User talk:Icthus123
Welcome![edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia, Icthus123! I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! --Flex (talk/contribs) 01:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
September 2009[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- These edits in particular ascribed undue validity to objections to evolution. The scientific community's rejection of such claims is undisputed; it is not just "most" scientists. --King Öomie 13:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- A good half of your edits have been blatant POV-pushing, in favor of religious dogma, like this one. For lack of a better phrase, "Cut it out". --King Öomie 13:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- I am somewhat at a loss to understand your objection to my edit. It is a simply fact that not all scientists believe in evolution (see this list http://creation.com/scientists-alive-today-who-accept-the-biblical-account-of-creation). My edits did not suggest that the majority of scientists do not believe in evolution or that evolution is not true, they simply corrected the implication that all scientists believe in evolution. Icthus123 (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- It is the consensus of the scientific community that the theory of Evolution represents the most likely origin of complex life, and that various faith-based alternatives have absolutely no standing- regardless of what your incredibly biased source has to say (most of the people on that list have stated that they were added to that list either under false pretenses or against their will, as I recall). Once again, your edits are POV-pushing.
- Actually, I'd advise you read the entirely of that last link before continuing to argue the point. --King Öomie 15:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Had I actually at any point advocated creationism over evolution, then I could see your point, but my edits simply pointed out that it is most and not all scientists who support evolution. This is true and is in the interests of WP:NPOV. The articles I edited were strikingly biased so that the impression was given that there is absolutely no controversy among scientists re evolution. This is not true and therefore a neutral article, whilst allowing that the majority of scientists believe in evolution, should not present the idea that the only opponents are religious persons with no scientific expertise. This bias is particularly evident in the Objections to evolution page, which lists rebuttals to these objections as facts, rather than, as a neutral article would list them, “the response is given that, etc”.
- Consensus does not require unanimity. Scientists in relevant fields (geology, biology- as opposed to theology- as that list only requires a doctorate) who accept biblical creation are not taken seriously by the rest of the community. And regarding the Objections article, those rebuttals have been discussed again and again on the talkpage, so I'd suggest reading some of the archives there before dredging that up again. TLDR, without the rebuttals, the objections appear to hold weight, which, in reality, none of them do- presenting them as scientifically valid objections would be a blatant violation of NPOV. --King Öomie 16:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not going to edit the evolution pages any more as the consensus on wikipedia seems to be that they should remain as they are - so while I don't agree, I won't go against the principles on how wikipedia is run. However, I would point out that I did not suggest that the rebuttals should not be included on the Objection article. I instead suggested that they should be termed in neutral language such as "the response is given, etc" rather than the "this is rubbish" to which the current terminology basically amounts - i.e. my objection is that the current Objections article reads more like an apology for evolution than a neutral article discussing the objections. Icthus123 (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's certainly something to take up at the article talk page. You're free to continue editing pages, just be aware that many editors (like myself) are very wary of small, word-changing edits that change the focus or strength of a statement, especially when a string of them appear to favor a particular point of view. Your username didn't help in making that assertion, either. --King Öomie 18:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not going to edit the evolution pages any more as the consensus on wikipedia seems to be that they should remain as they are - so while I don't agree, I won't go against the principles on how wikipedia is run. However, I would point out that I did not suggest that the rebuttals should not be included on the Objection article. I instead suggested that they should be termed in neutral language such as "the response is given, etc" rather than the "this is rubbish" to which the current terminology basically amounts - i.e. my objection is that the current Objections article reads more like an apology for evolution than a neutral article discussing the objections. Icthus123 (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Consensus does not require unanimity. Scientists in relevant fields (geology, biology- as opposed to theology- as that list only requires a doctorate) who accept biblical creation are not taken seriously by the rest of the community. And regarding the Objections article, those rebuttals have been discussed again and again on the talkpage, so I'd suggest reading some of the archives there before dredging that up again. TLDR, without the rebuttals, the objections appear to hold weight, which, in reality, none of them do- presenting them as scientifically valid objections would be a blatant violation of NPOV. --King Öomie 16:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Had I actually at any point advocated creationism over evolution, then I could see your point, but my edits simply pointed out that it is most and not all scientists who support evolution. This is true and is in the interests of WP:NPOV. The articles I edited were strikingly biased so that the impression was given that there is absolutely no controversy among scientists re evolution. This is not true and therefore a neutral article, whilst allowing that the majority of scientists believe in evolution, should not present the idea that the only opponents are religious persons with no scientific expertise. This bias is particularly evident in the Objections to evolution page, which lists rebuttals to these objections as facts, rather than, as a neutral article would list them, “the response is given that, etc”.
- Actually, I'd advise you read the entirely of that last link before continuing to argue the point. --King Öomie 15:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- It is the consensus of the scientific community that the theory of Evolution represents the most likely origin of complex life, and that various faith-based alternatives have absolutely no standing- regardless of what your incredibly biased source has to say (most of the people on that list have stated that they were added to that list either under false pretenses or against their will, as I recall). Once again, your edits are POV-pushing.
Articles for deletion nomination of Charles D. Alexander (minister)[edit]
I have nominated Charles D. Alexander (minister), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles D. Alexander (minister). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)