries from the UK stub and then only create categories for some English counties? Dabbler 11:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

For the Shropshire-geo-stub can the image be a single gold loggerhead (the head of the lion or leopard, as shown above on the Shrewsbury/Shropshire crests) on a blue background? That would be very nice. Thanks for setting up these county geography stubs by the way. Once you've finished creating them, you could perhaps help put the UK and England geography stub articles in their right places! ;) David 12:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's an example for the image to go with the Shropshire stub that I just made:

Something like that (if not actually that).. David 12:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello (Vietnam-geo-stub)
I have created a map of Vietnam, which can be used in Template:Vietnam-geo-stub, but due to country's shape it seems to be the wrong solution. What do you think? In any case, just revert my edit. - Darwinek 10:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

London-geo-stub
The London geo stub has the arms of the City of London as it's icon. This seems most inappropriate - rather like using a French flag to represent Europe. Can it be changed to something more London-wide? Mucky Duck 10:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. In theory, Image:GLCArms.jpg would probably be better, but I'm a bit hesitant to change it for three reasons: Firstly it's a copyrighted image, which is fine for one article, but using it on a stub template means it'll be on lots of articles). Second, the city arms are far more widely known. Finally, WikiProject London put the icon there, and I figured they knew what they were doing! I suppose you could always change it and see whether someone else changes it back - that's usually a fairly good indication of whether it's an acceptable change. I must admit that I should be annoyed at it personally, having been born in Greater London, but not in the city. Grutness...  wha?  11:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Indonesia-bio-stub
G'day James,

No, I wasn't aware of the stub-creation rules — and I was so proud of having done it "properly", too! Gah. I'm sorry if I've caused you guys any unnecessary grief; I should have been more careful when creating the stub, and actually read through the rules, etc.

You mentioned arguing for its creation (now, I s'pose, keeping). I figured having a bio-stub category for Indonesian people was worthwhile because: As for projects/likelihood of use, well, it's a bit of a mixed bag. There don't seem to be many Indonesians (any?) on en-wiki, and even id-wiki is less than inspiring if you ignore the raw numbers. I'm personally trying to increase the number of articles related to Australasia, but I'm just one newbie and couldn't possibly support an entire stub category on m' own even if I was willing to work on it. I, uh, guess that's why there's rules, huh? --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, Indonesia has people in it, and some of them are notable
 * Information on even the most famous Indonesians (especially pre-independence) is hard to come by on the Internet, so many articles would be stubs

Thanks from West Virginia
Thanks kindly for sorting out the West Virginia stubs from the US-south stubs. Best wishes - Malepheasant 03:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Ge0-stub
Thanks for letting me know on the Geo-Stub for WV. Just kinda learn it as I go.--71Demon 12:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * And thanks from me too. I knew there wasnt a Trinidad and Tobago one but didnt see the Caribbean one. And sorry I got your name wrong :) BL Lacertae 09:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * S'alright. It's an easy one to mis-spell. It's happened before - it'll happen again. Grutness...  wha?

TT stubs
Hi James. Good to see you back. Trinidad-geo-stub would probably be fine with a Tobagonian - they'd probably be more bothered by being called Tobagan ;) An alternative would be TT-geo-stub, but that might not be clear to everyone.  One thing though - I have been thinking for a long time that what we really need is a Caribbean-bio-stub, since there are a lot of Caribbean bios.  On a gut level that would seem like a higher priority, but the facts may say otherwise.

So - if I have "my own" category of geo-stubs, does that mean that I have to create stubs for the other 100 or so towns and villages on List of cities in Trinidad and Tobago (a list that badly needs renaming). Guettarda 13:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Whoops - so my guess was wrong :) I think Trinidad-geo-stub will be the one to go for, then, since TT might be a little too ambiguous or obscure. You're right about the bio-stub - I'll propose that at WP:WSS as well. And you don't have to make articles for all those places... though it would be nice, of course... ;) Grutness...  wha?  13:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I didn't realise there was someone else writing TT-related articles. You should have let me know - well, now I do, so I went over and gave him a stern warning about intruding into my turf welcomed him to the cult club.  As for all those articles - if I could make articles out of them it would be fine - I was threatening to create 100 sub-stubs :) - Guettarda 15:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Leicestershire-geo-stub
There should be enough for a now. Morwen - Talk 15:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Australia-geo-stubs and Japan-geo-stubs
Hello! Australia-geo-stubs category is becoming very large. Do you think we should substub it into the territories? - Darwinek 20:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe - by state, at least. Sigh... more to count up. Japan desperately needs a split, too, but I don't know enough about Japanese geography to know how to go about that one. Grutness...  wha?  01:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it can be stubbed by prefectures, but it may be confusing for other users. Try to ask some Japanese Wikipedians on how to substub it. - Darwinek 13:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Wiltshire stubs...
I think we just met in the middle. Thanks for the list, I was initially using google, which is always very hit and miss. Hope you don't mind me "semi-speedying", seemed an obvious one, especially give they've been agreed in principle already. I was hoping to avoid duplicating work in moving from UK to England to [shire], but looks like most of those had been moved once already... Alai 05:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Derbyshire -geo stub
Might have been easier to make one, rather than delete the too-early cat and leave it looking like the Dark Peak is principally in Yorkshire :-) Linuxlad 09:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC) Thanks for the patient explanation on this (it's clear why you're an admin and I sh/could never be :-)). I'll see if I can find you another 10 candiadtes (might try & move Flash, and the Cat & Fiddle across the county boundary...)Bob aka Linuxlad

Caribbean-bio-stubs
Thanks for the cat. Although, in reality, the "average" Caribbean person is actually Cuban (there are ~15 million of them, versus ~5 million English-speaking) I suspect Marley is probably the person that wouild be most widely embraced, across the region. It would have been fun though...I'd love to have seen the reaction of certain people to Castro's pic scattered all across Wikipedia. :) Guettarda 12:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Massachusetts-State-Highway-Stub
I did get the stub article approved with the huge batch of road stubs I proposed last month at Rschen7754 02:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Victoria-geo-stub split
you've listed Gulf Saint Vincent as needing the Victoria-geo-stub tag, yet the article and suggest it's in South Australia. I've left it in the list, but thought I should point it out. I'm no expert in Australian geography, so I'll defer to you on this. Mindmatrix 17:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, someone else added that to the list. Other than the obvious ones I've only checked A-E and R-Z so far. Grutness...  wha?
 * Ah...luckily, I quickly scan the articles before submitting changes; all other pages seemed in order. Oh, and thanks for the kind words on my talk page; your virtual Barnstar is appreciated! Mindmatrix 12:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Trinidad stub
Thanks for the stubcat, and for moving them all over. Guettarda 10:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Counties and Wards were the administrative units in Trinidad until 1990, when they were replaced with Regional Corporations. See Counties of Trinidad and Tobago.  Tobago was adminstered as a single Ward (now somewhat self-governing under the Tobago House of Assembly.  I recently took the material from the Trinidad and Tobago article and started a Counties of Trinidad and Tobago article, but I haven't yet developed the articles.  It should answer your question though.  I need to get & upload some county and regional corporation maps.  Guettarda 10:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I think counties still exist (at least as lines on the map). Until recently the health service (such as it is) was still organised by county.  Wards are still used as administrative units for revenue collection, etc, AFAIK.  I really don't know what the legal usage is - there is still a sense of their existence as parts of the country.  A lot of foreign language Wikis still list the counties as did en. until I got here, a lot of web sites do too...I assume courtesy the CIA fact book.  (Another interesting error propagated across a lot of the non-english wikis is calling the president George Maxwell Richard, rather than George Maxwell Richards.  I've changed that in a lot of places though (that I can change in anything using the latin script, the other stuff I can't change because I can't speak the language).  It's also interesting to see my writing filtering into the non-english wikis, things I inserted in en. making their way over.  Which is cool.  Anyway, I have to finish two lectures for today (which is why I got up at 5 am), so I'm off.  Guettarda 10:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support (Sam Hocevar)
Hi James, just a quick note to thank you for your support on my RfA. Now that I am an administrator I will do my best to please the community’s expectations. Best regards, Sam Hocevar 17:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Bureaucratship
Hi, Grutness. Thank you so much for your support and kind words on my bureaucratship nomination. Unfortunately, it didn't pass, but I intend to run again soon. If you'd like to be informed next time around, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks again! Andre ( talk ) 05:14, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

admin nomination (Lectonar)
I thought it over (I think about the SfD. mainly); do you still stand by your offer to nominate me?. If so, feel free to do it, but I still see the problem with the restricted access and would be happy if you would mention it in the nomination...Thx a lot Lectonar 08:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * answered (and nominated!) Grutness...  wha?
 * Thx again; let's see how it works out....Lectonar 08:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! (Splash)
Thanks for the support on my RfA. I was very pleasantly surprised to see so much support throughout the week, especially from users I respect as much those like you. Please do keep an eye on me and my logs, especially while I'm learning the ropes with the new buttons. Thanks again! -Splash 23:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks (Lectonar)
You beat me to it; I'm just back from lunch and wanted to start the thanks-parade....and started with the bureaucrat...So: thanks for nominating and supporting me all the way; I'll try to be good Lectonar 10:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Another thank you! (Rx StrangeLove)
Thanks for your support in my recent RFA! All those extra buttons might not be a big deal, but getting all this positive feedback sure is, please let me know if you have any problems or comments regarding how I use all these shiny new levers and cranks! Rx StrangeLove 00:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Android79's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA and for your kind comments. android 79  15:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you (Bhadani)
I thank you for your support in my successful RfA. I hope I can live up to expectations. I will feel free to come to you to have the benefit of your experience. --Bhadani 09:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

My RfA (R.Fiend)
Thansk for your vote of support at my RfA. It's nice to know that even people who disagree with me quite a bit can still bring themselves to put that aside and support. -R. fiend 18:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

An answer... (Fingers-of-Pyrex)
...I have considered a request for adminship, but I don't think I'm ready for the responsibility it would require. I do appreciate your nomination offer. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 14:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Who's RfA
Thank you for supporting my masters RfA. He appreciates your support and comments and looks forward to better serving Wikipedia the best he can. Of course I will be doing all of the real work. He would have responded to you directly, but he is currently out of town, and wanted to thank you asap. Thanks again. --Who's mop?¿? 20:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

My RFA (Journalist)
Thank you very much for your vote on my RFA, it is now the 8th most supported RFA ever, and it couldnt have happened without your vote. I look forward to serving wikipedia. Again, thanks. →Jo urna list  >>talk<<  23:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Category:Flag_images
I figured out that this is where most of the FOTW copyvio images are at. I have re-drew some, but I noticed many are orphans. What we could do is start CSD'ing the images that are oprhans and clear copyvios, and those that do not violate copyvio, but are still orphans, can be sent to WP:IFD. Does this sound like a compromise? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair to me. Grutness...  wha?

RE: Mount Cavendish
I created a new stub, Mount Cavendish, I thought you might have something to add, also it would be nice to get both photos of, and from, to add. WikiDon 06:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Haikucronym
Thanks for the belly laugh at Articles for deletion/Haikucronym.

PS: Would you mind watching my User page? User:Imdaking has threatened to vandalize it. Blank Verse  ∅  15:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure. No problem. Glad you enjoyed my haikucronym (the middle line was difficult!) Grutness...  wha?  00:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

 * As someone who writes "real" haiku, I was more impressed with you use of a five syllable word for the last line (I once started a haiku with "momentarily". Too many haiku that I read in haiku journals use lots of one and two syllable words, so reading lots of them at one sitting feels very much like everyone had tried to put words to a morse code message. :-)

 * The problem with User:Imdaking has escalated. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Imdaking. Unfortunately I have no confidence in any of the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes. What is really needed is some good mediation, but both the Mediation committee and the Mediation cabel seem disfunctional to me. Blank Verse   ∅  11:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Uffington.png
Could you please add a copyright info (PD or GFDL etc.) to your image of the horse. Best would be a new upload to Wikimedia Commons for shared use. Thank you and greetings, Longbow4u 08:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Commencement Speaker page
Much obliged on merging it with the commencement speech page! —Mproud 07:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. Two stubs on almost identical topics - it just made sense to put them together. Grutness...  wha?  07:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

North Island Volcanic Plateau
Kia ora James. A query about North Island Volcanic Plateau article. I'm wondering where you got the info for the extent of this plateau, because I'm sure it's not right. You give the synonym Waimarino Plateau, which is not a common term or one that I'm familiar with. I wonder whether the scope of the article actually represents the Waimarino Plateau. I'm sure the VP extends to the north of the Rotorua lakes, ending where it dips down to the Bay of Plenty coastal region. Nurg 11:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ooo. Good question - that was several thousand edits ago! A lot of the articles I was doing back then I was using the Wise's guide as a major reference, but it isn't in there, so I probably got it from an on-line source. Unfortunately, I can't find that source. Now that you mention it, it doesn't seem quite right - feel free to change it to something better! Grutness...  wha?

New Zealand elections
I'm off to bed. Since you are more of a night owl than I am, can you write up something on the election results for Current events and Template:In the news (I'm also asking User:Adam Carr since he's got a couple of hours time zone advantage over us).-gadfium 11:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah. Problem was I was out at a party (at a Party) trying to work out whether to celebrate or not. Boyt it was a close one! Grutness...  wha?  00:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I had a quiet night at home with my partner, glued to the TV / electoral website / Wikipedia. I'd been tossing up whether to vote Labour or Green, as I agree with almost everything the Greens say except about genetic engineering (and that issue has stopped me voting for them in the past; but now they're less vehement about it). I finally voted Labour, and was on tenterhooks for many hours into the count.-gadfium 02:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd say we're fairly compatible politically. If you're ever in Auckland, let me know.-gadfium 09:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Hayle
I noticed that you had tagged a page I substantively wrote as a copyvio. You must have had an off-day. Not only have I never seen that webpage but it bears no resemblance at all to my article. It mentions some of the same things, naturally, because it's on the same subject. But it's hard to imagine that someone could think they were the same piece.

To be a copyright violation, an article has to actually be a lift from another source. Even if I paraphrased the entire original article, which I did not, it would not be a violation of copyright. Worst case, you could claim I plagiarised it if I did not source it. But, as I say, I did not. The two bear absolutely no resemblance. How could they? I have not until now read the webpage in question. I doubt it even existed when I wrote the article (the site it's on seems to be just slightly older than the article and I doubt it sprang fully formed from the author's head, do you?). Now that I have, I'm certainly going to include some of the stuff from it!

Apart from anything else, I'm an editor in good faith. You claimed I had violated a copyright without bothering to alert me to your concerns, either at my old username or at the one I now use (the old page links to the new). If you think this is an acceptable way to approach an issue where you are making a serious accusation of malfeasance against another editor, think again. You cannot rely on an editor's watching pages. I generally don't bother watching pages I'm no longer planning to add to, because I don't feel I need to guard them. Obviously, that was a mistake in that case. I have also had to revise my previously very high opinion of you. Next time you stumble on a page you feel an editor who is not anonymous may have lifted from elsewhere, I suggest you drop them a note on their talkpage before (or as well as, at the very least) taking any other action.

As it happens, Hayle was my home town as a child, and I don't need to borrow anyone else's history to write about it. Had you been able to highlight passages you felt I had lifted, I would have been able to rewrite them without difficulty. Grace Note 02:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I saw this here so I thought I'd point Grutness to the explanation, it's in the Hayle section on my talk page. Long story short, to make sure copyright violations are not present the Hayle page history it was deleted and restored without the violations. That explains why Grace couldn't see them....an editor had copy pasted the contents of a Hayle site into the article, someone slapped a copyright notice on it and the rest is history...as I say the full version is on my talk page. Rx StrangeLove 03:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The version I deleted was not GraceNote's - the version I deleted was word for word that on the website I cited, and were inserted by 195.248.120.131. I did look through previous versions in the history, but didn't see any non-copyvio ones. I may have simply overlooked one, or it could be because of RadicalBender's deletions. Apologies for any annoyance caused. Grutness...  wha?  04:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, man. Fvw reverted my comment! I removed the intemperate one and replaced it with a more moderate one. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I know you're a fine editor and I'm glad that we could clear this up. -- Grace Note (I actually logged in but the damned server logged me out)

And sorry for inadvertently deleting Rx StrangeLove's comment. So far as I know it wasn't there when I started writing my second comment. I've seen it happen on talkpages a couple of times -- no edit conflict even though you're writing at the same time. All well, all's well that ends well! Grace Note 04:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Public school (UK)
Request for comment re Talk:Public school (UK). There is unreasonable resistance to acknowledging Scottish linguistic differences.--Mais oui! 09:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think that "knowledge" is what is missing from that Talk page. What is lacking is reasonableness and common sense. You just seemed like a fair-minded kind of chap who might be able to inject a wise word of sanity on the topic. The whole problem is that the term "Public School" is loaded with status issues in England, and people become far too defensive extremely quickly.--Mais oui! 09:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Useful tool - is it possible?
I've an idea for a useful tool for the AFD pages, but I'm not sure if it would work given the daily transcriptions. Is there any way of putting a link at the top of each day's transcription leading to the previous day and next day's lists? it would be very useful if navigating a few days' worth of AFDs (something which I'm sure I'm not the only one to do). Grutness...  wha?  06:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If you like, I can have AFD Bot create that. The only disadvantage to it is that it there will be a red link for the next day.  Come to think about it, I could comment out the link and have the AFD Bot uncomment the link when it closes the AFD day.  What do you think?  Oh, by the way, there is an existing template: Afd log --AllyUnion (talk) 05:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

AFD List
I haven't fixed that tool yet. Not much to worry about. Still trying to think of a way to easily do it. --AllyUnion (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Um, we can all have theories, but.....
Your theory on the origin of Moriori is interesting, and very well may be as good as anyone else's. But shouldn't we cite some sort of evidence, or support, for such an opinion? Cheers. Moriori 09:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Cricket
WikiProject Cricket beckons Grutness. The cricket cabal has just caught a talented kiwi. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  17:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Grutness/archive11


text:
Talk:MNNIT

MNNIT, previously Known as MNREC is one of the premier institutions in India.It has a very long background history in the educational field.Many people like Siva Rajesh have graduated from this college.It was Inaugerated by the then prime minister Motilal Nehru.MNNIT is located in Allahabad, Uttarpradesh, India.Allahabad is the pleasant place that loacated in the ganga of Ganga River.It is also has the historical importance for having Triveni sangam ,the place where three rivers combines to one and flows.

MNNIT stands for 'Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology'. It offers neraly seven undergraduate programs and more than ten postgraduate specializations. . It is having the excellent placement record history in the recent past and also participating in the national seminars and symposiums towards the latest trends and technologies in the ever growing fields.It is competing with the most premier institutions like IIT's in the field of advanced technologies like product development,Embedded systems,Computer designing. MNNIT boastly shows its PARAM super computer purely Indian made super computer.The college is also having good infrastructure,facilities, student environment,internet facility for even each and every hostel rooms which helps the students keep their knowledge up to date,etc.

Good collection and interesting facts about MNNIT

title: Talk:MNNIT


text:
Talk:Moral nihilism

NPOV
this article seems to only include critics of moral nihilism, and to essentially state that moral nihilists hardly exist at all, and that the term is an insult used among non-moral-nihilists to each other. not a very good way to describe this topic... a more neutral point of view is needed with better documentation of actual moral nihilists and their actual beliefs and reasons for it, to balance this out. its howdy doody time !!! (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Is moral realism compatible with noncognitivism?
I don't think this is obviously the case, at least not without any further qualifications. For instance, it seems incoherent to hold both that the sentence "Values exist" expresses a true proposition, and that the sentence "x is valuable" lacks cognitive content.

In my opinion the text should rather say: "According to (?) this position on its own is logically compatible with (some versions of).." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.155.226 (talk) 09:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Clean up and expansion
Hi all. I recently went through and tried to add some to this article and clean up a bit. But it still needs work of course. I think it's important to keep the article clear and to cite sources. There's a lot of useful stuff on the web (like on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) to help keep the article on track. -- Jaymay 18:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the edits, but can I ask why we are talking about Mackie's error theory under the name "global falsity"? I mean, it's called "error theory."  But maybe I'm missing something. Postmodern Beatnik 16:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I also just noticed that moral nihilism is being erroneously conflated with error theory. Non-cognitivists are also considered moral nihilists since both agree that there are no moral facts.  They just disagree over why this is so.  (I have encountered a defense of a "realist non-cognitivism" in which moral statements don't express propositions, but moral facts exist, but the author admitted to the idiosyncratic nature of the position.) Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have made significant changes to the article to address the concerns I raise directly above. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the changes. I haven't looked at this entry in awhile. I was not categorizing non-cognitivism as a form of moral nihilism, but I think many people do. (I was treating them so separately because non-cognitivism is more of a semantic thesis, while nihilism is not. However, both positions certainly do agree that there are no moral truths.) - Jaymay (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant
Machiavelli, Thrasymachus, and Turgenev are irrelevant. The first two are not moral nihilists. The third is not a philosopher; writing that the view's best defense is proffered by a fictional character is insulting to many credible philosophers who have spent time on the subject. I propose that the other two paragraphs be deleted and the rest of the article address arguments for/against nihilism as they've been offered by JL Mackie and many others. 69.160.21.97 03:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree that the Machiavelli, Thrasymachus, and Turgenev stuff is not very important. However, since there's not much in this article, I kept it in even after I added some stuff. Maybe once we have some more in the article about the arguments for and criticisms of moral nihilism it would be good to take that more irrelevant stuff out. -- Jaymay 18:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Quote
"It contends that moral statements are neither true nor false."

It appears to me that moral nihilists would label the statement "There is no such thing as right and wrong, and good and evil." as TRUE and the statement "There is such thing as right and wrong, and good and evil." as FALSE. Gringo300 10:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

If moral nihilism includes modern forms of moral skepticism such as Mackie's, then some moral nihilists could even say that "there is such a thing as moral good and evil" is TRUE. What would be FALSE would be something like "there is moral good that transcends any actual interests, and is in that sense objective". Mackie would not have too much trouble with someone saying a knife is "good", bearing in mind that the goodness of a knife traces back to what interest we have in using knives - i.e. to cut things - so we want a knife to have a sharp blade, be strong enough to survive the resistance of whatever is being cut, etc. A knife that meets those criteria is a good one. A blunt knife or one with the blade insecurely connected to the handle, is a bad one. He'd accept that a person or an act can be "good" (or "evil") in a similar but much more complex and conflicted sense - we have complex interests in people's behaviour, character dispositions, etc., and can reach a lot of agreement on which of these are good, though it is much more complicated than with knives, etc. He will disagree with people who think that moral goodness is objective or transcendent (in the sense I'm using), and he thinks that that claim is commonly asserted or assumed in ordinary moral language. Therefore ordinary moral language contains a deep error. To that extent, we are justified in being sceptical about it. Metamagician3000 00:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

These two pages actually contain factual errors. Today, moral nihilism is seen as a type of moral skepticism, where skepticism refers to a denial of the belief in objective moral truths and nihilism refers to a denial of moral truths in general. Nihilism then splits into two categories: error theory and non-cognitivism. Error theorists, like Mackie, argue that all statements of the sort "x is right/wrong/obligatory" are false, while non-cognitivists, especially emotivists like Ayer and Stevenson, argue that statements of the sort "x is right/wrong/obligatory" are neither true nor false. Emotivists say this is because such statements are expressive of emotional reactions to the actions to which they refer. To address Gringo's comment above, neither of these theories hold that all statements about morality are false or neither true nor false. After all, that would be self-defeating as nihilists themselves are making statements about morality. It's only statements that try to attribute moral properties (like those mentioned above) that they are concerned with.

I think it would be good to merge the two articles under the title "Moral skepticism" and discuss the types of moral skepticism--nihilism, subjectivism, and relativism--under that heading. Only if these sections get fleshed out to an extreme degree should be separate them again.

I'm not a user yet, but I'm leaving a time stamp anyway. 23:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I'd be reluctant to classify all non-cognitivists as nihilists in any useful sense. It's plausible with the emotivist example of A.J. Ayer, who really does seem to want to debunk morality. But prescriptivists like Hare are also non-cognitivists (they believe that moral sentences prescribe conduct, rather than expressing beliefs as to moral facts). Such people are far from wanting to express scepticism about the guidance of morality, or wanting to debunk it. This seems far from what I understand to be the original sense of moral nihilism. I think Mackie accepted the term "nihilism", but perhaps my memory is faulty. In any event, even he was happy to make proposals about how morality should be developed. He just thought that there is a meta-ethical error built into ordinary moral thinking - not that such thinking is useless or without pragmatic justification, or whatever. If we are going to merge the articles, we'll need to be very careful. To me, moral scepticism is a meta-ethical position that may or may not have practical implications. It can be quite conservative (in the sense of protective) about ordinary moral norms. "Moral nihilism" seems to me to refer to something much more critical or debunking of whatever moral norms it historically confronts. Comments on this? I'm only offering impressions at this stage of the discussion. Metamagician3000 10:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * You are correct that not all non-cognitivists are moral nihilists, but all moral nihilists are /either/ non-cognitivists or error theorists. Another important issue is that there is currently no real terminological distinction for nihilism at the metaethical and normative level.  The terms "metaethical nihilism" and "moral nihilism" suggest themselves, and I typically use them in my own work, but this is not as yet an accepted set of terms (at least not to my knowledge).  So while Mackie is a moral nihilist in the metaethical sense, he is not a moral nihilist in the normative sense (insofar as he develops a positive project for first order normativity).  It's a terminological mess that we need to clean up before we can get anywhere with these articles.

 * By the way, I am the author of the anonymously time-stamped comment above. At this point, though, I recant on the issue of merging articles.  The topics are important enough to deserve their own pages. Postmodern Beatnik 18:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Okay, that's good. So we stay with two articles? I'm happy about that, whatever I thought a year ago.

 * I like your terminology - "moral nihilism" as some kind of rejection, or radical critique, of first order normativity and "metaethical nihilism" as something more like Mackie's position (and perhaps also some non-cognitivist positions). But I also agree that it's not especially standard - there really does seem to be a terminological mess out there in the literature at the moment and I can't see any NPOV way of easily solving it. I see Richard Garner wanting to call himself an "amoralist", Joshua Greene talking about "revisionism", Richard Joyce saying all sorts of interesting things. None of those are "moral nihilists" in your sense, but they are all error theorists, and "metaethical nihilists" in your sense. I seem to recall Ronald Dworkin somewhere using the expression "internal scepticism" and "external scepticism" in senses that roughtly correspond to your "moral nihilism" and "metaethical nihilism" but I don't know that it particularly caught on. We almost need to write the book on all this, to sort it out and give us something to cite, before we can make much progress with the articles, dammit. Metamagician3000 00:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned the article up a bit, pending further developments. I also deleted this sentence: "Moral nihilism's denial of moral value is also distinct from moral skepticism's questioning it, just as atheism is different from agnosticism." I don't believe the sentence is true in its current form, as "moral scepticism" often refers to a position that really does deny the truth of (part of) the cognitive content of moral sentences. It is not always merely a matter of "questioning". OTOH, the issue with moral scepticism is not necessarily one of moral value at all, as long as the value concerned can be traced back to some interest, desire etc. The moral sceptic needs only to question whether, or deny that, moral value exists in a way that is independent of these things. Metamagician3000 11:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I took out the following sentence from the entry: "Nihilism is perhaps most strikingly defended by the fictional character Bazarov, in Ivan Turgenev's novel Fathers and Sons." Turgenev's Bazarov is never portrayed as a moral nihilist. In fact, Turgenev use of the term "nihilist" for Bazarov is misleading; as Bazarov himself explains in the novel, his aim is to uproot existing institutions in Czarist Russia. Nowhere in the novel does he pontificate on moral values such as to deny their existence. Thus, he does not defend moral nihilism, but something quite different that he refers to as "nihilism". (saadanis; December 15, 2007; 2155 hrs PST)

Moral nihilism and ethical nihilism
A question that comes up is: Are moral nihilism and ethical nihilism the same thing? The same question could be asked about: moral absolutism versus ethical absolutism and moral relativism versus ethical relativism. Gringo300 22:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

 * They are the same thing. And in most contexts "moral" and "ethical" are interchangeable. For example, moral egoism and ethical egoism (as opposed to psychological egoism) are the same view. -- Jaymay 18:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Panagiotis Kondylis?
I just removed the following text from the article:

 * Value Nihilism and Panagiotis Kondylis
 * One of the most prominent nihilists in later years in German cyrcles of thinkers. Continuing the tradition of Weber, Marx, Nietzche he formed his own theory of description as the main scientific goal (contrary to normative claims of humanism) and described human condition in the basis of moral indifference, constant conflict between Friends and Enemies and the use of Ideology as a mean to the fundmental anthropological state of war.
 * In Power and Decision, one of his most famous books, he claimed that all human ideologies, perceptions and beliefs were nothing more than an effort to give to our personal interests a normative form and an objective character, deriving from our "decision" on what means we should use, who should be our friends and who our foes in our big Hobbesian struggle for -what was the most primitive and common goal among all humans- self-preservation. Ideologies are nothing more than a part of our personal "world-construction" (κοσμοκατασκευή) and our world-construction is a subjective view of the world deriving from our interests and Hobbesian survival instincts. From this point of view, he claimed that ideology and opinion in general are used as a weapon in our everyday struggle for "power" which will allow as to self-preserve ourselves.

While the information may deserve inclusion, it was poorly written, incorrectly formatted, and improperly placed. Perhaps we need to think about changing Moral Nihilists in History into two sections, one on moral nihilist philosophers and and the other on moral nihilists in literature/popular culture. But is that even an appropriate way to expand this article? I don't know. I think it is worth noting, however, that Panagiotis Kondylis' moral nihilism is not even mentioned in his own Wikipedia article.

Thoughts? Postmodern Beatnik 19:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This Introduction is extremely confusing
The part in the intro where it says how moral nihilism is (allegedly) different than ethical subjectivism and moral relativism does not make any sense to me, and seems hopelessly filled with inaccessible jargon its howdy doody time !!! (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Categorizing Error Theory
Hi all. I'm attempting to organize and clean up the meta-ethics articles around here, and a particular question I have involving the relationship between moral objectivism and moral realism depends on how Error Theory is to be categorized, and I figure you all would be the best people to provide sourced definitions to clarify this issue.

The question is whether Error Theory is specifically a form of (semantic) objectivism - that is, whether it claims that moral sentences express propositions (albeit false ones) about mind-independent facts specifically - or whether Error Theory is more generally a form of cognitivism - that is, it just claims that moral sentences express propositions which are all false, without specifying the nature of those proposition.

In the latter case, it will make categorizing some other meta-ethical theories much easier, but some of the writing here on wikipedia suggests that it may be the former case, which is how we currently have it categorized.

Please let me know what your sources say. Thanks. -Pfhorrest (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Error theory denies the metaphysical and alethic theses of robust moral realism and affirms the semantic one. In simpler terms, the error theorist argues that moral statements are truth-apt attempts to reference a moral reality that does not exist, and so systematically fail to do so.  As for the relationship between moral objectivism and moral realism: At one point, the two would have been understood as synonymous (remember, these are terms invented by historians of philosophy to categorize people who often never used them).  As moral anti-realists have made inroads against their opponents, weaker notions have been called "objectivism" by philosophers who didn't want to be anti-realists.  Further complicating the matters is that there are several notions within ethics that the term "objectivism" can be applied to that have little or nothing to do with the more traditional usage. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Moral Nihilism leads to Corruption Sin and Evil Actions?
I have read numerous web pages that assert that having a viewpoint of moral nihilism automatically makes one evil, corrupt, immoral and sinful. They even assert that holding such a viewpoint makes the person automatically become a murdering adulterer rapist and so on.

My own view is that even if a person were a moral nihilist they would not necessarily be drawn to commit acts of murder, rape or other crimes just because they do noty believe in morals really existing. I think that even if they don't believe morality is real, even if they think its a manmade thing created to restrict freedom, that they would still behave within the bounds of normal society due to self preservation instincts. They would likely not murder because they don't wish to go to jail or have the death penalty enforced on them, that they would choose not to steal because they don't want to ruin their lives. In other words I think even moral nihilists might be inclined to conform to societal standards simply because its the easiest path to take.

I'd like other peoples views on this: Does being a moral nihilist automatically make a person a corrupt murdering sociopath as some websites suggest? (Sorry I can't list the sites but I didn't copy their adresses down since I left as soon as I read their irrational premises) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.233.194 (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I know you mean well, but this is page is for discussion on how to improve the encyclopaedia article, not a forum for general discussion of moral nihilism. Skomorokh,  barbarian  00:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Lede Unspeakable
Got to point where I would have been adding something like "Moral nihilism or amoralism is conflated in this article with a general stance of meta-ethical neutrality as is required by a number of rationalist philosophical positions such as utilitarianism.". So you can take it from here. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean here, however one of the changes you just made in the article is inaccurate, and conflates moral nihilism with moral anti-realism. While certainly all moral nihilists must also reject moral realism, many who reject moral realism hold that moral statements are valid in relative contexts and so are not complete moral nihilists (though you could, and I would, argue that meta-ethical moral relativism really collapses to moral nihilism, but that's OR), and some who reject robust moral realism are still nevertheless moral universalists even, such as proponents of ideal observer theory and universal prescriptivism. --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank You. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge moral nihilism and amorality
Moral nihilism Vote Merge Amorality Vote Merge All three of these positions should be handled by the same entry. All some form of rejection of morality, almost always closely tied together and asserted together. I think "Moral Skepticism" is the entry to unify all of these positions/concepts under because "skepticism" and "moral skepticism" is the label most often used by philosophers to discuss these issues in both ethics and epistemology. - Atfyfe (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This should not be merged, there is a large difference, skepticism is being skeptical of any claims that there is a meaning/reason to life, nihilism is determining that there is not a reason for our life. Nihilism almost always eventually leads to suicide, but skeptics can lead long happy lives.Lee Tru. (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think Lee's closing comments here are really appropriate, but I agree that a merger is unwarranted because, as he suggests, skepticism is an epistemological position, while nihilism is an ontological position. The skeptic says we don't know or can't prove moral claims; the nihilist says they are definitely false. Certainly skepticism can lead to nihilism, but it doesn't have to, and the two are not the same. --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thirded. No merger. I agree that Lee's editorializing is utterly ridiculous and betrays a gross misunderstanding of meta-ethical positions and in particular the claims of moral error theorists. Nevertheless, Lee is correct that moral nihilists are committed to a stronger claim than moral skeptics. "Moral nihilism" is a subspecies of moral skepticism, though there are certainly moral skeptics, who are not moral nihilists. Merger is a preposterous idea. That would be like proposing a merger between the article on "frogs" and the article on "amphibians." 151.42.63.157(talk) 17:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Moral nihilism is an amoral meta-ethical philosophy, but amorality is not necessarily a product of moral ratiocination: animals, corporations, robots, systems, and other entities can and often do exhibit amorality. —  C M B J   00:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I strongly DISAGREE with merging "moral nihilism" with "amorality", since they are entirely different and unrelated things. The first commenter above states that in their opinion they are both "some form of rejection of morality", but this is wrong, since amorality is precisely *not* a rejection of anything. A rock is amoral. A tree is amoral. A person who has no moral agency is amoral. None of these beings reject morality. A being who rejects morality is *immoral*, not amoral. - KS 21 Oct 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added byKsolway (talk • contribs) 10:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Non-cognitivist forms of moral universalism?
Given the article states the following, moral universalism mutually excludes non-cognitivsm:

"...moral universalism, which holds moral statements to be objectively true or false."

"Non-cognitivism in ethics is the view that moral statements lack truth-value and do not assert genuine propositions."

How, then, can it also truthfully state the following:

"... the universal prescriptivism of R.M. Hare is a non-cognitivist form of moral universalism."

?

--86.3.29.53 (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

 * The first statement you quote is in error; that's objectivism, not universalism. I'll fix that tomorrow. --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

What is moral nihilism?
The article nihilism describes moral nihilism as the assertion "that there is no inherent morality, and that accepted moral values are abstractly contrived", while this article says it "is the meta-ethical view that nothing is morally right or wrong. Moral nihilism is distinct from moral relativism, which allows for actions wrong relative to a particular culture or individual.", which to me does not seem consistent with one another. Does moral nihilism completely reject the notion of morality or does it permit actions to be right or wrong relative to cultural differences? 37KZ (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The other article is wrong and should be changed. —Pfhorrest (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20060830031659/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-moral/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Citation removed as it was citing a copyvio
Hello. I had to remove some copyvio from Stanford University. However, a citation was citing this copyvio and would no longer be used as there's no content to cite. To avoid having this citation lost, I've cited it here in case someone wants to use this citation without adding any copyrighted text:

Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Moral nihilism