User talk:Hrafn/archive7

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Hrafn. 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.

Proposed deletion of List of people and organisations in the Christian right

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of people and organisations in the Christian right, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. —Danorton (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

About Firefly322 (talk · contribs) and other topics

Hrafn, we need you back. Firefly's attitude and personal attacks were addressed recently, and he was blocked for an extended period of time. I assume any further signs of bad faith or personal attacks or uncivil behavior will result in a very long time-out. I have been watching new articles, and if I see ones from him, I review them for NPOV and writing. Not to get off on a tangent, but his writing skills are not at the level that I would expect. Other members who have supported him have also been warned and/or blocked.

We can deal with the POV warriors. We can deal with bad writing. But you watched over the arcane articles that need watching. Last night I dealt with a series of sockpuppets in a situation where you would have been helpful. You need to come back so that information people read here is sufficiently balanced to make this a world class operation. Yes, there are problems. I deal with it in my own manner, mostly writing great articles, and taking the time to make sure all civil and uncivil POV warriors are blocked. People are tiring of their behavior.

It's time to come back. Sorry that I removed your redirect, and you can, of course, put it back, but this is the place to leave you a message. OrangeMarlin ^Talk• Contributions 17:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

OM: Firefly was always the least of my headaches -- far more abrasive to my ability to edit harmoniously and effectively were Catherineyronwode, Madman2001 & other like-minded anti-WP:V editors who, from the comments on the former's talkpage since my departure, are entirely unrepentant in their efforts to edit-war and abuse other editors in their efforts to retain un-/poorly-substantiated material. I'm not completely ruling out coming back at some stage -- but at this stage I cannot see doing so as anything other than counter-productive (and opening myself up for another shitload of unnecessary stress). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you about, albeit briefly, Hrafn. While any work you care to do will be greatly appreciated, you're right to put personal well-being ahead of the stress and nonsense that comes too easily with arguments here. If you do feel like popping in at some stage, keep in touch and I'll be glad to try to make thinks work out more smoothly. Just my clumsy thoughts. All the best, anyway. . . dave souza, talk 22:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn, my point wasn't that Firefly was blocked, it was that his type of behavior can be handled swiftly and easily. I wish you were back. OrangeMarlin ^Talk• Contributions 23:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

OM: Firefly was always the most volatile of that pack, so both the one most likely to get themself blocked (and I in fact predicted, on my way out the door, that his/her hysterics would result in such an eventuality), and the one easiest to shrug off. The others, to a varying degree, at least attempt to assume a superficial semblance of reasonableness and avoid being such a WP:GIANTDICK, making them harder to corral. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Semi-retired

As of December 2008, I'm altering my status to "Semi-retired" in order to:

1. Write an article on "Strengths and weaknesses of evolution";
2. Discuss the appropriate treatment of chronically unveriable information and/or articles on wikipedia; and
3. Evaluate whether it is worth returning on permanent basis

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back :)

Good to see you again Hrafn! And since you are back, I was wondering if you could answer a question of mine regarding YEC/flood geology. Do the YECers believe that all prehistoric animals died in the flood? I'm wondering specifically about those carboniferous mega-insects like the Meganeura which couldn't survive in the comparatively lower oxygen atmosphere in which more modern forms of life evolved. I'm wondering how they can possibly explain that. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

AE: my suspicion would be that most do, but that a fringe have even more batty explanations (the devil put the fossils in the ground to cause doubts in the Bible, etc), and that at least some of the non-fringe will probably be sufficiently vague, equivocal (or simply not have gotten around to announcing an official position) that you can't pin them down. If ICR, CRS & AiG all say "all", you could probably state that "all major YEC organisations say all", but that's the best that you're likely to get. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 01:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

From all your loyal meatpuppets, stalkers, and ne'er-do-wells, what AE said!!!! OrangeMarlin ^Talk• Contributions 18:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes welcome back indeed. Teapotgeorge^Talk 21:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Season's Greetings and Welcome Back! Nice article on Strengths and weaknesses of evolution, now this "law of abiogenesis" is annoying me and the only decent source I've found is Talk.Origins Archive Claim CB000, which attributes it to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. These cdesign proponentsists are really up to date! Unfortunately Talk.Origins Archive seems to be offline today so I've been looking at the google cache. Will try again, good to see your work again :) . dave souza, talk 21:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed. I had intended using their Creationist Claims list to cover weaknesses not already covered in wikipedia articles, but I likewise can't access it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 01:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This article gives a useful link to the Index to Creationist Claims and says "Note that the TO URL is a temporary stopgap while a problem with the main TO server is being worked on." The articles about an Op-Ed piece in the San Antonio Express-News by a representative of the San Antonio Bible Based Sciences Association, don't know if you used that reference but it appears relevant. There's a good article by Wilkins on Spontaneous Generation and the Origin of Life, this google cache link should get you there. That covers the abiogenesis issue well, and could be cited for significant improvements in the abiogenesis article as well as on this page. I've got my hands full with trying to sort out Darwin's early contacts with Malthusianism, will try to help out with these articles as needed. Thanks, . dave souza, talk 10:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dave. I've now cited the two outstanding rebuttals to this alternate domain. Yes, I've already included the SABBSA article. I am including the Wilkins article in 'Further reading' Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back :) Verbal chat 08:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree wiht above, welcome back!.--Patton123 16:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

West Point Class Ring - Right vs Left Hand

Good Morning

You deleted my brief discussion of the distinctions between the Amy Vanderbilt and West Point conventions for wearing class rings as "unsourced". I would suggest that a source is not needed as it is a simple, demonstrable explaination how when worn in the old way on the left hand, the two conventions were identical, but when worn on the right hand the two conventions are opposite. I would like to restore the section as there was questions about the differences at the 2008 West Point Ring Weekend.

Thoughts please

ed

Ecragg (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Your explanation is neither simple nor demonstrable. In fact both sourced conventions are flowery nonsenses, making a rational "distinction" impossible. On an "outstretched arm" the plane of the ring will be perpendicular to the arm -- so the insignia can neither face to nor away from the wearer. Which crest is "closest to the heart" is entirely arbitrary based on the position of the hand at any given time. It is likewise unclear how left vs right affects this nonsense (and would appear to be WP:SYNTHESIS besides having an impenetrable relationship to the sourced conventions). Insignia can be worn either on the knuckle side, the palm side (or conceivable part way between) -- they can no more be worn pointing to the heart/wearer-outstretched/outward-outstretched than they can be worn in such a way that they (always) face Mecca. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that while some people regard the conventions as being nonsense, others consider them significant. Since the rings are designed to be worn with the insignia on the top, your argument about how they "could" be worn is not relevant. By the Amy Vanderbilt convention, before graduation with the arm out stretched when you lift your hand (not your arm) so you can see the top of the ring, it should be right side up to you. After graduation, when you lower your palm (as you would if you were showing off the ring) it should be right side up to anyone looking at the ring. Another way of describing this is that before graduation the bottom of the crest is on the base of the finger. After graduation the top of the ring on the base of the finger.

On West point rings, the insignia consists of a stone with the words "West Point" above and the class year below the stone. They also have crests on the side, with the class crest on one side, and the academy crest on the other. Thus with the insignia on top, and a normal (palm down) hand-arm position, one side is "closer to the heart than the other". Another way of saying this, is in any hand-arm position which is comfortable for an extended period, the thumb is closer to the heart than the little finger.

Thoughts?

ed

Ecragg (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Why in the world?

Did you revert me? Please read through Help:Reverting#Explain reverts before doing this again in the future, it was very uncivil to do without explaining it to myself. Regarding the article, it failed its AfD. So instead of tearing it to the ground and doing nothing but adding tags to it (there were three {{primarysources}} templates), and removing content, please consider contributing useful content to the article, that is what an encyclopedia is for! Okay? Thank you. -- ✼ American Eagle (talk) 04:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Read the bloody edit summary! It clearly states my reason: "AfD was 'no consensus' on notability" (which means there's no consensus to remove the notability tag). There is no "useful content" to add to this piece-of-crap article. There are no reliable third party sources that say anything substantial about the subject, and even the closely-associated sources that you dumped in fail to verify most of the material cited to them (which was why I first tagged, and then deleted them). If you had checked the revision history you would have noticed that I did not add the primarysource templates to the sections -- that was Rtphokie. I will, and am required to, remove any content that fails to meet WP:V. I will also remove ludicrous WP:FANCRUFT, like the "freakishly tall" nickname. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Evolution rollback

Greetings Hrafn,

If you need help understanding my additions to the "Evolution as a theory" page, please post a message in my "talk" section so we can discuss it. I would be happy to educate you on the subject. This would be preferable than having to continually restore the contribution I have made after you roll it back (twice now).

Dan8080 (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Your additions were reverted because they contain false material -- see Talk:Evolution as theory and fact#Introduction of fallacious material into the article for details. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Problems

Thread closed as editor is making arguments in bad faith
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hrafn, I do not understand why you do the things you do. I have seen you do nearly nothing but bring articles to the ground, remove good (and truthful) content from them because you don't have a source for them (and not everything needs sources, per se), and propose pages for deletion. Please, if you have good content to add to the article, do it. But otherwise, let articles grow as the person becomes more well-known and does more, is in more news reports (with more sources), etc., and the facts can be further proven. In the meantime, yelling at other users and attacking them "until American Eagle can learn to tell the difference between radio and TV" is highly unacceptable. Please do not do it to me again. ✼ American Eagle (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC) American Eagle: You appear to do nothing but produce trivial WP:FANCRUFT, that is based upon either very-closely-associated sources, or (as in the case of Adventures in Odyssey‎ and its constellation of associated articles), no sources at all. You repeatedly cite material to sources that fail to verify that material. You produce badly written, duplicative articles (as of this version, you duplicated mention of Wretched in three sections, plus the lead -- making me wonder if we shouldn't have merged this article into the Wretched article instead of vice versa). You make accusations, such as that in #Why in the world? above, that demonstrate a complete lack of a grasp as to what is actually going on in article editing. Todd Friel is NOT notable (as evidenced by your total reliance on promotional blurbs for sources), and so I see no point in spending time on this pointless article, beyond ensuring that it meets the bare requirements of WP:V. Hrafn^TalkStalk 05:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC) When you say he is not notable, you go against the community's decision to keep it here. In the case of Adventures in Odyssey‎, it is very difficult to give sources for fictional works (like, see Category:Dragnet or other categories). My merge of Wretched wasn't perfect, I admit, but it really isn't a big deal, that is like making typos or something. For the last one, Help:Reverting#Explain reverts says "When a revert is necessary, let people know why you reverted... f your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in the edit summary, leave a note on the Talk page. A nice thing to do is to leave a note on the Talk page first, and then revert, rather than the other way round." You should have done that, especially in reverting good faith edits, but you didn't. Also, you didn't address the things I mentioned: your focus on removing good content from articles, as opposed to adding it; and your yelling at and attacking me. Thank you (and I don't want this to turn into an edit war or a fight, I will try to assume good faith at all times). ✼ American Eagle (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC) You are grossly misrepresenting the facts. The consensus was not "keep" but "no consensus", specifically noting "Disagreement over notability and whether sources are sufficient to establish notability". I have already pointed this out to you -- so repeating this canard is bad faith. Your merge of Wretched was, well "wretched" -- and made a bad situation (Wretched even got a mention in the "Early life" section) even worse. I let you know why I reverted with a perfectly clear edit summary. This clearly meets Help:Reverting#Explain reverts so why are you continuing to whine about this point? I did address your point -- what is being removed is not "good content" -- it is poorly sourced and mis-sourced WP:FANCRUFT trivia. It is ladling the article up with nicknames, obscure stand-up appearances, DVD-appearances and the like. It is cruft. There is no "good content" to be added as nobody other than his buddies gives a damn about Friel. Hrafn^TalkStalk 06:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Special creation

Sure-I'd be happy to look and see what I might have to help. Good to have you back! Professor marginalia (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn, I'm finding quite a bit of good stuff and this can probably be developed into an interesting article. But I won't be able to do too much for the next few weeks. In the meantime I'll try to assemble some notes in my spare moments. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

James N. Gardner listed at RfD

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect James N. Gardner. Since you had some involvement with the James N. Gardner redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Six (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Bah Humbug!

Merry Kitzmas and a Happy Darwin200 Year!

All the best from dave souza, talk 18:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Fan Cruft/Trivia

[ Moved to Talk:Todd Friel where it belongs. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 00:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC) ]

Merry Christmas!

Hey, this is getting tiring. I'd like to put Friel out of my mind. I don't want anyone to think bad about me, and we've been arguing over him for a while now. So, lets wait until after Christmas and spend it not fighting. This is for you. Have a very Merry Christmas, Hrafn! ✼ American Eagle (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

✼ American Eagle (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 06:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Biased

You are obviously biased and against this subject (seeing the darwin references), and I am obviously for this subject. This aside--- apparently because you are a moderator, you get to squelch a discussion and slam a "wp:de" on it. A DISCUSSION, not an editing. I was told by KillerChihuahua that I could discuss things in the discussion "section" if I'm having a problem with what's in the actual article. When will free speech mean more than "policy"? So, either let me discuss it, or I will report you to whoever is over your head. This is discriminatory and I will not stand for it. Petrafan007 (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You most certainly may "discuss things", but in order to avoid the discussion becoming a mammoth waste of time, you need to:

1. discuss specific issues concerning improvements to the article (as discussion of vague generalities to not get us anywhere);
2. cite specific facts from WP:RSes and specific policies supporting your views; and
3. not allow the discussion to go round and round in circles.

A bit of leeway is allowed on the above points, but massive and repeated digression from them quickly leads to people's patience evaporating. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 22:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand this, but I notice a trend that you seem to give a bit more leeway to folks that make small points or off the beaten path comments on discussions towards the darwin/evolutionist views than the id/creationist views. Just sayin'. Petrafan007 (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because they don't tend to (repeatedly) abuse my tolerance like you do. The more of my time you waste, the less rope I'll give you thereafter. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 23:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

New Thought

Right now it is a good faith edit it will be ref. JGG59 (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

What part of "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" do you fail to understand? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

These artricles need some work...

Spontaneous worship Prophetic worship and Song of the Lord regards Teapotgeorge^Talk 22:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Creationism

Sorry about that confusion over the reversion. Seems I must have ECd with you. TheresaWilson (talk) 05:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I've long suspected that the software's handling of edit conflicts is a tad buggy -- every now and then it does a 'burp' like this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

For some reason it pasted the last edit I'd made on another WIKI! However, all's well that ends well. TheresaWilson (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's just repeated my edit comment here as well. I'll log off & on again (I've just upgraded UBUNTU & there's one or two strange things happening) 05:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Note

Note: This wasn't in bad faith, at all (as you said). Thanks. ✼ American Eagle (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Given how ludicrously undersourced this article was (and still is), claiming that its notability is not in question is equally ludicrous. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 01:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"Ludicrous" does not equal "BAD FAITH." ✼ American Eagle (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"Ludicrous" = tendentious = bad faith. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 01:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, it was not in bad faith, even though you call it "tendentious" and "ludicrous." To me (and perhaps I go against policy on this), notability can be established without sources, as long as it is verifiable. That is, articles may be notable if there is sources online or offline, even if there are few or no current sources. If it is not sourceable, then sure, it is probably a hoax as well. My thought was that you had copied this and left "notable" in, perhaps by accident. The article is not only verifiable, but is in almost anyone's book notable. My edit was not "tendentious", "ludicrous," or in bad faith. ✼ American Eagle (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Please read the notability guidelines. Please find one that states a form of notability that does not rely upon information from reliable third party sources.
2. Information without sources is not verifiable! It is the WP:BURDEN of the editor asserting notability to provide sources, not to simply waffle vaguely that there's a possibility that such sources may be out there somewhere. This article lacks sources for the vast majority of its content so it is not verifiable -- whatever ludicrous, tendentious, BAD FAITH hand-waving you may make to the contrary.
3. Likewise your hypothesis that "had copied this and left "notable" in, perhaps by accident" is ludicrous (etc). I omitted the tags either side of 'notable' ('newsrelease', 'onesource'), so there is no reason any reasonable editor would take this view.

This is simply the last in a long line of bad faith posts, here and elsewhere. You have zero credibility with me. Therefore any further posts you make here may (and most probably will) be reverted or deleted without comment (and most probably without being read). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hi Hrafn,

I am very glad you are back. Thanks for returning, I don't care if it's for one purpose or a multitude, any assistance from any editor who knows any science is a fantastic boon to the wiki. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-administrative closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Sings!

I have restored the article and the AfD to how it was to allow this one to go the full 5 days. SilkTork *^YES! 10:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Evolutionary creation

(copying it from my talk ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC))

You may find Talk:Creationism/Archive 19#Theistic Evolution, Evolutionary Creation, Evolutionary Creationism and Creationism to be of interest. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much Hrafn! But: hhhmmpph! I believe there is a real Christian Evolutionism, expressing that evolution is either fully compatible with Christianity, or, as in my own case, is a necessary component of the Christian faith, and that the values presented in creationism differs from those of main-stream Christianity. I'll take a look to see if this is reflected in the opinions presented out there on internet. I found one link The Fish Wars that presents an almost identical opinion with mine. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have now read that archived discussion and I think I see what you mean. The matter is also hot from an atheist or agnostic humanist view, and they're likely to regard anything involving the concept of God's involvement as creationism. I would wager some extreme logical positivism is involved. It has cultic assets. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

A user keeps removing RS from the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools claiming their biased. Could you take a look? Tgreach (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you know if there is anything by Ronald Numbers about TRACS since it was started by Henry Morris' group? I just looked at their requirements for accreditation, which include teaching "non-evolution six day creation." Tgreach (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is, it doesn't seem to have made its way into his The Creationists, nor does it appear to be covered in any of the other books I have centering on the more recent controversy. I'll have a scratch around on Google Books to see if anything useful turns up. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Best I could find after a quick check was a bulleted-paragraph on p5 of Karl Giberson & Donald A. Yerxa's Species of Origins -- which isn't much. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This article by legal commentator Timothy Sandefur might prove useful. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

fyi re "hostile cite-tagging"

• Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing#Not just fact tagging

Jack Merridew 09:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted post

User Khamosh has deleted your post to the Anthony Flew talk page:

(Difference shown here)

Regards,

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 11:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Notification

I have filed an WP:ANI on your editing. You may view it here. Thank you. TheAE talk/sign 20:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In these discussions, there seems to be a misunderstanding between yourself and Ottava Rima which in my opinion comes down to "divided by a common language", as the saying goes. It's understandable and useful to examine edits with awareness of possible implications, but agf is sound strategy as well as good courtesy, and avoids unnecessary escalation of misunderstandings. In the discussion of mergers, I think you're right in the proposal and Ottava was trying to be helpful, any possible implied slur being unintentional. Also, accusing AE of bad faith has simply created an unneeded diversion, better to assume for the sake of agreement that AE is making a good faith effort to improve the articles, and needs encouragement to find the needed sources. Your work on this fancruft is invaluable, fights over bad faith just get in the way. By the way, following up the edit histories of some of the disputed articles, I came across edits by User:Solchilde to Paws and Tales (television), and found and tagged Adventures in Booga Booga Land and The Adventures of Marty the Monkey and Gerard the Giraffe. This cruft seems endless!. . dave souza, talk 10:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Flood geology

The narrative of events and actors still isn't conveyed well. Ramm and Kulp are intertwined somewhat, and I'll try to keep working on getting it straightened out. But maintaining focus and follow-thru are some of the biggest challenges on the wiki-so much to fix, all at once. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Just so. Buckland is complex as in 1823 he seems to have pushed "diluvialism" as compatible with the Flood but allowing for a sequence of depositions of layers both before and after the Flood, hence not "flood geology" in a narrow sense. The way his ideas were adopted by Sedgwick and others then rejected in the light of exmining geological evidence insitu is covered here. This came up in my current rush to bring Charles Darwin's views on religion up to date about the Beagle voyage. . . dave souza, talk 10:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for South Jersey Paranormal Research

An editor has asked for a deletion review of South Jersey Paranormal Research. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ignorant bigots

CS's post made me laugh. Actually, I've been called an "ignorant bigot" before (exact words) by another creationist here on Wikipedia. I was thinking of making up a new userbox "This user is an ignorant bigot" to display proudly on my user page. But then... maybe I should sleep on it. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Being called an "ignorant bigot" by an individual who is simultaneously dogmatically defending an author with no apparent scientific qualifications, is ridiculous to say the least. I'm trying to be more WP:CIVIL these days, so did not laugh at him to his face, but merely left a strongly worded WP:NPA template on his user talk. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If anybody happens to be watching this page...

...could you take a look at Amanda Riska. I'm fairly sure it's a WP:SPEEDY A7 candidate, as a "county clerk" is not an "international, national or first-level sub-national political office" (per WP:POLITICIAN). I'd do something myself, but the editor who created it is more than a little thin-skinned towards me at the moment. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I tagged it for speedy deletion. Redddogg (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :)

another admin removed the speedy, so I tagged it for prod. It seems so totally non-notable and unsourced that I will follow up with afd if it is removed--but if I miss spotting it on my watchlist, please remind me. DGG (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I just saw something similar happen when somebody speedied Walter C. Fleming‎ which I had previously prodded. It seems that the interpretation is 'it's still an assertion of notability, even when it explicitly asserts a level of prominence well below the applicable notability guideline's threshold.' I don't find this to be a particularly sensible interpretation (can we even speedy somebody who was elected Town Cryer or town Dogcatcher, or somebody elevated to the academic heights of Lab Assistant?), but it does have some glimmer of basis in policy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing the glimmer. I removed the speedy on Fleming because the article had sources and it was already reasonably prodded by you. ( I was putting it on the list of academic prods, a pain without Dumbbot.) My experience has been that being a prof at a reputable university is usually accepted as an indicator of possible notability; I believe I have seen DGG say as much, and I'm sure he will correct me if I am wrong. In practice I think the reason here is that notability can be quite hard to judge at first sight with academics. Politicians are a bit easier I think, though I still incline towards the "glimmer" side there, but not to the dogcatcher, lab assistant extreme. Regards,John Z (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

JoshuaJohn, two points: (i) Fleming is only an Associate Professor, two levels below the standard that WP:ACADEMIC requires (Distinguished Professor or equivalent) for notability on academic rank alone. (ii) Both the sources listed were to Fleming's own university (so not independent), and are fairly standard short 'blurbs'. Where the article does not assert an academic rank that meets WP:ACADEMIC, the onus should be on the creator to assert some other form of notability. If this is not done then surely notability has not been asserted and WP:SPEEDY A7 applies. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm John, not Joshua (though we have gotten confused many times before; I think we should have a knock-down drag-out multiforum wikibrawl to remove the confusion). Although many people use it, "assert" is not the word used in the policy, and is imho stronger than "indicate". A7 is a lower standard than notability, so independence is not entirely relevant. As profs have been kept at AfD on the basis of sources from their organization/university making claims about them which obviously imply notability, such sources are usually understood to be sufficiently independent. I thought that notability was possible, though not at all clear, or even a better than even chance. Since the academic prods once they're sorted get careful and accurate scrutiny from many knowledgeable people, where was the rush? Glad to see you back,.John Z (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry John. I read ' "indicate", but do not require RSes to back it up at this stage' to be equivalent to 'assert'. I don't think there's any modification of meaning there. The real problem is "why its subject is important or significant". As "important or significant" is not defined, I took it to mean 'notable' (i.e. "why its subject is notable") as (i) notability is the most relevant concept that policy has decided to codify and (ii) as template:importance refers to notability. 'Assertion of notability' is a lower standard than WP:Notability which requires (third party) evidence of notability. The alternative would appear to be either (i) to define "important or significant" or (ii) continue on with those posting speedy-templates having no real guide as to the actual criteria.

On the face of it, I would consider that an 'indication' that a person is a county clerk or an associate professor, without any further 'indication' that the person has a prominence above and beyond that of those ranks (contrast PZ Myers which clearly makes such a further indication, to the extent that the rank is a mere afterthought), does not in any way "indicate why its subject is important or significant." If this view is wrong, then I think that the policy requires further explication. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that somebody removed the prod on Amanda Riska without even bothering to state a reason -- forcing an AfD on it to delete it. What an enormous amount of red-tape to get an article, that is prima facie non-notable per WP:POLITICIAN, deleted. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact I see that it was removed by a new user who has done little except remove prod-notices ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7]) without explanation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Who ever said that users whose first two edits are to create a userpage and a usertalkpage should be watched? - Eldereft (cont.) 04:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, an angry-prodder created his talkpage &(scratch that -- just saw that it was created with a ".") the 'new user' only redirected their user page to their user talk. My strong suspicion is that that this user a/c is merely a sock-puppet (though I'm unsure of whom) -- sophisticated understanding of wikipedia coding & procedures combined with disruptive intent. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peace Cup, as you suggested. Redddogg (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Your actions concerning the discussion about Chuck Missler

I don't see any reason to archive the threads at Talk:Chuck Missler. In fact, it would be helpful if some other editor came along to offer his or her thoughts. I can acquiesce in the archiving, though, because anyone else who does show up can simply start a new thread.

There is, however, no basis for archiving with a summary that highlights your side of the argument but conceals mine. You believe, per your edit, that "the policy EXPLICITLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY" supports your side. I disagree, and I also cited policy provisions that I believe show you are wrong.

Here we have two experienced Wikipedians disagreeing about the application of policy to a specific case. You want the debate archived in a way that highlights one side and makes the other side available only to a reader who clicks "Show". That's not exactly deleting my comments, but it's in the same vein, and I consider it a violation of Wikiquette. Your unilateral conclusion that the policy favors your view does not entitle you to suppress opposing views in this fashion.

I will now un-archive both threads. If you insist on archiving, by simply placing an archive box around either or both, I can live with it. If, however, you again archive in the biased way you did before, I will take the matter to WP:AN/I. Your edit amounts to disruption of the talk page. JamesMLane t c 18:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in direct contradiction of policy

WP:AFD explicitly states: "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD." (A position that is further supported elsewhere in that policy, and not to my knowledge explicitly contradicted anywhere elese.) Your "side" is simply an unsubstantiated attempt to argue around that clear statement to reach an equally unsubstantiated conclusion that AfDs are required for redirects. Archiving (and even deletion) of it is permissible under WP:TALK#Others' comments "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article" -- as discussion of a "side" that is directly contradicted by policy has no relevance. As you have seen fit to unarchive it, I will userfy them to your talkpage, where you can admire them in their unarchived irrelevant splendour. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

More on Missler: My request for assistance concerning your conduct

Your conduct at Chuck Missler and Talk:Chuck Missler is the subject of my request for assistance. You can read it at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#User:Hrafn. JamesMLane t c 22:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Chuck Missler

Are you sure a redirect there makes sense? I'm pretty sure that he's notable for more than just that one event. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There was something about creationism and bananas on Youtube from memory (with ridicule of such on blogs and/or tabloids), but nothing close to meeting WP:BLP. If you think you can find some solid sources beyond the plagiarism thing, then by all means go for it ... and if you can find it by all means recreate the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This looks reasonable. . dave souza, talk 09:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Inadvertent linkspam protection

At Wallace Wattles and Christian D. Larson, your otherwise worthwhile "link trimming" came right after linkspam from Greenmason, leaving commercial spam in place of what were comparatively neutral or even desirable links. From your other edits I am sure this was inadvertent. Greenmason is a single-purpose website-promotion account, so in my opinion no links to abooksource.com should exist anywhere in Wikipedia (I haven't checked for any remaining ones--I've just cleaned up that one account's spam). Just FYI. Cheers, Wareh (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't look sufficiently closely. In my defence, there's very little in the ELs of these articles that isn't at least semi-spammish, so it's hard to see the wood from the trees. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I see your point. But I just wanted to make sure a website didn't get pride of place due to a spam campaign. Wareh (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Your refusal to discuss in talk page Quote mining‎‎ may lead to your violation of 3-revert rule. - 7-bubёn >t 18:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You are edit-warring to remove longstanding sourced material from Quote mining‎‎ without a WP:CONSENSUS to do so. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If anybody is watching this page, could they please talk to this editor on Talk:Quote mining‎‎. Each time I demolish one of their arguments, they swap to another equally flimsy one. I have reached the limit of my ability to remain even slightly WP:CIVIL, so am going off for a bit. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried again on the Creation Science page

I was trying to revert some sneaky vandalism, dunno how I managed that edit. Anyway, this is what I was trying to do. The vandal fighter Spamcatcher has managed again to inexplicably leave out important bits of information while "reverting" vandalism in a creationism article...hmmm... Aunt Entropy (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Epic of Evolution

Why did you redirect the Epic of Evolution page to the Michael Dowd page? I did not create it, edit it, or in any way contribute to it. I don't know the person who did. More, the term "epic of evolution" predates me and has been used by many others far more well known than I am. Please un-redirect, re-write, or direct elsewhere. Thanks. MBDowd (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael, it has been redirected (to The Great Story for some time (as the result of an WP:AFD). When I redirected TGS to your article, I likewise changed the redirection for EoE. If there's an 'elsewhere' that it should be redirected, then please tell me. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you and others are working on it. I trust the process. If I have suggestions for improving the article along the lines that are needed (as expressed at the top) how should I do so - the article's discussion page? MBDowd (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, I'm a bit new at this and learning so any help in getting educated will be appreciated. The Epic of Evolution is a topic of considerable merit in view of the people who are starting to use the term. I will be working to get it into an acceptable form.Jlrobertson (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that you read WP:V, WP:NOR & WP:LEAD in the first instance. Just because a topic has "considerable merit in view of the people who are starting to use the term" does not mean that it is necessarily a suitablew topic for an article on wikipedia. It needs sourced information, preferably not from the people promoting its use (who would not be considered third party), on its meaning, history and usage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

epic of evolution

Dear Hrafn, I suspects you are getting as frustrated as I am so I’m going to take a break for a while and get all my stuff together – I’ve got files all over the place. I want to do a good job on this article because it is an important one and you wish to make sure it complies with Wiki policies as you should. If we work together we should be able to accomplish both our goals. Question - is a citation form one of the authors to the discussion page count as a reliable reference? I have a new fully referenced lead that I will put up next time after I have done a bit more on it. I also think I now have enough references to nail down the Wilson statement. Sorry if I have been too much of a pain.65.26.156.212 (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Jlrobertson (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A citation to the discussion page (or even another article) is not a WP:RS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

chemical postevolution

Dear Hrafn,

Thank you for the vivid discussion. Please let me comment: the term chemical postevolution is not a neologism. It is a novel scientific term in special technical setting from a special point of view. "How to chemically optimize natural metabolites in order to get good drugs". Like "car driving" and "car racing" would not be discussed in the same article (though car racing is a special form of car driving) also chemical postevolution should not be discussed in the article chemical evolution. Best regards, Paxillus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxillus (talk • contribs) 12:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The (true) fact, that this term is not found in google books only shows that today wikipedia is much faster than scientific monographics (unfortunately a dying species anyways). As you can see only very new REVIEW articles are cited (no original publications). I think it is a big advantage of wikipedia to spread encyclopedic knowledge faster than any other print medium, we should not hamper this advantage with google books searches as a premise for wikipedia articles.

Please allow me another comment: Science has to do a lot with bringing order into complex facts. Often a special point of view dictates how you order things. Though this (often subjective) point of view might look arbitrary (and more based on intuition rather than on hard facts) it might lead to a new way to interprete things, giving us new methodology and new insight, that under very objective criteria will lead to scientific progress. Darwin or Lamarque might be examples for this typical situation in science.

Again coming back to chemical postevolution, it is a special way to look upon chemical drug optimization. When seeing how nature has optimized its natural products (secondary metabolites like taxol [a mulitbillion dollar cancer drug] or daptomycin [a hundred million antiinfective drug] one can also understand where are the limits of natural structural optimization. When seeing these limitations, white spots in natures space become obvious, these are the most promising areas for chemists in drug discovery to go into.

For these reasons I would like to renominate the article.

Again best regards, Paxillus

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chemical_postevolution"

1. "novel scientific term" = neologism
2. Per WP:NOR, wikipedia does not permit itself to move "faster than scientific monographics[sic]"

Please base arguments on policy, not lengthy digression. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

---

The term "chemical postevolution" does not relate to primary research. It is not a neologism though it is a new term ("Opinions differ on exactly how old a word must be, to cease being considered a neologism; cultural acceptance probably plays a more important role than time in this regard. "). Obviously not every new scientific term is what is meant with the term neologism. This is more a question of acceptance.

Please do not delete my comments on the deletion discussion page. I think this is clearly unfair and in addition it is against Wikipedia policy.

(Paxillus (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC))

How to use deletion sorting...

On both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold Hoehner and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chemical postevolution, you've added delsort tags to an AfD without adding the discussion to the deletion discussions you listed. Unfortunately, it's not an automatic process, and the first step, transcluding the file into the lists (e.g., those at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Compact) is necessary for the article to show up properly on those lists. The second step, adding notice to the AfD itself, is designed to let everyone viewing the AfD know which deletion lists it has been added to. Conducting the second step without the first might very well cause another deletion sorter to assume the deletion disucssion was listed properly, and skip over it. John Z actually added the one for Hoehner, but I noticed that you'd tagged it in the AfD as having been listed several hours earlier. Jclemens (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

On minute examination it seems you're 100% right -- which is really really silly as:

1. The instructions on wP:AFD (which are the main instructions) only tell you to "Consider adding an appropriate deletion sorting template to the nomination", but do not give instructions on adding them to the deletion-sorting lists -- so the only main-instruction is for the bit that doesn't do anything.
2. The lists have bots for the removal of AfDs, just not for adding the AfDs
3. Most users with experience to the system would assume that it works the same way as WP:RFCs -- with the bot handling both adding & removal.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it should have a bot to check that sort of thing. I'm going to see about submitting a bot request for someone else to program this, since I don't have the time or skills to do it myself. Jclemens (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Link Spamming

RE: 266029508

Why is an external link to a valid review of the book in question "link spamming"?

The book is worthy of several reviews to encourage people to decide whether or not to purchase it. I See no COI here.

Rohdek (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the review is your own, and you appear to be on here solely to add your reviews to articles. Please read WP:COI. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Peace education

Can you help? I see you have deleted some of my content. Although I do link back to my owm articles, I felt that the information is sound, contributes to the debate and asks some veryu relevant questions. If no none else is asking these questions of providing this content, is it not accpetable to link back to your own paper or article? This is what happens in academic journals?

many thanks Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill robb (talk • contribs) 11:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have already addressed this on your webpage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments and edits

Hrafn,

I just wanted to let you know that I have been reading the edits that have been going on at the Quote mining page, and they seem to be getting pretty heated. It's clear from reading around that many people have some pretty strong opinions about how the article should be written.

The reason I am writing you is that I am worried about the direction that the discussion on that article is going. It seems like there is a lot of arguing going on, and people digging in their heels when their views are challenged. Little of productive value really seems to be coming out of the conversations. In particular, since you have made many comments and edits, I noticed some of this coming from you, as well.

I'm not really concerned with what your particular viewpoints are on any subject — that's not the issue. It's about how these viewpoints are expressed to others in a way that inspires communication and collaboration — not arguments and anger.

I just wanted to give you a friendly reminder that most people are at least trying to do good for Wikipedia (including you and me), even if they end up getting some things wrong. The anonymous nature of online discussion forums makes it tempting and easy to get personal and lose civility. The article WP:ETIQ has a many good points in it, but in particular, I wanted to pull a few out:

• Assume good faith
• Be polite, please
• Work towards agreement
• Be civil

If someone disagrees with you (or vice versa), I really hate to see pointless names being tossed around, and emphasizing with boldface, large text size, and shouting. Human nature is to respond to this type of discussion with even more anger; someone has to break the cycle in order to fulfill the ultimate goal of improving Wikipedia.

I welcome your comments, either as a direct reply here or on my own talk page. Thanks :) TWCarlson (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As to "people digging in their heels", I would note that where reasonable suggestions have been made I have generally taken them on board, and have in fact worked a number of them into the article.

Do you consider it reasonable, or even possible, to "assume good faith" in an editor who is making false accusations about you?

"Work[ing] towards agreement" is rather difficult when faced with an editor who simply dogmatically repeats demands and positions, without any attempt to address the sources underlying an article. WP:NPOV is a source-driven policy -- without the context of sources it has no well-defined meaning, so cannot lead to "agreement".

I have already tried to move the discussion to more productive avenues, but have been stymied by an editor "who can't change his mind, and won't change the subject." I will continue to do so, but don't hold out much hope. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You are right. I'm not really attacking you as the bad guy. I just wanted to bring it to the foreground that the arguing back and forth really does little to produce a consensus. I know the NPOV policy is based on sources, but Wikipedia is written by people. If the people can't come to a concensus, then good sources are irrelevant -- they won't make it into the article anyway. (I suspect the debates would go much smoother if they took place in a physical room instead of online. Oh well.)

Also, I think that things are getting heated over at the Quote Mining page because the issues in question relate to a controversial topic; namely, evolution vs. creation. Nobody would get this angry over a quote about strawberries or wicker furniture.

According to the template at the top of many discussion pages, "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." I just want to make sure that the discussion stays on the the topic of "how to improve the article", rather than a debate about topics discussed within the article. There are certainly plenty of forums where creationists and evolutionists can go to hash it out.

But since you are already trying to make things more productive, then my comments really should be directed toward others; your name just showed up a lot, so you stood out and I targeted you.

Thanks for being such an active contributor to Wikipedia. TWCarlson (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Targetting" me is fair enough. I was letting my fustrations show a bit too much. The problem appears (at least to me) to be an unbridgeable disconnect between what I would describe as an 'inherentist' view of due weight, insisting upon X% on general discussion, Y% on evo/creo (and presumably Z% on other stuff), regardless of the sources, versus a viewpoint that says 'these are the aspects that the sources emphasise, so that's what we should emphasise'. We've both tried repeatedly to convince the other, but without success. The discussion is focused upon the article, but unproductively, and (as frustrations build) with more heat than light. The only way forward I can see to resolving this difference is to attempt to avoid rehashing the matter until facts-on-the-ground change (e.g. through the discovery of new sources) sufficiently that the inherentist and sourced-based weightings aren't so divergent from each other. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

progressive creationism

I'm still plodding along assembling sources on special creation, and came upon this article. I've noticed you tagged a section relying maybe too heavily on Hugh Ross primary source material. I've got a stack of books exploring the evolution/creation angle but I'm thin on the theology/creation angle. I acknowledge my stack may not be representative of the lit, but he's mentioned so limitedly in it. My chief conundrum was that he's described there as a progressive creationist, elsewhere as OEC, and I'm encountering sources that say the two aren't the same. It's probably no surprise, but the taxonomies of various lineages of creationism aren't nicely consistent from one source to the next about where to slot what/who/why so qualifiers and overlaps abound. Have you seen much secondary source material about him? Is he a key figure in some aspect of creationism, and if so, do you know what kind of creationism he ascribes to and what sources talk about his significance? Thanks Professor marginalia (talk) 06:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ross is both a PC & a Day-Age creationist. See Hugh Ross (creationist) for details. It cites a FAQ from his Reasons to Believe website for his views. I would suspect that a source that considers PC to be not a type of OEC is probably using an idiosyncratically narrow definition of OEC, as on the OEC/YEC split PC would definitely be OEC. I have a suspicion that PC may be subject to inconsistent & idiosyncratic definitions (one reason I wasn't too happy relying on primary sources). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Numbers(2006) p195 definitely puts PC as OEC: "This view accepted both the geological evidence of an ancient earth and the biological evidence of organic development." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is tricky. The PC view on p195 was ok with "biologic evidence", but the opening paragraph of the PC article says, "they generally reject the concept of universal descent from a last universal ancestor". Other sources I've seen describe PC so expansively it can encompass theistic evolution and/or serial special creations a la catastrophism. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's inconsistent. The PC view appears to be accept biological evidence but assume a number of divinely-engineered disconnects (the 'progressive creations') in it. DAC can encompass TE, but I don't think PC can. Thematically PC seems to be reasonably close to Behe's claim of Irreducible Complexity, which likewise assumes the need for a(n unspecified) number of interventions. "Serial special creations a la catastrophism" is Gap creationism, I think. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep working on it. The only one that settles cleanly is YEC--maybe because a literalist-ordinary everyman's simplification of scripture allows relatively little room for ambiguity. I haven't sourced it, but I think one reason the sources aren't consistent is that theologians and evolutionary biologists don't exchange notes or collaborate muchly :| . Professor marginalia (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Hi Hrafn. You might be interested in this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Jin Moon. Redddogg (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring; please stop

Spurious warning. Editor doing the warning was himself involved in the edit-war (and had previously threatened to block to enforce their views) and failed to warn any of the editors who were still edit-warring at the time of this warning (well after I'd stopped).
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Intelligent design. 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. --John (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Given that you yourself were a particpant of this edit war, are only templating the 'other side' and have threatened to block to enforce your view, I do not consider this templating to be appropriate. Hrafn^TalkStalk^(P) 03:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC) So you responded with a template of your own. Very mature and constructive. Tell me, what work have you done in the area of image use policy on Wikipedia? I look forward to reading your reply. Meantime, if I see you continue to edit warring to add nonfree images to Wikipedia, I will report you to the appropriate place. I will not block you myself as I have now edited the article myself and am therefore no longer uninvolved, but I think you are likely to be blocked. Your choice of course, but I don't think you should continue to edit war in violation of policy. --John (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC) And you consider templating an editor for something you yourself were already engaged in yourself to be "mature and constructive" by that standard? Don't make me laugh. You and your compatriots are not engaged in "the area of image use policy" so much as image-elimination advocacy, raising standards for inclusion, and making subsidiary demands, that have no basis in policy. To be blunt, I find their actions and yours to be abusive, and am sick to death of your collective treating Intelligent design as 'Moby Dick' to your 'Captain Ahab'. Hrafn^TalkStalk^(P) 04:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC) My "compatriots"? What do you mean by that? Other admins? People who know what they are talking about regarding our image use policy? Why would you find that threatening, I wonder? Here's another puzzler for you to wrestle with while you're at it; is there a difference between an edit which upholds policy and one which contravenes policy? I'm also still waiting for you to answer my question about your experience on image use policy; or I could take your lack of response as an answer itself, I suppose. --John (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Don't be obtuse. From the context it is clear that I am talking about your fellow edit-warring image-eliminationists on the article in question (J Milburn & Damiens.rf in particular). I likewise have already explicitly rejected your premise that you and your fellow edit-warriors are 'upholding policy' so consider your question to be in questionable good faith. My talkpage is not a soapbox for anti-NFC zealotry, so I would appreciate if you stopped making claims and demands here that neither have objective and unambiguous basis in WP:NFCC, a basis in a clearly WP:CONSENSUS interpretation of that policy, nor a basis in a binding determination of its interpretation. As to your question, I have no intention whatsoever in answering it -- neither you nor your fellow zealots have given any indication that your background has given you any particular insight into policy, but rather that it has bestowed a willingness to bully and misrepresent to get their way. I am neither required to, nor intend to, tolerate such bullying on my own talk page. Hrafn^TalkStalk^(P) 05:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC) I see. I won't bother you again if you consider civil questions like the above to be "bullying". You may wish to consider that this is a project that aspires to produce free content. You may also wish to read this essay (endorsed here by our founder) which sums up why we are very conservative about allowing the use of other people's copyrighted material as decoration in our articles. I'm truly sorry that you do not understand WP:NFCC; you may continue to find your enjoyment of editing here to be marred by this sort of "bullying" until you make it your business to acquaint yourself with this principle. Best wishes, and happy editing. --John (talk) 06:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC) WP:DUCK -- when you explicitly threaten to block, and follow up with templates threatening blocks, you cannot expect yourself to be viewed as anything other than a bully. I had already read that essay -- it didn't particularly impress me (it did not strike me as a particularly insightful characterisation of the conflict, nor does zealous puritism appeal to me). I'm sorry that you cannot disengage WP:NFCC with your own interpretation of it. Such conflation inevitably leads to disruptive zealotry. Such a mindset cannot help but see you and your fellow Ahabs shipwrecking yourselves on any White Whales that put up a resistance to your extremist crusade. Hrafn^TalkStalk^(P) 06:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Now why'd you have to do that? People's self-important demands! are so much more amusing when they don't realise how ridiculous they are.

I do wonder about the space-time anomaly though. EricJohn tells Raul that he had "24 hours and more" to reply to (comply with?) his "request". Now I'm no mathematician, but if you look at the time stamps, but in Wikipedia 17 hours and 22 minutes elapsed between the two posts. I find that rather worrying. How do we explain that time anomaly? Is John capable of FTL travel? Or was Wikipedia just really bored the last several hours? (As you know, time flies when you're having fun, which must mean that it slows down when you're bored.) Or does EricJohn mean "less than" when he says "more than"? I suppose that would make sense, since he seems to mean "involved" when he says "uninvolved". I'm so confused! Guettarda (talk) 08:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A better question is how John, who presumably had Raul on his watchlist, failed to notice the 'away' message being posted. As to the time anomaly, it's perfectly explicable -- if you are 'following a circular path' at close to the speed of light, then time dilation will occur. As to "involved"/"uninvolved" -- I'm sure it's a Zen thing. Now hush, while I go and prove that black is white & white is black, in a fiendish conspiracy to get all my enemies (real and imagined) run over on a zebra crossing. (Then I'll have to go out and steal a secret cabalist decoder ring to find out who this Eric fellow is, and how I can get myself a striken nick -- it'd be so cool! Oh sorry -- I forgot -- secret cabal decoder rings don't exist, do they.^wink_wink) :P Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Una Voce

[Lengthy discussion of a specific article moved to Talk:Una Voce Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC) ]

A comment on reverted material

• Anybody who accuses me of being "racially offensive" for citing WP:POT loses all credibility in making accusations on WP:AGF & WP:CIVIL.
• Any complaints about that essay are off-topic in any forum other than WT:Don't call the kettle black (WP:MFD if they are seeking to have that essay deleted) or the user's own talk page.

Any attempt to reopen this topic on this talkpage will almost certainly be 'curtailed' per the notice at the top of this page. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

LMAO. Are you kidding me?? -checks your talkpage history- I guess not. Wow. Again, LMAO. Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

E Michael Jones

This might be of interest to you [8]

That was quick -- it was only deleted a couple of days ago. (On closer examination, just over a year ago.) One wonders why so many of those hanging around Traditionalist Catholic circles are are accused of being anti-Semites. Is anti-Semitism one of the 'traditional Catholic values' 'foolishly' chucked away be Vatican II? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It's being edited by a SPA Tank520 (talk • contribs) E.Micheal Jones? Teapotgeorge^Talk 15:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. I came across the deletion when I was finding wikilinks for Christian Order. Jones, Robert Sungenis & Mel Gibson (and his father, Hutton Gibson) immediately come to mind. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Source for the 115 at Huxley Memorial Debate

You did not answer if the source is sufficient for you. [[9]]. The picture of the Durant paper scan will be deleted soon. Northfox (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Because, until a few minutes ago, you did not ask a question. And as the 'Huxley Memorial Debate' name was already out of the article on the basis of the AAAS version, it had become more-or-less moot. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

according to the online Merriam-Webster an answer does not need to have a preceding question. (even I - a non-native speaker - know that).

answer: 1 a: something spoken or written in reply to a question b: a correct response <knows the answer>2: a reply to a legal charge or suit : plea  ; also : defense3: something done in response or reaction <his only answer was to walk out>4: a solution of a problem <more money is not the answer>5: one that imitates, matches, or corresponds to another <television's answer to the news magazines>.

I was thinking I would get an answer from you per definition No. 3 or 4. Northfox (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A wikt:moot (2nd meaning on that link) point is one for which further "response or reaction" is superfluous. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette

Hi, I was concerned about your conduct at Quote mining so have opened a discussion at WP:WQA. Please do not see this as a personal attack or accusation of bad faith, I simply wanted to get the wider community's opinion and help all editors to contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive manner. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 04:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

^[citation needed] ;) I've commented there. . dave souza, talk 10:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that the alert blew up and resulted in incivility towards you; this was in no way my intention. As a final though I ask that you look again at my reverted edit, and re-insert any ducks you see there, to wherever the outcome of the merger is. For the POV record, I am both a practising Catholic and a scientist. (I assume the {{cn}} tag is a reference to the fact that I provided no diffs. I saw this as pointless as all talk page comments are signed and dated anyway) OrangeDog (talk • edits) 09:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

OD: while I might question the efficacy of a WP:WQA posting so long after the fact, I don't blame you for what happened thereafter (for which the blame lies squarely on Malcolm Schosha). I'm afraid I don't know what "{{cn}} tag" you're talking about. Other than the merger-template, I have not edited the article since your edit, nor am I in the habit of applying that template outside mainspace (for one thing, I happen to know that there's a separate template for such usage, though I'm not in the habit of using it either). In any case, this is way too long after the issue for me to want to dredge it all back up -- and will hopefully be rendered moot by the merger (if it goes through). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for my misuse of the ^[citation needed] template, it's one of the few that lodges in my memory, and I did feel that a few diffs would have helped to clarify the WQA topic. Glsd that you're showing willingness to help give the possibility of a merge a fair hearing, Hrafn, my own feeling is that readers are likely to come to this in the context of creationism, and shouldn't be surprised by something that seems off-topic, but that could be addressed in a merged article. . . dave souza, talk 13:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, outside mainspace we're supposed to use ^[citation needed] -- though I've yet to see that template used 'in the wild'. I'm not only 'willing to help give the possibility of a merge a fair hearing', I'm currently the sole advocate of merging it into Fallacy of quoting out of context‎. Colonel Warden wants it in Misquotation (which I consider a non-starter & Sjö appears to want the status quo. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination

Hi Hrafn. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Unificationists. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

J.P. Sloane

I declined the speedy for db-spam on this because there's been a lot of activity on that article in the last few days, including from OTRS and multiple admins. Whatever we do, let's not be speedy. It does read like a resume, so if you'd like to AfD it (or like for me to AfD it) on that basis, that's fine. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Though may I suggest that it might be appropriate to work out where post-your-own-resume sits with respect to WP:SPEEDY -- and have that policy either explicitly state that it is a basis for speedying -- and under which criteria it best sits, or explicitly state that it isn't. They turn up with sufficient frequency that I think clarity on this issue would be worthwhile. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Extra tags

Hi, really we only need so many clean-up tags. Redundant ones like needs refs in addition to primary sources doesn't make a difference. If they don't have non-primary refs than simply adding more unreliable sourcing won't help. Likewise if they can't address notability, the article will be deleted anyway. IMHO, the guy is certainly notable but the sourcing is such an uphill battle and he's such a newby the article is going to be deleted. We know the article is lacking and that is clear to anyone after the first two tags, the rest is overkill and likely wp:bitey. -- Banjeboi 03:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

1. 'Refimprove' & 'Primarysources' are not redundant. The first indicates that most of the article is unsourced, and that a substantial minority of the sources that are there are woefully unreliable. The second is for the fact that the majority (probably all with MWW included) of the non-unreliable sourcing is non-independent.
2. You also removed 'Like resume' with stuff like "Purdue University Department of Television Communications Certification (1981) Oral Roberts University Institute of Charismatic Studies (1985) Institute of Jewish-Christian Studies (1992) Moody Bible Institute (1998) IBEX campus in Israel (The Master's College extension): Jewish Thought and Culture; Cultures and Religions of the Mideast; Physical Geography of Israel; Archaeology (2001) Masters College, BA summa cum laude (2003) Masters College, M.A.B.C. Trinity Theological Seminary, Doctor of Religious Studies (in progress) National Deans List Publication biographical listing 1998, 1999, 2000 Life member The National Scholars Honor Society J.P., a veteran of films, radio, television and recordings" still there.
3. You also removed 'Peacock' with "award-winning" (on the basis of an obscure award started by a pair of crime-novel authors), "distinct honor", "extraordinarily surpassed", etc, etc.
4. You also removed 'autobiography' whilst leaving such 'aren't-I-wonderful' material as "Through the years, J.P. has used his many character voices, writing abilities and television and radio production skills to act in and produce various national, local and syndicated television commercials for broadcasting and cable companies, banks, retail stores, restaurants and travel agencies such as Mr. Penguin (a tuxedo rental chain), First Federal Savings and Loan, Spotlight Cable (Times Mirror), Pier 1 Imports, Imperial Travel and Sorrento Restaurant, one of which was nominated for a CLIO." untouched.

Don't remove templates without correcting the problems they indicate. This article is a mess, in need of enormous work on multiple fronts -- so its templating reflects that.

As for your statement that "the guy is certainly notable" -- that plus a nickle is worth 5c. Substantiation matters, bare assertions don't. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I not only explained why I trimmed the extra tags down to the most salient ones in the edit summary, twice. I also came here and nicely - I think - spelled out why I did so. You have officially stepped in a pile of incivility where it wasn't needed. Consider that it's likely the article will be deleted - do you really feel much better throwing ona few more tags while that ship is sinking. Well, I think our policies are clear to be welcoming to newbies and that sure didn't seem so. -- Banjeboi 04:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:V ('Refimprove') & WP:NPOV ('Autobiography') are core policies, but this article's gross violation of them isn't "salient"? Don't make me laugh! I had already "trimmed" when I considered that the 'COI' tag was already covered by the 'Autobiography' one. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Complaint about user-templating in above

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. User:Hrafn (talk) 02:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

 -- Banjeboi 04:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you guys are going to stop edit warring over the tags, aren't you? Kevin (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict]

1. WP:Don't template the regulars is an essay so has no force at all -- so templating a user for it is completely ludicrous.
2. I treat editors as what they act like. If an editor doesn't act like a "regular", then I won't treat them like one.
3. I often find it is better to be "impersonal", as a personal approach would be likely to bring WP:SPADE into conflict with WP:NPA

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yikes, it's hard to argue against logic like that. Be well and prosper. -- Banjeboi 10:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I would never template an editor whom I believe made a mistake. Since I don't assume good faith, I template anyone I want, but it usually ends up being POV-pushing warriors and IP addresses. And DTTR is really just a recommendation, but incompetent admins will use it against you.OrangeMarlin ^Talk• Contributions 05:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You're a naughty Marlin, you should always assume good faith. Of course you don't have to assume that another editor's sincere but deluded beliefs have any connection with reality or policy. . . dave souza, talk 08:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)