Wikipedia talk:New user log/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

We'll have to see if people actually use this. I'm highly tempted to "seed" it with a phony entry just so somebody doesn't have to be the first newcomer to sign. It might take a while before someone signs, but once there's one I figure others will be comfortable doing so.

To see why I created this page, check out my comment on Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee Isomorphic 01:43, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, unless someone's gone ahead and seeded it, I'd say you've got a success here. What a nice idea! IMSoP 03:22, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Contents

Page title

I think the title is a bit misleading - I thought this "log" would be an auto-generated list or something. Some namechange thoughts:

  • recent visitors (matches Wiki:RecentVisitors, for example)
  • Wikipedia guestbook (matches the "guestbooks" of bad geocities pages)
  • Umm...

Make sense? Martin 22:29, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Martin, I agree that the name needs changing....I've been thinking of it for a bit. I think something a little more personable and friendly would be good: Wikipedia:Introductions or Wikipedia:Meet me or something like that. Recent visitors also sounds like an auto-generated log to me, and guestbook, well, reminds me of bad Geocities pages. ;-) I think a name change would be wise, though. Let's keep brainstorming. Jwrosenzweig 23:37, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The original name was mine, and I agree that it's bad. It's just the first half-decent thing that came to my mind when I decide to create the page. I didn't like "guestbook" for the reasons above, and because this wasn't intended for guests or visitors all. It's intended for people who are starting to contribute, and that's {mostly) what people have been using it for. Of the suggestions above, I like Wikipedia:Introductions best, but I feel like there must be something better. I can't think of anything though. Isomorphic 06:06, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I like Wikipedia:Introductions as well. The log should be for something automatic. Dori | Talk 07:05, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia:Introductions sounds the best from all the suggested changes. Just a note... many users (such as myself) have welcoming templates that point to this page, so a What links here run to let people know it's being changed would be appreciated (as would keeping this as a redirect to the new page). I'm sure this has been thought of before, but I just wanted to put it down as a reminder. Thanks! -- Jrdioko 23:43, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Introductions sounds like some sort of dating service. I'd prefer Wikipedia:recent visitors, or if the only problem with the current name is that it sounds too much like an automatically generated log, why not just call it wikipedia:new users instead of wikipedia:new user log? Angela. 17:00, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

The only problem with "recent visitors" is that it sounds like a guestbook. Actually if we wanted we could also create a true guestbook where readers could leave general comments like "wow I like your project". In the mean time, Wikipedia:New users still sounds a little like an automated page (Wikipedia:New pages certainly is one) but it's better than the current name. Isomorphic 20:46, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How about something less official sounding like; Wikipedia:who's new or Wikipedia:Nursery ? Or potting shed, pleased to meet you, etc. Or Wikipedia:Gestatten (which, in German, packs "Pleased to meet you, please allow me to introduce myself" into one word.) Marvin Sunday 07:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nursery and Gestatten don't immediately convey what the page is for though, which is a problem. I would prefer Wikipedia:New Users, simple and obvious. TPK 08:02, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
How about Wikipedia:New Users Messageboard? I thought that sounded good. Wikiwoohoo 20:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I like Wikipedia:New Users Messageboard, but isn't that grammatically incorrect? Technically, there should either be an apostrophe after the s or a hyphen between new and users. Either way, the name would describe this page more accurately than Wikipedia:New user log. If we move it though, we should put a link at the top to direct technical questions to Wikipedia:Help Desk.
How about Wikipedia:New User Self-Introductions? That avoids the problems with sounding like an automatically generated list (new user log, or recent visitors), being too obscure or ambiguous (nursery or Gestatten), too off-putting (guestbook), and being grammatically incorrect. It completely describes the purpose in as simple a phrase as possible. The only problem I see with it is the length being longer than all other proposals, but even so, it's shorter than many other page names that are accepted. (Alternatively, as a sort of tongue-in-cheek idea, how about Wikipedia:Who's New at Wikipedia?) Aumakua 15:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - But no thanks!

It works just fine for me, I think that things are good good the way they are. I've only used the page a couple times and I was just getting used to it being here. I don't want things to change much.

Just registering the voice of a new user.

--Noisecontrol 12:00, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Irc for new users

New users should consider visiting irc.freenode.com room:wikipedia. Its been a thoroughly enlightening experience being in there.

An excellent web browser is www.opera.com

Talk to you soon!

Noisecontrol 00:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

real new user log

Hi, is there a place to find all recently created users, similar to Special:Recentchanges? There is no Special:Recentusers ... I know about Special:Listusers, but I am looking for a chronological list. -- Aleph4 16:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Hm, Special:Contributions/newbies is close, but not the real thing. -- Aleph4 18:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Found it! Special:Log/Newusers -- Aleph4 11:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Drahcir

Hi. Um... what am I supposed to say? Drahcir

Demuregoat

Hi My interests include Battlefield 2 and Worldwar 2 esp. the ETO. (Thats european theater of operations)User:Demuregoat

new user: gilroy0

Hi there. I've been a wikipedia reader for a while but didn't feel up to actually editing anything until I found a typo on a West Wing page talking about a 1866 President Succesion Act, whereas the actuality was that the act was from 1886. And since it had sent me off on a wild google chase, I figured I'd fix it for the sake of future wingnuts. (OK, so I'm a geek.  :) )

Gilroy0 04:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

April 2006 Log

When will it be created? Anonymous anonymous 23:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

whoops

does it matter if i created a new log but forgot to about a month ago? Simply south 10:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

OF HUMANITY --A Reasoned Philosophy (ofhumanity.blogspot.com)

REASONED CONSIDERATIONS OF HUMANITY'S ESSENTIAL BELIEFS


PREAMBLE

Many years ago, Isaac Newton not only invented that part of mathematics known as calculus (infinitesimal calculus) but also developed the physical laws that explained the world to which our senses are accustomed.

Years later, another scientist, Albert Einstein, discovered that Newton's laws did not work well when applied to objects traveling at or approaching the speed of light, and Einstein developed the theory of relativity. Later on, Einstein expanded the theory of relativity into the so called general theory of relativity which included the world of Newton, and unified Newton's laws with the laws of relativity. Yet, there was another set of phenomena which Einstein could not explain with relativity.

Einstein's relativity, while successfully explaining the macrocosm, failed to explain the behavior of the world of the microcosm, a world which quantum mechanics (the weird science) eventually and successfully explained. The quantum world is, in fact, an incredible and weird world, a world of almost magic where intuition and common sense, as we know it, does not apply, a world where things can simultaneously exist in many states (as if a microcosmic light bulb could be on and could be off at the same time), a world where changes to an object that is here can instantaneously effect the same changes to that same object which exists simultaneously many light years away.

A few years ago, a new theory named "string theory" (actually, "supersymmetric string theory", or "superstring theory", or just "string theory" for short --where a string, the smallest indivisible unit of matter, is a tiny one-dimensional loop) emerged with the potential of unifying the entire laws of the universe. A theory which may in fact unify and replace both relativity and quantum mechanics. A theory with mathematical equations so complex that, to this day, no computer exists which is powerful enough to solve them. A theory which can be presently studied only through the simulation of its mathematical equations.

Complacent or blasé, as we may be, sitting on this planet Earth, looking at only a very small portion of an even vaster universe, little do we imagine that actually there may be an infinite number of universes, all linked to one another through "black holes". Or that the universe has actually eleven dimensions (seven of which so infinitesimally small that they are not visible to the naked eye, and an eighth, time, which is the only one with a direction). These are some of the things that "string theory" (a subset of M-theory) increasingly and consistently suggests.

And what about that which we call the vacuum of outer space and which turns out to be not a vacuum, as it is actually filled with "energy"? Or that the universe is like a balloon, inside of which is what we know as the universe and outside of which is what we know (do we actually?) as really "nothing"? And guess what, this balloon sometimes tears; but fortunately the tears get quickly repaired.

But, just like relativity is a proven science for the macrocosm, quantum mechanics is a proven science for the microcosm. And while Einstein could not merge the two into a unified science, M-theory seems to successfully do.

More recently, a renowned world paleontologist published a rational exposition that "evolution" is not a random process as popularly perceived, but rather a "programmed" process which can't help but produce one model: man --the being who knows and who knows that he knows. The being who, sitting on this unassuming secondary planet, has penetrated with his mind realms unheard of across space and time.

The above advances of science help explain why science is not only enlightening, in that it provides a better appreciation of the universe, but in that it also provides an actual peek at God. I have four pronoun genders in my personal vocabulary, i.e., "he" (masculine), "she" (feminine), "it" (neuter), and "God" (sacred). I don't believe that God is masculine (to be referred to as "he"), or is feminine, or that it has a neuter gender. Humanity has sometimes unfortunately ascribed human (anthropomorphic) qualities to God throughout history. Like Voltaire once said, "If God created man, then man returned the favor".

A REASONED PHILOSOPHY

OF HUMANITY

But, let's philosophize. From a "perception" point of view, one of my basic tenets (and something that I feel most of us often forget) is that "we have imperfect senses", so whatever we perceive needs to be understood while making allowance for that limitation. This must sound like it is stating the obvious but, actually, this is not so obvious, as we often reject and refuse to acknowledge what we perceive because we forget that we are perceiving with limitations. In fact, we forget that we may be perceiving only a hint or an aspect but not all that may be there. In spite of this, it is amazing that with these limited senses how much man has perceived sitting on this secondary and unimportant planet.

Man has been endowed with certain attributes (e.g., a brain, the power of reason, etc.). It is obviously a flaw in man's individual character, and a shirking of responsibility, whenever man fails to reasonably use the attributes with which he has been endowed. In addition, it is arrogant for man to sometimes try to dictate how things should have been created. All we can really do is learn from our rational perceptions.

OF FAITH

There are two fundamental attributes in man which are worth considering: the power of faith and the power of reason. They are both mutually exclusive. The power of faith is irrational and based on "belief" which excludes reason. In fact, the dictionary defines faith as a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof", and defines reason as "intelligence, the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways".

Faith seems to be so hardwired into man's genes that it almost seems to precede the power of reason. The power of faith has traditionally focused on what man didn't understand, and that he generally perceived as being supernatural, e.g., the eruption of a volcano, an eclipse, the afterworld, etc.

Exemplified by science, the power of reason, on the other hand, developed and grew just as man's accumulated knowledge also developed and grew throughout the ages. And just as what man didn't understand and believed to be supernatural yielded to man's increased understanding of the world, so has the power of faith increasingly yielded to the power of reason (as science), becoming mostly focused on only the afterworld.

History tells us that without the moderation of reason and science, the power of faith has turned misguided, sometimes giving rise to fanaticism and even the condemnation of nascent science. As a result, it is increasingly clear that faith should start only where reason stops, supplementing it but without conflicts or contradictions. To be otherwise is for man to surrender his intelligence and to settle for irrationality.

OF GOD

With this in mind, if and when man wonders about the concept of God, one place to turn to is the dictionaries to learn what man means by the word God. And man finds in all dictionaries that, no matter in what language, man generally defines God with attributes like: "the Absolute Being; the Creator of the Earth and the Universe; Omnipotent; Omniscient; Eternal; Omnipresent;" etc. And of all the attributes that man ascribes to the word God there seem to be at least three that are definitely not subjective, i.e., the attributes of "Absolute", "Eternal" and "Omnipresent".

If man were looking into the meaning of the word "table", in a similar way, man would find it defined in the dictionary as "a solid surface with four solid legs". And man would set out to see if such a concept exists. And upon finding it in the physical world, man would be satisfied that "table" is not a fantasy as it, in fact, exists.

So if man sets out to see whether one can find something that is eternal and that is omnipresent, and through a careful process finds something that meets the criteria of being absolute, eternal and omnipresent, man would be satisfied that "God" in fact exists. And as we know, man finds that "energy" meets the criteria.

We know that science has proven that "energy can not be created and can not be destroyed, it can only be transformed". But this means that energy is eternal. Besides, science shows that energy is omnipresent and absolute. Nothing exists without energy. Energy permeates and encompasses everything. It sustains everything, whether animate or inanimate. In fact it even exists in what was thought to be the vacuum of outer space. So energy does meet the criteria of the concept of God.

The findings of string theory (a subset of M-theory) also suggest that all energy is THE SAME. In other words, the energy that sustains the existence of a piece of granite is exactly the same as the energy that sustains the existence of a pint of water or the energy that sustains the existence of man. The only thing that varies is the vibration of the string.

And if we find this to be limiting, lets again remember the tenet that "we have imperfect and limited senses and thus what we perceive needs to make allowance for said limitation". This means that before rejecting this perception that "energy" satisfies the attributes of God, and of perhaps rather feeling that "energy" falls short of all that one may think of God, one needs to realize that "energy" is only what our limited and imperfect senses perceive of God. In other words God may be much more, it just happens that our limited senses can perceive only the energy aspect of God. But, undeniably, God eternal, absolute, omnipresent and as defined by man exists physically, just as much as man exists physically, but without the restrictions of man's physical existence.

So, God created the universe, the mineral world, the vegetal world, and the animal world (of which we are a part). And, among other things, God created what we perceive as the laws of nature including the law of evolution. And God created said law of evolution to produce a specific model: man. And, in infinite wisdom, God created said law of evolution that, in its quest to produce man, would additionally produce an ecology of species to support said man. And, no different from what makes a child smile or cry, God created what we perceive as good or evil, what we perceive as pleasure or pain and what we perceive as love or hatred, so to help us grow and to show the way to all of us, both the affected and the witnesses. And God permeates, encompasses and sustains all said creation which we perceive with our limited senses as an eternal, absolute and omnipresent energy which can not be created or destroyed, only transformed, an eternal energy that permeates, encompasses and sustains man: an expression and a temple of God.

Man is an expression of God because man is energy, like everything else. And man is a temple of God because God (physically perceived as energy) is in every cell of man's body.

OF SOUL

The dictionary defines the word "soul" as "that immaterial essence, animating principle, actuating cause of an individual life, or that spiritual principle embodied in human beings, in all rational and spiritual beings, or in the universe". But, everything that exists (whether it is a man, a dog, or actually a piece of granite) has an individuality, i.e., a soul. But each individuality or soul is different, and so is man's soul. But not only does man, the thinking being, have a more evolved soul but, obviously, it is an evolving soul. And I say "obviously" because humanity's unhappy history teaches us that man is in need of more evolution of the soul. So, as a result of this need for more evolution of the soul, the evolution requires a process of reincarnation, but not into this humanity. Because, if the reincarnation were taking place into this humanity then this humanity would have shown an improvement over the ages. Yet this humanity has not been shown to have made much progress over the ages. So, the reincarnation must be rather in some other "humanity", in some different world, perhaps even in a different universe but, certainly, in a different place.

SUMMARY

As one reflects back on the above discussion, some conclusions can be summarized:

OF HUMANITY:

It is obviously a flaw in man's individual character, and a shirking of responsibility, whenever man fails to reasonably use the attributes with which he has been endowed and fails to learn from his rational perceptions.

OF FAITH:

Faith should start only where reason stops, supplementing it but without conflicts or contradictions. To be otherwise is for man to surrender his intelligence and to settle for irrationality.

OF GOD:

Perceived by our limited senses as an eternal, absolute and omnipresent energy, God eternal, absolute, omnipresent and as defined by man undeniably exists physically, just as much as man exists physically, but without the restrictions of man's physical existence.

OF SOUL:

Man's soul is an evolving soul which requires a process of reincarnation, but not into this humanity.

EPILOGUE

Over time, many human attributes have been ascribed to God and included in invocations to God, often undermining the concept of God. Also, in all his arrogance, man has often insisted that his God is better than someone else's God. But God is not just "my" God or "our" God but everybody's. And God is not located in just a distant place called "heaven" but God is really intimately with us and with everything else, always. So here is a suggested non-chauvinistic and non-anthropomorphic invocation.

Oh eternal God, who art with us, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. Keep us from temptation and deliver us from evil. Amen.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Greene, B.: 1999, "the elegant universe" , W.W. Norton & Co., New York, London. (ISBN 0-393-05858-1)

• Greene, B.: 2004, "The Fabric of the Cosmos", Alfred A. Knopf, New York. (ISBN 0-375-41288-3)

• Morris, S.C.: 2003, "Life's Solution --Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe" Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. (ISBN 0-521-82704-3)

• March, X.: 2006, "De Humanidad, Fe, Dios y Alma --Una Filosofía Razonada" http://dehumanidad.blogspot.com/

what do i do with this thing again?

whats this page for again guys, seriously?