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. Discussion directly pertaining to a specific article belongs on that article's talkpage. Where such discussion is erroneously posted here, I may move it to article talk, or (if I'm feeling lazy, crabby, or for any other arbitrary reason) simply delete or revert it -- so best to post it where it belongs in the first place. I likewise reserve the right to curtail (by reversion, deletion, archiving or otherwise) any thread on this talkpage that I (on my sole discretion) feel has become, or is is likely to be, unproductive. If you object to such curtailment, then by all means don't post here. Talkback: This user has their preferences set to automatically watchlist all articles they edit, and all pages they comment upon. It is therefore completely unnecessary for you to {{talkback}} this user to tell them that you have replied to a comment. Further, there is nothing in that template's description suggests it should be used for XfDs or article talk -- so using it for such pages is inappropriate. I would (fürther fürther) note that I am under no obligation to respond to each and every comment you make (and there will be times that purposefully avoiding responding would appear to be the most politic course of action). Finally (fürther fürther fürther), if you keep doing it, I'll probably eventually have to find some more coercive way of convincing you to follow good WP:Wikiquette and stop. Ω. (Don't trip over the møøse on the way out.)

SDA

I happened to notice something a little bit odd. There is a long section in Southern Adventist University on a scandal in the 1980s which resulted in the resignation of the president. The material is based on cherry-picked portions of this source. [1] Similar and simultaNeous events at Pacific Union College are not mentioned in that article, even though the material is available in exactly the same source. [2] BelloWello edited both articles, including negative material for SAU and peacock statements in the lede for PUC. I don't edit in this area, but that does not seem quite right. Mathsci (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

That coverage on Adventism-related articles is unbalanced doesn't surprise me (the SAU article appears to be little more than a string of obscure obsessive 'tails wagging the dog') -- nor that BelloWello was part of the problem rather than part of the cure. The only thing I've reserved judgement on is whether he is better or worse on average than than the regulars in that thar neck of the woods. I'm beginning to wish that I'd stayed away from "this area" as well. If anything is "quite right" there, it'll be the exception rather than the rule. :/ Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD: Cort Webber and Bobby "Fatboy" Roberts

This is a courtesy notice given your prior involvement with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cort and Fatboy or its deletion review (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 10) that these related articles are currently listed at AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cort Webber. As attribution issues are involved, closure of this current AfD may result in the restoration of the earlier article, as a list of contributors would be necessary if the articles are retained. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Demand to be allowed to continue to indulge in pointlessly WP:POINTy WP:LAME WP:WIKIDRAMA

Please don't modify my Talk: page comments again, per WP:TPO. I'm looking for an actual response here, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please take your pointlessly WP:POINTy WP:LAME WP:WIKIDRAMA and take a long walk off a short plank! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

oops

Sorry about that edit on Objections to evolution, it was an honest mistake. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No problemo -- we all make such mistakes at times. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 02:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

User Flying Fische still vandalizing templates, despite two previous blocks

Despite multiple warnings from you and two other editors to Flying Fische about vandalizing templates [3] [4] [5], and despite two previous blocks, he vandalized yet another maintenance template today [6]. Since he has ignored all warnings and learned nothing from his blocks, I think a permanent block may be in order. Qworty (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

gish gallop

You won't get an official definition of the Gish Gallop anywhere else. RationalWiki is simply the source on the subject. But it's not my call, of course, I'm only here to plug wikis. Which is likely frowned upon...--68.96.52.71 (talk) 05:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It is: WP:ELNO #12 "Links to open wikis" Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I had no idea

but apparently we are BFFs.[7] Which is odd, because you'd think I wouldn't typo your uName every time I type it were that the case. I am posting here as a courtesy notification, if this is news to you as it was to me. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I've also been a creationist and a bunch of government employees living in Kansas at various times -- so being your BFF doesn't faze me in the least -- just feel lucky I wasn't your evil twin. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I could handle having an evil twin, some days. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI stuff

Hey Hrafn I have opened an ANI thread to hopefully draw some attention to the issue at Southern Adventist University article. As one the more rationale voices you comments would be helpful The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks RA, but I think I'll sit this one out. The editors involved are such 'enthusiasts' that I've had a hard time of convincing them of even non-ideological issues (balanced coverage of the university's units, need for substantive third party coverage) that I don't see any point in boning up on Adventist theology/politics just to 'touch the third rail'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 00:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Vote

Hrafn, we need your help deciding wether or not to change 'Creation Science' to 'Creation science'. The reason you were chosen is because you're practically the only other person who has done anything helpful for the article apart from its creator (whoever that may be). Here's the link: [8] Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Debate link

I was trying to add a list of current debates that was much better than the current one. If you don't want it that's fine.--Mleefs75 (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(i) Wikipedia generally disapproves of people coming on just to add links to a particular site. (ii) Given such debates are generally theatre rather than serious expositions of the subject (due to the lack of time and the reliance of rhetoric over substance), it is unclear if they add much to the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand links for link sake aren't helpful. But there was already a link to debates so I was trying to update it with a listing that was more up to date (47 vs 68). I also disagree that debates are not substantial with regards to WLC. He is mostly know in the public for his debates. --Mleefs75 (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That argument might have legs if you were only adding a link to William Lane Craig -- but when you also add them to Dan Barker & Alvin Plantinga, a pattern develops. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Jeremy Taylor

I undid Larasister's blanking of the Jeremy Taylor article since I believe that given his contribution to publishing and journalism in TT, he is notable. Now, whether I can source that and make a convincing case is another issue. But I'd rather not simply see it speedy'd because the main author doesn't want to go through the fight. Guettarda (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know

Hi Hrafn, just so you know, I've got absolutely no interest in the actual content of the article (from an editing/scholarly or other point of view). This article, and a number of editors who've been contributing to it have been on and off AN/I numerous times, and, a couple of the editors involved in it asked my perspective in the #RR and policy issues they were facing, which is what prompted me to watchlist it. But, a perusal of my contributions will clearly show that. I do very little article editing... though I have managed to end a few edit wars and help form numerous consensuses. Anyway, I am more than interested in getting another outside opinion on my interpretation of the guidelines, if you wish to do so. As I said earlier, if it's pointed out I am wrong, I will definitely be fully willing to revise my opinion on the matter (and admit I'm wrong). Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

My main problem with the article is that it has a very incestuous ('for us/about us') feel to it, and presents very much an insider's view of the university. This is exacerbated by the very heavy reliance on Adventist sources (which make even the local media, like The Chattanoogan, feel detached by comparison). The article, as it stands, is about how Adventists view "their" university -- which is really a form of collective WP:OWNERSHIP. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I havent managed to peruse the whole article yet, but what I have glimpsed at, I would tend to agree (hence all the ANI activity I suspect). First step was getting collaboration started and ending the edit wars... next step? Making the article unbiased, properly balanced, properly cited, and so on. At least, that's my thoughts on it. I have a feeling, with the task that will be, I will probably end up learning a lot more about the subject than I want to (which would be going from nothing to wherever I end up being; knowledge-wise) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I see from the article-talk header that the ANI discussion was on the Raymond Cottrell business -- an intense insider theological spat on a highly peripheral topic that I stayed well away from. Unless and until prominent third parties pay attention to theology-as-applies-to-SAU, I think Wikipedia should avoid inserting commentary on the topic in the article. But I suspect that even stating that on article talk would require a pair of asbestos underpants. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

LoL, and mine are out being dry-cleaned. Incremental fixes... betcha it will turn the article into something decent and properly cited - with a lot less edit warring and such. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I am however having the devil's own time finding solid coverage of them from beyond Chattanooga and Adventist circles. Admittedly I don't generally cover regional American universities, so I don't have much to compare, but the thinness of coverage seems odd. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Admittedly, I know nothing about them that's not in what I've glanced over on that page; but I am wondering if it's anything like the CoS thing, where content they don't like/want/etc gets removed? Or, they simply aren't that notable? ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There may be a bit of "content they don't like/want/etc gets removed", but that's not the main problem. The main problem would appear to be adding stuff that is personally-important to them, without relying on third-party sourcing to demonstrate its importance. This tends to lead to relying on topic-affiliated sources to verify material. And I'm beginning to suspect that, no, SAU is not particularly notable. Outside Chattanooga and the Adventist Church it seems to exist only as an occasional footnote to that church (a place where various Adventists occasionally go to study, teach and/or hold meetings). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a note here on notability. Any institution covered by the USN&WR rankings should be considered notable. It's #31 out of 71 ranked regional colleges in the South. Yopienso (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting it was delete-it-by-AfD-not-notable, just that it was very-difficult-to-find-information-on-it-outside-its-immediate-geographical-and-theological-vicinity not particularly notable/"not that notable". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of William Meeke‎

The article William Meeke‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dolphin (t) 03:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The originator of William Meeke has been blocked indefinitely. Hrafn is the only other substantial contributor to the article. Dolphin (t) 03:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Noah's Ark and Ussher chronology

And why are the sources reliable for one and not the other?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Because I was not aware of its usage elsewhere (I'm not aware of every single reference in every single article in Wikipedia). Regardless, Creation Ministries International would only be considered a WP:RS for the views of biblical literalists/YECs. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought by posting in that section I was making it clear that I was posting the view of literalists. I did clarify that in a later edit. But if that was your problem, you should have stated it.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No, you cited it as the source verifying that Ussher's is "one of many calculations of the date of creation" -- a statement of fact which requires a reliable Histiography (or similar) source, not an unreliable partisan Creationist source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where those other sources are, but it is your duty to declare the source unreliable in the other article.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 14:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it? Says who (or which policy)? I thought Wikipedia editing was entirely voluntary. But regardless, I've already made an effort to root out citations to CMI for anything other than an explicit biblical literalist/YEC opinion/viewpoint. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm just saying that if you're told a Wikipedia article is using a source you find unreliable and you do nothing about it, it's a double standard for you to revert someone in the one article and let it slide in the other.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

But the point was I hadn't 'found' it. And when I did find it I removed it. I am neither omniscient about every source in every article in Wikipedia nor responsible for sources I'm unaware of. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P)

Just noticed

New user - Hrfan88 - Most probably innocuous, but anyways - ---Shirt58 (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth should I care? Do you care about any of the (presumably hundreds) of users with "shirt" (or "shrit" etc) in their name? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"Why on earth should I care?" - answer

We are both "editors in good standing", whatever that means. I'm just a plain editor; you are very active at WP:FT/N and about all things fringey. It's unlikely someone is going to spoof my username; it's rather more likely someone is going to spoof your username...

--Shirt58 (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Anybody knowledgeable enough to monitor WP:FTN, and going to that trouble, would be entirely unlikely to do so just to create a half-baked (and immediately speedy-deleted) article on some obscure youtube actor. -- "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." (or in this case ignorance) -- Hanlon's razor Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

S58 shrugs shoulders and walks away.--Shirt58 (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

H waves goodbye somewhat bemusedly. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Like--Shirt58 (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Kenatipo

I think some of those last edits of yours came under the heading of Really Didn't Help. Will you tone it down a bit, please? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. -- A møøse once bit my sister... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please don't inflame the situation more. If you talk to him instead of adding retaliatory headers you might be able to resolve the situation without this blowing up.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"The situation"

(4) IDONTLIKEIT doesn't work, yes, it is really appropriate.

— Kenatipo

since the reason for removal was bogus, I assume IDONTLIKEIT is in play 4)(again!) follows naturally from the other arguments.

— Kenatipo

Hrafn has a hissy and templates the regulars in June 2011

• Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Eston College, without getting my permission first, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive to those of us blinded by our agenda, and has been reverted. Thank you.
• Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with tolerance-challenged liberals, which you did not do on Talk:Eston College. Thank you.
  — Kenatipo

[9] [10][11]

Yes I saw what he did, in fact you'll note I'd talked to him about that before you made your change. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to use the same sort of behaviour in return.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking more closely I think that the real "situation" is a chronic and aggressive WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on Kenatipo's part. I rather doubt if the fact that this mentality occasionally elicits a response neither helps nor harms the situation -- as Kenatipo appears largely intractable. I will however at least attempt to observe WP:DNFTT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

user:Ed Poor's talk page topic ban on Unification Church related articles

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FEd_Poor_2. I informed you of this because your regularly edited Unification church related articles. Andries (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2011

Formatting on Talk:Noah's Ark

FYI, I modified your reply on Talk:Noah's Ark, because the bullet point broke the flow of the discussion and made the section a little hard for me to parse, personally. In turn, however, I made your comment a reply to the previous one. If you're unhappy with that, feel free to move it around, or revert (if you'd like). Just wanted to let you know. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

DON'T! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Obviously my intention was not to step on any toes, which is why I went out of my way to inform you everywhere I could, and welcomed you to revert...   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Those AfDs...

Thanks for trying to be the voice of reason but I don't think the SPAs and socks will ever listen or bother to understand what the policies are. I found it best to just ignore them for the most part... I was working on a rewrite of the Cláudio César Dias Baptista article which focused more on his (possibly notable) work as an engineer, but it seems all he wants to do lately is push his books. XXX antiuser ^eh? 18:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you understand Portuguese, but since it was mentioned in the discussion, I went over to the Portuguese Wikipedia and - quelle surprise - look at the ruckus Mr. Baptista caused when the article on his book went to AfD there. XXX antiuser ^eh? 06:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't -- but (via Google Translate) was aware that the topic of one of our articles had come up on the Portuguese version of WP:ANI. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Capital letters

Can you please stop using capital letters in your posts? It comes across as unnecessarily rude and shouty.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll stop doing it when Merbabu stops misrepresenting my comments and making unsubstantiated accusations -- both of which are considerably greater offences against WP:TALK than caps is. I tend to use caps a bit more often in AfDs in order to avoid using bold. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Frederick Bailes

I'm curious, is it that you have a particular interest in New Thought topics, or are you a random editor who happens upon these articles as you are so inclined? I haven't reviewed article histories enough to identify your patterns yet.

In the meantime, I want to let you know that I reverted your redirect of Frederick Bailes after adding citations. I'm going to continue working on articles related to New Thought, and I'm wondering whether you might be interested in a gentlemen's agreement with me to give me a heads-up for bold edits, i.e. deletion and redirection, so that I might go in an correct the misdeeds if need be in order to avoid unnecessary deletions. In turn I won't revert your fine editing, thereby wasting the time you put into WP. I hope you'll consider that. • Freechildtalk 13:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I stumbled upon New Thought topics a couple of years back, found them to be mostly appallingly badly sourced & written, so went on a bit of a binge of checking the WP:Verifiability of the information and the WP:Notability of the topics. Since then, there's been a slow improvement and in the last few months I've been taking most of the articles off my watchlist. Frederick Bailes was one of the lingering exceptions. Incidentally, I think the seven "R's" quote is probably WP:COPYVIO (as well as being bad from a WP:NPOV approach to let a quote from the topic dominate the article -- it's supposed to be predominately what WP:SECONDARY sources say about the topic). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2 has been amended by the Arbitration Committee

Please see here for further details. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC).

Altering my comments

Disgusting. Nam84 (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop having conniptions -- in quoting your comment I accidentally pressed <ctrl>-x instead of <ctrl>-c (if you look at your keyboard, the x-key are right beside each other) and accidentally cut instead of copied. What a ludicrous overreaction. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on J. Philippe Rushton

FYI, I've warned Nam84 for edit warring, and plan to take the issue to AN3 if the war continues. However, you've also violated 3rr in that war, and a report may throw some attention your way as well. I'd suggest not continuing to revert for now, and being more careful about 3rr in the future. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies -- I'd forgotten that my reverts from the previous day were still 'on the clock'. I'll attempt to be more careful in future (and will not revert further in the near future). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI

I have filed a report on Nam84 at WP:AN3. Mathsci (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I guessed later that this was Mikemikev. Checkuser has now confirmed that and indefinitely blocked the account. Mathsci (talk) 07:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I rather figured that this must be somebody's sock -- but don't know the players well enough to guess. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Toverton28

Hrafn,

You may want to go slow on merging the articles Danvers Statement, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and Complementarianism. User Toverton28 has left a few notes to try an rally support for what he states, "The site that you helped build (Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) is being systematically deconstructed. Please see this site as well as Danvers Statement wiki page. I fear the edits are agenda driven. Please also see discussion on NIV." You can view where he has done this here.

If it makes you feel any better, I probably help set him off when I suggested putting up the Danvers Statement for deletion, but I think you're also a target in his "agenda driven" allegation. User Toverton28 seems to specialize in Complementarianism and promoting the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention). Basileias (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've left a warning on Toverton28's user talk & made mention of this behaviour on the merger proposal. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The King's College

Hey Hrafn, Just looking through some smaller east coast school pages looking for some needed editing and came across The King's College and your tag for needed references. Can you help me out and show which references needed to be changed? On the discussion page you can find my argument, but I'm sure you know of references that need to be directed to a 3rd party link exclusively. Thanks for your help, would love to clean the page up. DarrinCrow (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Most of the citations for self-description appear to be in the 'Organisation' and 'Academics' sections -- two areas that it is highly inappropriate to rely on such. Beyond that the problem is the shear weight of of utilisation of their own website (which will of course have a strong promotional focus) as the main source of the article's information on the College. This is in clear violation of WP:PSTS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, but if you read the 'Organisation' and 'Academics' sections you'll find that it's simply general information. I can't see how a college of that size would have third party references dealing with the organisation of their school. Any recommendations on what to do? Thanks! DarrinCrow (talk) 05:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)