User talk:Odd nature/Archive1

Creation-evolution controversy Intro

My alterations to the Creation-evolution controversy were thoroughly discussed at Talk:Creation-evolution_controversy#Introduction. Please do not revert them without first discussing. Hrafn42 23:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: Soapbox

LOL, my contributions are objective, using reliable mainstream sources, not science blogs like Panda's thumb and TalkOrigins. BTW, my talk page is not a soapbox. ImprobabilityDrive 22:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You say "science blogs" as if it were a Bad Thing. Sorry my advice has fallen on deaf ears. Odd nature 23:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

With edits like this and this removing critical sourced content which has the net effect of promoting one side's very partisan view of the event, you can't blame us for being concerned about your using Wikipedia ID articles as a soapbox to promote the ID viewpoint. Odd nature 23:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

NPR is not a parisan to the controversy. Science blogs are very interested, whereas NPR is disinterested. ImprobabilityDrive 23:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The NPR source made no reference to the significance of the event relative to other more notable events like Supreme Court cases. Odd nature 00:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

this edit is to make the article more accurate. If you want to point out that he was not paid by the Smithsonian, try to figure out a way to express it better. Being unpaid and being unpaid by SI are two different things. ImprobabilityDrive 23:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Not when the basis for his complaint was job discrimination. If you're being being paid, you don't have a job. Try reading all the sources there, not just those that support your personal take on the matter. Odd nature 00:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

And this edit is being bold while defending NPOV. Reliable, mainstream, and well respected sources were used for the contribution. ImprobabilityDrive 23:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Which had the net effect of once again promoting the very partisan view that you've been promoting. That's called bowdlerizing / white washing, not being bold while defending NPOV. NPOV was the version you gutted. Sorry. Odd nature 00:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Good job with the article. I bet we've wasted more words on Sternberg, than all of the rest of the internet added together. You'd think that Sternberg is trying to get us to do this to boost his street cred with the creationist gang!!!! Orangemarlin 00:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

reverts

Hi. Blanket reverts should be explained on talk pages. Please join the discussion there, before overturning changes. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey

I was told you were one of the "good guys" by one of the good guys. Welcome!!! There's about 30 articles where the good guys are needed, so please show up if you can! Orangemarlin 06:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Although just a bystander, I want to say sorry for incivility that you were the object of (mentioned in AN/I). I am on a campaign to say sorry for others (just like people who remember others on National Sorry Day.Conmatrix 15:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 29 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 13:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

ResearchID.org

A tag has been placed on ResearchID.org, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on Talk:ResearchID.org. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Thanks. The Evil Spartan 16:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Free Speech on Evolution

A tag has been placed on Free Speech on Evolution, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ~~

About removing talk page comments

I noted your edit summary regarding another user's removal of talk page comments. Have a look at Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages - sometimes removing talk page comments is appropriate and justified, when the comments stray away from constructive discussion about improving an article. -Amatulic 23:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_design&action=history

(cur) (last) 22:57, 26 June 2007 Odd nature (Talk | contribs) (120,455 bytes) (Restore comment. I wouldn not remove the comments of others here Yqbd or you'll find yourself in more hot water than you can handle)

Talk:Intelligent_design says This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time. --Yqbd 23:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The Three Revert Rule

Please read WP:3RR, you don't seem to know what it says while saying someone violated it at intelligent design. --Yqbd 13:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Not vandalism

Wikipedia:Vandalism defines vandalism. My edits were not vandalism by that definition. Just because I'm using an IP does not mean I'm necessarily a vandal. --216.125.49.252 20:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"

I've already queried this decision here: User talk:Radiant!#Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" and received a response here User talk:Hrafn42#Signs. The two Admins involved don't seem to feel any need to follow WP:CONS (see User:Kbdank71#Regarding CFD and Consensus) and I am contemplating appealing the decision to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Hrafn42 17:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"I'd hold off on filing a review until FM responds to my request to restore the category based on it being a bogus deletion" Will do. Kbdank71 seems to be digging them in deeper on Radiant!'s talk page -- effectively setting his own opinions above explicit Wikipedia policy. I get the distinct impression that the CFD crowd are a gang of petty tyrants, collectively working to boss others around. Some more transparency/oversight in that area might be worth while. Hrafn42 17:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oh we certainly do follow consensus, but consensus on Wikipedia is not a headcount. Rather than by weight of numbers, deletion debates are decided by weight of argument, and backing policies/guidelines; we have several pages such as WP:AADD that elaborate on (and warn against) commonly employed fallacious arguments. In this particular case, while it may be nice to have a list of people who have signed a certain document, signing a document is not a defining characteristic for the people who sign it, and hence not considered practical for categorization. Cat'ing people by their actions (rather than their nature) leads to dozens of superfluous cats on most biography articles, which is considered undesirable. HTH! >Radiant< 08:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Radiant! has (after a series of wild, unsubstantiated and generally irrelevant accusations and arguments on his part) has deleted the entire thread over at his talk page (last version before deletion here:[1]). Have you heard back from FM? Hrafn42 14:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, only if you consider the comments of admins such as yourself to "keep" fatally flawed in some way. But that sounds like a personal judgement and awfully arbitrary to me. The usual reply to that sort of reasoning is "Who are you to judge?" or "Who died and appointed you God?". I think you were way out of line and acting on personal bias. Sorry, but there it is.

Read Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion. It says "The purpose of the discussion is to achieve consensus upon a course of action." There was no consensus there. If there is, show it to me. Also read Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus. It says nothing about discounting comments made in good faith. Odd nature 17:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure says "Please also note that closing admins are expected and required to exercise their judgment in order to make sure that the decision complies with the spirit of all Wikipedia policy and with the project goal." --Kbdank71 17:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have asked for a deletion review of Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". You might want to participate in the deletion review. Hrafn42 17:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:AADD appears to cover only the most obvious non-arguments in any case, and as far as I can see none of the 'keep' arguments were covered by it in any case - a point that I've pre-emptively made on the review. Hrafn42 18:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of undo

Hi, Odd nature. I reverted your undo of my contributions to Sun Myung Moon tax fraud and conspiracy conviction.

You did not "NPOV" it, you merely undid all my changes. Please explain in talk how you feel my version "promoted the UC's views over a dispassionate recitation of bare facts". --Uncle Ed 12:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You know,

You know, it would really help if the three of you stopped digging in and ceased throwing around accusations, and instead focused on the content. It is very simple: a category here is always going to be incomplete, and is going to lack additional information on the signing people, e.g. their degrees and states of origin. A list is therefore a more comprehensive way of showing this information. Some of us are trying to improve accessibility here, and others are mistaking that for evil censorship, or something. Change category to list, problem solved - it's that simple. >Radiant< 10:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Coming from you Radiant!, that's hilarious (pot meet 'canvassing'-blackened kettle). Odd Nature, if you want to see a really silly accusation, have a look at Kbdank71's one at User talk:FeloniousMonk#Your challenge. :D Hrafn42 15:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I was addressing ON, not you. I would therefore appreciate a response from him. >Radiant< 09:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You may be right Radiant!, I'll take a deep breath next time. If you keep in mind that we're relatively new here, I'll keep in mind that you're not and prolly know more than us. Odd nature 17:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you need to see this

We've hurt Gnixon's feelings.  :( Orangemarlin 07:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gnixon

Since you've been a target of Gnixon's various POV-pushing and civility issues, you should probably comment. I've used several diffs, including a bogus ANI that he posted with you as the target. Orangemarlin 17:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sheldrake's notion of morphogenetic and morphic fields

Hi Odd Nature. I see you left a comment about a propose merge of Morphogenetic field with Morphogenetic field (Rupert Sheldrake), and then deleted it. Actually, I'd really appreciate folks with an interest making a comment here, because if there is a clear consensus — and I think there will be — then it is less likely to cause problems when I act on that consensus. Here's the background.

• A few days ago, an article named morphogenetic field was moved to Morphogenetic field (Rupert Sheldrake) for obvious reasons.
• A new stub article was set up at morphogenetic field, for the concept as used in conventional biology.

These actions — of which I approve — were taken before I knew of their existence. I've been involved in the following:

• A merge was proposed from Morphogenetic field (Rupert Sheldrake) into Morphic field
• A brief edit war erupted as someone opposed to the merge kept deleting the flags. This was resolved.
• Another editor made a counter proposal. Merge Morphogenetic field (Rupert Sheldrake) with morphogenetic field.
• Discussion now taking place mostly at talk page of Morphic field, with some flurries at talk page of Morphogenetic field (Rupert Sheldrake).

I'd welcome some input! -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 08:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Our pain

High time to protect the page I'd say. See what we've had to put with at the ID articles. Odd nature 18:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You're not kidding. Then add up all of the creationist articles, and it's a wonder we're not drinking to get through these articles. Orangemarlin 19:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Reversion on Critical Analysis of Evolution

I'd just like to discuss your reversion of my edit on the Critical Analysis of Evolution, and give my reasons for them.

First of all, I felt that some of the words used, like "undermine" or "religious ploy" seemed un-nessecarily emotionally charged, so I removed them in favor of more neutral words, like "halt", or "argument". maybe "strategy" or something similar instead of "argument".

also, I felt that "which the scientific community says there are none" has already been stated enough in this article, and broke up that sentence too much, so I removed it. maybe make it another sentence, if you feel it should be stated here.

and finally, I thought that the section regarding new mexico now gives more complete information on how exactly the claim is false, and avoids speculation on how or why they claim this.

none of the other edits I made seem particularly contentious. at the very least, I believe that the section regarding New Mexico is improved. If you disagree, let me know what you think. Cygnus Alpha 02:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

invitation

You are being recruited by the Environmental Record Task Force, a collaborative project committed to accurately and consistently representing the environmental impact of policymakers, corporations, and institutions throughout the encyclopedia. Join us!

Cyrusc 20:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

Please stop edit warring on this page. Friday (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break. One reversion does not an edit war make. Don't come back around here making baseless accusations again. Odd nature 23:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's true, one revert is not necessarily edit warring. But, I believe what happened is that you removed a long-standing section of a page with no prior discussion. Then, when this was reverted, you removed it again, without getting any kind of consensus on the talk page. This is inappropriate. Friday (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that you're intentionally misrepresenting the situation, but you have to admit that the talk page shows only a 3/2 split in favor to keep, and that that is hardly a consensus either way. One other editor removed the exact same content today. There's no clear consensus, don't imply that there is. Odd nature 00:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

On the talk page, I see myself, Amarkov, and Skeezix1000 opposing the removal, and only you supporting it. The other removal was apparently a mistake, see User_talk:Orangemarlin#Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions. Removing a whole section of a page without prior discussion is a pretty bold thing to do. This doesn't mean it's always wrong, but it means you should tread carefully and be sensitive to the objections of other editors. Friday (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Orangemarlin does not support that content anymore than I do. Go ask him. The warning made to him there and yours here would smack of bullying if they weren't made by editors I've had some respect for in the recent past. And removing a section of an oft-misused and contested essay is not a particularly bold thing to do in my experience, particularly since I made a section to discuss it on the talk page. Also, being sensitive to the objections of other editors cuts both ways, Friday. Like overreacting to a single revert. Odd nature 00:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

My name

Please use my proper name, I consider Dragonsbreath offensive. Dragons flight 00:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice

[2] Your motto is pretty good too. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced statements about Living Persons

Hi, I see that you've reverted my deletion of an unsourced statement at D. James Kennedy. This statement was tagged back in February and remains unsourced, hence it was deleted. You might want to peruse the Wikipedia policy at WP:BLP, which states that: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles...". I've again deleted the statement accordingly, until a reliable source is, in fact, provided. Thanks for your understanding. JGHowes ^talk - 12:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirects out of mockery names

Your opinion will be greatly appreciated please comment. [3]--יודל 12:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You forgot

COI--Filll 23:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

'Example' on Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns

Hi. If you think this is "important", then could you please copyedit it so that it is at least comprehensible. Even with the DI "teacher's guide" & the full context of Dr Bruce Alberts' comments, I (hardly a newbie in this area) found this sentence to be highly confusing, and couldn't really work out how it was applicable to the topic. Hrafn42 18:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think your copyedit makes any relevance this bit might have any clearer. I'm not even sure if it counts as a quotemine as, although it loses a slight amount of context, Alberts' words seem to be expressing their original intent that ID is useful for teaching about what is/isn't science because it is a perfect example something claimed to be science, but failing to measure up by every reasonable criteria. It is at worst a "reframing" (to use a word Moulton has been overusing) of college-level philosophy of science into high school science. It is at best, marginally relevant to a campaign for the indirect teaching of ID, and so not really appropriate as a sole example of it. Hrafn42 03:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The quotemining is on the DI's part. Albert was talking about usefulness in philosophy, the DI uses it to justify its use in science classes. Odd nature 16:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The full paragraph is:[4]

For all those who teach college biology, the current challenge posed by the intelligent design movement presents an ideal “teachable moment.” I believe that intelligent design should be taught in college science classes but not as the alternative to Darwinism that its advocates demand. It is through the careful analysis of why intelligent design is not science that students can perhaps best come to appreciate the nature of science itself.

He is talking about "all those who teach college biology" making a philosophy of science point in "college science classes". The crucial point of what Alberts is saying is in the final sentence: "It is through the careful analysis of why intelligent design is not science that students can perhaps best come to appreciate the nature of science itself." The DI quote contains this sentence (quite counter-productively to their own aims, I might add), so it is hard to claim that they are misrepresenting Alberts' point. At worst, they are reframing it slightly. As such it doesn't really provide a striking example. Hrafn42 17:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, it's an important DI doc and needs to stay in. Trust me. Odd nature 17:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Extreme cognitive dissonance here: Casey Luskin actually wrote an important document!?!?! Casey Luskin? When did he get the brain transplant? Likewise it is so important that I'd never even heard of it before. It strikes me as being a piece of low-grade inconsequential scribbling from a low-grade incompetent hack. I won't delete it without further discussion, but you must allow me to be highly skeptical that it is more important or more relevant than anything else that Luskin farts out (on a daily basis, to no more attention than the occasional crow of laughter from the blogosphere). What is its importance in the overall scheme of things? Hrafn42 18:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Irreducible complexity

If you disagree with my decision that the book cover is not fair use in the article, please take the issue to Wikipedia:Fair use review or some other forum. Do not just revert the image back in. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 21:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

re: Irreducible complexity

You recently made an edit in the ongoing dispute over the appropriateness of Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg on this page. Please join debate at Image talk:Darwinsblackbox.jpg#Use of this image in Irreducible complexity. Rossami (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Filll's comment

Hi, you signed up to an "inside comment" by Filll at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Moulton, but after a large part of Filll's comment had been deleted by Moulton who added his own comment above where you signed. Please have a look and decide if you want to review your support. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 18:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)