User talk:Gniniv/Archive 1

COI Discussion

Gniniv, I've created a section concerning our dispute on the conflict of interest noticeboard. To be honest, I'm not sure if that is the most appropriate place to bring the issue, but it seemed to be worth a shot. You can find my post here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Gniniv. Just letting you know... Jess ^talk _cs 06:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate it Jess! I think all the editors will agree that this is a major conflict of interest....--Gniniv (talk) 07:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Ethics and Policy

(Slightly Edited for Clarity)

Han Chinese

Hi, I added some factual information to Han Chinese that stayed there for around a year, until last January, when someone suddenly decided for whatever flimsy reason, that it wasn't anything for readers to be informed about. I gave up on the hassle fighting to keep in in there, but you can still see the text here, please check it out, as you may find it informative. [1]

• Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw your Mediation request, but it's not accurate to say I was "banned" from editing anything. You might want to change that inaccuracy. Thanks. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction and I will do so...--Gniniv (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Genesis creation narrative. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You are practicing the dangerous habit of WP:BRRR. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

In view of not starting an edit war, I am requesting page protection for the article so we can hash it out...--Gniniv (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Objections_to_evolution. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Jess ^talk _cs 06:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the discussion got rather heated and I should have been more diplomatic...--Gniniv (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Objections to evolution

Hi Gniniv, looking at some of your recent arguments on the page, you're in danger of giving the impression that you're doing Google searches to support your personal opinions. That's not the best way to do research for a Wikipedia article. You're right that this is not a biology article and that other voices must be heard, but they must be high-quality sources. Their work needn't be peer-reviewed (there's a lot of nonsense that's peer-reviewed, so that should never be a criterion in itself), but with a topic like this you'd want the sources to be mainstream academics in an appropriate discipline, or at least people who've been part of the academic debate in some way.

If you want to find good criticism of some of the conceptual problems, I suggest you start with Mary Midgley, and used her bibliographies to find other sources. There's an interview with her here to get you started; I believe some of these ideas are dealt with in the article, though not attributed to her. Then perhaps you could write up something in your userspace to help structure your thoughts. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance and I will follow up on your tip....--Gniniv (talk) 04:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Geoff Clayton

The article Geoff Clayton (Geologist) has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article. (The source provided in the article didn't reference Clayton, or support the idea that he made the claim.)

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Jess ^talk _cs 18:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great. If anyone can help me get more references on this guy I would appreciate it...--Gniniv (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the deletion notice because I was able to provide the required information....--Gniniv (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Problems with Objections to evolution

Your recent edit to the page Objections to evolution appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. We've shown you with no less than 6 sources that this isn't correct, yet you added it again. Strike 1. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

How is the info incorrect? I would be happy to remove it if someone can tell me why it is wrong! I think everybody is tired of me talking about edits on the discussion page; why not actually allow some objections to evolution in the article?--Gniniv (talk) 06:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Objections to evolution. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Strike 2. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Vandalism constitutes blatant removal of references and destruction of articles, or the addition of obscenities. All I am doing is adding arguments with appropriate references...--Gniniv (talk) 06:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi, question about your recent request for page protection here in case you miss it. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Good question! I requested protection due to an ongoing edit war that I have been unable to resolve with the editors of the article. (See below for commentary)--Gniniv (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Citation Needed

I've noticed a number of instances where you've added a citation needed template where one is not needed. This is just a reminder to please check the references around the statement before adding a cn template. We don't need (or want) to put a link to a ref after every single sentence in every article... so it is quite common to place them after larger blocks of text, sometimes before or after the claims it covers. For instance, on Terrestrial planet, it took only a few seconds to check the ref immediately preceding your cn addition and do a search on the page to discover that it was indeed covered. So again, please check the existing refs first. Thanks Jess ^talk_cs 16:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, we don't need CN templates after every sentence. If a paragraph if uncited (like in Living dinosaur), it's appropriate to place a single cn template somewhere in the paragraph, and/or add a template to the top of the page or section about missing sources. Probably most important of all: Adding cn templates is very helpful to the project (so thanks for your efforts), but more helpful are editors who can track down and provide sources for content. If you come across something which is unsourced, and you have the time, it would be enormously appreciated if you could do a quick google search to pull up a rs for the content instead. Thanks again Jess ^talk_cs 16:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

An issue which has been raised before, see 'Fact-tagging' above. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, and I will do so...--Gniniv (talk) 05:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on objections to evolution. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Understood, my edits were not meant to cause a edit war, but I shall cease so it does not escalate...--Gniniv (talk) 04:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The editors of Talk: Objections to evolution are currently discussing there differences under a full protection lock down for focus purposes (See link for access)--Gniniv (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Good article status

Hi there. I have just reverted your removal of Objections to evolution from Wikipedia:Good articles. Wikipedia has a community-based process for delisting GAs that no longer meet the GA criteria. That process can be found at WP:GAR. Given that this article is about a controversial subject, and has been peer reviewed, individual reassessment would not be appropriate: a community-based reassessment would be advised. i hope this assists. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, I will reconsider the removal until the editors reach consensus on the article. I just wanted some attention drawn to some of the neutrality issues of the article...--Gniniv (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Dictionary Definitions

Hi, just a quick note on how dictionary definitions can be used. Dictionaries are tertiary sources, so rely on other sources for their word creation (ie in Macroecology). Ideally for wikipedia, secondary sources are preferred, as that is where the meaning of the words come from [[2]]. The other thing is using a dictionary meaning to provide a point of view (ie in Evolution as theory and fact) constituted synthesis / original research as the source is being extended (whether it makes logical sense or not, the result is open to interpretation or point of view). This reason for this can be seen with the word 'theory' as it has slightly different meanings in British English and American English, so the actual dictionary source can change the meaning of interpretation. cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

And they can be just plain wrong. I've seen definitions of archaeology that claim it's a study of the ancient past, which is just wrong. They shouldn't be used for technical/scientific subjects (unless perhaps they are technical/scientific dictionaries) for those we can always find better sources. Dougweller (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I am fine if that is truly the case, but I need a little more documentation to be convinced. The wikipedia definition of a tertiary source that you linked to did not include "dictionaries" as one of the examples (maybe I just missed it); but if you could document how a dictionary qualifies more as a tertiary source than otherwise I would appreciate it. On the second point, last I checked, Websters is a Dictionary of American English, so would my saying in a reference that the given definition is according to American English, qualify it to be considered?--Gniniv (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Dictionaries weren't listed as an example, but would fall under the same category as encyclopedias, as they are summaries of secondary sources. With dictionaries we also don't know their sources, and so they may not be up to date (or wrong as Doug stated). For scientific related articles, new words are often first used / defined in a peer reviewed journals, and so they would be ideal to use in wikipedia as they usually give a detailed definition and so leave no space for interpretation. On the second point, I think qualifying sources is a good idea, however if you're looking to use a dictionary in the context of eg. criticism, there's still the issue of synthesis (as you have a choice of which dictionary to use). You would be be on stronger ground if you referenced a notable expert's stated opinion instead, as it can be verified as fact and is less likely to be seen as cherrypicking (unless taken out of context). Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm convinced now that dictionaries are not allowable.--Gniniv (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Happy to help! (Though dictionaries do sometimes make valid references in relation to grammar and language eg. definitions of 'modal verbs etc, for most other things other sources are better) Clovis Sangrail (talk) 09:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Editing other's comments

Hi Gniniv. Welcome to Wikipedia. It is generally considered to be bad form to edit other user's comments on talk pages. I've reverted your change on the Talk:Objections_to_evolution page. I would suggest reading the talk page guidelines for more information on contributing to talk pages. Please ask if you have any questions. Good luck! Jess ^talk _cs 02:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I agree with your correction ...--Gniniv (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Microevolution#Reference_Vandal.3F. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. This section heading a personal attack aimed at editors, please don't do this again. Dougweller (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologise sincerely, my comments accusing a fellow editor of vandalism were out of line...--Gniniv (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Concerns about your talkpage

I see you are cutting and pasting comments from other pages to your talkpage. Please do not do this. This violates our guidelines about talkpage comments. You should not add comments from people who have not posted to your page. Please respond that you understand this, and remove the additions you have added. Thanks, Auntie E. (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha! I was ingorant that pasting comments violated policy. As you can see I removed them....--Gniniv (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

3rr

Please read WP:3rr and discuss your concerns on the article talk rather than edit warring. Also, please read reliable sources. Vsmith (talk) 04:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligence to preserve article integrity. As all my claims are thoroughly referenced and legitimate information (Please feel free to check all of them) and I have not deleted any prior information I believe this section can stay. --Gniniv (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Along those lines, your edits to the geology page are scary... at least two are directly Creationist Propaganda, and many others are nearly so. Only real science please, and that means real articles from real peer-reviewd publications. And yes, some of yours are that, but the important once you use are certainly not. Qfl247 (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your persistence to uphold "pure science"-but science itself is defined as the investigation of all evidence and the formation of a theory that attempts to explain the results. It is not the formation of a certain theory (whether that theory be currently accepted or not) and the dogmatic insistence that all alternative theories are not "pure science". Please also recognize that even if this reply is considered insane, all ideas must be accepted in a free encyclopedia like wikipedia, no matter how zany!--Gniniv (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

If you actually had ANY reliable sources or ANY actual evidence of the earth being young or what you speak of had ANY grounding in the modern debate of Geology, your content would be allowed. But, you are citing fringe 'science' that is less respected than UFO and Bigfoot research. Look, if you want your 'young earth' dogma to be accepted, find some evidence, and publish it in a real, peer-reviewed, journal. Of course, you could be part of the crowd that thinks there is a massive, worldwide conspiracy to hide this evidence... to which I say... how is your tin-foil hat fitting? Do the science like everyone else, then it can go on the Geology page. Until then, stick to the Young Earth Creationism page. Qfl247 (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to attempt any more to post my edits on Geology, it would only start a useless edit war. You can see some of my answers and debate below.

POV Fork

The article you just created, Catastrophic Geology, appears to be a POV fork, "a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts". You admit that yourself with your first edit summary: "Created Catastrophic Geology Article to counter Uniformitarian suppression of alternative interpretations in the main article." If suppression is going on in "the main article" (I suppose you mean in Geology, although Catastrophism might be a more appropriate place for the content you are interested in adding.), then you have to fight it out with the other editors of that article, or escalate in one of the conflict resolution processes available in the Wikipedia community. Creating a new article is not an acceptable process to correct a POV problem. If you understand what I'm saying, it would be nice if you would delete the article yourself, because that is faster and less bureaucratic. Otherwise I will start the normal process to discuss deletion of the article myself. (No hard feelings. I don't want to bite you. But there are many policies and processes in Wikipedia that make it work so well, and you will need some time to become familiar with them.) --Art Carlson (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Totally understand! I will delete the article and try to hash it out with editors of Geology!--Gniniv (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Fact-tagging

Hi there. Just so you know, it's considered poor form to add dozens of fact tags to articles; if you're interested in better citations, it is better to add some yourself and tag only the things that you can't find. Thanks, Awickert (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip and I will do just as you suggested--Gniniv (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Awickert (talk) 04:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a debating society...

Hello, I saw the request for a debate on the talk page of Objections to evolution. Since this is a project to build an encyclopedia, discussion content should be related to that . Talk pages aren't to be used to hold general debates. There are other places on the internet that are better suited to such endeavors such as talk.origins. For further clarification on the issue, please see WP:NOT for what Wikipedia is and is not. Thanks, Auntie E. (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and as you can see I have sourced the request to debate back to my personal talk page, so It will not take place in the article talk....--Gniniv (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you do not understand. Wikipedia does not host debates on your talkpage either. So please do not promote debating here at all. Auntie E. (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Capital letters and 'current'

Have a look at WP:MOSCAPS, esp. section headings. Wikipedia articles should be timeless, so words like 'current' or 'recent' don't belong in articles normally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 05:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Content policies

Hi!

I have reverted several edits by you. Since you're new here on Wikipedia, I suggest taking some time to read through WP:5, as well as to the policy pages linked from it. Specifically the three content policies WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Cheers! Gabbe (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, I intend to follow it, but please remind the other editors to due so as well....--Gniniv (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Debate on Uniformitarian Suppression of YEC and Other Alternative Theories

(Slightly edited for clarity)

Biology

Diversity or Microevolution is observed variance within a fertile kind. Evolution or Macroevolution is change from one kind to another. While the former has been observed and accepted by Darwinism and opponents, the latter has never been shown to conclusively happen. It seems that the proponents of Evolution should be more accurately called Macroevolutionists. Why the reluctance on the part of Darwinists to include both sides in the debate?--Gniniv (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Just being a bit of a troll here, but I've seen this argument a thousand times, but I've never seen a good definition of what a "kind" is. There's a huge amount of evidence that suggests that "kinds" isn't a great term to use when describing the world as it actually is. For example, certain bacteria species freely exchange genetic information with other species. Some plants can do the same thing. Wolves, coyotes, and dogs are all considered seperate species, yet they can interbreed, and in places where they frequently intermingle, entire populations of hybrid animals can be found. Also, the further back in the fossil record you go, the less features there are to distinguish between different types of creatures. The argument about micro-vs-macro, and "one kind to another can't happen" just isn't compelling to me without a definition of what a "kind" is.Quietmarc (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I, too, would very much like to see Creationists actually define "kind." It's been my experience that "kind" is a remarkably elastic term, and that regardless of what type of evolutionary change is observed, the inevitable claim is, "But that's only change within a kind! It's still the same kind!" --BRPierce (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Cosmology

The most viable YEC cosmology that I know of has been proposed by Dr. Russell Humphreys. See his book Starlight and Time for more info...

Geology

Hey there. I think that you are very well-intentioned. But I think that you also don't know much about geology and/or science in general, which is probably hampering your ability to edit science-related articles. I do note that a lot of what you write is a lot of stuff that is commonly said by those who want to take a literal interpretation of the Bible and have science support it. Unfortunately, they usually get the science wrong and/or make things up that really have no scientific backing.

So what I am saying is that I don't want to be a total meanie, but I think that you might need to take a step back and examine the state of your knowledge before continuing to change geology articles. Awickert (talk) 05:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that my technical knowledge is not of the highest. All I am asking is that those of us who do have technical training step back and consider a simple student's request for more coverage of both sides of the issue..--Gniniv (talk) 06:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

That is perfectly acceptable, but the way to do that is not to edit articles and inadvertently make them incorrect. For what it's worth, I have yet to find a single YEC argument that stands up to scientific scrutiny, though you're welcome to suggest some. I do not have a lot of free time though and am probably going to bed soon... Awickert (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I am totally willing to include all perspectives in the debate. All I ask is that this debate happens for the continued betterment of science articles in wikipedia. Naturally, no YEC argument can stand against criticism that rejects it at face value without considering the questions they ask...--Gniniv (talk) 06:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

An example of a YEC argument that no uniformitarian I know of has answered is: what began everything? How did something come from nothing? The intrinsic complexity of all life, whether monocellular or multicellular defies a blithe explanation of chemicals mixing together from perfectly chance interactions. If there was a Big Bang (which is questionable) what started it?

To the first: YEC arguments are not rejected at face value. They are rejected because of their lack of evidence. To the second: those are some of THE big questions, but I don't think they really have anything to do with YEC (though they may have to do with faith). Awickert (talk) 06:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, those challenges are more acceptable to an athiest.--Gniniv (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I am totally willing to include all perspectives in the debate. All I ask is that this debate happens for the continued betterment of science articles in wikipedia. Naturally, no YEC argument can stand against criticism that rejects it at face value without considering the questions they ask...--Gniniv (talk) 06:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope: all I'm saying is that someone who believes in something doesn't necessarily have to believe that the Earth is young. And that the idea of a divine creation is not necessarily inclusive with a young Earth. Most of mainstream Christianity accepts the Earth being over 4 billion years old, because they take Genesis to be a set of allegories. Awickert (talk) 06:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, It's well past my bedtime that I've stayed up chatting with you. Good night, Awickert (talk) 06:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the debate, the cause for the furthur advancement of scientific discovery can only come with discussion and thought...--Gniniv (talk) 06:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Here are some secular arguments from Did God use Evolution?, Werner Gitt, ISBN 0-89051-483-6

No transition from one basic kind to another has ever been observed.

The frequently quoted transitional forms and missing links have never been found. All fossils represent complete, perfect organisms. --Gniniv (talk) 06:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)'

Think about this: If you could find 1 (one) piece of evidence, even the tinniest shred of real, concrete, rigorous evidence that supported creationism, young earth, etc., and thus, confirmed scientifically the existence of God, that would single-handedly be the greatest discovery in the history of the world and would instantly make you world famous and wealthy. Who would pass that up? Not only that, who would pass that up to preserve a world-wide scientific conspiracy to cover-up the evidence for God's creation? If you were a scientist, you would know that scientists LOVE and make careers off of proving each other wrong. Why wouldn't people do it in this case, the most important case imaginable? Remember the most important part of christian philosophy: Faith. Faith is the belief in something WITHOUT evidence, by definition. YEC folks have seamed to forget that.

Faith and YEC are totally different things. Though YEC's findings have been brought about by the influence of Faith, their methods are based on observable evidence that all researchers have access to. Evidence in and of itself does not confirm a certain theory. It is the philosophy guiding the development of a theory that aligns evidence according to a certain perspective. An example would be my ardent belief that the color red is "red". Why do I believe that it is red? Because since infancy I have been taught by my parents and peers to call a certain wavelength and frequency of light hitting my eyeballs "red". I therefore believe and associate the color red as "red" due to my underlying philosophy of accepting ideas from the world around me according to a certain unique pattern. A "good" theory is very subjective, due to the definition of "good" being in the eye of the beholder. Overwhelming acceptance of a certain interpretation of a set of evidence does not negate the alternative, good explanations that exist.--Gniniv (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I call "science" something that follows the scientific method, the most fundamental principle in science, something YEC research does not, regardless of what you claim. Religion has led people to blindly believe many things, like the earth being flat, one group of human as inferior to another, and the earth being the center of the universe, yet these are all cast aside by science, and the church changes its mind. One day, YEC people will be vanquished, and the church will show its fallibility again. Have fun trying to get your non-scientific dogma on Wikipedia past WP:Undue and WP:Fringe; I've had this debate far too many times to waste more time. Qfl247 (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I can refute all of those claims quite easily. The scientific method is the fundamental principle of science, but human scientists are (unfortunately) not perfectly, cold, calculating, reasoning machines-they are shaped by emotion and philosophy just as all of us are. "Religion" has not led people into blindly believing the earth is flat, [[3], or that one group of people is inferior [[4]], or that the earth is the exact center of the universe. (See discussion-[[5]])

P.S. There are literally millions of transitional forms and missing links, including in humans. Have you ever studied Trilobites? If you said that line to a Paleontologist, they would either laugh you out of the room or punch you in the face for trying to belittle their life's work. Qfl247 (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Missing links are creatures that share the characteristics of the the two organisms they are supposed to be a transition of (examples would be a beaked, winged dinosaur, or a legged fish) Trilobites seem to me to be fully functioning, unique creatures whose relatives were not replaced by a more advanced evolutionary step-see Horseshoe crab....--Gniniv (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Horseshoe Crabs are a GREAT piece of evidence for evolution, see Convergent Evolution... also, I guess you've never hear of Mudskippers or Archeopteryx then... Qfl247 (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, our opposing world views look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. Convergent Evolution is a misnomer for creatures appearing in the evolutionary history where they shouldn't be. Mudskippers are fully functioning fish with the ability to breath air. They do not have primitive organs-their perfect adaptation to their environment screams design more than anything else. And as for the last, Archaeopteryx, multiple YEC sources have agreed that it is far more bird than dinosaur [6], similar to the modern Hoatzin....--Gniniv (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Arguments Against (Christian) Faith Based Acceptance of Evolution

I agree that most of the mainstream christian community has accepted evolution, but that raises some odd points such as:

It requires ignoring the stated biblical created order of the sun and earth, where the sun is created after the earth instead of before as the mainstream scientific consensus would have it.

Gap Theorist's insertion of the the 4.6 billion years prior to the creative account between the first two verses of Genesis causes a strong conflict with the text where "God said it was very good". According to Gap theorists, there was 4.6 billion years of death and suffering prior to the re-creation of the earth. Contextually, that seems to be conflictive.

Those of faith who view Genesis as merely a bunch of poetry have to accept the historical facts of Christ's Resurrection, etc as historically accurate,while denying Genesis as such, though both Genesis and the Gospels are written in the historical hermeneutic form of their respective languages...--Gniniv (talk) 06:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Questions Raised by R.A.T.E.

The mainstream scientific consensus operates under the assumption that Radioactive Decay rates are constant, though findings raised by R.A.T.E researchers raise some questions to that assumption. As I have little technical training here are some outside references to that topic (one is against the findings to preserve neutrality):

^ Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, a Young Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Larry Vardiman, Andrew A. Snelling, Eugene F. Chaffin[http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf (ed)

^ Nuclear Decay: Evidence For A Young World, D. Russell Humphreys, Impact, Number 352, October 2002[http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=302.

^ Young-Earth Creationist Helium Diffusion "Dates" Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data, Kevin R. Henke, TalkOrigins website, Original version: March 17, 2005, Revision: November 24, 2005[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html.

This is not about carbon-14. I would strongly urge you to read what you cite before making arguments based on these works. Awickert (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC) [note: when this comment was made, the opening statement talked about 14C]

Thanks for the reproof, and I will.--Gniniv (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I bolded Nuclear decay rates to show your correction..--Gniniv (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. "Radioactive decay" is the more common term, FYI. Awickert (talk) 04:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha!--Gniniv (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Summary

I would be fine if we "agree to disagree", I just want to make sure at least some consideration is given in the science articles for alternative ideas that have been raised by various researchers.--Gniniv (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to read WP:Undue and WP:Fringe. Besides, if we allowed your non-scientific, religous-based theories on geology (which are not supported by peer-reviewed, accredited institutions, which is how science is done) on the main geology or other important science-based pages, then we'd have to include every religion's ideas, not just the christian ones, including the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's fine if you don't want to accept science as-is; I just find it ironic that you would use a computer, the internet, and other scientific advances to propagate your agenda. Qfl247 (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree the YEC is an alternative view that is not generally accepted in scientific circles, but I can refute the notion that it is a fringe view with the following link: Gallup Poll. May 8–11, 2008. N=1,017 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. The peer reviewed, accreditied institutions that you mention as needed for something to be called science (which is not true) are peers of mainstream thought, not alternative ideas. My sources have been reviewed by peers of YEC science and can be considered as valid theories thereby(see above).--Gniniv (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia will only remain the free encyclopedia if all alternative ideas are considered. I fear the day has come where the free encyclopedia is as censorious as its predecessors.--Gniniv (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, read WP:Undue and WP:Fringe. Again, your reliance on Gallap polls of laymen and inference to a world-wide scientific conspiracy against YEC thought (a-la UFO and Bigfoot researchers) is ridiculous. Qfl247 (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not outrageous, knowing human nature. The more uncertain we get of our theories, the louder we shout and suppress the alternative....--Gniniv (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

As I am recognising in all my edits that YEC is in the minority (at least amongst scientists) and not generally accepted in mainstream scientific circles, I believe I am complying with WP:Undue and WP:Fringe.--Gniniv (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not it. I will likely be systematically reverting several of your changes. You are crying "censorship" and "bias", but have no understanding of the underlying science, which is the problem. The YEC science-based arguments have all been proven to be wrong; often, YEC's do stupid things like use potassium-argon dating on minerals with no potassium to "prove" that radiometric dating doesn't work. These arguments have been hashed out before in more public venues than this and are free to read. I have no time to repeat what they say here. The short and the sweet of it is that until there is a credible, reproducible, scientific study that contradicts the decades of research that show that the Earth is old, "young earth" talk has no place in scientific articles here. YEC stuff is beyond fringe in scientific articles. Awickert (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Also: you have to stop changing cited text to disagree with the citation and requesting citations that are actually present. This is a waste of everyone's time, yours and others. Awickert (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I will happily comply with not editing the cited text in articles as long as some space is given for alternative viewpoints in a given article. I am not advocating censorship and bias (quite the opposite) I am requesting more neutrality in articles that claim proof of scientific theories with little citation. If you can give references to these sources that have criticized R.A.T.E's findings, I would be able to see if what they are saying about potassium-argon dating is truly based in fact, or just another mainstream blow-off of a reasonable challenge to modern assumptions. --Gniniv (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no other option but to continue may efforts to improve neutrality until some of my demands are answered and met.--Gniniv (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have decided that my efforts to improve neutrality are useless until I can get some more debate and concurrance on the topic amongst science editors. Feel free to challenge my position, and we can discuss a joint way to approach bias. --Gniniv (talk) 03:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, one basic thing that I've seen w.r.t. R.A.T.E. is that they made some pretty horrendous mistakes and corresponding assumptions about diffusion. The articles that you linked could be a place to start. However, I have quite a lot to do, and there is a lot of literature freely available to you on this topic that you could read. I'd be happy to help with purely technical questions (which I could therefore answer out-of-context and without any potential issue of non-neutrality), but I just don't have the time to engage in this debate. Best wishes for rapid learning and all that good stuff, Awickert (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging me on this topic and all the best to your furthur research...--Gniniv (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

And thank you for being so cordial, Awickert (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Politics and Economics

Modern Threat of a New Korean War

Hello! Does anyone have an opinion on the threat of the Korean War resuming, and if that should be put in the article? I've heard that the two countries are still technically at war, with only a temporarily binding ceasefire having been declared. It seems recent events may be provoking more active military action on both sides (See ROKS Cheonan sinking).--Gniniv (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Presentation of a Barnstar

I'm not entirely sure you are a new user. But if you are, you Definitely deserve this, and should display it on your user page:

		The Entrepreneur's Barnstar
		The Entrepreneur's Barnstar is given to recognize new editors who have made great strides to contribute to Wikipedia. I, Quinxorin, present this award to Gniniv for exceptionally large numbers of contributions in a short timespan. Quinxorin (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I am a new user, and I accept this great honor with much appreciation!--Gniniv (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Gniniv. You have new messages at Raeky's talk page.
Message added 02:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Custom Signature

Please at least put a link to your talk page in your custom signature. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Will do!--Gniniv (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Gniniv. You have new messages at Raeky's talk page.
Message added 03:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Final Warning July 2010

You've clearly seen the Fastily's comment on this issue on his talk page, but I'm placing a warning here just so it's all recorded in one place. Your behavior on numerous articles has been extremely disruptive, and you've been repeatedly warned and had the relevant policies explained to you countless times. However your behavior has not changed. Please stop. Edit warring, requesting full page protection when your opinion disagrees with consensus, re-requesting GA delisting repeatedly when your requests are denied on articles which you simply disagree with, not adhering to WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT and inserting fringe theories into articles repeatedly, threatening disruptive behavior if your content is not added, attacking other editors and assuming bad faith, (and the list goes on) are all against wikipedia policy. I (and numerous other editors) have tried extensively for months to work with you constructively to correct these problems, but your behavior continues to be problematic. This is your final warning on these issues. I would like to see you contribute constructively, but if this sort of disruptive editing continues, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Jess ^talk _cs 03:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Recommendation

Thank you for notifying me of your request for mediation. I'd like to recommend you to look into mentorship and WP:Adopt-a-user. Mentors can be a great help for relatively new users who're editing controversial topics. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Geoff Clayton (geologist)

I have nominated Geoff Clayton (geologist), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoff Clayton (geologist). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Macroevolution, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocking

You have been blocked from editing for a short time to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit warring and disruptive editing at Macroevolution, Objections to evolution and several other articles. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text . Tim Vickers (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|Hi! My editing over the past several months has consistently been considered disruptive, and I admit I have a tendency to WP:TE when I approach editing. I have (after several warnings) decided that my effort at improving coverage is not being accepted and have decided to quit editing the articles in question until further notice. I would like to be unblocked so I can move on to a different topic where hopefully there will be more consensus.}}

I think it would help if you could suggest the sort of topics you will be editing. Dougweller (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I intend to concentrate on the following Wikiprojects and their relatives: Wikipedia: Wikiproject Demographics; Wikipedia: Wikiproject Politics and generally not editing philosophical and scientific articles (with the exception of Wikipedia: WikiProject Volcanoes and Wikipedia: WikiProject Cryptozoology articles), at least until the following mediation Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Narrative comes to a verdict....--Gniniv (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking a little more permanent removal from those types of articles ... I think that would be more helpful for both you and the project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Although the changes in the unblock request are definitely a good base. --Smashville^talk 13:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I will only edit the article types and projects I mentioned above, and will stay away from the Evolution articles for now..--Gniniv (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I would also recommend you voluntary abstain from editing YEC related articles as well. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I do encourage the editors who are working on those articles to work towards more consensus and neutrality..--Gniniv (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The Request for mediation concerning Genesis Creation Narrative, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 22:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)