User talk:Agapetos angel: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:03, 8 February 2006

New day dawns ....

No more red-link!

You have a shiny new user page, congratulations! I appreciate your discussing the article in detail, and I note your concern over the 3RR and "over-implementation" thereof. If you feel you're being treated unreasonably again, drop me an email (via my user page) and I'll take a look at it, and prevail upon the blocking admin if it seems to me there's a bad call. Alai 08:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answers in Genesis incorporation information

Hi. I'm responding to the message left at User_talk:Calcol. I tried to leave the source on the page, but it looks like that has been removed. It is from the Articles of Incorporation filed with the Kentucky Secretary of State, and I don't believe it is available online. This is all I could find that's online: [1] and [2]. Calcol 14:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess another editor thought it didn't need to be there, or perhaps deleted it because it was unsourced? I don't know. Maybe add it with the sources, or go to talk and ask if it shouldn't be there. agapetos_angel 23:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute tag

AA, sorry about the dispute tag removal, that was one Wiki rule I was unaware of, so thanks for pointing it out. (I suppose there are still things to learn about Wiki for all of us). I intended no vandalism, as that's just not part of my modus operandi. Sarcasm, yes, vandalism, no. Jim62sch 13:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries agapetos_angel 13:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was added to the Vandalism page Jan 14, 2006. As such, it is quite new and I would not expect everyone to be aware of it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I appreciated that Jim apologize rather than flying off the handle :) agapetos_angel 14:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding dispute tags

Adding dispute tags to a page, where there is clear consensus that it is fine, in this case because you disagree with the WP:NPOV policy, is vandalism. Explain your objections on the talk page. And that means proper explanation, not whinging that you want a section removed because it notes criticisms of someone with extremely unorthodox views. Oh, and remember the 3RR, won't you? — Dunc|☺ 13:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunc, that's just it. There is no clear consensus (see Talk). Editors are still working on a respectable version, from both 'sides' of the debate over that section. Therefore, removing the tag is vandalism. And I didn't revert the last one; just left you a note so you would see it (since you don't appear to be reading the Talk). Thanks agapetos_angel 13:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"want a section removed because it notes criticisms" is not the issue, as explained in talk. Verifiability is. agapetos_angel 13:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it appears that only you dispute it. Your "verifiability" is a rather transparent subversion of policy to remove criticism. How's about this for policy: WP:NPOV is non-negotiable (?). Do you recognise m:MPOV? btw, you do know the Flintstones isn't based on real events don't you? — Dunc|☺ 14:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm, cute. Verifiablity is being attempted/added and edits are being currently being discussed in talk (if you look there, you will see that even Alai is getting frustrated with your reverts that are removing valid links and edit that he made). How about this? Please read talk, please stop vandalising the article by removing tags, and please stop accusing me of failing to follow NPOV when you aren't even in the ballpark of the dispute discussion, k? Furthermore, please see your talk where I outlined that your last revert wasn't a revert of anything. agapetos_angel 14:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding

not ~~Forgery~~

Please delete your attempt to sign my name to a poll immediately. Your deceitful behaviour is not appreciated. Guettarda 00:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not, as I explained in talk, commit 'forgery'. It was a summary of opinions, not a signature on a poll. agapetos_angel 00:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names on a list is a forgery unless the owner's added their own names. What is so hard to understand about this? There is a misunderstanding, but it is yours. Remove the names. All of them that you added, except "Agapetos angel". KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but made the suggested revision already so Blind Freddy can see that it was summary, not poll. agapetos_angel 01:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean by "Blind Freddy"? Looking over your use of Guettarda's username at Talk:Jonathan_Sarfati#Consensus_attempt, it's pretty clear what you were attempting to do. And adding/signing the usernames of others there crossed the line. I've warned you about POV pushing already, and you've chosen to dismiss or discount my warnings. Your actions there are rapidly approaching the point where others will legitimately demand administrative intervention to put right. Again, I suggest you take a wikibreak from this article, find something non-controversial to edit for a while, and use that time to rethink you participation on this topic. When you've got 3 admins telling you to chill out you're likely doing something very wrong. As for this "poll/summary" of yours, its time has long passed, you're merely using it to force the issue for your version of the content, which others have rightly identified as pov. This situation is addressed specifically at Wikipedia:Straw polls: "If you try to force an issue with a poll, expect severe opposition, people adding a "polls are evil and stupid" option and your poll not being regarded as binding." FeloniousMonk 16:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to this in the appropriate talk. Blind Freddy is an Australian euphemism, the meaning of which is obvious. Review of your participation in the discussion, with its false accusations and ad homs, would show that your 'admonishment' comes with conflict-of-interest. I would kindly suggest that you step back and examine your behaviour, as it does not represent the standards of impartiality necessary for an admin. There was assumed malice where none was intended. The summary that was misconstrued came after an attempt at a poll, and therefore, was not signatures on a poll, but rather a listing of names that participated or 'rang in'. After discussion with KC, I made the changes she requested/required. Ringing in after the fact only emphasises your attempts to discredit me, as illustrated several times in talk, as an editor, rather than either responding to content, or attempting to assist me and the other editors who are working together with compromise to achieve a well-written article. agapetos_angel 03:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are still putting words in my mouth over there. I asked you to remove those claims. Why are you attributing opinions to me that I have not expressed? Guettarda 02:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda, expressing that you disagree with my assessment, that your dissent was implied, after my assessment is appropriate. Editing my post was not. agapetos_angel 04:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are dishonestly characterising my contribution and you refuse to remove the offending material - in fact, after I struck out your comments you replaced them This behaviour is totally out of line and deply dishonest. Guettarda 04:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I 'characterised' your response to the subject rather than posting all your objections. You did, in fact, edit my comment, and after KC requested/required that I make changed, I removed your edit to MY post. You have no right to edit my post in any fashion. Complain after the fact, but leave my postings alone. agapetos_angel 04:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First you signed my name to a list. When I struck it out you replaced it with a post that stated I did not say what I said. I am fed up of your intentional mischaracterisation of what I said. I can edit your post to remove personal attacks, and I can edit your post to remove lies about me. It isn't like I made it look like you were saying what I had to say - unlike you. Lay off the dishonesty. Stop making claims in my name which are outright false. Is that too much to ask? There is no reason that I have to tolerate your mischaracterisation. I asked you to change it, you refused. I am under no obligation to tolerate your dishonesty. Guettarda 05:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, as requested by an admin after you complained, changed the bullet list that was misconstued as a poll (even though it came after the 'poll' and was obviously a summary). Saying that your dissent was implied was not dishonest, and regardless of that fact, did not give you the right to edit my postings in any way. Your disagreement with my assessment, posted after my assessment, would have been sufficient. Your continued editing (and now deletion) of my postings is not appropriate. agapetos_angel

It is dishonest to keep insisting that I said something when I said nothing of the sort. You don't have to right to make dishonest claims about what I said. If you refuse to remove them, then I have no choice but to remove them. It isn't a matter of "disagreement with my assessment" - you are making outright brazenly false statements, and you insisted on making them despite my insistence that you remove the misleading material. You have no right to put words in my mouth. You have no right to insist on your right to lie. You can't just go around claiming that people said things they did not say. Why is it too much to ask that you quit attributing statements to me which I did not make and did not imply? Guettarda 05:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your post in this section is the latest of your complaints, which only continues to support my point that it was implied that you do not agree with the header revision as proposed. You have NO right to remove or alter my posts in any fashion. Complain if you must, but do not edit my posts. agapetos_angel 05:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your insistence that you have a right to lie about what other people have said is highly disturbing. Stop making dishonest claims about what people have said and you won't have to worry about people removing those claims. Simple enough. Guettarda 05:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have - (diff - 15:30, 2 February 2006) - shown an example where you dispute the intro as it was proposed (by revision of same), which is sufficient to show that I was not being dishonest. Dissent means to "differ in opinion or feeling; disagree". If you did not dissent/disagree with the header as it was proposed, then why did you edit away to another version, and why did you post this critique? This continued accusation of my supposed dishonesty is refuted by evidence to the contrary. You complained erroneously, and then compounded the complaint with inappropriate editing of my posts. Please stop doing that and we'll stop having this problem. THAT is simple enough. agapetos_angel 06:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to a previous version which did not have the nonsense that the anon had inserted. How is that possibly related to the intro?
How does that action allow you to claim I have an opinion on your proposed change? Guettarda 12:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations refuted by evidence

(1) 12:25, 8 February 2006 Guettarda striking out text in my post and adding text to my post

(2) 12:27, 8 February 2006 Guettarda rolls back 12:25, 8 February 2006 Revision

(3) 12:29, 8 February 2006 Guettarda reinstates the strike out of text in my post and adds text to my post, diff between (1) and (3) seems to be the closing strike out tag

(4) 14:38, 8 February 2006 Guettarda removing the postings of several editors and adding commentary/post" Since Agapetos angel refuses to remove his/her mischaracterisation of my opinion and has re-instated the erroneous comment after I struck it through, I am left with no choice but to remove the entire offensive section"

(1) and (2) are only important to show a timeline.

Note that there were no other edits made to that section between the striking out and the claim that I reinstated the text.

Second false accusation, again refuted by the evidence.

agapetos_angel 07:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about here? I hit save instead of preview and rolled back the change. Then I struck out the post and added a comment in small saying why I struck out the post, and posted here asking you to remove the text. It was a temporary measure to allow you to remove the offensive text. When you refused I had no choice but to remove the entire post. If you refuse to refactor your false allegation, I have no choice but to remove the post. It's your refusal to cease your dishonesty that forced my hand. Guettarda 12:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on "evidence"

AA, your evidence shows only that you persisted in stating "what Guettarda thought" after being asked, then told not to do so. Guettarda was well within guidelines to strike-through and then remove, with an appropriate comment, your doing so.

A summary reads like this: "Well, it looks like we're fairly evenly split on Bumpkis was a farmer, and Bumpkis was an agriculturalist, with one lone holdout for Bumpkis was a gardener."

Please note the lack of editors' names involved in that summary. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your version of a summary reads without editor's names, that's true. Mine does not. However, this does not mean that mine against any written policy, as far as I am aware. You warned me based on your assumption of malice that I was inserting names in a poll. I showed how the listing of names was not a poll, but came afterwards to summarize. Under protest and with explanation, I even complied with your requirement by making an edit so it did not look like a poll. It is not required, however, that I edit my opinion that Guettarda implied dissent to the revision, especially as the evidence has born out that my opinion is correct by the revision and the critique. I did not state "what Guettarda thought". I stated what I thought, that the dissent was implied. I'm sorry that you disagree, but until it can be shown that policy prevents saying that an editor implied something, especially when evidence shows that to be true, the point stands that the deletion of my (and the other editor's) postings was not appropriate. All that served to do was to leave the complaint, without the evidence that the complaint was invalid. I am trying to be reasonable. I made the edit so that it was extremely clear that it was my opinion in a summary of events. I have even asked Guettarda in Talk why he thinks my assessment based on the evidence is incorrect. This is active listening. X relates what they think Y said. I was attempting to come to a consensus in each dispute by asking if my assessments of the points made so far was accurate. If you note, I did this in several sections,not just that one. Why Guettarda got angry, and remains angry, I am trying to ascertain in a 'step back and see the other point of view', but I still fail to see how I misrepresented him in any way, shape, or form.

Secondly, I don't appreciate that FM falsely accused me, and posted my old IP on the Talk page, as well as revealing where I am located, and his other subsequent personal comments that are unrelated to content. This is, to my viewpoint, a very harsh breach of admin responsibility to good behaviour and a serious offence. After your strong admonishments to me on the above issue, I would ask if you please would apply equally impartial (and proportionate) admonishment to FM's actions in Talk. Thank you agapetos_angel 12:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stated what I thought, that the dissent was implied - so you feel that you have the right to make up falsehoods?
but until it can be shown that policy prevents saying that an editor implied something, especially when evidence shows that to be true, the point stands that the deletion of my (and the other editor's) postings was not appropriate - You don't have the right to attribute an opinion to me which I have not expressed, and your protestations to the contrary, there is no evidence to support your allegation. Your allegation false.
All that served to do was to leave the complaint, without the evidence that the complaint was invalid - The complaint was valid. There was never any evidence to support your false statement.
I am trying to be reasonable - how is it reasonable to insist on your right to post false statements?
I have even asked Guettarda in Talk why he thinks my assessment based on the evidence is incorrect - for one, this is a loaded question; please point me to the posting, I don't recall noticing it; what evidence?
This is active listening - active listening? You post a false statement about me. I ask you to remove it. You refuse. I remove it. You complain. If this is your idea of listening (disregarding what other people say and pretending to be the wronged party rather than the aggressor) I'd hate to think what your idea of "not listening" is.
Why Guettarda got angry, and remains angry, I am trying to ascertain in a 'step back and see the other point of view', but I still fail to see how I misrepresented him in any way, shape, or form. - what a crock. It's very simple why I am upset. You attributed opinions to me which were false. When you make stuff up that's false, it misrepresents people. How could you possibly find that hard to understand?
I don't appreciate that FM falsely accused me - if he actually were falsely accusing you, it would mean that he was doing what you were doing. If you don't appreciate being falsely accused, you should make certain that you don't falsely accuse others.

Seriously - first you falsely attribute opinions to me, then you claim that there is "evidence" to support your false claim, then you present to be confused about why I am upset with your lies, and then you have the gall to complain about "false accusations"? And you claim to be "listening"? Why are you making all this up? Guettarda 16:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lampchop

"Do I really look like Lambchop to ewe?"

I sheepishly came to check out your ewe-ser page. I'm not trying to ram my opinion down your goat. Hopefully we can shear the POV leaving articles that will not be subject to future lamb-poons. ;-) David D. (Talk) 09:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Well done, mate! agapetos_angel 01:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between paraphrase and direct quote

I appreciate that you have finally dropped the quotes from Ken Ham's statements that were paraphrased by the Kentucky Post. I am still bothered by the fact that you only agreed to this out of "compromise" instead of understanding why it is wrong.

Please take a moment to read this webpage that explains the difference between direct quoting and paraphrasing. The Kentucky Post was paraphrasing what Ken Ham had said. It is ok to quote the KP paraphrase with quote marks only if it is made clear that what is being quoted is only what the KP reported (paraphrased), not what Ken Ham has actually said. DennisF 15:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 95: / Line 95: @@
 : Your version of a summary reads without editor's names, that's true.  Mine does not.   However, this does not mean that mine against any written policy, as far as I am aware.  You warned me based on your assumption of malice that I was inserting names in a poll.  I showed how the listing of names was not a poll, but came ''afterwards'' to summarize.  Under protest and with explanation, I even complied with your requirement by making an edit so it did not look like a poll.  It is not required, however, that I edit my opinion that Guettarda implied dissent to the revision, especially as the evidence has born out that my opinion is correct by the revision and the critique.  I did not state "what Guettarda thought".  I stated what I thought, that the dissent was implied.  I'm sorry that you disagree, but until it can be shown that policy prevents saying that an editor implied something, especially when evidence shows that to be true, the point stands that the deletion of my (and the other editor's) postings was not appropriate.  All that served to do was to leave the complaint, without the evidence that the complaint was invalid.  I am trying to be reasonable.  I made the edit so that it was extremely clear that it was my opinion in a summary of events.  I have even asked Guettarda in Talk why he thinks my assessment based on the evidence is incorrect.  This is active listening.  X relates what they think Y said.  I was attempting to come to a consensus in each dispute by asking if my assessments of the points made so far was accurate.  If you note, I did this in several sections,not just that one.  Why Guettarda got angry, and remains angry, I am trying to ascertain in a 'step back and see the other point of view', but I still fail to see how I misrepresented him in any way, shape, or form.
 : Secondly, I don't appreciate that FM falsely accused me, and posted my old IP on the Talk page, as well as revealing where I am located, and his other subsequent personal comments that are unrelated to content.  This is, ''to my viewpoint'', a very harsh breach of admin responsibility to good behaviour and a serious offence.  After your strong admonishments to me on the above issue, I would ask if you please would apply equally impartial (and proportionate) admonishment to FM's actions in Talk.  Thank you [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 12:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
+* ''I stated what I thought, that the dissent was implied'' - so you feel that you have the right to make up falsehoods?
+* ''but until it can be shown that policy prevents saying that an editor implied something'', '''''especially when evidence shows that to be true''''', ''the point stands that the deletion of my (and the other editor's) postings was not appropriate'' - You don't have the right to attribute an opinion to me which I have not expressed, and your protestations to the contrary, '''there is no evidence to support your allegation'''.  Your allegation false.
+* ''All that served to do was to leave the complaint, without the evidence that the complaint was invalid'' - The complaint was valid.  There was never any evidence to support your '''false''' statement.
+* ''I am trying to be reasonable'' - how is it reasonable to insist on your right to post false statements?
+* ''I have even asked Guettarda in Talk why he thinks my assessment based on the evidence is incorrect'' - for one, this is a loaded question; please point me to the posting, I don't recall noticing it; what evidence?
+* ''This is active listening'' - active listening?  You post a false statement about me.  I ask you to remove it.  You refuse.  I remove it.  You complain.  If this is your idea of listening (disregarding what other people say and pretending to be the wronged party rather than the aggressor) I'd hate to think what your idea of "not listening" is.
+* ''Why Guettarda got angry, and remains angry, I am trying to ascertain in a 'step back and see the other point of view', but I still fail to see how I misrepresented him in any way, shape, or form.'' - what a crock.  It's '''very simple''' why I am upset.  '''You attributed opinions to me which were false'''.  When you make stuff up that's false, it misrepresents people.  How could you possibly find that hard to understand?
+* ''I don't appreciate that FM falsely accused me'' - if he actually were falsely accusing you, it would mean that he was doing what you were doing.  If you don't appreciate being falsely accused, you should make certain that you don't falsely accuse others.
+Seriously - first you falsely attribute opinions to me, then you claim that there is "evidence" to support your false claim, then you present to be confused about why I am upset with your lies, and ''then'' you have the gall to complain about "false accusations"?  And you claim to be "listening"?  Why are you making all this up?  [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 16:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 ==Lampchop==