User talk:Thomas Simmons

Welcome

Tasks: start a new article • add basic, wanted or requested articles • add definitions • add metadata • edit new pages

Welcome to the Citizendium! We hope you will contribute boldly and well. Here are pointers for a quick start, and see Getting Started for other helpful "startup" links, our help system and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forum is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any user or the editors for help, too. Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun!

You can find some more information about our collaboration groups if you follow this link Citizendium_Pilot:Discipline_Workgroups.You can always ask me on my talk page or others about how to proceed or any other question you might have.

Kind Regards, Robert Tito | Talk 20:38, 13 February 2007 (CST)

Signature

You seem to have your sig the wrong way round in your preferences. You need something like [[User:Thomas Simmons|Whatever you want here]] | [[User talk:Thomas Simmons|Talk]]. Hope that helps. Neville English | Talk 11:16, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Hello Neville,

Not sure what you mean. Thomas Simmons | Talk 14:48, 9 March, 2007 (EPT)

I was referring back to this edit, but it seems you are all sorted now. Neville English | Talk 13:22, 9 March 2007 (CST)

Workgroup tags

Please add the proper workgroup tags to articles. Thanks for your help! -Tom Kelly (Talk) 18:12, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

Earth Sciences

Hey Thomas, great kickoff! I almost lost hope that someone would write something about Earth Sciences, and then here you came! At the moment I am incredibly busy with my academic duties - I must prepare 6 abstracts and a full talk this month - but be sure I'll start edit as soon as possible. Well, maybe some little edit and comment this weekend already...

You might like to take a look at the Workgroup home page, and adjust something there. There is a proposal for major subdivisions of Earth Sciences that should be coherent to that of the main article.

See you soon in the wiki! --Nereo Preto 01:47, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

Hi Nereo, Big field. Difficult to determine which are subcategories of other fields. Lots of work to do. Make sure your articles get linked as it goes. The collection is growing and I am not sure I will spot them all to make the links. Thomas Simmons 10:38 15 April, 2007 (EPT)

Hi. You asked for a reference on polarity reversal. Here's one http://www.physlink.com/News/040804EarthMagneticField.cfm or http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99265.htm or http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0927_040927_field_flip.html Jim

Thomas, Geologic time scale was proposed as high-priority article in the "Big Write" initiative. Would you like to sign in as author? See instructions here

--Nereo Preto 04:28, 21 April 2007 (CDT)

constabulary template work area

{{badimage}}

Your comment in religion workgroup...

Hi, I appreciate your feedback. I replied over there. Ciao, David Hoffman 21:43, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Oriental

Thomas I really appreciate your comments on Orientalism. (I just spotted them.) The argument has raged on at Oriental. I think some of the opposition edits there have been a bit outrageous. Larry Sanger has stepped in to moderate. I'd really like to back away so that I don't seem too fanatical. I've got nothing invested in this word. I'm just a defender of fairness and the English language. Will Nesbitt 10:29, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

I'd appreciate more feedback at Orientalism. I think this article has lost it's way. The purpose of current article seems to be intent on driving a political point rather than just delivering information about the East. I'm not to keen on the idea of taking up an edit war, most especially if I am alone in my beliefs. Can I ask you to comment again? Will Nesbitt 05:51, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Hi

Hi, good to see that. Since we both seem to be interested in similar time periods we could collaborate on a few articles. What would you think about writing an article on the first model parliament? Denis Cavanagh 05:58, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Are you talking about Edward's attempt in 1291? --Thomas Simmons 07:05, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

The 1295 model parliament, I think it would be a good article. Either that or an evolution of parliament article. Denis Cavanagh 07:11, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

=Why All The Question Marks?????

Thomas: I was wondering why all the question marks after the initial word, Dmanisi on the page you appear to have created. The spelling seems correct (or at least consistent with the spelling on the web site.) But I didn't want to remove them in case there was a reason.

Roger Lohmann 15:11, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Hi Roger,

I think I see the problem. Are you refering to this line? Dmanisi (დმანისი in the Georgian language kartuli)

The first set of question marks is actually Kartuli script. Your web browser is not reading it and just gives you the question marks. I am pretty sure that is what is happening. --Thomas Simmons 21:45, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Extinction

Hi Thomas, can you take a look at Talk:Extinction and give us feedback? Seems changes are wanted but I don't want to do much before I know you are aware we are working on it. --Nereo Preto 10:29, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Extinction

Hi Thomas, would you consider toning down your argument to be a little more civil? --Matt Innis (Talk) 18:12, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

Hi Matt. I disagree. I am being extremely civil. The whole idea of the WP insanity being pushed here by proxy is just over the edge. I said this in a clear (clarity is antithetical to a lack of respect) but very polite way. I have no idea why Japser would come here and say that we should be altering what we do here because the nameless and faceless voices there compel us to do so. But he has not been personally abused and the language is insulting only to those who want it to be. --Thomas Simmons 19:06, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

I am not doubting that you have good reason for your concern. Just trying to keep it collegial ;-) Thanks for re-wording. --Matt Innis (Talk) 22:10, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

The young man who made the suggestion did it in good faith, so a response recognizing that is most fitting.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 22:35, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

The assumption of good faith requires us to ascribe monumental naivete to the young man in question. Who amongst us shall break the news to him? --Thomas Simmons 19:13, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Core Articles

Hi Thomas, would you like to take a look at CZ:Core Articles, the part about Earth Sciences articles? We are filling the list of our 100 important, but still missing articles there, I'd like to have as much contributions as possible. Ciao, --Nereo Preto 03:32, 29 September 2007 (CDT)

Dear Thomas,

Age of the earth is meant to explain how old is our planet, and what evidence exists for the age of the earth. E.g., the oldest rock, the oldest mineral, what is the meaning of the age of meteorites. The article is also meant to report the historical controversy on the age of the earth, eventually solved by the discovery of radioactive decay.

In CZ:Core Articles, you linked the article to Geologic ages of earth history, which instead referes to the Geologic time scale. These are distinct concepts, although the present title of the already existing article leaves space to some confusion.

You claimed the points for Age of the earth, but you didn't actually start a new article, you just referred to an article which was written already before the initiative was started. Rules of the initiative requires you write a new article of 250 words at least, thus, I cannot acknowledge the points. I'll cancel your name to make clear the article is still to be written.

Of course, you are welcome to write Age of the earth from scratch and regularly claim those points! All the best, --Nereo Preto 05:49, 24 November 2007 (CST)

Ah!. See it now. Ta Nereo. --Thomas Simmons 20:54, 24 November 2007 (CST)

Cochrane Collaboration

You have some content on the Cochrane Collaboration page that might be best moved to other pages now that these new pages are started. Ok with you if:

1. Your Evidence–based medicine section goes to the Evidence-based medicine page?
2. Your Study guidelines section goes to Clinical practice guideline?

If these moves are ok with you, I can do them, or you can do them if you prefer. Robert Badgett 15:57, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

Hello Robert,

Moving the Evidence–based medicine section to the Evidence-based medicine page and the Study guidelines section to Clinical practice guideline is certainly a reasonable idea. However, they are brief and should still remain in the Cochrane article with a link in the Cochrane article to your work at the Clinical practice guideline article and the Evidence-based medicine since they serve to briefly explain the concepts for the Cochrane Collaboration. I will put the links in now. You can copy and use what you think is appropriate of course --Thomas Simmons 19:13, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

I am not seeing why to put the guidelines section on the page as the Cochrane does not write practice guidelines. Is this section to make the point that some practice guidelines, presumably the better ones, are based on a systematic review of the literature? If so, we could state this. Based on the discussion above, is this section present to give readers alternative methods to get free summaries of the Cochrane? If so, http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/crdweb/ would be better. Is this section present to draw the parallel that well-done guidelines resemble the Cochrane in methodology? If so, we should probably state that the evidence synthesis portion of a guideline is only one part of producing a guideline (http://annals.org/cgi/content/full/139/6/493). I think this section needs a sentence to introduce/transition to explain why it is here. ThanksRobert Badgett 07:20, 21 October 2007 (CDT)

The guidelines section is purely expository. It provides a series of examples for the basis of the topic of the article, that is why it explained as such, "Examples of methodological parameters:"

For that reason it need only be brief. The article would be the place to enlarge on the topic certainly. --Thomas Simmons 04:54, 22 October 2007 (CDT)

Response on the Creed

"The Western Churches" is a much broader category than the Roman Catholic Church. Western Churches would include all of the Protestant Churches, that for example do not understand the affirmation of there being "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" in the same sense as either the Orthodox or the Roman Catholics. John Whiteford 17:03, 23 November 2007 (CST)

OK. Then, that should be a point to make about what differs in the overall belief structure. To wit:

• (1) I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
• (2) And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light; True God of True God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made;
• (3) Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man.
• (4) And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried.
• (5) And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures;
• (6) And ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father;
• (7) And He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; Whose Kingdom shall have no end.
• (8) And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; Who spoke by the prophets.

I rarely if ever find Baptists or Methodists or Presbyterians who think otherwise. Jehovah's Witnesess and Mormons are certainly not in the same tradition in that they hold a very differernt view of the nature of Christ for example. So that should be claified.

When it comes to the statement

• (9) In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

We get into interpretations that do differ, yet these same groups do say this and then maintain that it means there is, say, a spiritual link, for example, rather than a physical one. Therein lies the problem--interpretation. The Roman Church and, from I what I have gathered, the most conservative of the Anglican Churches do agree with the Orthodox in this however.

The remaining sections of the creed:

• (10) I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.
• (11) I look for the resurrection of the dead;
• (12) And the life of the world to come. Amen.

as for as I know are not a problem in that while some may not understand what it really means (does anyone?) but they do accept the statements. --Thomas Simmons 17:26, 23 November 2007 (CST)

I don't think most protestants believe that Baptism is for the remission of sins either. And even conservative Anglicans do not believe that there is only one visible Church. They teach some form of the branch theory. I think one could only make the case that Roman Catholics share our understanding of the creed... once the filioque is removed. But one can also argue that even they differ in subtle ways with us on other points as well... but personally, if we limited the statement to them, I would not quibble over it, but stretching it to cover most western churches is too much of a stretch. John Whiteford 21:11, 24 November 2007 (CST)

Re: "I don't think most protestants believe that Baptism is for the remission of sins either." Absolution of sins: referring to Mark 1:4 for example, "John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." Luke 24:47 "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."

Interesting. I have never yet heard of another interpretation. Baptism is regarded as symbolic if not the physical act of repentence, forgiveness and rebirth. I have yet to hear of a Baptist or Presbyterian, for example, who thought that the act left the baptised "in sin," as it were. As for one visible chruch, still do not agree.

These people do not see that their beliefs are different from each other, just their governance. So they would not interpret the Apostolic Succession as an actual physical succession that maintains an orthodox versus heterodox division. Again the central dogma in the Creed is held by most. The problem lies in the interpretation. If you walk through the Creed with those Protestant or non-denominational Christians who use the Creed, they will agree pretty much with the orthodox interpretations. When you get to phrases like "one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church they will also agree. Again they will say that their "First Antioch Church of the Rock" is such a church. When they are given the definition as originally pronounced in the Creed, then they insist that their interpretation is the correct interpretation and the interpretation is quite simply a perspective on governance to them. It gets a little silly but their interpretations are not unlike the assertions of polytheism leveled by those who refused to accept the three in one arguments of one essence but three persons. They see it, they read it, they believe it but they have never considered that their interpretation on the one visible church is not the one originally intended. This is one reason why so many Christians who do leave these western chruches and enter the Orthodox Church are not making any great changes in their beliefs, they already ascribe to the central tenants. Accepting the one Church as the One and only Church is probably the biggest leap they make.--Thomas Simmons 21:41, 24 November 2007 (CST)

Aristotle

Hi Thomas, thanks for editing this article at the same time as myself. (This is my first stab at writing a wiki.) I've retained your text along with mine; hopefully we can remove any redundancies and use this as a foundation for a thorough article on Aristotle. Rahmat Muhammad 21:56, 28 December 2007 (CST)

Yep. Rahmat Muhammad 22:12, 28 December 2007 (CST)