Jump to content

User talk:Snoopydaniels

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Foxgloved (talk | contribs) at 19:19, 15 April 2018 (→Blaire White / pronoun usage: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Hello, Snoopydaniels! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Jesstalk|edits 20:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous


August 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Irreducible complexity, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jesstalk|edits 18:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Irreducible complexity. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jesstalk|edits 18:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Snoopydaniels. You have new messages at Mann jess's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Snoopydaniels. You have new messages at Mann jess's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jesstalk|edits 22:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Talk:Irreducible complexity

Hey Snoopy. I'm replying to your question here, since user talk pages are a better place to have policy-related discussion. Jesstalk|edits 18:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. If the discussion page isn't intended for discussion of the article's content then what is it for? I thought the whole point of the discussion page was for the community to suggest and discuss changes to an article's content before making them. Where would be a more appropriate forum for this discussion? Snoopydaniels (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been clearer. The talk page is intended for discussion of "the article", but not the "subject" of the article. There is a subtle distinction there. For instance, we don't want the Flat Earth talk page to be filled up with people arguing that the Earth is flat, or that it's a legitimate scientific theory. If it is, then reliable sources should be found, which would settle the argument for good without any need for discussion. Instead, the talk page should be used to discuss specific improvements to, say, the wording of a section, or what references should be used in which parts. I wasn't "warning" you about it so much as just letting you know for future reference, since editors on other articles tend to be pretty picky about the distinction (and often for good cause). It was just a friendly "I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't show you this" kind of thing. This is only relevant to you because there are two ways to approach the discussion.
1) One is to argue about the topic. For instance:
This tends to go on for several more paragraphs. This approach is ineffective, and you can expect responses such as "Wikipedia is not a forum. Please provide reliable sources for your claims".
2) The other is to let sources do the talking for you. For instance:
This makes your comment shorter, more to the point, and backed up by data which can be verified. Per WP:V, we need a source to include any new content anyway. This is the way to go about suggesting changes, as it is a discussion of improvements to the article, not an argument about the topic.
Does this make things clearer? As I said in my reply to you, your best bet in making your case is finding reliable secondary sources which say exactly what you want to put in the article, and just list those out. Again, I would suggest reading through some of the sources we have already so you have some background on the topic and see why the article is in its current state. I listed a few of the more important ones in my last comment. Again, I hope this doesn't come off as harsh. Getting tone right in text to a stranger is quite difficult! Feel free to ask if you have any questions :) Jesstalk|edits 18:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Snoopydaniels, Just some thoughts which pretty much go along with what Mann Jess says above. The talk page guidelines give good guidance – the article page is for specific proposals for improving the article, but is not a forum for general debate about the topic. Regarding the additions you made to the article, please note that while Stephen C. Meyer is a vocal proponent of ID, his ideas of science lack credibility and if "it is a positive argument based on scientific observation and experimentation" then we'd need published evidence of that, which should be in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. While "a number of legal scholars and scientists", meaning some ID proponents, may have challenged the court's findings in general, no original research requires that they specifically discussed irreducible complexity, and to meet WP:WEIGHT the article should not give their arguments "equal validity". Their claims have been disputed and though they've kept trying to get it into schools, they've not tested their opinion in court again. At least not this year. So, please present specific proposals with sources that relate directly to the topic of this article, and we can discuss their suitability. Thanks, dave souza, talk 19:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Jess
Rest assured that no offense was taken. I was simply bewildered. Your point is well taken. I have been in enough debates to know how quickly things can devolve into he-said-she-said. However, the second method of discussion simply defers debate and discussion to the level of sources. My opinion of what is "reliable" is clearly different from that of yourself and Dave. You claim, for example, that Discovery Institute sources are unreliable (even, puzzlingly enough, when the purpose of using the sources is to prove that they said what I claim they said) claiming that they have a history of lying under oath, but you provide no substantiation of this. On the other hand, the article on Irreducible Complexity is filled with sources which are neither peer-reviewed, nor peer-edited and which are nothing more than childish ad hominem attacks on ID proponents themselves, not logical scientific arguments. These sources have a conflict of interest by virtue of being on the other side of an ensuing scientific debate. So who decides what constitutes a "reliable" source? Snoopydaniels (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Dave
Your assertion that Dr. Stephen Meyer's "ideas of science lack credibility" is puzzling considering that his latest book has received a long list of ringing endorsements from scientists and philosophers in no way affiliated with the Discovery Institute. I have a pile of peer-reviewed literature on the subject of intelligent design in general and irreducible complexity in general and I intend over the coming months to use them to alter if only modestly the content of numerous articles.
With regard to the Dover case, I question the relevance of the judge's opinion to the subject of the article. Since when are judges the final arbiter of what constitutes science and what does not? Certainly his decision is binding for legal purposes, but for scientific purposes it is completely worthless.
The sources you cited above indicate that you are under the mistaken assumption that creationism and intelligent design are one and the same. Unfortunately, because of the verifiability not truth policy combined with the WP:Fringe policy and your definition of reliability I will never be able to produce enough sources to disconfirm your misconception, and Wikipedia users will be forever ignorant of the distinction. If Wikipedia is more concerned with verifiability than truth (which I understand is necessary for encyclopedic entries) then perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for me. Snoopydaniels (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for taking the time to tutor me. It will probably be a trial and error process (with more error than anything else) as I acclimate to the Wikipedia culture. :)

Hey Snoopy. I don't have a ton of time at the moment, so I can only respond to a couple things (please also excuse the rushed tone). Regarding "deferring debate to the level of sources", this is absolutely preferable. Since we must cite sources for our content, it is inexpressibly more important what the sources say than what we do. Anybody can assert anything, but discussion of reliable sources keeps us neutral, verifiable, and on-point. Regarding "what constitutes reliable", WP:RS covers that fairly well, and you can check WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard for discussion of specific cases (or post to the board if you want clarification).
Regarding "DIs history", I would suggest checking the Discovery Institute article, which includes a few examples, and the links I provided you earlier, including the Kitzmiller v Dover trial findings, also cite specific examples. When a federal judge finds that the DI has lied under oath, when the DI is uncovered explicitly misrepresenting their mission, and when the DI is informed of incorrect data and refuses to correct it, we have far surpassed the bar for a questionable source.
It's ultimately your call whether wikipedia is the place for you (Conservapedia, for instance, has vastly different policies on these sorts of things), but I'd like you to consider that if you believe something which you'd like to present here, but no reliable sources who haven't been found to lie under oath are willing to report, perhaps there's more to the story which warrants research. If you do that research and are able to find sources which present your case, please do present them on the relevant articles, since we very much would like new content and contributers. All the best, Jesstalk|edits 17:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the articles you cited nor the Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion appear contain any reliable evidence whatsoever that any DI fellows have "lied under oath" as you claimed. I would also like to point out that since the Discovery Institute did not testify at the Dover trial, it is not possible that the Institute lied under oath. The article on Dissent from Darwin is filled with unreliable sources and unsubstantiated claims, which I will be challenging soon. Snoopydaniels (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Hey, Snoopy. I'd be happy to adopt you. If you're interested, just leet me know here or on my talk page. SwarmTalk 08:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blaire White / pronoun usage

Hi, I noticed that you have changed all of the pronouns on Blaire_White's wikipedia page from "she" to "he," and that you have repeatedly re-inserted these edits after they were removed. I don't want to make assumptions about your intentions or your level of familiarity with wikipedia's coverage of this issue. However, biographical articles are expected to use the pronouns consistent with a person's identity. See Wikipedia:Gender_identity. The article has been repaired for a third time today - please refrain from editing it again, as this could be considered either Disruptive editing or vandalism. If it continues, I will need to forward this to a formal dispute resolution process. Thank you.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snoopydaniels&oldid=836598125"