Cannabis Sativa

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Gwen Gale (talk | contribs)
47,788 edits
Line 516: Line 516:
I do not object to ''accurate'' criticism of my behaviour, but would insist that it have a ''factual'' basis. <font face="Antiqua, serif">''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]</sub><sup>''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''')</sup></font> 12:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I do not object to ''accurate'' criticism of my behaviour, but would insist that it have a ''factual'' basis. <font face="Antiqua, serif">''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]</sub><sup>''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''')</sup></font> 12:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
*I hope you don't mind me butting in here unasked. Hrafn, please take this as an attempt to help. We were at odds on the [[Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith]] article, even starting to edit war about it. At some point, I started talking with [[User:Verbal]], who had been at your side in this conflict. Verbal responded reasonably, we both realized we had been getting hotheaded. At that point, I realized that a lot of my opposition to the redirect for PSCF to ASA had been because of ''the aggressive way in which you were taking apart my every comment'', to the piont of "teaching me English". Granted, I'm not a native speaker, but that should cut me some slack, I think, not be a reason for snippety remarks. My point here is, had you been less aggressive in your comments, we probably would have gotten to a compromise much earlier. This would not only have been easier on me, ''it would have spared you aggravation, too,'' I am certain. Firefly is adding good faith content, you are often improving a lot on his articles. If you could just be a little bit nicer to him, FF would probably not mind you following that much and start appreciating your improvements and, probably, become motivated to listening to your advice and in time improve his style. Just my 5 cents... --[[User:Crusio|Crusio]] ([[User talk:Crusio|talk]]) 12:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
*I hope you don't mind me butting in here unasked. Hrafn, please take this as an attempt to help. We were at odds on the [[Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith]] article, even starting to edit war about it. At some point, I started talking with [[User:Verbal]], who had been at your side in this conflict. Verbal responded reasonably, we both realized we had been getting hotheaded. At that point, I realized that a lot of my opposition to the redirect for PSCF to ASA had been because of ''the aggressive way in which you were taking apart my every comment'', to the piont of "teaching me English". Granted, I'm not a native speaker, but that should cut me some slack, I think, not be a reason for snippety remarks. My point here is, had you been less aggressive in your comments, we probably would have gotten to a compromise much earlier. This would not only have been easier on me, ''it would have spared you aggravation, too,'' I am certain. Firefly is adding good faith content, you are often improving a lot on his articles. If you could just be a little bit nicer to him, FF would probably not mind you following that much and start appreciating your improvements and, probably, become motivated to listening to your advice and in time improve his style. Just my 5 cents... --[[User:Crusio|Crusio]] ([[User talk:Crusio|talk]]) 12:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

{{ec}} I've already said that following someone's edits is ok. However, that thread is a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]]. If you think the editor's writing or article building skills are so lacking as to be disruptive to the project and you get nowhere by talking to the editor about it in a [[WP:CIVILITY|civil]] way, start an [[WP:RFC|RfC]]. Please keep in mind, there is no [[WP:5 pillars|policy]] against crummy writing and dodgily built articles when these happen through good faith edits. [[WP:Consensus|Consensus]] is overwhelmingly likely to handle worries like that, though it can take a bit of time. If someone [[WP:3rr|edit wars]], take it to [[WP:AN3]]. If there is [[WP:Vandal|vandalism]], take it to [[WP:AIV]]. If sourcing is thin, throw in some [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. If the writing is weak and you care about the article, fix it. If there are PoV or [[WP:UNDUE|weighting]] worries, bring them up on the talk page. If a topic isn't notable, either [[WP:CSD|give it a CSD tag]], [[WP:PROD|prod it]] or take it to [[WP:AFD|AfD]]. Anyway, now you know: Personal attacks aren't allowed on en.Wikipedia as a means for dealing with content or any other worries, ever. Also, please keep in mind, you can't [[WP:WIKILAWYER|wikilawyer]] your way out of heeding the policy against personal attacks. The easiest way to skirt making a personal attack is to comment only on sources and content, not on the other editor. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 13:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:04, 9 August 2009

  • New threads belong at the bottom of talk pages (pressing the 'new section' link at the top, or here, will do this automatically for you). I reserve the right to summarily remove (without responding, and possibly even without reading) any new threads placed here at the top of this talk page.
  • Discussion directly pertaining to a specific article belongs on that article's talkpage. Where such discussion is erroneously posted here, I may move it to article talk, or (if I'm feeling lazy, crabby, or for any other arbitrary reason) simply delete or revert it -- so best to post it where it belongs in the first place.
  • I likewise reserve the right to curtail (by reversion, deletion, archiving or otherwise) any thread on this talkpage that I (on my sole discretion) feel has become, or is is likely to be, unproductive. If you object to such curtailment, then by all means don't post here.

Possible deletion?

Hi Hrarn. I'm considering nominating Hak Ja Han for deletion. Would you like to discuss the issue on the article's talk page? Redddogg (talk) 15:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hak Ja Han Redddogg (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input

You're right. The school paper wasn't an easily verifiable source. We'll focus on verifiable sources from now on! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.149.18 (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misfiled & malformed

User Hrafn, I have reported your continuing removals of the edits, sources, and citations which I add to the Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio article. I am notifying you in accordance with Wikipedia rules. I have tried to satisfy your challenges but it is clear the material I present means nothing to you and arbitration must be found elsewhere. Hopefully a truly unbiased reader will settle the matter. Dale Leppard —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaleLeppard (talk • contribs) 06:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. A new topic requires a new section
  2. This warning is malformed in that you didn't tell me where you reported me.
  3. You forgot to sign it.
  4. Your report on WP:ANEW is likewise malformed, in that it did not supply difs.

0/4 -- pretty much par for the course. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn, I'll be happy to stop removing templates if you stop putting up nonsensical ones. You are clearly biased against people connected with this organization if not the organization itself and your own words confirm it. I am confident that administrative findings will support me. I am aware of your aggressive approach with other discussions but I will not be intimidated by your efforts and I stand behind my work. Officer or not, my COI is no more than yours as one who has issues with the structure of the organization itself. Where I have been open in my affiliation and name you have been secretive. At the end of the day I would rather be in my shoes. I will at least thank you for the one legitimate complaint that you raised regarding the newspaper, and for whatever your motive I thank you for ceasing the reversions until we have the results. DaleLeppard (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the outcome of the WP:ANEW report is that you are both banned from editing the article for a week,[1] it's in the hands of others now. Hopefully DL will start finding other interests and learn to assume good faith as required by policy. Improved civility from DL is needed, with an acceptance that policies are there for good reason. Hrafn, while your statements appear fully correct as far as I've seen, please try to be kind to this newbie when helping to explain the essentials of policies, if the need arises again. . . dave souza, talk 21:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dave: the need will 'arise' in one week. DL is completely unrepentant about his WP:COI editing. He is also denying the contents of some of his edits (in spite of difs clearly demonstrating that he made them) and defending others (in spite of the fact that they have been corrected by other, uninvolved, editors). DL is not a 'newbie', having been an editor since December 2007 -- he's just completely disinterested in learning policy (except to quote it out of context) or accepting other opinions (not just mine, but Guettarda's among others). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hrafn, I assume good faith and fully trust that DL will learn. The hard way if need be ;) . . dave souza, talk 21:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that people are capable of learning from their mistakes is rather different from assuming good faith. Particularly when one has seen no glimmer of such a capacity to date. The Devil's Dictionary defines cynic as "A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Cirt dislikes having a tag in the title"

[2] - no need to refer to indidual users in edit summaries like that. It is simply inappropriate to have a tag directly inside of a subsection header like that. Directly below the subsection header, sure, but not inside of it. Cirt (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were the "individual" whose objection to the tag I was responding to, so I see no reason why you shouldn't be named in the edit summary. Information contained in section titles needs to be accurate, just as any other content. A tag "directly below" it would be ambiguous. I prefer not to have to tag them -- but sometimes am given little choice by the actions of other editors. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"as Cirt insists on belabouring this obvious point"

[3] - Please stop referring to individual editors like this in edit summaries. It is not conducive to a constructive and collaborative atmosphere. Please comment on content, not on contributors. That is the second time you have done this, after, I brought this up, above. Please stop. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 11:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were insisting on belabouring the obvious point of whether FFWP and the UC were the one and the same -- and failing to allow time for an explanation on talk & thus forcing me to insert a perfectly superfluous reference (how many times is a reference required for mere alternate names?). I was annoyed at your behaviour, so I criticised it in my edit summary. I was commenting on your actions, so used your name to identify it. It was not a "personal attack" as defined by WP:NPA. As far as I know, Wikipedia convention does not interpret merely using an editor's nick in an edit summary (or anywhere else) as a "personal attack", so your demand that I not use yours would appear to be baseless. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lets just try to stick to describing what we are doing in our edit summaries, rather then engaging a in meta dialog about others. Prodego talk 12:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hugh

I'm starting a page for us to debate Creation - Evolution, so if you have a problem with something, I'll take it there. Refreshments (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#FORUM. My comments on your page were merely an attempt to point out difficulties you might experience, should you attempt to make an article out of material you have at User:Refreshments/Draft: Scientific Evidence for Creationism‎. Oh, and the name's not "Hugh". :) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A simple request

Wow, that was quick. I was about to change the wiki evolution to modern evolutionary theory (since the term 'evolution' is so broad) and *poof!* there goes my change of "creationism" to "ID" from 30 seconds ago. I guess there isn't room for any editorial changes when it comes to this topic, seeing how closely watched it obviously is; I won't try it again and waste my time. However, I wanted to comment on this, not because I'm some Discovery Institute supporter (hello, I'm not even a Republican!), but because I found some of the language on the page to be veering away from the language of a dictionary. I was coming at this from an editorial perspective; I have absolutely zero desire to get into the messy debate that goes on about these topics.

Anyway, since it seems that you are the gatekeeper, I'll just ask you to consider allowing two changes: 1) the 'evolution' bit of 'anti-evolution' to 'modern evolutionary theory.' Evolution is too broad of a term--not very specific. Modern evolutionary theory is what is being taught in public schools, which is the context of the sentence and topic. Using the term 'anti-evolution' is technically incorrect, considering that the definition of the term 'evolution' is not really what this group opposes (since any scientist supporting ID would also say that of course 'evolution' is occurring every day). Also, using language like 'anti' usually comes off as biased and doesn't help anyone. (For example, consider an entry defining NARAL as "anti-life" and watched over by pro-life wikipedia members--this would be unfair due to not using the term that the group would use for themselves ("pro-choice" or "pro-abortion rights"). We would not allow that as it's biased language.) It's totally unnecessary to use this defensive language when the entire article cuts their ideas down anyway. My main point is just that it would be more accurate to say "challenges modern evolutionary theory." That's quite clear and does not take sides as it merely describes what the group was advocating--it's not supporting it in any way.

2) May we change "creationism" to "ID" "theories" ('theories' being a separate wiki)? First--to comment on the word "theories"--look at the wikipedia definition. I already understand that ID is denounced as not being a 'scientific theory' for different reasons and that that term is emotional (kind of bizarre how emotional, actually). I'm not using that term. Rather, a 'theory' is simply a theory--nice and generic, and in no way does it imply that it's a bona fide Scientific Theory as everyone so emotionally rails against. Also, I thought 'theories' was more accurate (and would even more clearly remove it from the former assumption) since the kind of ideas the group was advocating to be taught were a loose group of theories they believe contribute to the broader overarching theory of ID. Finally, there is a big difference between creationism and ID. Clearly, however, that delineation is not acceptable on wikipedia (considering the entry on ID that basically states that all scientists interested in or supportive of ID theory are really just creationists, which is just not correct--I have heard plenty of people speak on the topic who were clear about being non-religious/agnostic/atheist). So why the need to define what they call ID as creationism, since that accusation is already in place on the entry defining ID? It's unnecessary; let's just state in a matter-of-fact way what they were advocating.

Maybe I'm just wasting time...notice I didn't attempt to change anything else, since I assumed that the wording was all volatile material. I just wanted to bring these little words up, because if the gatekeepers of these pages want entries in their favor, would it not benefit *everyone* to encourage more accurate terms and less language that could be accused of being biased? Thanks for hearing me out. Efrafra (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ID is not a (scientific) theory, therefore calling it such violates WP:WTA#Theories and hypotheses
  2. ID is not even a "theory" in the colloquial sense, as it is really just a set of arguments-why-evolution-can't-happen (e.g. Irreducible complexity, Specified complexity). It offers no positive theory (as ID advocates themselves admit on occasion).
  3. The DI's disagreement with evolution is not confined to the modern evolutionary synthesis -- it quite frequently wanders into palaeontology & who knows what else.
  4. "Finally, there is a big difference between creationism and ID." Baloney! ID is Neo-Creationism. It retreads the same old creationist anti-evolution arguments, with the same relgious motivation, it just dresses it up in sciencier language and does its (imperfect) best to hide the fact that by 'Designer' they really mean God (but repeatedly let the cat out of the bag when they don't think anybody on the other side is looking). (The reason that this gets a bald "Baloney!" is that I've heard the 'ID isn't Creationism' assertion dozens of times -- always with no, or spurious, substantiation.)
  5. Finally, your edit was not a 'minor' edit and the edit summary was misleading.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guess you've been watching TFN and the exciting news that ID creationism can once again be tried out in public school science classroom teaching, and tested in court. Looks like classes could get very detailed, with children being asked to “analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning any data on sudden appearance and stasis and the sequential groups in the fossil record" and "Analyze and evaluate the evidence regarding formation of simple organic molecules and their organization into long complex molecules having information such as the DNA molecule for self-replicating life.” So, they'll be pulling out all the stops again to pretend that ID = science. . dave souza, talk 09:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Punctuated equilibrium & abiogenesis as high school science topics? How to confuse the kids in two easy lessons. :/ HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad faith

Hi. You made a request for comments. The stuff needs to stay, so people know what they are commenting on. As far as "disputed section" goes, let's not bias the discussion. At the end you can see what the consensus is.Likebox (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If at the end of the day, people think that hypnosis, ball lightning, etc, is OR, then delete them. I am sure that they won't, if they bother to read the sources.Likebox (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The accuracy of this list has been disputed by a number of editors: dave souza, Kenosis, & myself. You appear to be the sole editor supporting the current list. Removal of the tag stating that it is "disputed" is thus "in bad faith". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I have seen portions of the discussion page that I have written get deleted. Not archived, but deleted. Have you threatened removal for those people? I am all for keeping the sanctity of your page, but not at the cost of misinformation. An amicable solution would be preferrable for both of us as I am sure I can use any number of IP addresses.

I ask to allow me to respond to why I believe I am not violating the rules, then you archive if you have a consensus. You left messages for me already, leave a message with a consensus of the contributors and I will have no problem with your archival, after being allowed a day to respond to why I am being archive. Further, stop deleting my discussion.

Is this a fair resolution? Thanks Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.190.1 (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your interminable WP:SOAPboxng on Talk:Objections to evolution is not "relevant to improving the article" so may be deleted at any editor's discretion. Either give your discussions a basis in sources (without WP:SYNTH) or policy, or expect your comments to be archived, userfied and/or deleted. You appear to have exhausted the patience of all the editors on that talkpage. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Unification Church political views

An article that you have been involved in editing, Unification Church political views, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unification Church political views. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sites critical of flood geology

I moved it to the talk page for discussion. This is the sort of thing that should be discussed, where one party says only sites critical, and the other says no sites critical or pro. It looks weird, without explanation, for an encyclopedia article, particularly as these are not peer-reviewed links. Please join the discussion rather than creating an edit war. --KP Botany (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noah's Ark Zoo Farm

Don't know if you've seen this one, I'm guessing not, because it needs serious work. I've shifted the POV towards neutrality a bit, but I know it can be improved. It's still biased towards creationism. I changed the cringe-inducing "Not surprisingly, supporters of evolution oppose Bush's creationism" in the Creationism section to "Supporters of evolution, backed by scientific consensus, oppose Bush's creationism" but I don't like the "supporters of evolution" wording because it's tautological. I know you can do better. Cheers... Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

I think it wasn't necessary. Regards! V1t 14:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This level of excessive detail certainly "wasn't necessary" in an article WP:LEAD. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks for info. V1t 16:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment on Hak Ja Han

You had commented earlier on the talk page, so you may wish to comment in this ongoing Request for comment: Talk:Hak_Ja_Han#RfC:_Sentence_about_marriage_to_Sun_Myung_Moon. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

In light of the Todd Friel AfD, I decided to look back at the original AfD. I read my first line in support of keeping the article, "sources don't establish notability, facts do", and was amazed. Wow, that view has truly changed. Although you drove me completely crazy a couple months ago, you did teach me much about notability. So thank you. TheAE talk/sign 02:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Robert V. Gentry

An article that you have been involved in editing, Robert V. Gentry, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert V. Gentry. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Borock (talk) 06:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qur'an and science

I wonder if you might be interested in having a look at this article, and making any comments you feel like on the talk page. I think it's in your general interest area. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at it when it was posted on WP:FRINGE/N & have now watchlisted it. I agree its a problematic article, but I'm not sure how much I can do, as what sources it cites are mostly offline (especially Encyclopedia of the Qur'an) -- meaning that it is difficult to prove that the article over-reaches the sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has posted (some of) the relevant parts to the talk page (that isn't what I quite thought they meant). One problem I have is that it seems to directly source itself to the Qur'an to support arguments. And it's just not very well written. Cheers, Verbal chat 18:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment left stranded

This edit, stricken with[out] remorse after chiding by Auntie, has left your witty response stranded – as well to remove it ;) . . dave souza, talk 19:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Here you removed AIOWiki from the see also. Why isn't it a crediable source? Erwin Springer [talk] 00:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although not a RS, I would agree that AIOWiki has "a substantial history of stability [in existence for several years] and a substantial number of editors [over 200]." Seems fine as a EL, but not a source. TheAE talk/sign 00:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
200 editors? Maybe. But this would appear to indicate that few, beyond the 6 admins are in any way active. (I did a quick analysis of it based upon the 500 most recent changes as of a couple of minutes ago, and 94.8% of those edits were due to 5 admins. Erwin Springer alone was responsible for 2/3 of these edits.)
It is true that most edits are due to admins, (I don't know much about wikipedia and reliable sources) but we have no "untrue" information. Erwin Springer [talk] 01:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am not claiming that the wiki has "'untrue' information" ("inaccurate material"), however it probably fails WP:ELNO #2 as "unverifiable research", in addition to failing #12. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 01:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I understand now, thanks. Erwin Springer [talk] 01:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Extremist or fringe" source?

Please explain at Talk:Mt._Blanco_Fossil_Museum#New_Man_as_a_source. --GRuban (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Missler (4th nomination). Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EAAN

Go take your hair-splitting, how-many-angels-can-dance-upon-a-pin, idiocy somewhere else. I ain't buying.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You suggested several times that ID and EAAN are intimately related. It seems there are two main arguments on your side:

Plantinga presented the argument at Intelligent Design conferences (Creationism's Trojan Horse p269).
It has been discussed in a book about ID and its critics.

Here is my response.

  1. The argument is an argument against Naturalism given evolution. It can't be reformed to be an argument against evolution given naturalism, because as Plantinga says himself, "for the naturalist evolution is the only game in town". James Beilby writes in his foreword to Plantingas Argument(Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism - Essays on Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, 2002, p. vii) : "Plantinga's argument should not be mistaken for an argument against evolutionary theory in general or, more specifically, against the claim that humans might have evolved from more primitive life forms. Rather, the purpose of his argument is to show that the denial of the existence of a creative deity is problematic. It is the conjunction of naturalism and evolution that suffers from the crippling deficiency of self-defeat, a deficiency not shared by the conjunction of theism and current evolutionary doctrine." The conclusion of the argument is interesting for any non-naturalist or theist (and may be presented at any conference concerning all sorts of theisms/deisms). But this doesn't relate the argumet more intimately to ID than any argument of natural theology. As a matter of fact, an ID proponent has a problem deploying the argument: if he convinces his naturalis friend of the truth of ID instead of evolution, he can't use EAAN anymore, since evolution is a premis of EAAN.
What part of "The ID movement is not only opposed to the theory of evolution, but to naturalism more generally" did you fail to understand? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. EAAN is in the book for the mentioned reasons. There is also a chapter on theistic evolution in the book. Yet, theistic evolution clearly isn't related to ID in the sense required by wikipedia.
    What part of Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics did you fail to understand? TEs are "critics" of ID, as anybody with half a brain can see. Plantinga & his EAAN are part of the ID movement. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Plantinga may or may not agree to evolution. He may even be a proponent of ID (which is not at all clear). But even if he was a fierce proponent of ID, this doesn't automatically relate all his work to ID. I have read quite a lot of Plantingas work (Knowledge of god, god and other minds, naturalism defeated, God, Freedom, and Evil, The Analytic Theist: An Alvin Plantinga Reader and some essays) and he never so much as mentions ID. ID is not present in his work and most notably EAAN is not related to ID, because it has evolution as its premise.
    WP:DUCK. (i) Plantinga is a prominent ID supporter ("which is not at all clear" -- complete and utter dishonest BALONEY!). (ii) EAAN argues against one of ID's bugbears (naturalism). (iii) Plantinga has presented EAAN at at least one ID conference. (iv) A prominent ID-observer, Robert T. Pennock has included considerable discussion of EAAN in an anththology on ID. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to have convinced you that for the sake of the quality of wikipedia the ID passage and tag should be gone. If this is not enough, we'll have to let other people decide who's got the better arguments. Thanks.--194.124.140.39 (talk) 06:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has convinced me that I don't want to see you, your tendentious argumentation or your idiotic edit-warring ever again. Good day to you sir. You are not welcome on this talkpage. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Frederick Sontag

An article that you have been involved in editing, Frederick Sontag, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Sontag. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Borock (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal remarks about Ed Poor

  • If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. [4]

Please do not hound me, per official English Wikipedia policy cited above. Thank you. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed: you write a large amount of material that is non-compliant with WP:V, WP:NOR & WP:NOTE -- as evidenced by the shear volume of your contributions that get reverted, deleted, redirected and userfied. It is therefore neither "tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior" to occasionally take a glance at your contributions & tag/template/recommend-for-deletion. To be blunt I am almost as sick of your paranoia (see also this absurd claim of persecution) as by your pervasive violation of policy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 01:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second request: Your reference to my supposed "paranoia" is a personal attack. Take it back, or I'll register a complaint. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed: your unsubstantiated accusation of persecution that evoked the accurate (and thus WP:SPADE) description of "paranoia" was in gross violation of WP:AGF. Your demand therefore appears entirely WP:POT. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Blackmore

Hi. I see that you added this tag to the article in December 2008, but didn't use the talk page. Can you discuss what you see as original research so that I can attempt to fix it? Also, is there a reason you are using multiple cite tags without just tagging the section? Are there claims made here that do not seem reasonable? Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost 5 months ago, so I'm having to reconstruct my thinking here, but I think the {{or}}s are for the amount of editorialising ("clearly written works are aimed at a wide readership", "although the term has been widely used it is often misunderstood", "perhaps the most thorough introduction to memetics"). The reason I didn't "just tag[] the section" was that I've previously had complaints for removing non-compliant material without giving tags for the specific material objected to. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I see it now. I'm trying to help fix it as time permits. It wasn't immediately obvious, because the first place I go to find these things is the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 09:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dnftt, or whatever

Probably time to ignore him until he has something useful to say. Guettarda (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now why do I lack the ability to listen to my own advice? :) Guettarda (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because if they didn't have the power to get under our skins and make us react at least just a little irrationally, then they wouldn't be trolls. DNFTT is a bit like 'don't think about elephants' in that regard. It may be good advice, but in practice it's very hard to follow, in other than a less-than-perfect manner. :) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note

An ANI thread in which your edit(s) were brought up has been marked as resolved. It was closed as "wrong venue" - you may, however, wish to review the thread and follow-up wherever it went afterwards. –xeno talk 15:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WQA

I have reported you for your personal attacks at WP:WQADrew Smith What I've done 03:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

AfD

Hi, I easily found sources to show clear notability for David Friedman, I think you should withdraw the nomination for deletion. Fences and windows (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Clear notability"? Don't make me laugh. You dug up a bunch of awards too obscure to rate wikipedia articles, a (too) obscure (to rate an article) song performed by a major artist, and a bunch of unnamed (and thus likewise obscure) songs performed by other major artists. None of this meets WP:COMPOSER. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church

Your "cleanup" of the Harrison references has greatly reduced their utility to the reader, removing all internal references. I am pondering whether to revert them, despite the subsequent edits (some also unhelpful). I shall be continuing to work on this article, and suggest you refrain from further "improvements" until this process is over. Thank you. Johnbod (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. When referencing an article, it is standard practice to cite simply the article as a whole. I would suggest that if there is difficulty finding the information referred to in a 7,000-8,000 word article, this would probably mean that an unhealthy amount of WP:SYNTH was involved. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember hearing a more ridiculous suggestion frankly! Why? Obviously if no internal reference is given to such an article, then the whole thing has to be read until the point is encountered. In an article like Harrison's, with conclusions at the end, the initial statement of a point may not be the only or most concise one. It is not "standard practice to cite simply the article as a whole" at all - where do you get this idea? In a printed article, page numbers are naturally expected, and in online ones, whatever section refs etc that are available. Why precise references, and quotations such as you removed, should "probably mean" WP:SYNTH is beyond me. Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Cup

I decided to create a separate page for the 2009 edition because of the tournament's enhanced stature. With the South American champions and several Champions League participants, I believe that this tournament has achieved the stature to warrant the detailed coverage that a separate page can provide. If we leave it on the main Peace Cup page in its current format, all we'll document is the participants in the final. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooperwx (talk • contribs) 19:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What "enhanced stature"? It is a vanity tournament that gets no significant coverage (generally merely passing mention in articles about the doings of the competing teams). It existing purely because the Unification Church has seen fit to pay for it to exist. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the stature is not enhanced, but it will surely garner more attention being that it is out of Korea and in a football mad area and a time zone where most fans of the involved clubs can follow it. I must admit I'd never heard of it until Celtic was forced to pull out. Then I looked at the field (on Wikipedia) and was shocked at the big names. How do we determine how much Wikipedia would benefit from documenting the details of a sporting event? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooperwx (talk • contribs) 19:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basing the (re)creation of an article on the prediction that "it will surely garner more attention" is WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia waits until significant third-party WP:RS coverage eventuates. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An apology for my poor attitude and condescending remarks

The heading says it all. I'm finding your rigorous editorial scrutiny hard to adjust to, but hope you will accept my apology and continue to work with me to improve A Scientific Theology. Muzhogg (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Peters

Another editor has added the prod template to the article Ted Peters, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. If you wish to contest the proposed deletion, please remove the “prod tag”. from the article. All contributions are appreciated, but the nominating editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the “prod” template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Varbas (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool user page

[ Overlong and ludicrous defence of gross violation of WP:PSTS, via overly long synopses of The Inevitability of Patriarchy‎ & Why Men Rule‎, deleted. Discussion has commenced on their talkpages & further comment on this thread here is not welcome & will be reverted without comment. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC) ][reply]

AfD

I've just nominated an article you edited for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean M. Kelley. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SYN

Someone re-re-redirected SYN to synthesis, thus confusing the bot. Rich Farmbrough, 11:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

{{SYN}}, not {{Syn}}. Rich Farmbrough, 21:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

On Flood Geology

I see you reverted Anyone77's wholesale changes; I did a bit of pruning on his next more judicious edit...I think the canopy business is mentioned on the mechanics of creation science page, so I consider it notable for a paragraph or two, but I'll bow to your judgment here. The quoted text is way too damn long though. Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube as RS

Hi, I just wanted to drop a note in regards to this edit. You're actually mistaken, and there are examples where YouTube is perfectly fine as RS. rootology (C)(T) 05:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that irrelevant exception to the general rule. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 00:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philosopher's analogies

Great job on your mastery of the philosopher's analogy. Except, of course, that your example is too clear...anyone can understand it, even if they haven't mastered the obscure language and terminology that (some? most?) philosophers use in an attempt to ensure that no one outside of their subfield can understand what they're trying to say. Guettarda (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nice analogy. Reminds me of what the greatest philospher of our time said about zebra crossings. . . dave souza, talk 15:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The more I read about EAAN, the more I read of Plantinga's "arguments", the more I think of our dear departed friend. EAAN is a clever argument (clever like a 12-year-old "proving" that the rules don't apply to him), but you can't change reality through clever arguments. Guettarda (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sock on Mount Ararat

Prof.Tomson (talk · contribs) is almost certainly a sock puppet/troll. The name is a play on Robert W. Thomson, a noted Armeniologist whose conclusions about the dating of Moses of Chorene some Armenian Wikipedia editors have found "unacceptable". --Folantin (talk) 07:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am grateful that you take some time babysitting the Mount Ararat article, Hrafn, but you sould avoid entering discussions with trolls. If an IP is making weird claims about Armenians or Mount Ararat, the first step should be to check if the IP traces to Richardson, TX. If it does, its contributions should just be rolled back. If new accounts then pop up to join the fray, it is likely that Ararat arev (talk · contribs) is feeling bored again, and these accounts should also be rolled back and blocked. Anything else is just likely to encourage the troll. Most trolls are essentially attention suckers and they get bored sooner or later if they realize they are having no effect on anyone. --dab (𒁳) 07:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: EAR on EAAN

Please to be informed of this thread here... Cheers, Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pentateuchal criticism

Hi. I see you've been taking an interest in Pentateuchal criticism, an article which I started. I started it because I felt there was a need for a treatment of the entire range of critical approaches to the Torah, one that went beyond just the documentary hypothesis, and beyond the question of the books' origins and composition. Unfortunately it's too big a job for me to complete, or even advance. If you are interested, I'd be most grateful if you took it up. PiCo (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That article came onto my radar due to looking for sources to shore up Noah's ark & similar articles. Given that it was itself almost completely unsourced, it proved little help, so I simply tagged it, watchlisted it & moved on. I'm very much an editor who finds it necessary to find sources first, before writing articles, so I'm unlikely to be of much help on Pentateuchal criticism, beyond watchlisting & pruning material that chronically fails to be verifiable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Clergy Leadership Conference

Hi, You turned this into a redirect quoting WP:V "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.", but there has been little time for anyone to try to find sources as the article was only 1.5 hours old and had not been tagged with {{unref}}. I've reverted your edit, and added "unref". I've got no particular interest in the topic,just came across it while stub-sorting and decided it was wrongly named so Moved it. I usually add {{unref}} in passing, forgot on this occasion. Your edit, effectively deleting the article, seemed premature. PamD (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The creator, Ed Poor, has a long-standing reputation for creating unsourced/OR articles -- so no, its redirection was not premature. I would suggest that sources come first, then the article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love The Onion....

This is just too damn accurate for words... :) Auntie E (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<groucho>Let me tell that I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that The Onion would stoop to lampoon the viewpoint espoused by (among other heavily phidded individuals) "a leading spokesperson within the scientific community" as something less than rigorous, insightful, and all-around-really-quite-amazing.</groucho> HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, ordered your copy?
"formulated as a rigorous and positive scientific argument-specifically one called “an inference to the best explanation.” The book shows, ironically, that the argument for intelligent design from DNA is based on the same method of scientific reasoning that Darwin himself used.
Book & Bible Cover Size: Large"
Wonder if that method is Paley's natural theology, or the rather unworkable idealist school put forward in William Whewell's Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences? No doubt there will be reviews.... dave souza, talk 03:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, and I probably wouldn't even be aware of its imminent release if I hadn't been plugged into the Disco 'Tute's Nota Bene mailing list. It has produced scarcely a ripple as yet -- barely perceptible even when you know to look for it. I look forward to reading some more competent reviews of it when copies get beyond the echo chamber to those who actually know what they're talking about. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few days on, and still no attention from other-than-pro-ID sources, and no independent reviews: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. <shrugs> HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionism + related pages & categories

Hi Hrafn! You have reverted the parent-Categories I have added to som Evolutionism related pages: I have to oppose You! ;)

  1. As what I can sum into th eterm of Evolutionism, there is also the question of creationism. So, I see it as realy religion-related topic (even, if both accept the existance of the God).
  2. Except that, there are still people, who see Evolutionism even as absolute rejection of such its existance.
  3. Even more there, could also be a realy non-religious understanding, as a everyday life philosophy.

So, You have reverted my categories twice for Category:Evolutionist Wikipedians (see the history: [5]), but I still would put it in them. How will we resolve this? ;) Franta Oashi (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Evolutionism is not a religion -- so Category:Evolutionist Wikipedians should not be included in Category:Wikipedians by religion
  2. Evolutionists includes theistic evolutionists -- so Category:Evolutionist Wikipedians should not be included in Category:Nontheistic Wikipedians

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Evolutionists

I notice that Oashi (see previous section) has created Category:Evolutionists and done a bunch of other category adjustments. Can you remember a case of a category something like "Evolutionists" that was created and deleted some months ago? I thought we had finished that argument. Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The CFD discussion (closed as delete) is here Guettarda (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably G4 applies to categories as well as articles? Guettarda (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Did you notice this discussion? User_talk:Oashi#Category Generation? Franta Oashi (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what's a personal attack?

Even when made in good faith, calling another editor's posts ludicrous and hysterical edges towards a personal attack because it echoes back so strongly on the editor and besides, it only stirs things up more. Stick to talking about the sources and content and more often than not, everything gets easier, one way or another. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Hi Hrafn. I've just proposed merging Unification Church and antisemitism into Divine Principle. Please join in the discussion, if you like. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow people

I noticed you removed some links from the article citing WP:EL. What was the basis? I've been letting the links sit for a bit, and I'm interested to know why you removed, so I can advance my wiki policy knowledge. Thanks and cheers :) Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELNO #16 & #6 respectively HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Peace Cup

Unfortunately the www.peacecup.com is in flash design and that's why I had to get the schedule of the tournament from goalzz.com website.

What other sources should I collect to keep this page alive?

Sorry for anything, it's the first page I add in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StormRuller (talk • contribs) 19:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" -- as I have already told you. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some reason that you've taken such a personal interest in this soccer tournament when you've not been particularly active in editing on the topic before? matt91486 (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had been involved in Peace Cup for over a year. My aim was to prevent a constellation of articles proliferating that are simply "routine news coverage of such things as … sports". However I've recently run into a clique of rabid sports fans who clearly believe that wikipedia should be "routine news coverage of such things as … sports", more "routine news coverage of such things as … sports", yet more "routine news coverage of such things as … sports", 5-2, still more "routine news coverage of such things as … sports", 2-all, further "routine news coverage of such things as … sports", 1-nil, 2-1, yet further "routine news coverage of such things as … sports", 4-1, nil-all, spam, 3-1, 1-all, spam, "routine news coverage of such things as … sports", 2-1, spam, 3-1, spam, spam, …

As I have a distaste for lost causes, I am now leaving them (and I would suspect yourself) to routine coverage of every match and goal (and I would suspect every scuff to a footballer's boot if you could manage it) in mind-numbing, excruciating detail. It is WP:NOT what wikipedia is there for, but then again nor are the endless bare plot summaries, episode lists, recitations of raw election results, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc that editors insist on inflicting, and ganging together to preserve. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Malformed purported] 3RR Warning at Creationism

Commentor are (i) themselves edit-warring against consensus & (ii) haven't read WP:3RR: "more than three revert actions"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You apprear to have broken the 3RR revert by three times reverting one of my edits to the article Creationism within a 24 hour period. I will make the amendment again and I implore you to allow the discussions that I have started at the Talk page for the article to reach a conclusion and for consensus to emerge before making any similar actions

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=301799887&oldid=301799578 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=301864068&oldid=301863828 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=301866409&oldid=301864857

--Hauskalainen (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I would further point out that the commentor's own edit action more-or-less simultaneous with this comment constituted their fourth within 24 hours, and so they themselves are guilty of precisely the wrongdoing that they, incorrectly, accuse me of. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC) )[reply]

table

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_World_Cup#Matches then these should be deleted as well? thx user talk:rokengalan —Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument for retention. And I would point out that the tables in question have a far more prominent source (the South African government) than yours do. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Careful...

Hi Hrafn! Comments like this are problematic if accusations of edit warring come up. 3RR is not an entitlement. I agree that Hauskalainen's edit is "not an improvement", but keep WP:TIND in mind. Neither of you needs to revert after each and every exchange of opinion on the talk page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Memory

What would constitute a good third-party source for Virtual Memory? I have found news articles, webpages with pictures of the show (both screenshots of episodes, and on-set photos taken by contestants), and a full episode on YouTube. I was going to add them, but figured I'd check to be certain they were acceptable.

Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.211.207 (talk) 05:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source. Third party means a party not involved in some way with the show. Fansites would generally be considered neither third party nor reliable. News coverage would need to be more than 'trivial' mention and mere announcements to count. Youtube (with a few very narrow exceptions such as the Whitehouse youtube channel) is generally considered to be never a reliable source. WP:NOTE gives more detailed info. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I understand. I don't think any of the sources will fit the guidelines...oh well.

Thanks a lot for getting back to me and taking the time to explain things. It'll definitely help me in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.50.232 (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary Text Comment

"Darwin was not both SIMULTANEOUSLY" (a creationist and an evolutionist).

On the contrary there is lots of evidence that Darwin believed that God had created the universe and the laws within it, including the laws that drive natural selection. His rejection of the whole contents of the Bible as historical truth is nowadays nothing unusual and many scientists have little trouble believing in a God that created the laws of the universe. Where is your evidence for thinking otherwise?--Hauskalainen (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Theist ≠ Creationist
  2. Antievolutionism = Creationism (the Creationist movement was originally known as the anti-evolution movement)
  3. General opinion seems to be that Darwin was an agnostic later in life.

But I'm quite tired enough of your arguments on Talk:Creationism, so don't really want to entertain them further here -- see the header at the top of this page. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Always amusing...

...to see someone feeding me alphabet soup their thirteenth edit... :) Auntie E (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • ETA: at least she didn't wikilink it... Auntie E (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be better if she(?) read it. Her edits are after all in gross violation of its instructions on sourcing. :/ HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The artful POV pusher knows to accuse others of what they themselves are doing. Auntie E (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent rv on DI

I'm looking at this this edit of yours, and I remember the discussion about whether to classify DI as non-partisan or conservative in the lead, but I don't remember any discussion about what they describe themselves as. I wouldn't doubt they described themselves as non-partisan, but if there has been consensus against this, I'd rather see it than dig through their website to find the answer. Auntie E (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the cited source doesn't say that they describe themselves as "non-partisan" (and the source I just removed didn't have them explicitly describing themselves as anything). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good; I was just confused by the summary. Auntie E (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was right (the revert) for the wrong reasons (the edit summary), is all. :) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 20:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baraminology

Please see the new thread I started here. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

undo

You may notice I undid an edit you made to a talk page. Let me know if you want we to explain why this is not a good idea. Regards, cygnis insignis 18:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


My action was explicitly permitted per WP:TALK:

  • "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article"
  • "Removing personal attacks and incivility."

The comment served no purpose other than as another venting of Christian Skeptic's longstanding animosity due to the fact that the WP:CONSENSUS on Creationism articles pretty much never allows him to insert his pro-Creationism POV. It was neither even remotely civil, nor even remotely related to "improving the article". As such its removal was a no-brainer. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines says it is controversial, there is a lot of irrelevant material on that page, and the comment did not name anyone. There are several links I can provide, but this is one of the more specific ones. I can provide some links that discuss this in greater detail, if you are interested in helping the talk page focus on improving the article. cygnis insignis 19:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noticed the comment earlier when rather busy, it struck me as a grossly uncivil accusation aimed at other editors and hence a personal attack on specific contributors as well as a failure to assume good faith. Removal of a comment with no relevance to improving the article, per. WP:TALK, is much better than responding to such attacks. . . dave souza, talk 21:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the guideline only states that it is "controversial" (but by no means forbidden) for the second point -- the first point is uncontroversial. CS currently appears to have no interest in attempting to gain consensus for any edits, just in registering (with unnecessary bitterness) his dissent at the current consensus -- I therefore don't see what purpose leaving his comments in place, or attempting to address his comments or behaviour, serves. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good call, have dropped hint. . . . dave souza, talk 07:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been as subtle. cygnis insignis 13:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unsourced [SOURCED] criticim to the article on Ian Stevenson

"Critics have described reincarnation research of Stephenson's type as [[pseudoscience]].<ref name="shermer">''[[The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience]]'' by [[Michael Shermer]] & [[Pat Linse]], 2002, ISBN 1576076539 </ref>" Need a clue? Have a WP:TROUT!
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi, I see you have added the unsourced criticism that Stevenson's work has been described as pseudoscience to the lede in his biography. I have created a section on the talk page where you comply with WP:BURDEN and provide the quotation(s) that support this. The section is here [6]. I'd be grateful if you could fill it in or remove the unsourced criticism from the lede until such times as you have been able to find a source that supports this.

Thanks Noirtist (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should also know that there was a survey of sorts doen here [7] to determine whether the information you have added should be in the lede. At the moment, while many would support the text you added, there is an understanding amongst most who have commented that the sources provided so far do not meet WP:V. Anyway, feel free to add your comments to the discussion on talk. Noirtist (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russell T. Mixter

Can you please fix the listing for Russell T. Mixter I added to Wikipedia's "List of centenarians" article? Thank you!

Walter Breitzke

It might help if you (i) provided me with a link (like this:List of centenarians) & (ii) told me what needs fixing. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference template

Hello, I didn't quite understand what your issue is with this template. It is used by two articles already (Armenian Highland and Lake Van) and will be used many more times as this is a significant reference on the topic of Armenian History. (It is a collection of essays.) The template reduces significantly the amount of duplicate code to write when citing different essays. Serouj (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It is a hardcoded instance of template {{citation}}, where the same functionality could be provided by that other template." Creating a template for every source you want to cite would very quickly leave template-space very cluttered. "Duplicate code" can quite easily be handled by copying and pasting. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not if there should be CHANGES made to the citation. In that case, EVERY instance would have to be MANUALLY redone (needless to say, FINDING each reference would take quite a long time). With templates, any errors can be centrally managed. This is quite a legitimate use of templates, especially for a book like this that will be referenced many many times, and each article individually. Serouj (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using notes, references, and footnotes

Please read here for an understanding of the conventions that I am using in the Armenian Highland article. It is standard practice. Serouj (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the closest WP:NOTE comes is "Editors may also use the older system of template-based footnotes, such as {{ref label}} and {{note label}}" -- which is a precursor to <ref></ref> & {{reflist}} -- and not designed as a means of linking items in the reflist to items in the further reading section. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 21:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Isn't useful to link the years especially when there specific events in the article are related to them ? I might be wrong - I always find useful to have a "live time line" available when I read about history. Regards. --JeanandJane (talk) 05:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It "isn't useful" -- it is a form of WP:OVERLINKING. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Wim E. Crusio

An article that you have been involved in editing, Wim E. Crusio, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wim E. Crusio. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Crusio (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

A pre-emptive response to Firefly322's "examples"

It has come to my attention that, in addition to Firefly322's general whining, they're again making claims of WP:HARRASS at User talk:Gwen Gale#Request (still being followed...). This is my response to Firefly322's "examples":

  1. Roy Abraham Varghese: Firefly322's preferred version is nothing more than a mal-sourced (its sources include (i) a press release (ii) a publisher's endorsement-blurb & (iii) a source that does not even mention Varghese's authorship) bibliography (and as such fails WP:IINFO & WP:BIO). I would also point out that I've been a regular on this article for 8 months.
  2. William Kelly Harrison Jr.: I would suggest that my additions to this article are an unambiguous improvement.
  3. F. Alton Everest: likewise an unambiguous improvement, I think.
  4. Os Guinness: I don't think that my edits were unreasonable, given the woeful lack of sourcing on this article.
  5. Thomas Schirrmacher: the only alteration I made to Firefly322's edits was to correct a typo. I did however tag a completely unsourced 'biography' section in this WP:BLP and remove a vast amount of WP:SYNTH commentary from its vastly bloated bibliography (I would note that sole comment on article talk was supportive of severe pruning, and that the bibliography is still luducrously long, given the lack of sourced content.)
  6. Modern Theology: an unsourced & uninformative stub. Prod or redirect would seem to be the appropriate response.

In summary, I would suggest that I have had a positive impact on these articles. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if I may be permitted to present an example of my own:

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no personal attacks

This thread begun by you is a personal attack, which is not allowed. Although your edits seem to have been made in good faith, meant only to help the project, you can't help by also posting scathing cracks about other good faith editors: Comment only on sources and content, not on other editors, even more so if you're following them through the wiki having a go at trying to clean up articles they've started. It's very ok to quietly do what you see as "cleaning up" after another editor, it's not ok to nettle them with personal comments in the meantime, since the latter could easily mix up into (and be taken as) harassment, which has not yet happened and I'm leaving this friendly warning in the hope that it won't. Thanks for your thoughtful edits. If you run into something that strays from policy or could be more keenly written, please bring it up with the editor in a civil way. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thread in question was on (i) sources & (ii) edits, which I believe is within the guidelines of talkpages. As I pointed out in #1 above, I have been a regular on the article in question for 8 months, so it is not the result of "following them through the wiki" (I would further point out that I have a number of related articles such as Antony Flew & Christian apologetics on my watchlist, so this is hardly outside my area of interest). It was not "nettl[ing]" but an expression of annoyance at Firefly322's WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Given Firefly322's long-standing penchant for wild accusations (recent examples: WP:POINT[8][9], accusations of incivility for simply editing an article[10]), I have long since stopped caring what they think, and tend to only comment on outrageously miswritten articles (Roy Abraham Varghese & William Kelly Harrison Jr. immediately come to mind), or outrageously (& explicitly) spiteful removal of legitimate templates. If Firefly322 can't learn to either (i) write articles of sufficient quality that they don't near-ubiquitously require immediate repair (see also Thomas H. Lee (engineering professor) as an example) or (ii) take such remedial work in good grace (instead of with histrionic antipathy), then I would suggest that they are bound to encounter some fairly blunt responses. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Put it this way, following someone's edit trail and cleaning up after them is ok. Personal attacks are not ok and are blockable. Following someone and cleaning up after them whilst making personal attacks is WP:Harassment, the outcome of which can be swift and long blocks. This is a volunteer, high traffic, open editing project, which draws editors with many and sundry outlooks, skills, goals and ways. This can lead to much gnashing of teeth, most of us have to deal with that in editing here and hence, most experienced editors learn that each day, they must make choices as to where and how they want to spend their volunteer time. Attacking other editors only stirs things up (and away from encyclopedia building), along with driving them further from what you are trying to say and what you want them to understand and heed. Personal attacks bring only harm to an open editing project like en.Wikipedia. If you carry on making personal attacks, I will block you from editing. Comment only on content and sources, not other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Put it this way:

  1. I dispute that this thread constitutes a personal attack. It was a blunt impeachment of "content and sources".
  2. I dispute that it resulted from "following someone", as I have been a regular on that article for eight months. Except for the last couple of days, Firefly322 has been wholly inactive on it, for a period extending long before my first interaction with it.

I do not object to accurate criticism of my behaviour, but would insist that it have a factual basis. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I hope you don't mind me butting in here unasked. Hrafn, please take this as an attempt to help. We were at odds on the Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith article, even starting to edit war about it. At some point, I started talking with User:Verbal, who had been at your side in this conflict. Verbal responded reasonably, we both realized we had been getting hotheaded. At that point, I realized that a lot of my opposition to the redirect for PSCF to ASA had been because of the aggressive way in which you were taking apart my every comment, to the piont of "teaching me English". Granted, I'm not a native speaker, but that should cut me some slack, I think, not be a reason for snippety remarks. My point here is, had you been less aggressive in your comments, we probably would have gotten to a compromise much earlier. This would not only have been easier on me, it would have spared you aggravation, too, I am certain. Firefly is adding good faith content, you are often improving a lot on his articles. If you could just be a little bit nicer to him, FF would probably not mind you following that much and start appreciating your improvements and, probably, become motivated to listening to your advice and in time improve his style. Just my 5 cents... --Crusio (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I've already said that following someone's edits is ok. However, that thread is a personal attack. If you think the editor's writing or article building skills are so lacking as to be disruptive to the project and you get nowhere by talking to the editor about it in a civil way, start an RfC. Please keep in mind, there is no policy against crummy writing and dodgily built articles when these happen through good faith edits. Consensus is overwhelmingly likely to handle worries like that, though it can take a bit of time. If someone edit wars, take it to WP:AN3. If there is vandalism, take it to WP:AIV. If sourcing is thin, throw in some reliable sources. If the writing is weak and you care about the article, fix it. If there are PoV or weighting worries, bring them up on the talk page. If a topic isn't notable, either give it a CSD tag, prod it or take it to AfD. Anyway, now you know: Personal attacks aren't allowed on en.Wikipedia as a means for dealing with content or any other worries, ever. Also, please keep in mind, you can't wikilawyer your way out of heeding the policy against personal attacks. The easiest way to skirt making a personal attack is to comment only on sources and content, not on the other editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hrafn&diff=prev&oldid=306970206

Leave a Reply