User talk:Hrafn/archive4

Fictional Multiverses

I notice that you and I have been going back and forth on the Fictional Multiverses section of the Multiverse page. I'm wondering exactly what your problem is with what I am writing. All I am doing is trying to make sure that Marvel Comics gets some mention (preferably equal coverage) on the topic of comic book multiverses. I even took out unnecessary information and replaced it with a link to another page about it the specific topics. Could you please talk to me about WHY you keep deleting any mention of Marvel comics? If you have a problem with WHAT I wrote, surely you can come up with something better (or some improvement on my writing) that talks about how Marvel uses the concept of the Multiverse.--BigBang616 (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I direct your attention to the two templates that I had placed on this section:

1. template:unrefsect: Your additions (like the rest of this section) are unsourced, in violation of WP:V.
2. Template:Fictionlist: "An article about a nonfiction topic should only contain fictional references of historic importance so as to not overshadow the main topic." None of your additions (nor any of the other contents of this section) is of even the slightest "historic importance" -- they are mere fan trivia.

I am therefore deleting the entire section. If you want to write about fictional parallel universes, you are welcome to do so in the appropriate article: Parallel universe (fiction). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just trying to be fair here, you're suggesting that I not add to an article without citing, etc. Well, how about you not DELETE AN ENTIRE SECTION without first discussing it. You've done that twice now. All I want you to do is (a) NOT DELETE THE ENTIRE SECTION, fictional multiverses do need some mention, and there is nothing wrong with the way there were mentioned before you deleted it, hence, I undid what you did and (b) talk this through, perhaps come up with some compromise about what to do. As I mentioned before Wikipedia prefers that information be presented poorly rather than not at all. So perhaps we can find a better way to CONTINUE presenting the information in a better way, because this back and forth between you and I is getting really ridiculous. And I don't want some bull about you sending me to WIKIPEDIA GUIDES, I've read them and know what they say. I read them way before you pointed them out and way before I edited the section. I still think the information contained within the section is pertinent to the situation, what problem do you have with the article discussing at the end a few paragraphs on multiverses in fiction, explicitly stating not only at the section header but also within the section itself that it's fiction. Everything I said was true, I even took out the things I said that would have needed references, basically all that is stated within these paragraphs is that the concept of the multiverse is used and, in some cases, how. Why do you insist on making this a big deal? Do you have some sort of personal vendetta against me for undoing your revisions? Keep in mind that WIKIPEDIA isn't yours, it's everybody's and you don't get to make all the big decisions, if you want to make a change this drastic you should discuss it with some other users first, rather than just doing it. And considering I seem to be the only user who cares enough to do something about it, don't you think you should discuss this rationally before doing something like this. --BigBang616 (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, I don't know if you get it, but AS I KEEP MENTIONING, I would like to discuss this before you do anything drastic YET AGAIN. And yes, the Official Handbook does indeed count as a source, apparently you didn't check, or care to check, out the source. Also, it is a work in progress, I will eventually fill out the sources more thoroughly, and will continue to restore the section no matter how many times you delete it. So, until you're willing to discuss this before deleting it again, I will see you then.--BigBang616 (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

All this because I won't let you insert your Marvel fancruft trivia into a serious science article. You are being utterly ridiculous. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't get it at all, do you? I'm trying to have a rational discussion with you, trying to discuss the potential of making changes, trying to come up with a compromise before any changes are made, but what do you keep doing? You read what I'm saying, take a few words out of it, use them in an "argument" against what I said, then do whatever you want. Please, just consider the idea of a compromise between what you want, entire deletion, and what I want mention of the content (all the content) that's already there. I know you'll completely disregard this, do whatever you want (delete change, whatever) without even considering what I'm saying, but I still feel compelled to bring up the idea of a rational discussion. --BigBang616 (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You know what, you win. I'm tired of this whole thing. You're right. This is a science/fact-based article and the information I'm trying to save belongs somewhere else, in another article about fiction, just as you suggested. I won't interfere or undo your removal of the section again. You have won. P.S. I've removed the information I put in there in the first place and replaced it with a link to the page you suggested in the first place. Congratulations. --BigBang616 (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

New Religious Science Re-Draft

Hi Hrafn...Please see the Religious Science talk page for my re-draft, based on your latest suggestions. Thanks, --Wonbillions (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments on your Religious Science / Science of Mind edit

Hi Hrafn, Please see the subject talk page for my response to your latest edit. Thanks again, --Wonbillions (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. On a personal note, it's been a pleasure working with you, since you appear to be very objective and scientifically oriented.

Please see "Further Tweaking" on Religious Science / Science of Mind talk page

Hello again Hrafn...Please see the subject comments. Thanks, --Wonbillions (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to Further Tweaking is on Religious Science Talk Page

Hi Hrafn....please see the subject responses and suggestions. Thanks again.--Wonbillions (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Hrafn, please do not denigrate other wikipedians, or their views, or their religions. Please do not call them "paranoid" or suggest that they wear tinfoil hats, as you did in this comment. Doing so violates an ironclad Wikipedia rule: WP:no personal attacks.

Also, please stop deleting other people's comments from the Talk page for Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed, and hiding them with {{hab}} templates. How can we hope to achieve WP:consensus if you will not allow other editors to discuss the article and its problems? NCdave (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It is perfectly legitimate to characterise unsubstantiated accusations of persecution as "paranoid", per WP:SPADE. This template is illegitimate WP:HARASSment from an editor whose disruptive and tendentious behaviour would lead many to characterise him as a "troll". Deleting pointless WP:SOAPBOXing from talkpages is explicitly permitted per WP:TALK. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Seen this?

Expelled at Conservapedia It's a laff riot, too short though. Be sure and read the notes and talk page - you'll find some of the usual suspects there. Anyhow, it cracked me up. Angry Christian (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

<Yawn> The usual half-baked crackpottery & poor editing. Really it has to be completely carpet-chewingly bugfuck for something from Conservapedia to get my attention these days. Now if somebody could get the article to stably claim that Expelled-roused wingnuts are storming science departments and putting preachers in charge of them, or that Stein is the second coming, then I'd be impressed. :D Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Origin of language

Hey Hrafn,

I think your expertise would be amusingly received (by me anyway) at Talk:Origin of language/Archive 1#Evolution Disclaimer. WLU (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Hrafn, you rule. I feel like I'm the laser range-finder, you're the missle. Shock and awe. WLU (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Getting close to boilerplate, I don't think a claim was made that I haven't seen a hundred times, and haven't had to rebut a dozen times. Originality is not their strong suit. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Need a source

I think it's true, but it needs a source per WP:PROVEIT. [1] Guess who is my go-to-guy regards all things creationist? WLU (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Added -- the ref actually came from Intelligent designer, due to a timely reminder of its existence in [this article] by Peter Irons. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Hrafn

I appreciate the rewrite on Maya Angelou at Unity. It is a helpful example of how to best use the news article as a reference.

One question: Is there any problem if I use the cite template rather than the freehand format? Example: Freehand versus Template

1. Please sign your comments (with ~~~~).
2. If you want me to comment on code, you need to surround it with <nowiki></nowiki>-tags (otherwise I can't read the code): "Freehand <ref>[http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/83-03292008-1510872.html Maya Angelou at 80: Life is still an adventure], Hillel Italie, Phillyburbs.com, March 29, 2008</ref> versus Template <ref>{{cite news |last=Italie |first=Hillel |url=http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/83-03292008-1510872.html |title=Maya Angelou at 80: Life is still an adventure |publisher= Associated Press|date=2008-03-29 |accessdate=2008-03-29}}</ref>"
3. I have no strong preference, but tend to use freeform unless there's a compelling reason not to (it's quicker, less likely to make a mistake with & is easier to read the code of).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(1) Sorry, I forget my sig a lot it seems then have to go back and add it. Bad habit I am trying to break. (2) I didn't know about nowiki (there's much to learn here) so I appreciate your showing me. (3) I think in time I will learn the freehand form, for now the template is helpful to remind me of any fields I need to use. Thanks again. Low Sea (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

A half-baked accusation

Hrafn, We have been watching your posts. It seems clear that you are a hater of New Thought have a serious personal problem with these psychologies, faiths, or philosophys etc.. Since you have a continued personal interest against these groups, you should be banned from commenting or vandalizing these pages within Wiki. I personally am not a member of these groups or faiths, but it is apparent that you hate or dislike certain religious groups who are affiliated with new thought, religious science, or Christian based success writers. We will continue to report your vandalizing or removing information related to famous new thought authors, faiths, sects, or important organizations related to new thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.24.185.200 (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this gross violation of WP:AGF. I have nothing against the New Thought movement, but a strong dislike of badly written, badly sourced (and especially completely unsourced) articles. There are a large number of these in the New Thought area, so for the last month or two I've been making an effort to prune them down to what is WP:NPOV, verifiable & notable. If these "authors, faiths, sects, or important organizations" are "famous", you should have no problem finding reliable sources to verify this information. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

delete entire YEC article before you get WP sued

I have no associations with icr.org or its principals. But, you are going to get WP and yourself sued if you continue to believe WP's rules supercede laws regarding defamation. 50MWdoug (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Your legal prophesies of doom are about as credible as your reliance of Biblical quotations was. Far more prominent people have said far worse things about the ICR in far more prominent fora. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thin ice

Take it to the RS & BLP noticeboards
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi! Listen, I am as sympathetic as the next man to keeping creationists from misusing WP, but you are not helping. WP:BLP is firm on the subject, and it doesn't hurt to keep things off. Can you please do so for the period that this is being discussed? --Relata refero (disp.) 11:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC) No, you are WP:POINTing -- a book IS NOT a "living person" (so [[WP:BLP does not apply) & TalkOrigins Archive is widely regarded as a WP:RS. HrafnTalkStalk 12:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Widely where? and that part of it that is merely a usenet archive is by our standards not. Incidentally, please do read WP:BLP sometime to count the ways in which you are wrong. Apologies accepted between 0900 and 1700 hours UTC by appointment. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Sorry RR, you are incorrect. I do not think you are understanding things here. And tell me how a review of a book violates WP:BLP?--Filll (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Read the damn policy, people! As and when a review implies negative statements about a living person, BLP comes into play, regardless of the nominal subject of the article! I don't believe either of you have been some of our most productive and useful editors without apparent familiarity with this policy! --Relata refero (disp.) 12:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC) I am sure you realize under our new more stringent policies on WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA you can get in huge trouble for a statement like Read the damn policy, people! So what policy are you referring to? I did read the policy. People that are notable and experts are themselves reliable sources, even if they publish this themselves in a blog or a self published book. And I still do not know who is supposedly being defamed and how? Behe is being defamed because a reviewer did not like his book? What on earth?--Filll (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Oh, report me, do, because it really begins to sound like you haven't read it carefully, if at all. Self-published sources should not be used for contentious material; statements in a review that go towards being statements about the person who wrote the book are subject to BLP; etc., etc. See Talk:A Moral Reckoning for some really dicey problems that this brings up. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on Talk:Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education?

[Moved to User talk:Nukeh -- from where it should not have left in the first place. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC) ]

Why did you revert without discussion

I was rewritting the section like the plate said neede. If you disagreed with the revision you should tell me which parts and why, not erase the whole thing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdhunt (talk • contribs) 05:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it is unsourced & most probably WP:OR. Source it or lose it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I added sources, not the Bible, one at a time, but you earased them when you violated the three-revert rule —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdhunt (talk • contribs) 05:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

christianactionforisrael.org is hardly a WP:RS for anything beyond their own viewpoint (a 'primary source' per WP:PSTS, that requires a reliable secondary source for any interpretation). In any case, you provide it only as the source for a single sentence out of a multi-paragraph addition. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A source that doesn't even verify the statement cited to it, I might add -- as it makes no mention of "Jesus" or "chosen people". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

YEC

Hi. You said that the "cited source explicitly states Justin Martyr." very well, it does now that I look... but I didn't take away without thought, and I did add Clement of Alexandria to the list :). Just fyi, Justin Martyr is very unclear on where he stood. Both sides appeal to him. Even your source has to use vague language like "assumes" and "implies" for Justin's view. And that's only talking about the text that says "with the Lord one day is like a thousand." Even YEC believe that so that's not saying much. Cheers,  Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 17:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Religious Science

Hey, through out the Science of Mind text the Bible is referenced Teachings of Jesus, New and Old Testament. One of Ernest Holmes (founder) most popular books - besides the SOM text - is The Hidden Power of the Bible. He believed Truth is Truth and we are open at the top as well as the SOM teachings. Take care.66.108.3.236 (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Does this religious babble mean anything, let alone have any relevance for editing Religious Science? Wikipedia isn't really big on revealed WP:TRUTHs. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

But in any case, as Malaclypse The Younger said{{fact}}[The correct tag would in fact be a {{citequote}} after the quote -- and if you can't find where this quote is from then you should return your wiki-editor badge. :P Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC) ], "Even false things are true." Fnord! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Tagging FAs

Please don't tag Featured Articles. If you want to see another cite added, either add one yourself or take it to the talk page. Tags such as that can get the article delisted as a FA, and that's a bad thing. FeloniousMonk (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a rough draft on Falsifiability and evolution that includes Daubert and ID if you want to look at it. It might help you. Email me. --Filll (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A few points:

1. The paragraph in question was already tagged -- I merely replaced a tag for something I could rectify with a tag for something I couldn't.
2. The article uses "critics say" far too liberally and at times loosely. On many occasions it is at least cited (and on some even includes explicit identification in the article of some of the critics), but the tagged point is not the only time that it lacks even a citation. But even cited, its overuse cheapens it.
3. I can see nothing in WP:FAR to indicate that a tag would precipitate an immediate review of FA status, let alone its loss. I would suspect that it would only become a problem if tags were allowed to accumulate and/or go uncorrected for long periods.
   1. Given that the tag I replaced had been there since January, it would seem to be far more problematic than my own one. If tagging an article is as dire as you make out, why wasn't that tag corrected long since?
4. I think it would be more accurate to state that FAs shouldn't need to be tagged than that they shouldn't be tagged. Forbidding tagging when needed would appear to be promoting the appearance of robustness above the promotion of genuine robustness. I will however attempt to keep my tagging of FAs to a minute minimum (but will not revert a legitimate tag to an FA if I realise that I've I inadvertently added one, as was the case here).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Multiverse

Why are you assuming WP:SYNTH here? Please assume good faith. Imad marie (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The first version was clearly SYNTH/OR/unverfiable -- as the quaranic verse said nothing about Dunyah. The new version largely avoids these troubles, but at the cost of not actually saying anything about multiverses -- and is thus irrelevant to the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Note

I removed the Mathis-Miller comment from the Expelled article here. We all know this article is long enough as-is, and since this note is more about Miller (or Mathis) than the film, I removed it. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It is about the film in that it indicates the producers willingness to exaggerate the religion-science conflict aspect of it & their inability to accept those who accept evolution as being genuinely religious. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mahalo, Hrafn. I was a bit confused. Thanks for rewording. --Ali'i 18:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Transitional Fossils

Thanks for your redit of my materail on transitional fossils and punctuated equilibrium. I feel it is much better now. Regards

John D. Croft (talk) 07:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Expelled

Re: [2]. Not that I disagree with the archiving, but I'm a bit miffed by the edit summary. When I added my comment, the thread was not archived (though it probably should have been...). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually it had been archived for some time -- NCDave simply decided to 'nowiki' the archiving templates so he could continue on soapboxing. Sorry you got caught up in it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn, I don't think there's any need to put these kinds of templates on people's pages,[3] particularly someone who has been editing for three years. If we're concerned about off-topic discussion, there's a lot of work that could be done all around. Of course, you can also tell someone you think their comment is off topic without putting a template on their page saying that they'll be blocked, you know? Mackan79 (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79: I no longer give the proverbial "pair of fetid dingo's kidneys" what you think. Your 'thoughts' to date have been a stream of ludicrous defences of a tendentious, disruptive and throughly objectionable editor, whose editing career has been marked by lengthy blocks for egregiously poor behaviour and a stuborn inability to learn from his past mistakes. Given that I have absolutely zero opinion of your judgement on this matter, I would suggest that in future you keep these thoughts to yourself -- as my calling a WP:SPADE a spade about what I think of your thoughts may offend. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you and I were restoring the wholesale deletions made by that fox loving woman. Did we catch it all? It's difficult for me to figure it out...Angry Christian (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe so. I just reflexively reverted her last deletion when I saw it on my watchlist (as clearly illegitimate), and only later noticed the earlier one you reverted). I wish people would read policy before they cited it for such half-baked edits. :( Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am easily confused when it comes to massive deletions over several edits. It *looks* ok right now. Maybe we got it all. Thanks Angry Christian (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Michael Dowd ?

As you are an excellent debater on the evolutionist/creationist subject I was just curious if you were familiar with the work of Michael Dowd? You can download his book for free at his website[http:\\www.thankgodforevolution.com]. I ran across his work while doing New Thouhgt research and while I like the way he presents his materials I am not qualified to critique it (which would be a SYN anyways) however he seems to have good credentials and a lot of interesting sources. Just FYI. -- Low Sea (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I am very familiar with Michael. I met him and had a long talk with him. I previewed his book before it was published and he asked me to be one of those endorsing the work on the book jacket. I sent him several pages of comments. I have several more I did not send him. I have thought about writing an article about this material. It is sort of "New Age Feel Good" material, but it is not particularly accurate scientifically. Maybe I will dig out my notes and write an article about it here, or expand one or two of our current articles.--Filll (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm probably too far off the target audience (in that my personal spirituality is radically non-theistic) to give a meaningful opinion -- it'd be like a deep-sea fish reviewing a book on mountaineering. But here's the "asking Satan to review The Secret" view and a Wired article on the subject. Hope this helps. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the article links. Interesting reading, including the comments left by readers. The person who gave me the head's up on Rev Dowd is a New Thought (specifically Science of Mind) adherent who is an aetheist! She believes there are laws similar to gravity that can be manipulated by mental energy. She does not believe in God as an intelligent being, but she does believe (loosely paraphrased - wished I had recorded the conversation) this:

It is possible that the universe itself is one -- or more -- enormous organisms of vastly intricate complexity. If we are made of billions of atoms and molecules then why could there not be organisms made of billions of solar systems and galaxies? We just don't have a clear enough grasp on the science to know how these things work so we are fools to say it cannot be so. Imagine a universal amoeba -- if you will -- who's "biological" systems include solar-fusion and entropy. As the white blood cells and defensive antibodies in our immune systems can display quasi-intelligence by reacting to bacteria in the bloodstream, then is it not concievable that we, humans, are like those same cells within the body of a universal amoeba? It is difficult to imagine something so vast, yet it is equally difficult to imagine the vast number of atoms, dna strands or even just the white blood cells inside you now. If there is an organism which we are a part of, and that organism has been on a journey of evolution beginning with the Big Bang, then we are merely evolved cells inside that organism. Thus it makes sense to me when Rev Dowd says "When you look through a telescope to the stars you ARE the universe looking at itself".

This lady is a biogenetic researcher at a respected lab so I asked if I could quote her and she said I could use the ideas but not her name. She did not wish to become the target of ridicule at work or of "Fundamentalist Aetheists". To tell the truth her theories vaguely remind me of an old Star Trek episode but you do have to wonder if from a scientific viewpoint she could be right? Are we just complex cogs in an intergalactic biological machine? -- Low Sea (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert J. Marks II

Need you back watching. DI whitewashing by Ducks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that I view Marks' 'duckishness' as somewhat marginal as yet -- his involvement seems to have been limited to date to one website, one ID conference & one interview for a movie (most of the grandstanding over the EIL was from Dembski himself). I would also consider him to be a fairly obscure ID proponent, rather than a "noted" one (his Expelled appearance may raise his profile however). To say that he's "been involved in several of the more notable controversies" is a definite exaggeration -- he's only been involved in a 'persecution' controversy & Expelled's repackaging of this 'persecution' theme. The problem with documenting the IDM, is that its 'big tent' strategy makes the actual edge of the tent quite indistinct & generates a considerable 'penumbra' of ambiguous supporters/fellow travellers. I'll give you what help I can, but would suggest caution. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And the only report of the conference (by far the most solid piece of evidence to date) that I know of is a blog-report which is excluded per WP:BLP#Reliable sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I just did a fresh Google-search & it seems Marks has been kind enough to put the Wistar appearance on his CV. I've reincluded it. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

idle chit chat of no consequence

I've been following the ID movement for 5 years or so and what's interesting is all my reading has been primarily from the legal, scientific, or academic viewpoint, well and I read alot of ID wingnuts too. What Expelled is doing it bringing ID to the masses and it's fascinating to see the reaction from the mainstream press who typically don't seem to know anything about science or evolution. It's one thing for the science community to call Expelled a shitty propaganda piece but to see the media come to the same conclusion is an interesting development that I didn't expect. Anyhow, I'm rambling but from one ID observer to another I find these mainstream reviews to be an interesting glimpse of how the ID position is viewed by an audience that has no dog in the fight. The DI is going to be very busy monkeys as they try to spin every major news outlet in America. I'm having a ball watching all this unfold. PS - I'm in the market for a Ben Stein bobble head! Cheers. Angry Christian (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect most journos know very little science, so most of ID's arguments go over their heads. They would generally however have a reasonably well-developed propaganda-filter (journos who believe everything they're told soon get made to look like idiots), so the heavy-handedness of Expelled is probably ringing all sort of alarm-bells as well as irritating them in a 'how stupid do you think we are?' sort of way. I wouldn't be surprised if playing Lennon's Imagine over communist parades severely pissed off a few of the more trendy-lefty ones as well. This may end up backfiring for ID movement, if a mainstream 'this is bull' effect outweighs the 'invigorating the credulous base' one. I'm sure far more people read movie reviews than read the science page. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah backfire is a very good word for it and I think you're on the money regarding Imagine being pimped. I'm having a blast watching this unfold. Angry Christian (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

From the viewpoint of this conversation, this Grand Rapids Press review is interesting -- the writer clearly is neutral-to-apathetic on the science-creationism controversy, but equally clearly very anoyed at the film's blatant dishonesty & manipulativeness. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Your participation requested

(Cross-posted to several users' talk pages)

Your participation on User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing would be appreciated. Raul654 (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility warning

[Spurious warning returned to notoriously WP:DE & WP:TE sender Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC) ]

Politicization of Science

Does anyone "own" a Wikipedia page? I spent a fairly long time verifying my sources and posting to the discussion area to justify my position and it appears you have simply reverted my contributions. I am surpised by your lack of intellectual honesty here. Saseigel (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You didn't cite a single source in your edits on the article and your comments on talk on Thomas Paine etc was off-topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I see. I'm very sorry about the appareance of purposeful valdalism--I certainly did not mean to do that--I will avoid restructuring articles in the future until I have learned more. It's very difficult to determine what changes and reversions you have made to my contributions. It seems like you just reverted everything to a previous edit. In the future I will carefully make small additions or also add entire new sections so that there will be less confusion.

Clearly attribution and citation are crucial aspects here. Are we prohibitted from expressing our own opinions or interpretations of the facts as we see them? (I can't imagine where that would end except in the hands of the most powerful editor (administrator?).) It would seem to diminish Wikipedia's effectiveness for fairly clarifying all the various sides of an argument. I will work harder to give third-party sources for my contributions--but I can't promise that my own interpretations won't creep in.

I must disagree with you about the relevance of Thomas Paine to this discussion. He advocated diminishing government involvement in all aspects of life, by a simple extension of his reasoning it could be convincignly argued that he would have supported less government involvement in science given the current state of affairs. I've contributed elsewhere on Wikipedia, but this is obviously a controversial topic so I will be held to a higher standard. In my edits elsewhere I have regularly provided references, however, here I wrote mostly off-the-cuff. I also mentioned troubling changes that I've seen in the article and the current state of the global warming controversy which appear to silence dissenting opinion; this appears to stake out a particular position which is why I included the various POV tags. Is there some standard for citations that I need to know about? (This appears to be harder than writing a traditional book...at least when it's done precisely!)

I don't really grasp why social and media pressure would not be considered of equal (or even greater) impact upon the Politicization of Science as legal and economic influence. However, I added those for the sake of completeness, not to diminish the validity of either legal or economic influences. I hope that I can work with you to improve this article because it's a subject about which I am passionate. I've spent thirty years in the classroom trying to inculcate GOOD SCIENCE into my students (independent of either religious or dogmatic influences) while various administrators and politicians have been systematically undermining my efforts...Cheers! Saseigel (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:FORUM & WP:TALK. Article talkpages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for discussing the article's topic generally. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Politicization of science. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. There is no hurry. The inserted material is non-controversial. Your stridency is unwarranted. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked WP:AGF does not over-rule WP:PROVEIT: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" -- which you repeatedly violated, over a three-week period. I am therefore striking this spurious & ill-considered template. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad faith editing

Whatever

A tedious discussion that was going around in circles
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would further point out that I assumed good faith THREE BLOODY WEEKS AGO when I simply tagged your unsourced additions, rather than removing them. How did you respond? YOU DID NOTHING AT ALL! When another editor challenged and removed this material you acted in bad faith by reverting it back in. When I re-removed this unsourced material (per WP:PROVEIT) you repeatedly reverted me likewise (more bad faith). It was only when you found that the material wouldn't be allowed back in without sources that you actually got off your backside did anything about it. Your own actions on this issue have been in bad faith throughout, so you have no right whatsoever for further assumption of good faith. So your templating of me has, not surprisingly, made me very angry. HrafnTalkStalk 17:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC) You need to take a chill pill, man, or you will find yourself in unfortunate places. I know from personal experience. Anyway, the cites are in. No harm, no foul. Peace. In the meantime, take a gander at WP:MASTADON. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC) No. It is you who needs to read WP:POT, given your over-reaction in templating me after my assumption of good faith ran out after three weeks of procrastination on your part. And I diasagree that multiple policy-violative reverts & a spurious templating amount to "no harm". HrafnTalkStalk 03:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Wow. Just wow. Consider taking a Wikibreak before you end up railroaded. These outbursts you're making indicate that I wasn't wrong in my suspicions about your state of mind. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC) You templated me after three weeks of WP:AGF wore out, but I'm the one with the problem? Yesterday I was mad. Today I'm only bored & sick of the sight of you. Consider a career in politics. HrafnTalkStalk 16:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Whoa you guys. You both are on the same side of most issues. And I do not want to lose either one of you over something minor. Although I have definitely crossed swords with SA before, plenty (and a little with Hrafn too), I respect you both tremendously. Let's try to settle these things more calmly. I do not know what the issue in this case is, but if we fight amongst ourselves, the FRINGErs will own our butts.--Filll (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Filll: I respond to how I'm treated and logical & factual basis statements/actions, not 'whose side' people are on. Thus I will slam a science-boaster who acts unreasonably/illogically/arbitrarily. That does not mean that I won't cooperate with them (or a FRINGEr who is having a rare attack of logic and/or fact) the next day. HrafnTalkStalk 16:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Since there is no objective standard that you've outlined for what I did that was "unreasonable", "illogical", or "arbitrary", I can only assume that you were offended by my actions. For that I apologize. I have worked on some articles for years: eventualism is the name of the game for Wikipedia. Three weeks is your arbitrary timeline, not anyone else's. And, from my perspective, it is bad faith to remove content that is common knowledge without explanation provided other than "I can do it because it's been three weeks and someone else did it before me." I note that you did not remove the bits on Galileo despite them still being uncited, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC) 'Eventualism' is merely one school of thought on wikipedia, and not one that finds much support in WP:V. My timeline was not arbitrary -- challenged (as another editor did by removing it) material must to be sourced, per WP:V. I did not remove the Galileo information, because it had not been so challenged (nor was it newly introduced, so I could not know if its creator was still around, so allowing a longer time period is in any case reasonable). But even without this, I would consider 3 weeks ample (and in fact probably over-generous) time to allow newly-introduced & templated material to be sourced before deleting it. HrafnTalkStalk 14:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC) What you are basically saying then is you don't give people the benefit of the doubt, nor do you actually make an effort to communicate. You didn't give me three weeks and you didn't make any comments about what you thought of the content in question. You were just acting as a intransigent edit warrior who only aggravated the situation and really has no sense for how to deal with other people without behaving like an ass. I'll also note that the material was "challenged" in the edit summary for relevance, not for WP:V. Different story entirely. Just so you know, this kind of posturing and hairsplitting is very unbecoming. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC) No. What I am "basically saying" is that I gave you three weeks of "benefit of the doubt" and only stopped doing so when you became in explicit violation of WP:V, that I made "an effort to communicate via the unrefsect-template (at the start of the three weeks) -- which you ignored. Once WP:V was explicitly violated (because another editor had challenged your material), the only reasonable response from you was to hold off reintroducing the material until it could be sourced, and there was very little left to be discussed. If I knew that you were going to make such an almighty fuss about this quite routine application of WP:V, I'd have templated you for each of your infractions and you'd now probably be on template:uw-generic4 ("last warning"). Stop blaming me for your own violation of policy. "Benefit of the doubt" does not mean that you get to keep unsourced material in the article indefinitely -- it means that as a courtesy (not as a right), I would previously have allowed you a reasonable amount of time to rectify your omission. Given your discourtesy in templating me, I think you have forfeited much of that courtesy. HrafnTalkStalk 19:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC) You didn't "give me" three weeks. You acted after someone else acted and then postdicted your claim based on a three-week timeline. The unrefsect template is also on the Galileo section which still has not been removed, so there is no indication that this is somehow a fair-game declaration. There is no violation of policy when you add verifiable content. There is also nothing wrong with {{hangon}} objections to drastic maneuvers. Good day. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad faith editing, indeed: Robert J. Marks II

[Fallacious, duplicative and/or WP:AGF-violating rants from ThomHImself, an editor with a WP:COI on Robert J. Marks II, removed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC) ]

Potential defamation in biography of Robert J. Marks II

You have made an edit to Robert J. Marks II that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you restore this material to the article or its talk page once more, you will be blocked for disruption. See Blocking policy: Biographies of living people.ThomHImself (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, this is actual WP:DE by a WP:COI editor, against the WP:CONS & against the facts. I am striking this spurious template as WP:HARASSment. As I said on Talk:Robert J. Marks II, if you diasgree with this consensus, take it to the RS or BLP noticeboards. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Over-linking

I can see what you mean by 'over-linking' in my passing edit of the page for Simon Keynes, I was in two minds about it myself, as it obviously verges on the pedantic - I accept that it was probably a lapse of judgement, but I was guided by the understanding that more links and citations were to be welcomed, when useful. There being a page for 'History', I suppose I decided it was useful! I just had a quick look for clarification on how this issue of 'over-linking' should be approached, but didn't see any: any thoughts? Many thanks. Nortonius (talk) 11:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, on wikilinking the policy is definitely not a blanket "more is better" and I think there's even a specific recommendation somewhere against wikilinking adjoining words/phrases (as it will be unclear to the reader what is being linked). In this specific situation, the link was to 'History of Anglosaxon England' & presenting it as linking only to 'Anglosaxon' was misleading and the second link to the very general subject of 'history' superfluous, and therefore not useful. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. But I'm not sure you really understood what I said. I quite clearly didn't suggest that there was a blanket "more is better" policy for wikilinking; placing two links together isn't obviously misleading, as individual links are highlighted as such when selected, I thought I was simply following what I've seen on other pages; and, as you clearly have a strong opinion on this, I thought you would be a good person to ask for help. Obviously I was wrong, and your brusque and unfriendly tone makes me feel sorry that I bothered. Never mind. Nortonius (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Weirdness at PZ Myers

Have you seen the new picture of PZ that is used in the article? I cannot figure out which edit changed this so I'm not sure how to revert it. Would you mind taking a look or advising me how to correct this? Angry Christian (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't the most flattering of shots, I would agree. However, as I'm not a regular on that article, it is 'somebody else's problem'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Autoarchiving problem for Talk:Expelled

The bot archiving Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed has gone wonky again.

• "(cur) (last) 18:07, 23 April 2008 MiszaBot I (Talk | contribs | block) m (600,125 bytes) (Archiving 6 thread(s) (older than 7d) to Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/Archive 8, Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/Archive 9, Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/Archive 4, [[Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/Archiv) (undo)"

Checking the page histories, it's put one thread each on Archives 4–9, declaring them to be "(ARCHIVE FULL)".
—WWoods (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ummm ... ouch! I had been attempting to deduce the bot's intended functioning (and thus most appropriate settings) from its past behaviour (there's nothing in the documentation about it archiving to multiple archives) -- but this has me completely flummoxed. I think it's time to pass the problem on to its owner, I'll leave a comment on their talkpage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hector Wagner

I changed the my article and removed the tag, if it is still all wrong you can put it back. But I thought it looked much better. Thanks, AmericanEagle 07:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Kindly stop removing notability templates without FIRST ensuring that the article meets WP:NOTE and/or WP:BIO. I am getting heartily sick of your spurious removal of this template. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know. AmericanEagle 19:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Creation evolution controversy

I see that you've recently reverted the statement regarding the survey on the basis of "highly ambiguous" and "synth". I'm confused how you see it that way. Could you clarify this? Professor marginalia (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's covered in painful detail at Talk:Creation-evolution controversy#Polarizing language. The author in question thinks that these poll results point to a compatibilist middle-ground between science and creationism, whereas they're merely lumping together conflicting TE & ID positions under 'God-guided evolution'. At least one of the polls he cites is the notorious one which reports that at least some people accept that both "that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life" and "that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" are at least probable. If you don't take this WP:SYNTH interpetation of them, then they're really not saying anything important enough to include in the lead. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry I was just reading back through some of it, and didn't realize the dispute reached that far back at first. Though there are three sources identified, it looks like they each speak of the same polls. Each respondent could only give one answer. The two choices were distinct: so roughly 40% in the latest poll indicated "created in present form" and another 40% indicated "evolved yet god guided". I agree it's important to be careful not to impose or attribute any particular ideology into the latter group. It's not necessarily subscribers of ID there, though some may be. A good argument can be made I think that figures for each group ("created in present form" creationists, "God-guided it" evolutionists, and "God played no part" evolutionists) do have some corollary to the article, especially given the views held by people in science and academia are described. Isn't it relevant to present some gauge of the POVs that people themselves have aligned with in the creation vs evolution dispute? Professor marginalia (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Their "corollary to the article" is very ambiguous, and would require a heroic level of WP:SYNTH in order to nail it down. Are OECs "God created man in present form" or "Man developed, but God had no part in process"? IDers would almost certainly be in with TEs in "Man developed, with God guiding", but the two traditionally split into the Creationist & Science camps respectively. The polls give a false impression of a centre of gravity in the middle, which just doesn't exist -- as the "Man developed, with God guiding" does not act as a cohesive (let alone coherent) group on this issue. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What?

With the Hector Wagner article, what do I do to fix it? I have found references to over five different Baseball-related sites, got much information, and redid the article. Can you tell me what needs to be done so I finish the article. Thanks, AmericanEagle 00:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The references for this article is a couple of baseball stats sites (there was a third, but as it was only to a list of blog-posts, I deleted it per WP:RS) -- hardly "significant coverage". However, checking WP:Baseball, I find that their notability standards are very low: "Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball", so I'm removing the notability template -- and consider it to be "somebody else's problem". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Creation and evolution in public education. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. NCdave (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Spurious warning, from notoriously WP:DE & WP:TE editor, who is edit-warring to restore WP:FORUM discussions that have been archived/userfied by WP:CONS, stricken. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Rosalind Picard

I'm going to be using my last revert. POV warriors are showing up to whitewash her article, removing her Intelligent design support. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

<Sigh> That edit-war magnet again? I'll keep an eye on it. But I must admit to being still sick of the sight of the article, post-Moulton. It has never done anything but generate more heat than light. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Look what it's done for me? A bunch of attacks by the those who are looking to get rid of one of the NPOV warriors.  :) I hate the article. I should have removed it from my watch list, but I'm trying to keep the AIDS denialists in line, so I keep watch over any science-denialist. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

books added by COI editor

I have re-added one or two of those added by Tipeditor, based on clear importance and relevance in fields I work on. When a publisher adds such books, though we usually remove those added as references about a subject, I do not think we should remove the ones written by the subject that were not previously listed--though we should of course remove the excessive linking. DGG (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

CFD

Glad you dug up the last CFD[4] on the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism cat. I was thinking there had been one, but wasn't sure where to start looking. Guettarda (talk) 05:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I cheated >:) I've been on sufficiently few such discussions that it shows up on my Wannabe Kate's tools summary. A handy tool for giving an impression of an editor's broad-brushstrokes editing patterns, incidentally. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert J. Marks II

It's fine with me if you try to patch up the evidence for the Dembski-Marks paper, but do it in the version without the claims about Marks that are now unsourced. Note also that I have FIXED several broken links, and you are reverting over the constructive editing I've done. ThomHImself (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind permission. Your assorted rants, hand-wavings and general legerdemain on what is or isn't sourced has pretty much run together in my mind, so I neither know nor care what you currently consider to be "unsourced". If a link is broken, then tag it ({{Citation broken}}). If you simply edit-war to delete it, there's a good chance that the reason you want it removed will be lost in the 'heat of battle'. I would further appreciate it if you cease and desist these completely unnecessary and generally abrasive forays onto my talkpage. The page for discussing Robert J. Marks II is Talk:Robert J. Marks II. Further attempts to intrude it on here will therefore be deleted without comment. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

ICR Edit

Thanks for the heads up on my edit to Institute for Creation Research#External links. I'm still figuring things out. 10outof10die (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Alister McGrath

Hi Hrafn. The unexplained change that you recently reverted at Alister McGrath should probably be upheld. It looks like one recently arrived editor is going around adding the Australian church reference (often to semi-irrelevant articles), while another (the one you reverted) is undoing this change. I've got to nip off now, but if you have the time/inclination, you might like to investigate. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You're quite probably right. The reason I reverted was that the ref was at least superficially relevant and no explanation given for its removal. It wasn't even labelled as a revert, which would have let me know who/when the ref was added -- so I had nothing further to go on. I'll look closer. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

So much

Of this goes on in less watched items it is hard to keep up with it all SatuSuro 15:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Expelled re-write

Better to step back and see what they come up with. No point in getting into fights there. Make some constructive comments, but don't get too invested in it. Guettarda (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Send me an email please. Guettarda (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's some work to review

Hrafn, instead of focusing on forcing citations for relatively harmless statements, viz. the recent contretemps in New Thought, why not set your sights on some extreme violations of WP:V? User:Egyptzo has been writing articles completely without citations, often by inserting large chunks of copyvio into his new articles. Check out his User Page, where he has these completely-without-reference-or-citation new articles listed. User:Dougweller, User:CJLL Wright and I have been undoing some of the damage, but this seems like something you could really sink your teeth into. Madman (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn, I apologize for the intemperate tone of the above notice. However, we could really really use your talents addressing Egyptzo's works. Please? Madman (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I had a quick look at his work when you first posted on this topic. I can see two problems getting involved:

1. Going on a WP:V crusade on the basis of authorship (rather than simply general topic), raises questions of WP:AGF (and even potentially WP:HARASS). It is essentially stating that the editor in question is not to be trusted. It is something I'd generally only contemplate (and then only on a limited basis) where I'd seen a pattern of egregiously poor editing. At first glance, the examples of this editor's work that I looked at look to have at least superficial evidence of sourcing in the majority of them. This sourcing, combined with the fact that I know very little about Hittite battles (and similar subjects) -- so don't really know a solid source from a fringe one, mean that I would be on rather less than solid ground in challenging them. Unsolid ground is not a good starting position for what could turn into a contentious issue.
2. I don't know if my asbestos underwear is rated for two firestorms at once -- so caution would suggest waiting for the New Thought issues to play out (with a bit of respite afterwards) before diving into another controversy. In any case, I don't want WP:V-enforcement work to dominate my contributions to wikipedia (as they have been in recent days).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can understand that you don't want to be seen as harrassing this user.

However, I do believe that he has put any references in any of the articles he has created.

Thanks for considering. Madman (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Mail

You have it.--Filll (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Politicization of science‎

Hi there. Will you drop by the Talk page to see my proposal for the leading paragraph and continue the discussion, and please, let' wait for other editors to comment. Mariordo (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I wrote the wrong link in my comment. I really appreciate if you take a look at Carl Sagan & Co. role in nuclear winter, which is what I intended to write originally. I can provided more sources that the ones found in the Wiki article, particularly the book "The Discovery of Global Warming" by Spencer R. Weart, from Harvard University Press (reliable source) has a very interesting account of this use of incomplete science to promote a change in political agenda. Just in case, Mr. Weart is pro GW. Also, I will appreciate if you refrain to edit my comments, on purpose I left the proposed lead in full paragraphs length to highlighted from our comments (I undid your edit on my comment).Mariordo (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

An open letter to Hrafn on my talkpage[5]

Hrafn, I have posted a new topic on my talk page[6] which offers criticizms on some of your recent actions. To me this is a very serious matter so please consider this the first (and hopefully last) step of dispute resolution. We can and have agreed to disagree in the past and I feel, while difficult in this case, if we can both stay calm we can talk this out too. -- Low Sea (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And I have replied there. I doubt if this is likely to come to dispute resolution for the simple reason that you have, as yet, stated no legitimate grievance with my behaviour under policy. And two links to the "open letter" (that you apparently didn't want to be open), including one in the section title, is a tad excessive. Also, the correct way to wikilink to it would have been: User talk:Low Sea#An open letter to Hrafn,, not an embedded cite to the URL.Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3

I guess we're all part of the anti-ID cabal. I just thought I was opposed to anti-science BS, but hey that's just me. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are two articles that could use help

Hrafn, the following articles are completely unreferenced and contain significant POV:

• Petar Zrinski
• Zrinski

FYI, Madman (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Then template them (as I just did). It's hardly rocket science -- and hardly something you need me for. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

We all have our specialities. If you find an article on Mesoamerica that needs work, let me know. You know what templates to use, how to push, etc etc, so I thought I'd bring them to your attention. That's all, Madman (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Astrotheology

Accusations based on ignoring evidence
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I noticed you marked every single sentence in what I wrote with some random clarify, dubious, whatever tag. I also noticed that even though there are refs, you still marked them. Your tagging was obviously careless. If you wish to contribute to wikipedia, I suggest to grab the source and verify and improve the summaries. — Dzonatas 07:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Virtually every sentence you wrote in that section is garbled jargon-ridden verbiage. I gave detailed explanations in hideen comments in the text, and have also posted them on talk -- so your claim that "tagging was obviously careless" is a baseless violation of WP:AGF. I suggest that the entire section is meaningless unencyclopedic verbiage and needs to be removed. HrafnTalkStalk 07:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC) It seemed right after I posted this on your page you also posted nearly at the same time the reply on the article's talk page. Clearly, that is your lack of WP:AGF. — Dzonatas 07:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC) What part of "I gave detailed explanations in hideen[sic] comments in the text" did you fail to understand? "Clearly" I don't give the proverbial pair of fetid dingo's kidneys, about your accusations, based on ignoring evidence that was available at the time you first posted. I am archiving this pointless thread and will delete any further baseless accusations without comment. HrafnTalkStalk 07:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sheldrake

If you wait more than a minute, rather than deleting it repeatedly, I can reliably source the section. The experiment was a joint one with a "normal" scientist and the results weren't favorable to Sheldrake (according to the mainstream view). It's a notable experiment that discounts his "hypothesis". As such, it belongs in the article. If the problem you have with it is the source, that's no problem. Just change the source. You don't have to delete good, non-OR information just because it's at the moment unreliably sourced. I'm in the process of fixing it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Then source it to something other than Rivista di Biologia before you restore it. That source has already been highly contentious, so restoring it is likewise contentious. It is currently 'bad, unreliably sourced' information that should not be given WP:UNDUE weight, unless and until it can be reliably sourced. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

One, reliability is contextual to the statements being made. How reliable does Rivista di Biologia need to be to say that an experiment was conducted and it was a failure? That's not an extraordinary claim so it doesn't need an exceptional source. Two, the fact that the failed experiment did take place is now reliably sourced to Rose's book, not Rivista di Biologia, and Rose is a respected scientist. So again, how is it you just want to delete the whole section? Three, undue weight? Are you seriously suggesting that Sheldrake's crackpot theories and an experiment that refutes them doesn't deserve weight in an article about the man himself? Weight isn't about information. Wikipedia doesn't censor even the craziest of ideas, so long as they are notable. WP:UNDUE is about weighing views. The prominent view presented in this section, after my revisions, is that of mainstream science, not Sheldrake. Did you read it before deleting it? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) RdB was used for far more than "that an experiment was conducted and it was a failure" (hence the multiple citations of it). (2) The fact that an experiment took place is meaningless, without context -- context which currently lacks a reliable source. Yes, WP:DUE is about weighting views, and gives zero weight to views about the outcome of an experiment (Sheldrake's or Rose's) that are made in an unreliable source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, anything the article can say and should say, should be sourcable from a reliable source. If Rose's reliable version gives details on the setup and/or Sheldrake's opinions as to the outcome, then fine -- otherwise they should be omitted per WP:RS & WP:UNDUE respectively. Otherwise we might as well not have WP:RS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following your argument. The source is Rupert Sheldrake, quoting on his website something he wrote for Rivista. As such, the source is really just Sheldrake himself (primary source), not Rivista per se. When weighing the reliability, Rivista's reliability isn't the issue. Sheldrake's reliability to make statements about his own views is the issue. He's talking about his experiments and his view of the results. Since it's him doing the talking, his own words are reliable for his view. His view is relevant to his article. When we turn to how the experiment was received outside his own little world, we use a secondary source. That view isn't sourced to Sheldrake or Rivista, it's reliably sourced to Rose's book. Both views are reliably sourced and duely weighted. Sheldrake's because it's an article about him, reliably sourced to himself. Outside view because it's also about how his ideas were received by others, reliably sourced to others. I'm really not sure what your complaint is considering the section isn't the least bit flattering to Sheldrake. Everything sourced to Sheldrake is fully attributed as his view only, not the view of others. If that's not clear, it can easily be worded clearer. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Then Sheldrake is, at best, a questionable source in an article about himself, and the restrictions on use of such sources apply. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Great Work

Hrafn, I'm glad you have enough knowledge of the subject matter to keep astrotheology in line. I also completely understand your frustration with the other editor on the page who seems not to comprehend how we apply some rather basic policies and guidelines in terms of sourcing and verifiability. Might I suggest not getting too worked up over it. Let's ask for some assistance with this entry from relevant wikiprojects, and if specifically the poor sourcing continues lets take it to the RS/N. What do you think? Cheers for all your hard work!PelleSmith (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Astrotheology

Hello, Hrafn. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yours, — Dzonatas 14:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You may find this sub thread of interest. I was myself unaware of the history Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Houston.2C_we_have_a_problem. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ouch -- I knew he was bad, but didn't realise he was infamous. Also didn't realise that he'd refactored his comment on here after I'd called him on it being incomprehensible. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Excessive nit-picking

[Unintelligible whining & WP:AGF-violation removed. Dzonatas & Madman have made their baseless accusations on quite enough fora without me feeling any need to offer them another one. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC) ]

Arbitration request

You have been named as a party at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Dzonatas. You may wish to make a statement at the page. Durova^Charge! 04:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll probably be making a statement. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mae-Wan Ho

An article that you have been involved in editing, Mae-Wan Ho, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mae-Wan Ho. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rob (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Martinphi restricted. He is under probation and has been not behaving very well in spite of that, don't you think? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Bias

Why are you insisting on violating Wiki policy on neutrality? Specifically, in regards to the following page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Barton, you have censored to only include a biased POV. In reading the Discussion page on David Barton, much of the same egregious issues I saw were previously identified by other users and addressed...only to be sabotaged by your "editing".

Do you really think it is correct to identify Time Magazine and Americans United for Separation of Church and State as historians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.166.47.136 (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the bloody policy. No, Time Magazine and Americans United for Separation of Church and State are not historians, they are reliable secondary sources for what historians say. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a head's up then that this article may need to go through arbitration. The article has a biased POV due to constant censoring on your part, see the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.166.47.136 (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

two queries

Hi. If you can cast your mind back to this edit, I would like to ask whether you were aware a third opinion had been sought prior to it, and whether you were solicited to comment there. Thanks, and I hope no offense is taken to my curiosity. Your (alas, brief) engagement with one of the two points raised was appreciated. 86.44.27.243 (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No, like a number of other participants, I have the article on my watchlist. In fact as more than two editors had already ventured an opinion, requesting a "third opinion" was superfluous. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing was superfluous. I raised concerns on the busy talk page without response, edited the article two days later, was reverted, requested response from a reverter (Filll) via edit summary and asked for a third opinion after Filll's bizarre "fatwahs, fiats and dictates" comment. As you can see,[7] [8] only then, within hours, after three days in which only Filll opined, and that by explicit request, did three involved editors grace the talk page, and only one showed an attempt to even check the sources vs. the assertions. So the timing was a little weird, as I'm sure you can appreciate. 86.44.27.243 (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

On closer examination, you did indeed make the request before the other editors chimed in -- less than 24 hours after the thread started on talk -- which is arguably premature. It's not uncommon for the reverting editor to be the only one noticing that a dispute exists, at least initially. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Flew

Hi Hrafn, I see you reverted my (3-month delayed) reversion on Anthony Flew. Since I didn't write the paragraph I can't promise it is true, but the source is manifestly supposed to be the 2005 book by Flew which the paragraph purportedly describes, specifically the preface and introduction. I put this paragraph back because the list of points which immediately follows makes no sense in the context of the article without that paragraph. I have no ax to grind here except that the text should make some sort of sense; if you think there is some problem with the paragraph, you should delete the list as well since it comes from the same source. PaddyLeahy (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You need to source removed material before re-adding it. Removing material is clearly a "challenge" per WP:PROVEIT: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." As it stands, it's 'something that somebody thinks might be in the book somewhere'. If its removal breaks up the flow, then this needs to be copy-edited around, if the paragraph can't be sourced. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

On closer examination, the paragraph cannot be cited to the book in question -- as it is interpretation of this primary source, which requires a secondary source to avoid WP:SYNTH. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh good grief, get a grip! If you can't report the contents of a book by (apparently) a fairly well-known philosopher published for a general audience by a mainstream publisher, without getting a secondary source, then we better delete wikipedia's entire coverage of scholarly subjects. Also, it does not seem to me to be interpretation, just direct reporting of content (which is allowed for primary sources). Viz in summary the para reads:

In <year>, when <booktitle> was republished by <publisher>, the new introduction <description of content>. The preface says the publisher and <author> <description of editing process>. <description of book introduction>...which raises ten matters that came about since the original 1966 edition...<further description of thesis put forward in introduction>.

This para was deleted by an anon IP with no edit summary, leaving this section of the article reading like nonsense since the list of items seems to appear out of nowhere. You then re-deleted with the comment "unsourced", even though the first two sentences exhaustively describe the (alleged) source. The question is, do we AGF the editor who originally added this content, whose "list of ten matters" you are happy to keep in the article, or do we AGF a once-only IP editor who left the article reading as nonsense? For all I know there is no such book and "Anthony Flew" is wholly invented. I'm not in a position to check or revise the text. If you know something about this subject, perhaps you should do the copyediting, but you should not have made an edit which left the article in its current state. PaddyLeahy (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: well Amazon.com reveals that the book and author both exist, and the reviewers seem to confirm that the introduction does discuss Flew's change of views, but there are no on-line pages unfortunately. PaddyLeahy (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Get a bloody clue! The paragraph stated:

In 2005, when God and Philosophy was republished by Prometheus Books, the new introduction failed to conclusively answer the question of Flew's beliefs. The preface says the publisher and Flew went through a total of four versions (each extensively peer-reviewed) before coming up with one that satisfied them both. The result is an introduction, written in a distinctly detached third-person context, which raises ten matters that came about since the original 1966 edition. Flew refrains from personally commenting on these issues, and basically says that any book to follow God and Philosophy will have to take into account these ideas when considering the philosophical case for the existence of God.

This is NOT "report[ing] the contents of a book" or a "description of content". Does the "content" state that it is "fail[ing] to conclusively answer the question of Flew's beliefs", that it is "written in a distinctly detached third-person context", that "Flew refrains from personally commenting on these issues"? No! These claims are synthesis of the material in the book. Find a secondary source that substantiates this interpretation, or the paragraph stays out. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn, I'm assuming you have no clue either, i.e. that neither you nor I have read the text in question (otherwise, you would just have fixed the article, I'm sure). Sadly, you're probably right that Wikipedia doesn't allow comments on style, but the rest is pretty factual. If the content does not explicitly defend Flew's belief's (despite his pre-publication statement noted in the previous paragraph that it would) then it is pertinent, and not synthesis, to report this fact. For all I know, the introduction (or preface) may state explicitly that Flew has chosen in the end not to comment; I've seen such statements in similar contexts in other re-issued books. I'm going to re-add a version of the paragraph which removes the parts that I agree are editorialising. I'll also raise the issue on the article talk page in the hope of attracting someone who has read the book. PaddyLeahy (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you think?

User:El C dropped this note on my page. He might have a point. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

John Freshwater

A gift for you Hrafn ... [9] ... use it as you see fit. 66.102.199.50 (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC) (back to my break)

Relationship between religion and science

Are we now working this article together? I hope so. Clearly, you are a gifted writer. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The article's still a bit of a mess. Too many qualifiers that appear to have been placed so as to not offend the religious. At least that's my take. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's also got a considerable 'where to start' problem in that the structure suggested by the Overview section bears no relationship to the structure (or lack thereof) that the article thereafter proceeds to lay out. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)