User talk:Hrafn

New threads belong at the bottom of talk pages (pressing the 'new section' link at the top, or here, will do this automatically for you). I reserve the right to summarily remove (without responding, and possibly even without reading) any new threads placed here at the top of this talk page.

AfD's

I've just nominated American Freedom Coalition and World Association of Non-Governmental Organizations for deletion. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"Notability" on Irving Hexham article?

I believe that the actual "notability" of this scholar is hardly the issue here is it? A quick search of Wikipedia easily turns up a number of some of his obvious colleagues, none of whose articles are challenged for appropriateness on that basis:

Eileen Barker, David Bromley, Douglas Cowan, Jeffrey K. Hadden, Reender Kranenborg, J. Gordon Melton, Anson Shupe,

In fact, I obtained those names from a list in an article that originally contained Hexham as well. Also, despite the fact that the recent edits were authored by an editor who chose to use "IrvingHexham" as his account name, I've not seen any direct evidence that in fact that editor actually is Irving Hexham, if [you have] concrete evidence of that, I'd like to request that [you] present it here for other editors to examine. I'm going to leave the "compiled" template in place for the moment, but without sufficient supporting evidence (especially on the "notability" issue), I intend on removing it as inappropriate, to be replaced with the templates that were already in place. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Irving Hexham for reply. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Contact

Dear Hrafn,

Once again, before you change any more or my edits, I invite you to contact me directly through my emial which I sent you and express your concerns in a civilized way. What you are doing constitutes vandalism and is unreasonable. So why not have the courage to identify yourself. If my comments are really in violation of the spirit of Wikipeadia I am prepared to change them. As it is you make charges as a way of censoring other people's work.

Sincerely,

Irving Hexham

• Professor

1. The appropriate forum for discussing edits is the article talk page. The reversion of edits which other editors do not consider to meet wikipedia standards is routine, per WP:BRD, which suggests that the most appropriate next step is for you to discuss the change you wish to make on article talk and gain a consensus for that change before attempting to reimpose it.
2. Such reversions do not constitute "vandalism" or 'censorship', and it is a violation of WP:AGF to states otherwise.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

False credentials

When you get a chance check out Category:Creationist museums. A whole batch has popped up with some making crazy claims. One in particular, that I point out here, is pretty annoying. A guy just up and decided he was a scientists and the wikipedia article echoed it. We66er (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Irving Hexham writes: to be honest I do not know if this post was intended as a response to something I said or not, but I am assuming it was. Since personal web pages may be unreliable you can check the credentials of myself and my wife (Karla Poewe) on the website of the Center for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary. This will confirm that we are who we say we are. The relevant URL's are:

http://cmss.ucalgary.ca/fellows/hexham http://cmss.ucalgary.ca/fellows/poewe

Perhaps I should also add that the CMSS also discusses things like "Peace Studies", so it is not quite as militaristic as it sounds. Irving Hexham (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, unless you are the proprietor of a creationist museum I don't know about, then no, We66er's message has nothing to do with you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Conflict of Interest Irving Hexham

You may wish to comment here Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard Teapotgeorge (talk) 09:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Irving Hexham writes: Thank you George, I have added a comment which I hope explains things. Irving Hexham (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Irving Hexham

I removed the notability tag because of WorldCat's list of publications, which show over 3,000 library holdings, which means at least one widely notable academic book. I think that the CoI can be removed as Irvin now knows not to directly edit his own page like that, as it could cause problems. I will try to work with him and make sure he can put together properly sourced information. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Mary Douglas and Victor Turner

[Moved to Talk:Christian apologetics Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)]

Claims of bad grammar

Can you please point to the rules of grammar that you claim are being broken by me in Relationship between science and religion#The attitudes of scientists towards religion? I'm pretty the sentences are in fact quite grammatical. My writing mostly reflects my attempts to consciously avoid copying sources. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC) I've placed this on WP:3.

What this piece of 'writing' "avoids" is any mention of any of the scientists' actual opinions on the topic. As such it serves no purpose whatsoever -- which is why I originally deleted it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Karla Poewe

Since User Hrafn finds the following passage and its citation problematic may I suggest that in the spirit of consensus and collaboration he or she rewords it to remove the material he or she finds objectionable. The passage in question says:

"An important discovery made during research for this book was the unexpected and close relationship between Protestant Liberal Christianity[16][unreliable source?]"

The footnote reads:

[16] "Chalcedon Foundation Book Reviews, February 21, 2006. found on the Internet at: http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/article.php?ArticleID=254"

Incidentally, Newsweek (Feb. 2, 1981), described the Chalcedon Foundation as the leading Think Tank of the American Right. More recently Time had an article that said something similar - sorry I cannot give you the citation. Additionally, they get a lot of coverage in various books on American Religion. All this proves is that they may not be to a lot of people's taste, nevertheless they are influential. Therefore, as a source they are significant whatever one may think of their political and social views.Irving Hexham (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Third Party Citations for Poewe page

[Moved to Talk:Karla Poewe -- Irving Hexham please cease continuously leaving messages here that are more appropriately discussed there (or other article talk pages). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC) ]

I apologize for this. I did not realize I was spamming your user page and will not do it again. Irving Hexham (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I put dispute on WP:3 that concerns you. --Firefly322 (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I put another dispute on WP:3 that may concern you. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop

Hrafn, I have read the third opinion on Talk:The Christian Virtuoso and am aware of what User:Admiral Norton said. The tag added by you to the main article in the expectation of me apparently doing the work seems to be a clear WP:OWNERSHIP issue (which are discouraged on wikipedia). Unless you are planning to do some work on the article, please stop re-adding the tag. I want to remind you of our interaction at[1], which I do interpret as characteristic of your problematic behavior towards me. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please Stop This, Too

Hrafn, please stop insulting other editors who are working in the area of New Thought and Self Help books. Both madman and i have been treated shabbily by you, and i, for one, don't understand your high level of hostility. You have claimed that people have insulted you, but you do not accept their calm statements that they meant no such thing, and now you are accusing people of thinking, feeling, and acting in ways that they are not, to the point that you are creating deprecating fantasies about them. I have been as patient as i can with you, trying courtesy, formality, and mild sarcasm as reproofs to your anger, but to no avail. I do not want this situation to escalate to the level of an Incivility review, and i hope that you too would wish to avoid that. Please, again, i am asking you to back off, assume good faith, stop trying to hurt people emotionally, and get used to the fact that you are not the only person editing these pages, and that for those of us who are interested in these topics, your repetitious and pointless fact-tagging of articles and your mass deletions of information from Wikipedia do not appear to be the best method of showcasing your own opinions in the global marketplace of ideas. catherine yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Please be more courteous to other editors. This edit is inappropriate. If someone has made what looks like a copyright violation, you should not jump to the conclusion that it was deliberate and make a post of that nature. Fred Talk 00:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Hrafn can make life here a chore. In this edit, he refers casually accuses two editors (one of them me) of "whining" in a curt sarcastic manner. Madman (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In this edit you assume the material was copied from the external website to Wikipedia when it is as possible that the material from Wikipedia was copied to the external website, as it was in this instance. Note the [1] and [2] footnotes which mark it as a copy made from the Wikipedia page. The source is cited, St. Louis: History of the Fourth City (1909). On what basis do you presume that the information is not in that source? Fred Talk 14:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that some of the material cited to it explicitly occured after 1909. It later turned out that both the addition and the external website were copied from an ealier, wholly unsourced, version of the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes here they are. 3 versions, all deleted as copyright violations. Fred Talk 19:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of the confusion over this is my fault. Placing the citation to the 1909 book on events that took place after 1909 was a cut-and-paste error that i made due to having low vision -- i just picked up the wrong ref tag. Ths has been fixed, and cheerfully so, despite hrafn's nasty commentary. The real issue is that i was falsely accused of plagiarism by hrafn merely because i use a 65-character line-length text editing window to help me cope with my visual disabilty, and i forgot to unwrap the old Wikipedia text when i replaced it in Wikipedia. That is shabby and uncalled for. I have asked for an apology, but none has been forthcoming. I have asked the Oversight reviewers to delete the accusation, but they have not. So i will continue to carry my concerns to every place that hrafn has made this accusation against me and ask him to delete it or to apologize. catherine yronwode a.k.a. 64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Fred:

• As a non-admin, I have no access to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Charles_F._Haanel, so I'm afraid I cannot see what you're talking about.

Catherine:

1. The material in fact remains unsourced and, in my opinion illegitimately so:
   1. The date at which 'The Master Key System' was "published" is open to interpretation. Two dates are given in the bibliography: 1912 for the "mail order course" and 1917 for the "book format" -- with "published" generally taken to be the latter.
   2. Your "subtraction" is WP:SYNTH, and most probably erroneous -- given Haanel's date of birth, he was 45 for nearly 11/12 of 1912.
   3. The statement that "The book was heavily promoted in the pages of Elizabeth Towne's New Thought magazine The Nautilus, and by 1933 it had sold over 200,000 copies worldwide." still remains unsourced.
2. The introduced material showed strong signs of being copied from somewhere, your edit gave no indication that it was copied from an earlier version of the article, and it existed elsewhere on the internet. This was reasonable (if not conclusive) evidence of WP:COPYVIO (an accusation I've since sticken). I have never accused you of "plagarism", nor does this policy contain such an accusation. As I did not make that accusation, I'm not in a position to withdraw it.
3. If you were not attempting to WP:BAIT a hostile response out of me, then why did you make the immediately-preceding edit with an edit summary "it's easy to add sources. Why not do it, hrafn, instead of playing the lousy, stinking game of hostile cite-tagging? Huh? Cmon, it's fun to imrove Wikipedia." -- to which my response is that it's really easy Catherine, if you don't give a toss if the citations you give don't verify the information. Some of us have slightly higher standards.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Since Catherine has made an explicit legal threat (amplifying on what might be taken as a vague legal threat by stating "The legal threat is real"). I am ceasing all communication with her, per WP:NLT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

J. Laurence Kulp

Thank you for your suggestions here. You may be right, maybe it is best if only the ASA is mentioned. They appear to be a very credible organisation.--Another berean (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the ASA should be fine as (i) Kulp was a member (giving relevance) (ii) it's a notable organisation & (iii) their range of views on the issue encompassed Kulp's own. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance on Kulp's entry and shedding further light. --Another berean (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

More drama

Just giving you a head's up to some bullshit. Boring. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't say that I'm surprised -- she's part of a small group of editors, largely overlapping each other in Category:New Thought movement, that object strenuously, repetitively and at tedious length to WP:V, and to any attempt to give more than lip-service to it. She mainly edits under the IP 64.142.90.33. Her husband, User:Self-ref is the creator of Category:Pseudoskeptic Target, and they're both of them objecting strenuously to its impending deletion. She's now moving into the field of Creationism, having just attempted to reverse my efforts to turn Michael Dowd‎ from an WP:AUTOBIO into a balanced, well-sourced stub. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, your favorite editor has found your prod of Daylight Origins Society and reverted it. Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeh, I saw that. I've put it up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daylight Origins Society. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you need to Assume Good Faith. I'm sure she's fixed up tons of PRODs before this one. Tons. Really. Besides, I'm the one who's your stalker. How else would I have found such an obscure page as that one? ;) Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's only WP:WIKISTALKing if you "follow[] an editor to another article to continue disruption" -- so hand in your Secret Wikistalker Decoder Ring™ -- you ain't disruptive enough. :P Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read my recent edits ...

and attack me, again. I dare you. I double dare you. MsTopeka (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, as far as I can make out from your edit history, we've never crossed paths. I therefore don't have a clue as to who you are, and so have no immediate intention of attacking you even a first time, let alone "again". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's Nukeh/Doug Youvan. He/she has filed an AN/I against you. Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oooooo -- I now am (or control -- it's a bit hard to work out from this & previous rantings) a "hierarchy of consortial editors". You better treat me with respect now Auntie. and when did "Doug" get a sex change to being a "Ms"? Inquiring minds want to know. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope no beauty queens were harmed in the making of that sock. Why can't I be a hierarchal consortium? I guess you are right; I'm just not evil enough. *sigh* Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you have to be "evil" so much as to (generally unintentionally) provoke a conspiracy theorist to create a conspiracy theory around you and obsess over it. I am apparently "a consortium of editors from Kansas Citizens for Science" "who illegaly use Kansas state funds (state salaries and facilities) to try to influence the Kansas School Board elections." Impressive huh? :D Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No fair! We are supposed to be the consortium of evil editors, not you. I'm sorry to see all the crap that's getting lobbed your way these days. Guettarda (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Bah! Go find your own conspiracy theory -- this one's taken. Nukeh at least is low-maintenance -- very little work is involved when a sockpuppet is kind enough to announce the fact on WP:AN. Would that all stalkers were so obliging. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Latest updates: here & here. Can anybody match this? I think not! ROFLMAO Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems that somebody can: "Using basic confirmation holism, the article itself asserts that it meets WP:ORG. This AFD should be closed as speedy keep. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)"[2] -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daylight Origins Society Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that certainly meets the standards for Woopedia policy :-/ dave souza, talk 14:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a full moon somewhere? Alas MsTopeka has won her last beauty pageant and he been returned to the sock-drawer. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if you caught this one...

Your stalker, again. Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

She made a similar pitch on some article talk. I told her that I thought the proposal was unworkable but that she was welcome to seek a policy change. It looks like Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) agreed with me. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Consensus

I have heard you argue this point before, so I just wanted to know. What kind of definitive evidence do we have that the scientific consensus is overwhelmingly that life came about through an unguided process? EMSPhydeaux (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

<edit conflict> Eh? We don't know how life came about, though research into abiogenesis explores some possibilities. If it's evolution you're thinking about, successful descent of variations is continuously guided by natural selection. Why not look at the articles? . . dave souza, talk 16:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In a town near you, you'll find something called a university, this university will have a library, and this library will have a science section, which will contain books and journals on subjects such as evolutionary biology, population genetics, comparative anatomy, biogeography, palaeontology, etc, etc, etc, that provide such evidence. The total weight of all this interlocking evidence (at least in paper form) could sink a battleship. If you want a short summary, then read evidence of common descent. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, we gots a few o' dose things here.  ;) In any case, EMS, who said evolution is "unguided"? Oh, you mean not guided by a deity. Or space aliens. Or a time traveler (the ultimate in parodoxical regress). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was talking about evolution. I guess I should have been a little more specific. In any case I am not asking for evidence for evolution. I know about evolution already. My question is how do we know that the majority of scientists agree that all life evolved from a common ancestor without the help of an intelligence? The fact that there are books on evolution, or that there is evidence for evolution doesn't necessarily relate to the idea that the scientific consensus is 99% to 1% in favor of evolution without some kind of intelligence. By one poll I have seen 45% of scientist agreed that "God guided" the evolutionary process, so is it really the overwhelming landslide in favor of evolution that you claim it to be, or should we rethink our positions here? I wouldn't mind a new poll myself. EMSPhydeaux (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Well, Jeremy disagrees with my opinion,[3] and Firefly's started an ANI complaint about Eldereft which names you.[4] The joys of Wikicommunications. . . dave souza, talk 19:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Firefly322 on AN/I

A heads-up for anybody concerned that may be watchlisting this page: Firefly322 has launched a rambling complaint on WP:AN/I#User:Eldereft Engaged in negative WP:OWNERSHIP/edit war WP:TROLL activities. It is principally against User:Eldereft, but concerns Relationship between religion and science and a number of other loosely-related articles that have been discussed recently. Giving Firefly322 enough rope to hang himself on this may be a good idea, but (if I may mix my metaphors) keeping an eye to limiting any fallout, should it escalate, may also be also be a priority. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hanging and the detritus resulting from the discharge of a nuclear weapon in one sentence?  ;) Firefly seems just a bit distubed to me. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)