User talk:Hrafn/archive2

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

IfD closure

I just wanted to let you know I partly corrected myself and clarified my "100-1 ratio" statement at User_talk:Alasdair#Image:Time_evolution_wars.jpg. ... Kenosis 17:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, I saw that. My logic worked with a fairly large leeway (hence my saying only "approximately accurate"), as I suspected that your figures might be (perfectly legitimately) rather rough. I must admit that I'm more than a little uncomfortable with admins both acting as image-deletion-advocates and closing-admins on contested IfDs -- it gives a more-than-slight appearance of WP:COI. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:68.119.226.63

[1] LOL, Ok, fine, I'd heard so much about the wonders of assuming good faith, that I thought I should at least give it a try :). – ornis ⚙ 07:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Not that there was any real doubt, but he outed himself in this edit. I don't think WP:AGF applies to blatant self-promotion (or I hope it doesn't, one never can tell with fatwas from the more screwy policy-nazis these days ;) ). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah... see, I missed that, as I was distracted by far more pernicious nonsense. – ornis ⚙ 07:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

From the brief glance I took of his book on Google Books, he's nutty as a fruitcake. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems we hurt his feelings. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh my, "bizarre opinion editing", I guess "that doesn't make a blind bit of sense" is a bizarre opinion now. Jeez have you seen this? A sort of rambling mix of bible quotes, misappropriated terms from physics and cosmology, attacks on on the atheist materialist religion, weird tangential questions to himself, a dash of postmodernism, naive vitalism and a bit of really bad poetry. Textbook crankery. – ornis ⚙ 09:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

He also has poetry about some/all of the above as well. I suppose we should be thankful that he's only attempting to impose his prose on us here at wikipedia. >:) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

LMAO... perhaps there is a god after all. – ornis ⚙ 10:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A god of protection from bad poetry? One can but pray. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent> Caution, guys, didn't it strike you that with poetry like that he could be a Vogon commander? Also, you've probably just boosted by about 5,000% his reader stats for "Intelligent design may preponderantlty be used to apologize for a non-evolution world-view of creation... " etc. Good call, I was just thinking of deleting the tosh myself, glad I didn't have to suffer reading more of that. .. dave souza, talk 11:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I will confess that I didn't actually read any of his poetry -- the titles of his poems in his table of contents was enough to make me power up my Infinite Improbability Drive and get the hell out of there. Ornis seems to have been made of sterner stuff however. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

User:68.119.226.63 is now User:Gary.gibson.writer, and spouting the same old crank claims on Theistic evolution‎. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

So I see. We may yet be forced to make the terrible choice between the airlock and a poetry recital. – ornis ⚙ 07:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Literal account

Hi. I would never guess that the link was to something called "Biblical literalism" without clicking on the link or hovering over it. See also WP:EGG, a shortcut which I just created after spending 20 minutes looking for that section. A.Z. 23:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The "literal account" in context is the literal interpretation of a Biblical account. Under the circumstances it is perfectly obvious and contextual that the link would be to biblical literalism. It would hardly be to a literal interpretation of Shakespearian sonnets. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 01:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you ever consider that the large majority of people who read that article don't even know there is such a thing as "biblical literalism"? Do you really think if you ask some random person what that link is to, they will answer correctly? I would guess that 99% of all people who speak English won't know the answer. It looks like a really non-intuitive link to me. A.Z. 22:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If they "don't even know there is such a thing as 'biblical literalism'" then the link is exactly what they need to inform them what "literalism" means in this context. This passage of the article is talking about biblical literalism, not literalism in some wider context, so the link is perfectly apt. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to inform ignorance, not pander to it. Links should thus take readers to articles that somebody knowledgeable with the subject would expect, and which enlighten those who aren't knowledgeable and so don't know what to expect. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think you may be misunderstanding me. I know that the passage is talking about biblical literalism, and that it is useful to have a link to the article on biblical literalism. My concern is that the link was hidden. It was an easter egg. My only concern is simply that no one could guess to what the link was without clicking on it or hovering over it. I agree with everything you said, and I agree that the link is apt. I didn't remove the link, I just changed the way it was presented, so people can understand what is going on without having to hover over the link or click on it (with my version, they wouldn't miss the information about biblical literalismt even if they were reading the printed article). Even people who know what biblical literalism is would most probably have to hover over the link to know where it links to. I just meant before that those people could possibly guess to whether the link was, if we asked them to do that. A.Z. 04:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

'Piped links' of the type [[<adjective> <noun>|<noun>]], where the adjective is implied by the context are a fairly standard tool within wikipedia. Few, if anybody, would consider them to be an 'Easter Egg', misleading or otherwise problematic. Your version is clumsy and unnecessary. If you think otherwise then take it up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That was incredibly rude of you to tell me to take this somewhere else, instead of continuing conversing with you. I am tired of so much rudeness on Wikipedia already. Please, think about what you have just done. A.Z. 04:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You are seeking what amounts to a style policy against a widespread editorial practice. Where else do you expect this to be discussed? Lacking such a policy, I have no reason to accept an alteration of this link against this practice, and thus nothing further to discuss with you on this specific edit. Good day. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael Behe

Moved to Talk:Michael Behe. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Darwin's Black Box

Darwin's Black Box is a wikipedia article about a book. This book is apparently not neutral in its point of view -- like many books. Please do not delete information on the content of the book based on Wikipedia's NPOV policy -- that's not the intention of the policy. If I deleted everything in Wikipedia that I didn't agree with, I'd be blocked, with good reason. I've reverted your edit to Darwin's Black Box. Please do not delete content from Wikipedia just because you don't agree with it. This is an encyclopedia, not your personal personal webpage. --65.78.212.149 02:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Your section is not "information on the content of the book" but repetition of Behe's fallacious claims as fact. As such it is in gross violation of WP:NPOV (and particularly WP:UNDUE) as well as WP:RS (as Darwin's Black Box is not a reliable source on anything scientific). Hence my deletion of this material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

DBB is reliable only as a primary source: usable for statements such as those that start "Behe says ..." -- not for anything that starts "Science has..." I recommend you read WP:PSTS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Horvind

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kent Hovind. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 12:19, November 2, 2007

EoE

Hi,

Regards this diff, I know they're not citations, but I still think the template is far more useful than the raw link. Not enough to revert, but I think there's value in having the extra info. Is there a policy or guideline on not using citation templates elsewhere, or more of a preference? WLU 12:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Whereas I found them less useful than a raw link -- readers have no reason whatsoever to want to know when a EL was retrieved, that they are in English is obvious (this field should be used 'only when the reference is to something that is in another language to the article) and the automatic link to Behe, Michael was pointless clutter. To be blunt, I'm not at all impressed by {{cite web}}, it leads to impenetrable source code and cluttered references -- just look at the unnecessary dross in the EoE references section. It should in my mind be used as sparingly as possible. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh. I always saw it as more information is better; whenever I'm looking up references, the more I've got to go on the easier it is to find the source. Though there's not much point when it's a weblink, either it's right or its not or a quick google search'll find the title. You've quite a valid point for ELs though - the only reason for a last access date is in case it goes dead.

Incidentally, {{tl|cite web}} gives you {{cite web}} with a clickable link. WLU 21:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Also incidentally, there's some discussion at Talk:Duane Gish, which might interest you, and I wouldn't mind some input on whether the actions taken are appropriate or not. WLU 22:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Regards Inspectre, I'm not feeding the troll, and am going to shun him/her. If he/she spreads to other pages, I might think about seeing if he/she is a sock of User:Raspor. If he/she just dies off on his/her own, I'll consider it a good thing and let it be. Also, your signature is the funniest joke I've ever seen related to talk and contrib pages. Kudos. WLU 22:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

EagleGordon

He may have been confused by the talk page. It was more likely to be cluelessness than vandalism. Anyway, I'd say he did everyone else a favour by archiving his comments - "this isn't the place for debating evolution" would probably be the best response. Guettarda 04:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It is rather bizarre behaviour even for a newbie, and is likely to confuse users looking for legitimate archives. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a link on the talk page to archives, so it's possible he clicked on [Archive 2] (a redlink...) Trying to talk to him seems to have no effect though, so I'm not sure what to do. Patience is probably the best alternative. Guettarda 05:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, Experimental evolution badly needs a cleanup for its formatting and linking idiosyncrasies. But now probably isn't the best time. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

if this is where I can talk, great, didn't know so my apologies. I am not trying to debate evolution, but point out that their experiments have only resulted in achieving just new varieties or species. Which to me only demonstrates part of evolution(natural selection and adaption) not all of evolution.I am going to inquire with a couple of biologists, but as I know there has never been a new order. Even in the E.Coli experiment (ongoing for 30 years).

As for the several revisions, I apologize for those to. After reading the policy it's YIKES. I definitely exceeeded my limits so I apologize for that. Eaglegordon 06:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Good work

Hi Hrafn, thanks for your work on Geoscience Research Institute. Good work for citing Ronald Numbers, who would surely be considered the very best source for the article in question. The WikiProject WP:SDA needs more book citations rather than web-based ones, I believe. Cheers, Colin MacLaurin 16:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply

... that you would say "I could go with either word". ;(

Uniformitarianism is not even close to being a theory. Theories are what science produces, using facts and principles (like uniformitarianism) which help interpret these facts. "Doctrine" is close, I will admit, but has unfortunate religious overtones. Anyway, the articles on Geology and Uniformitarianism anchor this point rather nicely, so hopefully we won't see any more equivocation inserted on this point. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I get a lot of bullshit dropped on my page, and I was archiving some of it, when I noticed your comment. Where did I say this? And in what context? I kind of remember it, and I've always been so annoyed with Creationists misusing "theory" that I reverted I think. But I do so much vandal fighting on here, I can't remember. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You said so in the edit summary here. I thought that you didn't go quite far enough, so bolstered it here. The comment I left on your talkpage was a mere nose-tweeking, not a serious gripe. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I get so tired of the Creationist cruft that I'm getting lazy about it. Your edits were much better than my revert. And my nose was very itchy from the tweaking. :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Way of the Master

Hi Hafrn, I've been away a bit. I had a look at Way of the Master. The tone of the whole page seems so misguided compared to what wikipedia is supposed to be, that I think it'll be a lot of work and arguments to get it anything resembling an encyclopedia article. Good luck! I may weigh in once I've built up the energy for it. Ashmoo (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that I'm having too much cognitive dissonance that anybody can take Comfort & Cameron (surely the Bill & Ted of apologetics) seriously to feel comfortable with doing the finer details. I've done a lot of chainsaw work already in paring down what was merged into here from the satellite articles. I'll leave the fine detail to others, unless I can put myself in the right mood for a serious treatment. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I just had another look at the article. Nice work. You've done good job of turning the previous shambles into an actual wikipedia article. I wonder whether the original editors will ever come back?... Ashmoo (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I still wouldn't call it an "actual wikipedia article" -- it's still as lightweight as hell (I just removed the stuff that was so lightweight that it practically floated off of its own accord, and then put the remaining lightweightedness into some sort of order) and, particularly, it is still all but completely lacking in third party sourcing. Such articles aggravate me: not really bad enough to be deletable (let alone worth the aggravation of AfDing them), but bad enough that even a lot of work only turns them into a halfway acceptable article.

About your editing of my page.

Moved to Talk:Francis J. Beckwith Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits on Old Earth Creationism

Thank you for your efforts on Old Earth Creationism. Previously it looked like an article written by Young Earth Creationists on why Old Earth Creationism is in error. Another berean (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. The stuff I got rid of should've been reverted immediately -- badly written, badly marked up & badly out of compliance with wikipedia policy. A testament for why every article needs at least an editor or two riding shotgun. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of looking farther afield in the last few days at other Wikipedia articles. Frankly, I am shocked at how poorly written much of Wikipedia is. I would say that a good 99% of it is pretty atrocious. It has been a real eye-opener. We need more help on WP; lots and lots more help. I think eventually it will be something to be proud of, but this might take many many more man years of effort. On the other hand, it is a fairly good start so far. --Filll (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

C. cosmologies

Hey Hrafn,

I was thinking about the C c'gies page, right now it reflects mostly YE creationism, but there's no need in my mind - ID is a type of creationism, right? And one of the assumptions/facile arguments used by Behe in EoE is the strong anthropic principle, which is a type of cosmology, right? What are your thoughts on adding an 'old earth'/ID section to the page discussing the SAP in relation to Behe? Is it a SYNTH? WLU (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that ID's cosmological work centred mainly around arguments (such as Guillermo Gonzalez's claims (in The Privileged Planet) surrounding a Fine-tuned Universe‎ hypothesis (see Fine-tuned Universe‎#Intelligent design). There is likely to be room for a short section summarising all this with appropriate see-tos in C.c., but anything longer seems likely to be a duplication. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, I'll look into them if/when I draft the section. WLU (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Saw the merge, if I ever get around to re-creating, I'll draft it on a sub-page first. WLU (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Bernard d'Abrera

I am not sure what will happen next, but it will be interesting. I did put in a little bit of information and I am prepared to do much more, depending on what happens next. --Filll (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your talk, see WP:AN#Bernard d'Abrera for more. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Seed, ScienceBlogs and WP:V

ScienceBlogs does not fit WP:V as per footnote 5 (emphasis mine):

Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.

As we can easily discover on the ScienceBlogs article (again, emphasis mine):

Each blog has its own theme, specialty, and author(s) and is not subject to editorial control.

ScienceBlogs fails WP:RS/V on that. 67.135.49.177 18:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Your selective reading of the WP rules and wikilawyering is quite unbecoming, as well as unconvincing and uncompelling. Please see the discussion at Talk:Discovery_Institute#Blogs_as_proper_sources.--Filll 18:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes. The old "you're wikilawyering" attack to dismiss the edits of someone who is actually following Wiki guidelines. 67.135.49.177 19:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You missed a bit: "Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be phrasally attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested...")." The opinions expressed were those of Deborah Caldwell-Stone, and she was "phrasally attributed" for them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

I reverted your edit in Pseudoscience. WP:PSTS says

"All sources should be used in a way that does not give rise to new analyses, syntheses or original conclusions that are not verifiable. Where interpretive claims, analysis, or synthetic claims are included in Wikipedia articles, use appropriate sources rather than original analysis by Wikipedia editors."

Stating that the 1843 text was the first (or one of the first) to use the term would require studying other litterature, or making qualified guesses etc. None of this can be found in the work itself. This has probably been written about somewhere, and would be interesting to have in the article. Therefore: a citation is needed. /SvNH 02:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

In other words you nuked the citation because you didn't like a single word: "first". Get a clue! The citation was perfectly legitimate for its "use was in 1843 by French physiologist François Magendie". If you don't like "first" then change "first". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

And if you'd had the sense to actually mention that it was the word "first" that you were objecting to in your original edit summary instead of the erroneous "Citation needed, of course the work itself cannot be used as a source for that. Leaving the original reference as a comment.", we could have cleared this up far earlier. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I think you are perhaps overreacting a bit. A {{citation needed}} indicates a way of improving an article by adding a relevant source. I never add them for a "WP:POINT" reason. Do you? /SvNH 03:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Replacing a legitimate citation with {{fact}} was overkill ("overreacting a bit") and uninformative as to your specific issue. If you'd wanted to highlight the lack of substantiation for "first" you need only have placed {{failed verification}} next to that adjective. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Is "citation needed" looked very seriously upon? /SvNH 04:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop being silly. Deleting the citation & replacing it with fact implied that the entire sentence was uncited when in fact it was only the single word "first" that was a problem (a fact that or initial reversion made no mention of whatsoever). If you don't want to get reverted, you need to be clearer as to the rationale behind your edits. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

gallup poll

i've reverted your revert. the numbers given are nowhere in that video, which incidentally i watched before you reverted, as my original intention was to find the correct link and rewrite the sentence to include the sample population.--Mongreilf (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough -- I'm on a slow connection, so wasn't able to verify the video's contents -- just that it'd been cited by another page as the source for numbers in the correct timeframe. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Young Earth Creationism

Why did you undo my changes, I am a Young earth creationist and altered the article so it more clearly represents what I/we believe and what the refrenced article states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.168.163 (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Christine Comer

This is a new article that needs editing. You might be interested in it.--Filll (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Will probably keep just an eye on it until the situation settles down and solidifies. Thanks for the tip. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hrafn am trying to edit the Lizzette Reynolds page because thought it should include factual information. The information provided in the original piece are simply interpretations of information in newspaper accounts and not necessarily the truth. Can you please explain? I have read the information provided but will ask for mediation if you continue to block factual information from being included.

Evolution sourcing in general

It'd be nice to have something like WP:MEDRS to refer to for evolution/creationism articles, did you know of them? It'd be handy to refer people to so we don't have to re-invent the wheel. Perhaps an essay? I dunno, we keep falling back on insults to reply to creationists who think Gish and Hovind are sources on par with Science and Nature. I might draft an essay if there's nothing extant. WLU (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

ID project

Should Lizzette Reynolds be part of it? Is she too obscure?--Filll (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Borderline. I think leave her out for the time being, but see if the Comer controversy and/or events in Texas generally brings her further into the limelight. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Again: Hrafn am trying to edit the Lizzette Reynolds page because thought it should include factual information. The information provided in the original piece are simply interpretations of information in newspaper accounts and not necessarily the truth. Can you please explain? I have read the information provided but will ask for mediation if you continue to block factual information from being included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3littlehands (talk • contribs) 05:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

3littlehands: you have been deleting verifiable information and adding unverfiable information. This is in violation of wikipedia policy, and so has been reverted. Please read WP:V, WP:RS & WP:OR. And please sign comments by appending ~~~~ Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Day-age

Please respond on the talk page. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Satanic ritual abuse" scandal

[As I have expressed neither interest in, nor disagreement over, this scandal, and as I can see no relevance for the issue (Biopsychiatry controversy‎) on which I do disagree with Cesar Tort, I am moving this to his own homepage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)]

Template:Museums_in_Kentucky classifications too course

Please take a look at Template_talk:Museums_in_Kentucky#Organization. I am seeking input on the organization of this template. The classifications are a bit too course in my view. TableManners ^U·T·C 17:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I for one cannot imagine lumping art and history museums together. Seems a bit odd. --Filll (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

NPOV

NPOV is not an acceptable reason to revert good faith edits: "Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it." at Help:Reverting. Please explain your reverts on the talk page as well. It helps to gain consensus, instead of causing disputes to degrade into edit wars. Also, reverting ^{[citation needed]} templates because the material is covered in another article is not appropriate. Please add the appropriate citations, or just leave the template alone. GusChiggins21 (talk) 05:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

"Scientific fact" at Intelligent design

Hrafn, just a point of interest for you (I won't seek to revert your reversion of my reversion of that last change back to the original, but, like FTU, ID has been and is getting more so an article against the topic it describes, less so an article about it) but the Wikipedia NPOV is explicitly not synonymous with the Scientific POV. Under the scientific point of view, we would be required to judge anything that does not meet the approval of the scientific community. Religion and controversial minority points of view would all have to be represented in a negative light. But using NPOV, we can acknowledge these things (as well as the scientific criticism about it) without passing judgment on their veracity or plausibility. That's the Wikipedia policy. 207.190.198.130 (talk) 05:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

If you read WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT etc, you will note that your view is incorrect and that you are mistaken. In fact, the proportion of the views is in accord with their relative prominence. And since ID purports to be science, well then it is evaluated as science. It does not purport to be religion, which of course is what it is; just a wolf in sheep's clothing, of insidious dominionist ignorance-mongering.--Filll (talk) 05:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The contents of the Laws of Thermodynamics, is a matter of fact, not opinion. That evolution does not transgress them is likewise a matter of fact not opinion (particularly as evolution could not violate them without all reproduction, and thus all life, likewise violating them). It is thus a matter of fact not opinion that anybody claiming that evolution violates 2LoT is wrong. If you find this offensive then it is reality that offends you -- not the "critics" of ID or editors of wikipedia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

For adding references to challenged material in Objections to Evolution. We also need a citation for the statement that transitional fossils support the theory of evolution. The examples given are descriptive of the fossils, not their importance as support for evolution. GusChiggins21 (talk) 07:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Your {{fact}}-tags were borderline specious (and in one case right over the border into blatantly ridiculous) -- I merely added references, where doing so wasn't completely idiotic, in order to prevent further edit-warring. This should not be considered to be an endorsement of your editing patterns, which I considered to be disruptive. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's fine that you consider me disruptive. I've made no secret of the fact that I think the ID articles are biased, so I'm probably going to seem disruptive by challenging them. But please assume good faith; I just want neutrally phrased articles that are properly cited. Thanks for your help. GusChiggins21 (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence to support the contention that you "just want neutrally phrased articles that are properly cited". WP:AGF does not overcome "bad faith" editing such as your repeated tendentious argumentation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

What the hell is going on around here?

GusChiggins21. What a ..........!!!!!!! He now claims he BELIEVES in evolution. Little does he understand that you BELIEVE in Creationism, as a matter of faith. Evolution requires no FAITH. Creationists are just not as bright as they used to be. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 09:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is a fairly standard "give him enough rope to hang himself" while limiting collateral damage (both to articles & to pro-science editors' reputations). He's spinning a bit too frenetically for me to be able to nail down his viewpoint (orthodox creationist, oddball creationist, such an idiosyncratic 'evolutionist' that he might as well be creationists, etc), and I suspect he'll flame-out before I can get a good read on him. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This is hilarious. Do you guys just want a statement of my POV? GusChiggins21 (talk) 10:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No. We simply desire a cessation of your disruptive editing to prove a point, which is explicitly "bad faith editing" under WP:AGF. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Describing Jonathan well

Hi. Thanks for this tweak. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Got ID?

I'd love to merge ID with Intelligent Design movement, based on your comment about whether ID even exists (as an argument). But somebody might say I was being POINTy.

I'm not sure whether it's best termed an argument, a critique, a position, or a crock of s---. How about viewpoint, idea, position?

The single statement, "Life shows signs of having been designed," is a proposition and an assertion. But ID has more than one card up its sleeve, so where does that leave us? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't be a dick. At its core, ID contains neither axioms nor logical inference so it is not an argument. Likewise, at its core it contains contains no criticisms of evolution, so it is not a crituque. It is an assertion that acts as an umbrella for such arguments and critiques, but that does not make it itself one. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We have way too much material to start thinking about merging articles on ID and creationism, in my opinion.--Filll (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Filll, as his premise was patently fallacious, there's no need to even consider his conclusion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Question about your revert of my edit...

Hi Hrafn...

On 12/13 you reverted my ~~addition~~ addition to the Day-Age creation subsection at Creationism as unsourced.

I'm not sure exactly what it was that you felt did not meet the verifyability criteria for inclusion, especially as the entire section is sourced back to Day Age Creationism

Is there a reason you just didn't tag whatever you felt needed a citation rather than just blanking the whole edit?

In the meantime I have undone your revert and added citations.

Please tag anything else that you think does not meet WP standards for verifiability.

Thanks,

riverguy42 (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Your additions were not sufficiently clearly tracable back to statements already in Day Age Creationism for that argument to apply. It does not help me attempting to work out what the heck is going on that you give the wrong dif and employ a sig that has little in common with your nick. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still looking for you to be more explicit...I'm looking for help. FYI, I didn't "give the wrong diff", I intended to direct you to the edit that you blanked, that included my text giving the reason for my addition -- sorry, I didn't think that would give you trouble.

Do you agree that the "Day-age" is currently underrepresented compared to all the other comparable sections?riverguy42 (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have given more detailed explanations of the reasoning behind my reversion on Talk:Creationism, where it belongs. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Biopsych

You know, Hrafn, I'm tired of your complete assumption of bad faith and in-civil tone on that talk page. There are editors other than you who have an interest in this subject and all are not as au fait with policy as you are. I left that note, not only for you, but for a new editor who will likely have no idea of the background to this. If you wish to risk going ahead and rehash old discussions, engage old editors and end up at ArbCom again, that is up to you. Personally, I prefer to learn from the mistakes of the past and try and not repeat them, and I thought I would offer that information to those other editors.

I am working under the assumption you are trying to make this page better, and not attempting to spin the article to reflect a specific POV. I supported much of your edits to the article, and thought you did a good job of tightening up the balance. I would hope you would afford others the same privilege, rather than throw accusations around as you have done to both myself and Cesar Tort. Your recent response is a non-sequitur to the material I posted. I specifically said "Without prejudice about whether it should be merged or not.." yet your responded that "If you feel that these paragraphs don't belong there..." Can you see how you are completely not addressing what I am saying and instead addressing what you think I am saying?

My interest here to to help people with strong opinions and knowledge of fringe science who wish to contribute but often fall into the trap of advocacy. We need people who can provide us with expert source and information on the subjects, and chasing them all away with accusations of POV pushing is detrimental to our coverage. Instead we need to work with them and harness their knowledge and enthusiasm, while ensuring we keep it neutral. Your tone on that page is not conducive to that and we have already lost one professional writer as a consequence. While I generally think you are moving this article in the right direction, please try and tone down the confrontational language. If you have policy on your side, and you seem to think you do, then there is no need to call other's actions "childish" or refer to someone as a "POV-pusher". Thanks. Rockpocket 08:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

When I am dealt with with something at least vaguely resembling good faith, I assume good faith. When I experience what I perceive as bullying, wild accusations and dishonesty as I have from you, Benjaminbruheim and Cesar Tort (as well as numerous lesser indications of bad faith), that assumption wears thin. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in the link to my comment that is "bullying, wild accusations and dishonesty". Its is a statement of fact (there was an ArbCom), a request to be mindful of prior mistakes (please be aware of it) an opinion that those involved, meaning you primarily, are experienced enough not to repeat it. If you consider such praise to be "bullying, wild accusations and dishonesty" then I really am concerned about your assumptions of others. That is a terribly bad faith interpretation of my comments. Rockpocket 18:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

When you come in swinging at me for assuming bad faith, you can be pretty sure that this (and not the later sugar coating) is what I'll be focusing on. Also when you open and close with dire warnings of the consequences of rocking the boat even slightly, you should be prepared to be perceived as attempting to bully. We have two choices at this stage: (1) we can continue to lob accusations, fatwas and prophesies of doom at each other; or (2) we can debate proposals for the article on their merits like civilised people. The reason that I had little good to say about Cesar is that he never would back up his preferred text with a solid & substantiated argument, but instead preferred unsubstantiated claims and ad hominem attacks. That this did not make for civilised discussion is hardly surprising. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether you choose to believe me or not, there was zero intent to threaten or bully. You "rocking the boat" would result in no consequences from me whatsoever, but there are editors who, experience shows, would object strongly to some of your proposals. Most of them have yet to take an interest in this (yet) and they may not choose to, but my feeling is that it is much better to consider the opinions of all stakeholders now, rather than swing from one extreme to the other in article space. The "dire warnings" are not to influence you from making improvements as you see fit, it is to inform you that this has been attempted before, poorly, and to urge all to avoid that situation again. I'm sorry if you took that as an attempt to warn you off, I can only repeat that is not my intention.

What you refer to as me "coming in swinging" is because you have explicitly accused every other editor in this debate of editing with a POV agenda, while (and I can only speak for myself) I have explicitly noted multiple times that I trust your efforts are in good faith to improve the article. I'm asking that you please stop assuming bath faith of others, because I consider that most poisonous to a civilised working environment. If we all work on the basis that the only agenda here is to create a balanced article, then we can debate proposals for the article on their merits. Rockpocket 19:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Reading that back, I realise that I sound pretty non-collegial myself. I apologise for that, its not my intent to instruct you what you should or should not do. Let me try again. As I said, I think you have done a good job, and I like your nav-template idea. I'm also not at all adverse to a merge, indeed that may well be the best outcome if it is done correctly. I really feel you have misinterpreted my feelings about this, I really very much agree with many of your positions in policy and have little interest in the subject itself.

Its just that my experience in these sort of science vs non- or alternative science articles, is that the best longterm outcome in terms of content comes from people with different POV's working together, respectfully and in good faith. As the most experienced editor working on the page at the moment, I would hope you could take the lead and work with some of the other contributors rather than working against them (which it kind of feels like at the moment). Thanks again, Rockpocket 09:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've had quite a bit of experience at trying to resurrect articles that have gone off the rails -- some of them have turned into solid articles, some of them have resulted in what amounts to controlled implosions, as there is insufficient cohesive content to sustain an article. This article has always had very much the feel of the latter. In doing so, I'm generally more interested in new ideas than what I perceive as reflexive defence of existing positions (the status quo between Biopsychiatry controversy and biological psychiatry from you, and the "original article" content from Cesar & Benjaminbruheim). I do listen to new input (though don't always draw the conclusions people may expect), and do quite often change my mind -- as my sudden idea that a template would be a good idea, based on the realisation from Benjaminbruheim's article of the large number of articles already covering this area, should indicate. My modus operandi on such projects tends to be to use the chainsaw first, and smooth things over later. If you want to disagree with the specifics of what gets moved where (or anything else), then please do so -- my initial suggestion was based principally on a superficial look as to what looked like it was opinion from anti-psychiatry activists, and which sounded more purely scientific research findings. A different break up, possibly even to different articles, may be useful. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also point out that if I'd been acting rationally, I would have simply left this article to molder with its NPOV-tag. I've got enough controlled-implosions on my hands as it is (and they're not exactly satisfying work), as well as an important, but woefully lopsidedly-sourced article to think about, a couple of stubs to expand & a couple of timely expansions on another article. The reason I did get involved was simply that Cesar's initial comments got me sufficiently hot under the collar that I threw rationality out the window & get stuck in anyway. Even chainsaw-level remediation of such an article takes a lot of time, sifting through sources, and concentration. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Interactions with specific editors

Yourself. Your substantive comments to date have amounted to repeated (and often imperiously voiced) 'suggestions' that I:
- Nominate the article for deletion if I wish to query its notability. This has always struck me as premature.
- Add content to the article. This has always struck me as dysfunctional as (1) the real problem was with the existing content and (2) the article lacks sufficient structure for there to be anything to hang the new content on.
- Do nothing, for fear of "strong objections". My first experience of editing wikipedia brought me into immediate contact with a bunch of strident POV-warriors. This meant that I very quickly learnt the rules and learnt to cite them clearly (and if necessary repeatedly) in defence of my edits. If editors like Cesar see this as mere "wikilawyering" and adulteration of their WP:TRUTH, then I can live with that. My impression to date is that a combination of patience and scrupulous observance of the rules will generally win out.

Given that none of this appeared to me to be particularly helpful and that you have, to date, meticulously avoided discussion of any alternate strategies/proposals/edits, it is hardly surprising that I have had little positive contact with you. You have given the impression of being at best superfluous, at worst obstructive.

Cesar Tort: Given that his defence of his position (and impeachment of my edits) were based upon unsubstantiated invocations of the WP:TRUTH, blatant ignoring/misrepresenting policy and ad hominem attacks, rather than arguments solidly founded on reliable and verifiable sources and citation of policy, I tended to be more than a little terse, and more than a little combative with him.
Voice of All: when we disagreed, I stated my opposition without rancour. When he queried one of my edits, I responded quickly clearly and politely. Where possible, I have taken his ideas on board.
Benjaminbruheim: where he has made lengthy off-topic soapbox speeches, assumed bad faith and made wild accusations (e.g. of "defiling" the article), I have responded bluntly and robustly. Where he has been making positive suggestions, or exploring how his viewpoint could legitimately be expressed on wikipedia, I have done my best to explore these with him, within the limitations imposed by wikipedia policy.

Have I reacted positively to everybody? No -- but then an unremittingly positive editor would probably avoid such a contentious and rancorous article. Have I responded with reasonable politeness to on-topic and substantive comments, I hope so.

If you want to have positive interactions with me then discuss my proposals on the talk page (supporting or opposing), suggest an alternate merger schema, or an entirely different strategy (but be prepared to do your own legwork on your own proposal, should it win out). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not have strong feelings either way and don't intend to support or oppose your proposal. As I previously noted, my interest is in trying to get editors from different POVs working together on this article to improve it (and avoid a situation that happened last time). When one editor with any POV dominates an article it it is to its detriment, irrespective of how good their intentions.

As you say, have you reacted positively to everyone? No. Have you reacted positively to anyone? I don't see it. I find that pretty disappointing from an editor of your experience. Inexperienced editors will always make accusations, it doesn't mean you have to respond in kind. I don't see this as a fight that requires a "strategy" to "win out." It isn't a war and would prefer a proposal that is acceptable to a consensus of editors through civil discussion rather than !voting, from positions of conflict. Rockpocket 04:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

By "strategy" I meant proposed programme for improving the article, such as my current merge/disambiguate/template "strategy". Thank you for assuming good faith.
If you aren't going to voice any substantive improvements on article then that means that you are indeed completely superfluous.
There had been no "working together" between different POVs. There had just been insertion of a massive pile of extremely poor-quality anti-biopsychiatry material. And given the amount of it that had built up, I can see no evidence of any attempt by anybody else at alleviating this.
I have listed positive interactions above, if you choose to ignore them, then that's up to you.

As far as I can see you do little except indulge in the very talkfests you claim to abhor, to very little good purpose. Your comments do nothing to improve either the content or the balance of the article. So unless and until you are prepared to make substantive proposals/suggestions/discussions as to the content or direction of the article, I see no point in having further contact with you, and will delete any further material you place on this page. Likewise I will most probably not respond to any comments you make on the article talkpage that are likewise not substantive proposals/suggestions/discussions as to the content or direction of the article -- as these are after all the purpose of talkpages. Good day to you sir. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey...can we work together to find a way to chill out a bit?

You said:

riverguy42: {{fact}}-tagging talkpage comments is disruptive editing and will be reverted, and may ultimately get you blocked. Please desist. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 23:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so my {{fact}}-tagging talkpage comments is annoying you. I will stop, and use another means. I only meant to keep the "dispute" from causing the section from getting overly long.

Now, you are citing me loudly for WP:DE? Sorry, but WP:DE (a WP:Guideline) says absolutely nothing whatsoever on the topic of tagging talkpage comments.

Nevertheless, as I continue to try my best to Assume good faith on your part, I also reviewed WP:TALK on the assumption that you were simply mistaken in citing the wrong guideline, and that perhaps I was violating a talk page guideline other than the one you mistakenly cited- see item #4.

What I found is that the first sentence says "Maintain Wikipedia policy: The policies that apply to articles also apply (if not to the same extent) to talk pages, including Wikipedia's verification, neutral point of view and no original research policies."

I take this to mean that any assertion of fact, expression of POV or Original Research (on a talk page) can legitimately be tagged as such -- especially when it is used to intimidate or drive away new contributors or viewpoints. This is my perspective on the effect your edits have on me, and I think some others may share this feeling.

Really, this is getting silly. You clearly have more horses in this race than me, but maybe you will review this, in combination with your edit history before we go forward, please?

Now, what's really unfortunate here is that if you were to slow down a bit and work with me, you would find that we share some common POV's, including an abhorrence for teaching ANY form of creationism in public schools, opposition to the Discovery Institute, and absolute support for "Separation of Church and State". You might want to take a look at the work I've done on criticism of the Unification Church.

Problem: (a) whatever common ground we might have is completely lost in all this noise, and (b) I am still pretty new here.

So, whaddaya say? riverguy42 (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)(aka Wndl42)

Oh...on Einstein...maybe you want to look at this. Einstein's "Bible" was called the "torah". Einstein's G-d was "Spinoza's G-d", a Hebrew (Kabbalahistic) "G-d". Einstein did not reject Torah or G-d, he just had different understandings. Remember too, that scientists (then and now) quite often downplayed or actively concealed whatever "beliefs" they may have had. Also, in this framework, consider the Jewish position on Intelligent Design. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wndl42 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

{{fact}}-tagging talkpages is pointless disruption. If you wish to query the factual basis of a comment on a talkpage, you write another comment (appropriately indented to show that it is a response to the original comment), to do so. Inserting a {{fact}}-tag is a form of refactoring somebody else's comments, which is generally frowned upon. {{fact}}-tags are designed for insertion in mainspace, where comments would be disruptive. Also note the difference in format between mainspace (where edits overwrite each other) versus talkspace (where they are sequential).
Everything I've read indicates that Spinoza & Einstein were pantheists, not kabbalahists. As neither were professing, let alone Biblically literalist, Jews, neither would see any need to harmonise science and Genesis in the way that DAC does, so any parallels between their beliefs and DAC would be coincidental.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond. May I take this as a "yes"? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You may take this as meaning that I will not oppose (and never have opposed) the admission of well-written, policy compliant (particularly well-sourced, per WP:V & WP:RS) content. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverting talk pages?

You can't go around reverting talk pages. GusChiggins21 (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I can when the reverted comments are in clear violation of WP:TALK. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you is not a violation of any policies. You seem to believe that your role is to protect the ID articles, but this is not the case. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Also, when you delete talk page comments, that makes it very difficult to achieve Wikipedia:Consensus. GusChiggins21 (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If I reverted for simply disagreeing with me, I would have reverted a large chunk of the comments on that talkpage. The editor in question had nothing whatsoever to say about the content of the article, merely a stream of incoherent, conspiracy theory, accusations. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The user stated that the Dawkins quote was biased, which it clearly was, and then you said he made no specific complaints. That simply isn't the case. GusChiggins21 (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The user who I reverted, 65.24.116.252 (who according to Kww may be yourself), stated nothing more than a martyr-troll rant. Regardless of whether that was you or not, you have given me ample independent reason to regard you as a troll. WP:DNFT will therefore be applied, and I will delete any comments you make here, my ignoring your comments on article talkpages should not be considered in any way assent to your specious claims, and may userfy or delete comments that are particularly off topic and/or in violation of WP:TALK. Good day to you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

GusChiggins21, please be aware that editors have every right to delete comments from their talk pages, with the exception of certain official warnings. If you continue this ill informed nonsense, you'll be getting a warning for WP:HARASS. .. dave souza, talk 08:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Biopsychiatry redux

I know you asked me not to post here again, so of course feel free to revert this, but I just wanted to note that I really appreciate your recent comments (and the patience you are demonstrating) [2]. I think this is is most constructive way towards jeeping this article policy compliant while engaging with those editors who are keen to improve it, but lack the wiki experience to do so in a neutral way. Thanks for you all your hard work on this. Rockpocket 08:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That 'request' explicitly self-expired days ago, when you started making substantive suggestions on the article talkpage (didn't matter if they were suggestions I agreed/disagreed with). :)
I must admit to considerable concern about the ability of both Cesar and Benjaminbruheim to learn from previous conflicts or mistakes. This is exacerbated by an apparent disinterest in wikipedia policy, even when these policies are explicitly pointed out to them as being relevant. I know that Benjaminbruheim's recent edits were in good faith, but bloody hell, only three sources for his new section, one of which was Breggin and one of which ended up with the new 'Pharmaceutical industry influence' section, leaving a grand total of one on the subject of the original section? This after I'd made a massive song and dance about the need for thorough sourcing, and made it quite clear that I considered Breggin to be unreliable. My frustration level is high (hence my venting here), but will attempt to hold my tongue in the mean time. But WP:V is a harsh mistress (every time I read it, I am surprised by how much harsher it is than normal etiquette would imply), and will demand her price sooner or later. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I u8ndrestand. Sometimes editors just don't get it no matter how often the concept of WP:V is explained, but I do have some sympathy for them. The reason I say this is because, while WP's goal is to be neutral, the application of WP:V tends to bias towards the establishment POV (since sources that we consider to be reliable tend to be establishment organs, while those we consider unreliable are not). Therefore those people with non-establishment POV's often get frustrated, quite understandably, when WP isn't the ultimate source of "neutral" information as they see it. I think this is just something that is inherent to a Wikipedia, some people eventually accept it and manage to work within it, and some people don't (see User:Cesar Tort#Letter to the president of the Wikimedia Foundation. Despite this I had hoped Cesar had accepted that his preferred encyclopedia was not going to happen anytime soon and instead work with the one we have. It looks like that is not the case). Its my belief we should give people every chance to work within it (which can be frustrating, but ultimately worthwhile). I actually think Benjaminbruheim, with a bit of encouragement and guidance, could help improve this article. I guess we'll see how he responds to your requests. Rockpocket 17:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I on the other hand see WP:V and its 'establishment bias' as a necessary price to pay for ensuring that wikipedia isn't permissive to the sort of half-baked wingnuttery that makes much of the internet a joke, beside preventing massive turf wars between the various stripes of extremists. The alternative would appear to be a whole nest of 'Conservapedias' -- each with their own preferred bias, none of them in the least bit authoritative, and none of them agreeing on much. If the more POV editors cannot see this, and are not willing to make some sacrifice of the full splendor of their WP:TRUTH on the altar of WP:V, then whatever in-depth knowledge they may have is essentially useless to wikipedia, because this inability prevents them from putting it into a usable form: one that doesn't overstate their own position and caricature their opposition's. I've been seeing tendencies toward this problem from Benjaminbruheim in his new section, and particularly on the "Psychiatrists state..." issue. He may learn in time, before cooperation ends in mutual disgust, but I'm not overly hopeful. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning: Personal Attacks

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Per: this edit. Goo2you (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning: Troll Attacks

[I generally disapprove of changing somebody else's section title. The appropriate action IMO is to simply create your own, more accurate, subsection-title -- which is why I'm restoring Dave's title in such a role. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)]

By their deeds ye shall know them. .. dave souza, talk 20:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that Goo2you's disruptive repeated deletion of the discussed {{notability}}-template led to an uninvolved editor nominating the article in question for a AfD, I think the comment (to another user, on that user's talkpage) was justified per WP:SPADE. Thanks for calling, Goo2you. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As noted, I was vindicated for removing the {{notability}}-template... by you, after all of your "disruptive" repeated re-insertions of the template led to an uninvolved editor nominating the article in question for a AfD. You're welcome. Goo2you (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No you weren't "vindicated". The point of a {{notability}}-template is that it should stay until notability has been established, which your own pathetic attempts completely failed to do. It was not until Filll came along (due to the prod from myself that you complained about above), that notability was finally established. You have proven yourself to be a superfluous troll and a tendentious editor, and I intend to have as little to do with you as possible. To that end, I intend to summarily revert any and all further comments you place here that I do not consider to be productive. Good day. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 01:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Walt Brown (creationist)

An editor has nominated Walt Brown (creationist), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walt Brown (creationist) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walt Brown (creationist). If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gwernol 02:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have retracted the personal attack and apologised for it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Gwernol 02:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a note to say I welcome meeting up with a fellow editor in a controversial article who actually consults the published reference materials and exhibits a genuine interest in characterizing those views with the necessary exactitude here. Really-that's what the whole thing is about here, and I welcome correction when it's well founded. I appreciate the help. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The creationism-related neck of the woods in wikipedia is so rife with sockpuppets and other trolls that many regulars fall into the habit of reflexively reverting anything that doesn't fit their preconceptions that doesn't come from a recognised editor (and in extreme cases even if it does). I've fallen into the habit myself from time to time, and the best that we can do is to try to remember to think before we revert (and to read the edit summaries of counter-reverts before we do so), and to apologise when we unthinkingly revert legitimate content. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think I learned that the hard way. Coming in late to these articles, apparently after some measure of control was restored there, it felt for awhile like some thought editing was simply a game of click reflexes, could call it whac-a-wikipedian or something. It was really ticking me off to have gathered up good references, was working to add good content and fix some of the problems I came across, only to be bonked by editors who hadn't done the homework and simply added in content of their own they whipped up out of noplace. Thanks again. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I have references which can contribute, but in the interest of time (which I'm a bit short of atm), can you work up quick and dirty little bullet list of the particular question(s) to research? Professor marginalia (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

His main problem seems to be with Numbers' characterisation of the CRS Statement of Beliefs, and whether it is accurate to describe it as "mandatory" (which, given the purges of people who deviated from their emerging orthodoxy, would seem to be a fair description). This is his proposed change on the topic. He doesn't offer any alternative sources as substantiation for it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

k-I'll get back asap. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Cochlear implant

This article may need to be de-crappified too. Voice-of-All 08:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that one needs an expert, so have templated it to get one. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard

Dispute regarding your editing at Marcus R. Ross: Selected Bibliography has been noted here. Goo2you (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Your opinions

You wrote:

The fact of the matter is that the political sphere doesn't understand science sufficiently to regulate it in an effective manner -- the best that they can hope to do is to give teeth to self-regulation -- to give force of law to codes of practice developed by consensus among scientists, bioethicists, etc.

Was this intended to help the discussion along at talk:Politicization of science in some way? I couldn't see how it would lead to improvements in the article. Should I wait for you to elaborate, or what? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a pre-emptive challenge to MoodyGroove's inclinations to have politics reign in science's "evil or vile" inclinations. In any case, from you this whole line of questioning is WP:POT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk

Raven?

Are you raven? TableManners^C·U·T 04:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Have I gone by the specific nick "Raven" in the recent past? No. However, taking the Old English/Old Norse word, that is the derivation of the word "raven", as my nick does mean that I feel a certain affinity for Corvus corax. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I had you confused with another person on some other site. TableManners^C·U·T 05:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)