User talk:Bagginator

Hi, Bagginator, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like this place — I sure do — and want to stay.

You may want to read about the Five pillars of Wikipedia and simplified ruleset.

If you need help on how to title new articles check out the naming conventions.

For help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style.

If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and the FAQ.

If you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)!

There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library.

Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal.

Feel free to post questions on my user talk page or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will be by to help you shortly.

If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you. You can sign your name using three tildes (~). If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Five will get you the datestamp only.

You may want to add yourself to the new user log.

If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

On IRC, check out the Bootcamp. It's not what it sounds like, but it is fun and can help you with your editing skills.

If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.

Happy Wiki-ing. —Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs

PS: This is not a bot and you did nothing to prompt this message. This is just a friendly welcome by a fellow Wikipedian.

Click here to respond to this message!

Shadowclan

The article didn't appear to claim to be notable or important in any way.Blnguyen | rant-line 08:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, firstly you have to "claim importance" so that it will not be speedily deleted. However, even if you do so, an {{afd}} process may be used in an attempt to delete it - if a debate is successful - so you need to explain why it is important and convinve the community that it is worth keeping. Blnguyen | rant-line 08:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be criteria a7 - see this template: {{db-group}}.Blnguyen | rant-line 08:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it basically for the same reasons that Blnguyen has mentioned. It was an advertisement for a group of people that did not assert notability ("uniqueness") according to our notability criteria for people. Kimchi.sg 12:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination: Shadowclan

I've nominated the article Shadowclan for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Shadowclan satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadowclan. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Shadowclan during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. Kimchi.sg 23:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Try not to take it too hard. Kimchi is a great guy and it was merely meant in the form of the personal advice, which he thought would benefit your ability to make your point. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariano Anton Bruno Mascarenhas, the subject of the biography User:Doctorbruno made extremely incessant pseudo-personal posts which managed to irritate some people. You haven't done anything wrong so far, it was just Kimchi's opinion of what is effective conduct. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 02:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bagginator/Shadowclan

I put the contents here so you can work on it and bring it back when it is ready.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well recrate and see what happens. You'll need substantiation of your claims.Blnguyen | rant-line 08:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I recreated several days ago and so far so good.

Bagginator 08:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Vandal on Shadowclan page

I added a warning to the userpage of the advertising vandal on the SC wikipage. Tell me if he does it again and I'll step up the disciplinary action on him. Shazbot85^Talk 16:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i'll keep an eye on it and let you know.Bagginator 01:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Jeremiah

Threw my vote in. The guy is extensivly published and I fail to see where that guy draws his dubious claim about the publishers. He should admit fault and renounce his claim. Shazbot85^Talk 04:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on the page. Unknown publishers, and no publishers are dubious. Arbusto 05:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the partial Amazon.com links [1] because wikipedia does not offer business to book retailors. Imagine if every single book on wikipedia followed this suit; all books would be linked to one business. However, adding in the ISBN number, publisher, city, year, and page numbers would be good. Arbusto 05:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion is that the page isn't sufficiently sourced and as mentioned above that no publishers and unknown publishers are dubious. I provide the evidence and you revert it because you think it provides business to Amazon? This doesn't make sense to me, it is sourcing the material.Bagginator 06:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add the sources in the AfD page, he can't remove it there. Shazbot85^Talk 07:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that he "can't remove it", more that these sorts of links are inappropriate in mainspace. We do not link to Amazon book reviews because they are user-written and open to manipulation; we do not link to individual booksellers either (ISBN references are automagically converted to links by the MediaWiki software). This is not new, and it's definitely not restricted to one editor. Guy 12:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowclan

you will see that I asked our members for appropriate articles to help demonstrate our notability - thats also not in the sense of the inventor. If its notable you will find people writing an article about while not beeing a clan member. You should not write heavily articles about yourself our stuff you are closely affiliated with, since you violate NPOV, but keep a fair distance, maybe pointing out this or that on the approperiate talk page. --Jestix 19:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the link you gave me:

K'Dahbruh (Clan AdminO PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:55 am Post subject: Reply with quote If you wish to add to the wikipedia page, I'd suggest joining the Shadowclan Mission group and discussing it with them. They put the Wikipedia page together as part of the mission project.

Do I understand that correctly? Do we have now a mission group controlling a wikipedia article? E.g. this is sooooo wrong, Nobody owns Wikipedia articles. --19:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to see everything through rose colored glasses. No where in that sentence is a requirement to join some "mission group", or a claim that someone owns a Wikipedia article, but a suggestion to discuss with others what should and should not be included in a Wikipedia article. Stop being inflammatory Jestax and learn to work with others. Shazbot85^Talk 20:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look a clan X is not supposed to be the active maintiner of its very own article. It results in POVs. If someone wants to edit, he has a talk page on wikipedia. A "mission group" for as I read it clan-PR on wikipedia is very wrong. --Jestix 20:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Can you show that clan X has a mission group actively involved on Wikipedia? Or are there just vauge statements about suggestions someone made about how someone might discuss topics? Can you show POV in any article you might be suspecting of? As it stands, no POV statements have been made about the article at hand. It is encyclopedically written and various editos have edited it to make it as neutral as possible. What exactly is your argument here, because you're not providing anything solid for you to stand on. Regards, Shazbot85^Talk 20:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe to make it clear again, what I don't like: you will see that I asked our members for appropriate articles to help demonstrate our notability - this violates WP:AUTO, - You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.. And is thus not a GoodThingTM. With our members are the clan members ment, by the author creating this article in wikipedia beeing a clan member, and now having the whole can forcing this article into wikipedia. Look I don't decide now on notability, its however not a good idea to make it this way around. --Jestix 20:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i'd like to see what is POV about the article. I'm not conceeding you're right as you havn't proven the author is a member, but I am curious about how you relate any of this to the article. So, again, what's POV now? Shazbot85^Talk 21:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will note that I not voted to delete, I merely wanted to point out that there some problematic points and not everything is as green as it seemed, especially on the creation history. I don't want this to be paradigm for clans to force themselfs into wikipedia. I hope the shadowclan clan members can distance themselfs from their own article, and show as example to other clans that its not a good idea to write an article about *YOUR* clan, respecting WP:AUTO. This goes especially for the clan administration or their "mission group" as they seem to have and call it. --Jestix 21:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More than likely, that admin has absolutly nothing to do with Wikipedia. Shazbot85^Talk 21:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean, take a look at the link baggie gave me, http://www.shadowclan.org/darkmoot/viewtopic.php?t=37531&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 . Reading all this, it justs hurts WP:AUTO soooooo much. BTW: Baggi==Bagginator --Jestix 21:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are mistaken Jestix. The Shadowclan article was put up for deletion (As you noted for a third time) and the reason given was NN. Instead of having to go through all the work myself dating back to 1997, I asked for assistance to demonstrate that Shadowclan was notable. You seem to be saying that it is wrong to ask for assistance in demonstrating the notability of Shadowclan. I'm not sure why that would be wrong. Perhaps you can explain yourself further?Bagginator 00:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baggie, please read WP:AUTO

Also from the link you gave: Baggi: Joined: 31 Jul 2002, Posts: 3548

Don't tell me, with 3548 posts you are somebody not very closely affialiated with them.

Neiher you nor your assistence clan-colleges are supposed to actively participate much with their own article! If you are noteworthy enough some non affiliated guy will write about you eitherway!

Violation of WP:AUTO is not a deletion criterium, but is strongly discouraged, and Yes you give a bad example for other clans by violating it.

Also your "mission controll group", or clan adminship should keep a fair distance from the article.

One thing is important to understand where you guys seem to have to wrong notion. This is not our wiki page (our= the clans) (several citates from your forums), its very much rather a wiki page about us.! --Jestix 05:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this relates to the AfD. Shazbot85^Talk 06:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does it have to relate? --Jestix 06:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, consensus was keep and so was the descision. Victorious again. (Yes, I intentionally used that word.) Shazbot85^Talk 06:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I however hope that I made clear that closely affiliated clan members are encoursed to keep a fair distance to the article about them (not "their" article), and this goes especially for clan adminship or the "mission control group". --Jestix 06:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I'm niether an administrator, part of a mission group, or the author or editor of the article. The author didn't write an article about him either, but rather what people did back in 1997. I could see your point if the founders of the guild wrote it. Shazbot85^Talk 06:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shazbot, by all love you do look with pink eyeglasses on it. When the no-auto paradigm also suggests e.g. not to write articles from corporations you work, this goes ass well for the clan. Especially since the clan admin announced that there is a "mission control group that puts together the wikipedia page". This is not good, and I hope you see that. That does however not affect the notabilty of the lemma per se. The author had over 3000 posts on the clan forums, that does not suggest a neutral view if you ask me. --06:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've pressured you to point out what is and is not NPOV, and you've ducked it. If you want to sit around and make accusations I'm going to start ignoring you. If you'd like to work towards a solution with a problem you have then I'll work with you. also, the admin didn't make the claim that there is a "mission control group that puts together the wikipedia page". All that was alluded to was a discussion group. We have those here on Wikipedia. So I'm not really seeing a problem. Shazbot85^Talk 07:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I think everything that has to be said has been said, why do you want to keep discussing. It is not a good idea for closely affiliated clan member to work on the clan page, its not a good idea the clan hierachy to effect on wikipedia, like clan admins telling their people what to do or not to do on wikipedia. Does it change anything on the article? No. Should the clan group be advised to let it go? Yes. Should a closely affiliated guy not have written the article in first place? Yes, since when notable enough there are many others that must have an interest on the article, who are not clan member.--Jestix 08:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jestix, I did take your advice and read through WP:AUTO. I can see the point the author of WP:AUTO has and how it can lead to trouble with NPOV. But we're just going to have to agree to disagree over how far to take WP:AUTO. I see your point and I disagree with its application. Cheers. Bagginator 10:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I ask is for, is closely affiliated shadowclan members, especially adminship or the "mission control group" in future to take a fair distance from participating on wikipedia page about them, in love to maintaining Wikipedia's neutral stance. Is that so difficult to grasp? Since if the clan is really so notable there should be plently other people willing to write/edit it, who have a far lesser danger of beeing POVed. They are however welcome to participate about anything else. Additionally I do ask people not to use power hierachies (clan-hierarchy) that exist outside of wikipedia to control who writes what on wikipedia articles. --Jestix 10:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shazbot, will you PLEASE not remove my text? Now thats really rude! --Jestix 15:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I copied and quoted what I wanted to address. I didn't remove your text unless I forgot to edit the copy. If so I didn't intend to. Shazbot85^Talk 15:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the original. --Jestix 15:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok..? The admins don't take part in editing on Wikipedia as far as I know, nor am I a part of any "mission group", nor am I required to be. of whatever group they have is a requirement. All it showed was that people got together and discussed what was going on. I have iterated and reiterated this point several times, and you continually overlook it. People discuss what goes in Wikipedia all the time. I discuss it with my friend while I'm at work (Yes, I'm that bored). It's not a big deal. Shazbot85^Talk 14:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was I talking to you? --Jestix 15:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do I appear to care in the slightest? Shazbot85^Talk 15:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes :-) or you wuoldn't have written "the admins don't take part in editing on Wikipedia as far as I know, nor am I a part of any "mission group" --Jestix 15:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that comment was made in reply to you attempting to dodge my comments by claiming you weren't talking to me. I, in fact, don't care if you're talking to me or not, I will reply to you as I wish. Shazbot85^Talk 15:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To summ it up as a rule of thumb: If you are closely affiliated with something its a good idea TO NOT create an article about it, or be a main editor in charge of it. Trust when the subject is notable enough sooner or later somebody comes along who is not closely affiliated with it. Or second rule of thumb, if you consider if you won't do it (or some else who is closely affiliated), nobody ever will create/maintain an article about that thing, thinking it might be interesting/notable enough for him to make the worry, it just isn't interesting enough for wikipedia. --Jestix 15:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUTO

Look do I have to put the finger down to this?

K'Dahbruh Clan Admin Clan Admin

PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:55 am

Post subject: Reply with quote

Be very careful what you add to the wikipedia page. The page was set up with what it has on it, and how it presents the data, for a reason. Wikipedia has certain policies on what it allows and what it doesn't.

Wikipedia does not allow 'advertisements' or 'recruiting pages'. It requires objectively reported facts of interest to the general populace. It's not a place for vanity posts.

If you wish to add to the wikipedia page, I'd suggest joining the Shadowclan Mission group and discussing it with them. They put the Wikipedia page together as part of the mission project.

This is, what is wrong. Simple as that. --Jestix 16:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vilvadi

Following from User talk:Vivaldi

I have read through a lot of material in the last hour or two. This talk page, the RfC, Arbustoo's talk page, the articles you have both edited, etc. My eyes are watering but allow me to share with you an observation, one that might get me in trouble. When I first came to Wikipedia and thought to get involved in editing I came across the Intelligent Design article. I made a couple of immature and snide comments in the talk section because I thought the article was poorly written and clearly not a neutral point of view. Regardless, I ducked out of the discussion quickly and never bothered to go back because I was new to Wikipedia and didn't feel like getting involved in such a discussion as a newbie. I did however read through the history of the talk page and was pretty amazed at the lack of scholarship. Instead what I saw was folks like FeloniousMonk and Guettarda doing everything in their power to make sure the article was written from a negative point of view. Since that time about a couple of months have gone by.

Now comes Arbustoo, who seems to want to throw in negative points of view on every article involving the slightest hint of Christianity. Not only that, but the exact opposite is true when it comes to articles critical of Christianity. It seems as though he cannot be neutral when it comes to discussions connected to Christianity.

Then comes the dispute between the two of you. If it could be classified as such (Although this is really a rather poor classification in regards to you Vivaldi) it seems that you have been placed on the pro-Christian side of the fence (Even though you probably don't place yourself there) and the anti-Christian forces have lined up against you. Suddenly, from out of no where, comes FeloniousMonk and Guettarda. Coincidence?

I guess my point in writing this to you is to tell you that some of us read your work and appreciate it. Do not let them gang up on you and wear you down. If you want to see what I mean about FeloniousMonk and Guettarda, I suggest you read through the Intelligent Design talk page. It's no accident that they showed up out of the blue to condemn you. Good luck and keep up the good work here at Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagginator (talk • contribs)

Since when does being critical of an unscientific theory, which has no evidence make on "anti-Christian"? When does posting cited criticism about someone make them anti-Christian? Deal with the article content and not "immature" and incorrect attacks on people. Arbusto 18:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highly offensive comments

I find your attacks on my religious beliefs incredibly offensive. I have no idea where you get off calling me unChristian. I have no idea who you feel you are to stand in judgement of my relationship with God. I try my best to edit in accordance with NPOV. If I fail with respect to Intelligent design it is more because ID is an attack on Christianity than because it is an attack on science. ID is nothing but a well-designed deception, lies to mislead the gullible and the poorly informed. I find it hard to see how people who serve deception are supposed to be serving God. Intelligent design reduces God to nothing but a tinkerer, incapable of grandeur. And yet you seek to disparage my Christianity? Intelligent design is bad science and terrible theology. Yet you try to call me anti-Christian for being interested in truth and accuracy? Not sure where you got your understanding of Christianity from, but lies and deception in the name of God are far less compatible with Christianity than anything I have said or done in my life.

Wikipedia is a project to write an encyclopaedia. It is not a place to spread mistruths about your fellow editors. Your actions are disgusting. Guettarda 20:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, as of now, have no stance on the ID debate, I have little interest in the squabblings of scientists as they are often concerned with all things unimportant. As of now, I simply hold that God did in fact create the entire universe and all existing realms that fall outside of our knowledge or current understanding. In what ways does Intellegent Design reduce God to a tinker? As far as I know about what ID is, is that it is a theory erected in order to put theistic views in the classroom along with possibly atheistic views (science is only atheistic if you make it such, which most people do try to do, incorrectly, as God did create science). I fail to see how offering a competing theory is deception anymore than raising the theory of evolution as truth is to impressionable youths, which is practiced regularly in public schools. I would consider that deception and lies to mislead the gulliable and uninformed (as youths more often than not are). The only point where I got a teacher or prefessor to conceed and explain the unstable and subjective nature of the theory of evolution was in my junior year of college in a geology class. Sad really, my tax dollars are wasted on inadequate education, for more reasons than just that which I described, but I digress. My only question out of that whole hubub is how is intellegent design deception? Expect to have the premises attacked civily as I want you to be as right as you possbly can be in pursuit of finding the truth. Best regards, Shazbot85^Talk 15:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I've notice you also most exclusively voting in and commenting on various pages that I edit in or AfD's I nominated. I am referring to your edits from Sept. 7 thru today- the 17th (of 50 of your edits in the last two weeks about four edits were not tied to me in some way). Are you following me around or is this mere coincidence? I ask because of your various comments surrounding an ongoing ArbCom case[2] and wanting to get invovled.[3]

Also I ask because of various statements you've made.[4]Arbusto 17:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ive just looked back over my edit history and the AfD's that ive participated in and I don't see your point. Must be a coincidence.Bagginator 05:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First edit in 8 days is to edit war against me. You are warned on WP:STALK. Arbusto 01:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbustoo, i'm asking you nicely to please stop trying to intimidate me. If you have a problem with me, say so, but I will continue to edit and participate in areas that I find relevant. If you happen to be in the same areas, it is a coincidence only. Just to be clear, I will not be intimidated by you into non-participation at Wikipedia.Bagginator 03:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is you involving yourself with exclusively with my afds. Stop following my contributions. Arbusto 05:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your first sentence is false and can be easily checked by looking at my contributions. If I ever start following your contributions i'll be sure to remember the advice you give in your second sentence. Bagginator 05:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On October 8th you voted in an afd I nominated with vague language in which you may not even looked at the articles. The last time you voted in a afd was 8 days before, Sept 30, again in another afd nominated by me. Arbusto 16:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to stop harrassing me on my talk page. Bagginator 02:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop it. Arbusto 18:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbusto, please make comments like this on the admin noticeboard or on an admin's talk page. Bagginator, you are giving a remarkably convincing impression of stalking Arbustoo. This is strongly discouraged. It is time, I think, to forget the persoanilites and stick to articles. Guy 18:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea JzG, let's stick to articles and forget about personalities.Bagginator 05:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B. H. Carroll

I'm a fan of schools and if there is a justifiable defence to be made to retain a school article in the face of an AfD I am more than willing to do so. The B. H. Carroll article may have started in too deep of a hole to be redeemed (at least on Wikipedia) both in terms of the article content and the tenor of the AfD, but a review of the institute's web site and the available third party material made it clear to me that this is a genuine school of higher learning. I have still seen nothing on the school's website, google references or within the AfD that justify the "diploma mill" charge so many are using as a justifiction for deleting an article about a two-year-old school. Alansohn 10:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

The first thing to do is to talk informally with the editors on a talk page, this is often the best solution. However if this is not sucsesful if both partied mediation is the next step in the process, again this step is usually very successful

If problems then need taking further from here and the dispute is about content then an article content request for comment can be useful for involving outside parties to determine consensus of what the content should be.

If at any point your unsure of how to proceed or wish advice in presenting your side and how process works, then feel free to drop me a note on my talk page or if im not around at WP:AMA where someone can help you further. Benon 23:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing would seem right, and it is good to see that civility has been mantained there, if discussion begins to stagnate again an article rfc may be the way foward, one tipbit "The world will not end tomorrow, if it does whats on wikipedia is irrelevant if it dosent then we still have plenty of time to disscus, wikipedia is a work in progress" Benon 05:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One thing you could try could be a straw poll on the talk page for the comepeting options to help clarify the consesu, if this fails i would then move it onwards to requests for comment Benon 01:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is about as far as i can take this case to be honest, currently i dont have vast amounts of on wiki time and certianly not enough to help out with an rfc, however i have passed this on to steve at [5] so if you drop in there he should be able to help you out, This isnt a reflection of you or the dispute, just a lack of time for it on my side , thanks Benon 20:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Design

I've opened up a new section on the page. Hopefully you and other editors can now detail in depth the arguments in favour of classifying these fellows as proponents. Thanks for referring me to John Umana. Regards, Dave. --Davril2020 01:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umana

John Umana is a senior trial and appellate lawyer in Washington, DC with a Ph.D. in analytic philosophy from Michigan. In 2005, Umana authored the book, “Creation: Towards a Theory of All Things.” This book was the source of the Legal Times statement in its May 22, 2006 issue that he is a leading proponent of intelligent design. He is both a biological evolutionist and intelligent design theorist, and not affiliated with Discovery Institute or any group. He argues that the debate on evolution suffers from confusion from the failure of some to distinguish two different senses of the term ‘evolution.’ MEANING NO. 1: In one sense, evolution means that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor (and that different species share common ancestors, such as for example the hippopotamus, dolphin and whale share a common ancestor). It maintains that all organisms on earth are descended from a common ancestor. Umana argues that Dr. Darwin’s theory that living things evolved or descended from common ancestors is true and proved by the convergence of the sciences. MEANING NO. 2: But ‘evolution’ in Dr. Darwin’s full-blown sense is taken to mean that a new species originates as a result of "natural selection," random incremental mutations over millions of years. In this biological and Darwinian sense, the term ‘evolution’ means a process whereby life emerged from non-living matter and subsequently new species emerged and developed entirely from natural means. Darwin’s theory is that all complex species and organs such as the eye and animal instincts “evolved by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations ….” (1859, p. 459) This latter thesis is impeached by modern microbiology and is bad science, Umana argues. The book maintains that the evidence (including Big Bang analysis from NASA’s WMAP probe) points to a cause external to the physical universe as responsible for the biodiversity that exists on this planet and on other worlds. Umana’s theory predicts that there is no other life and never has been life elsewhere in this solar system – an empirically verifiable theory that will be tested in the near future with life-searching NASA landers (e.g., the Phoenix lander) set to explore Mars. At the same time, he argues in his chapter 8 that the universe is teeming with life and with intelligent life. Umana maintains that science offers the best hope of answering these questions.

Who on the Legal Times is qualified to declare Umana a leading proponent? --ScienceApologist 20:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get your meaning.Bagginator 04:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty clear to me: Precisely who on the Legal Times knows a sufficient amount about ID and the ID movement to declare Umana a "leading" proponent? Jim62sch 09:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem we have here is a disagreement over leading proponent. You would like it to be a very limited term applied only to a very limited number of people. We disagree. If news reporters are referring to people as leading proponents they are leading proponents. I see no reason to limit the term. Why do you?Bagginator 09:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be more clear, calling someone a leading proponent is like calling someone pretty. It is an opinion. According to WP:VER The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth. As long as the opinion comes from a reliable source it can be included in the article. Obviously edits could be made to the page to add in all kinds of media published accounts of people not affiliated with the Discovery Institute being called "leading proponents" like George W. Bush and Rick Santorum, but that is not my preference. This is why my suggestion is to change the sentence instead of add all of those cites to the article. If the consensus however ends up being that the sentence should not be changed then it may be necessary to seek consensus to add such cites.Bagginator 09:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your issue at Intelligent design

Look, you've failed to make your case for the simple reason you've presented no notable, compelling evidence for the change you've proposed. Consensus never trumps NPOV or verifiable facts, and you've come up short there on both. There is no "deadlocked debate" because there can be no legitimate dispute to be deadlocked over where no compelling evidence for a change has been presented.

Your continued arguing in pursuit of a certain point while failing to satisfy WP:V and WP:RS for an extended time while ignoring comments from other editors and calls for proof meets the very definition of disruptive editing, and that is one of the reasons I archived the talked page. Either come up with something better in the way of evidence that is more compelling than what is already present for what you claim or drop the issue because continuing to flog a dead horse is not going to get you anywhere and disrupts the project. FeloniousMonk 01:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence is not accurate, "Your continued arguing in pursuit of a certain point while failing to satisfy WP:V and WP:RS for an extended time while ignoring comments from other editors and calls for proof meets the very definition of disruptive editing". The San Francisco Chronicle, August 28 2005 calls Norris Gravlox, "a leading proponent of the intelligent design theory" thereby meeting both WP:V and WP:RS. The Tribeca Film Festival calls Jack Cashill, "a leading proponent of intelligent design." thereby meeting WP:V and WP:RS. The Orlando Weekly from September 1st 2005 calls Mat Staver, "leading proponent of teaching intelligent design in public schools" thereby meeting WP:V and WP:RS and on May 22, 2006, the Legal Times at page 13 calls John Umana, "a leading proponent of intelligent design" establishing WP:V and WP:RS.

Having read your comments and reviewed the archives the fact that you see this disagreement as disruptive editing is instructive. You have constructed a circular argument in which no person could possibly be a leading proponent of intelligent design unless they are affiliated with the Discovery Institute. Therefore, when someone points out to you those who are leading proponents of Intelligent Design you experience a sensation known as cognitive dissonance. You are having two conflicting thoughts at the same time. Here are verified, reliable sources that are calling people not affiliated with the Discovery Institute, "leading proponents." Since, in your mind, it is not possible, it must be something else, like disruptive editing.

I suggest taking a break from Wikipedia for awhile. Sometimes it helps us to clear our thoughts and our minds and recharge and refresh ourselves and when we come back we are then able to see things in a whole new light. Good luck and I look forward to working with you in the future!Bagginator 05:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, looks like I forgot all about two others that meet WP:V and WP:RS which are John Calvert, which the Columbia Daily Tribune on October 10 2005 calls, "prominent Kansas proponent of intelligent design" which some people may not agree is the same as a leading proponent, but I find those words synonymous and Walter ReMine which UCSB calls, "a leading proponent of Intelligent Design". Dunno why I forgot about those two.Bagginator 07:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many significant ID books have Norris Gravlox and Jack Cashill written? Not a single one. Take a look at the names of the authors at preeminent list of "essential reading" for ID: [6] Do you see Gravlox or Cashill there? But what you do see are the leaders of ID: Behe, Dembski, Meyer, Johnson, Wells, Pearcey. Who also on the DI's list of Fellows, [7].

So the recognized leaders of intelligent design, Behe, Dembski, Meyer, Johnson, Wells, Pearcey, have written dozens of books between them, hundreds, if you count articles; that why they are ID's leaders. Behe wrote Darwin's Black Box and testified at Dover on behalf of the defendants. Behe's articles: [8] Dembski wrote The Design Inference, The Design of Life, The Design Revolution, Mere Creation, Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design. Dembski's articles (not counting his blogs): [9] Johnson wrote Darwin on Trial, Reason in the Balance, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, The Wedge of Truth, The Right Questions, Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? Meyer co-wrote/edited Darwinism, Design, and Public Education, Science and Evidence of Design in the Universe. Meyer's articles: [10] Wells wrote Icons of Evolution. Wells' articles: [11] Pearcey wrote The Soul of Science, and contributed chapters to Mere Creation, Of Pandas and People, Signs of Intelligence, Reading God's World, Uncommon Dissent, A Man for This Season, and Total Truth. Pearcy's articles: [12] Now explain to us how Norris Gravlox and Jack Cashill, who between them have written zero notable books on the subject, can be considered leaders on the topic.

If you actually knew the topic of intelligent design well, you'd already know that John Calvert is affiliated with the Discovery Institute since his IDnet, a strictly regional group, was setup with assistance from the Discovery Institute, the national organizer. Therein lies your problem at the article, you simply do not know the topic and you're relying on cherry picking minor sources. FeloniousMonk 17:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that your charge was that I failed to satisfy WP:V and WP:RS and your response tries to change the topic to notability.Bagginator 00:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you A: Show me where you get the information that the IDnet was setup with the assistance of the Discovery Institute and B: Explain to me how that makes John Calvert affiliated with them? Does this mean you think anyone affiliated with IDnet is therefore affiliated with the Discovery Institute?Bagginator 09:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You requested me to post there

I've already voiced my opinion insofar as I have one. I stated that I thought it was bad to have that statement in an introduction.i kan reed 06:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Ack. I keep meaning to get to that, but am busy this week, between vandals and schoolwork. x.x I'll try to get to it. Sorry. Luna Santin 05:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so. If I haven't gotten to it by the weekend, or mebbe Monday, gimme another nag. Luna Santin 05:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your message on my talk page

Hi again. I'm moving through your list and will post specific comments here in the last day or so. --Davril2020 12:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted my response on the ID talk page, so that we can archive the discussion for use later. Thanks for pointing me to these folk. --Davril2020 22:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond to your general questions on my position on WP:V etc. on the ID page. As for Jack Cashill I consider him 'lightly' connected to the DI since I expect that for the article to be reproduced it would need the consent of the author given it would now be archived (unless the DI has messed up the date). Without further notable backing I would be wary of using him until confirmation that there had been no contact between them. I will respond to the issue of William Harris slightly later, also on the ID page. --Davril2020 12:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the need to propose a change to how 'leading proponent' is determined then go ahead and we can discuss it. For myself, I do not believe that reporters should or should not be used to cite whether individuals are leading proponents or not; it should be related to how authoritative that source is. A statement saying Umana was a leading proponent of intelligent design would be absolutely fine by my so far as changing the intro goes, if it was contained in a source I considered to be authoritative. My own definition for this would be an article by a reporter dealing specifically, from start to finish, with intelligent design, in which they referred to Umana in this fashion. Alternatively, it would be an article on Umana which dealt specifically with with his ID beliefs, in which he was stated to be a leading proponent. Tangential references cannot be authoritative as far as I am concerned and reporters cannot be authoritative simply by virtue of being authoritative. I'm considering proposing we clarify what is meant by a leading proponent on the talk page, so that people coming into this issue can at least establish what sort of sources they need to find. --Davril2020 11:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This issue simply comes back to how we ought to mediate what is and is not an authoritative source. Since we differ, if you feel the need to raise it again you can re-open the matter on the ID page. However, based on precedence I would anticipate the current use of sources and phrasing to remain the same or very similar (remember that this consensus version has been in place with only minor changes for about eight months). --Davril2020 00:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Your last comment on Intelligent Design

To wit: A debate requires more than, for example, one side merely insisting that a particular source is reliable. As for your question concerning the mininum necessary number of involved disputants for there to be a controversy, there is obviously no non-arbitrary minimum number. However, I need not provide a number in order to say that one person is not enough. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 02:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in holding the same futile back-and-forth that has gone on at Talk:Intelligent design on our own user talk pages. It is a fact that, rightly or wrongly, all except you do not consider the law.com article a reliable source (or, if they do, they do not consider the statement labeling Umana a "leading proponent" as one worth taking seriously). I, myself, am not so quick to revert any bold attempts you may make to add him to the article, but others clearly are. Therefore, your only remaining alternative that has any hope--however little--of seeing your goal here met is to move for a request for comment. I recommend ceasing further discussion on the ID talk page as this would increase the likelihood that someone will act on their belief that you are a ceaselessly partisan disputant and make an RfC against you. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 03:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC at Intelligent Design?

Hi again. From your comments at the ID page and elsewhere you seem to be considering an Rfc over the 'leading proponent' issue. If you have time could you drop by my talkpage and let me know whether you intend to go ahead, and if so, what you have in mind? --Davril2020 17:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA Request

Hi Bagginator, I'm Royalguard11, a volunteer advocate with the AMA. I have seen your case, and have decided to accept it. I have looked at your extensive summary (which is always a nice thing, more summary means the quicker I can respond), and it does seem you have found a real big problem. ID is a very controversial topic. When you made reference to Bush not being affiliated, it did make total sense, because as the US President he does have lots of power and influence. You have thought about going for a WP:RFC, but I think that you should probably back up a bit and start at WP:3O, which requests a third opinion from an uninvolved editor on the matter. Just because it's been brought up before doesn't mean it can't be questioned. If something is wrong, and we know it is, we have an obligation per WP:V to correct it.

If you need to ask anything more, feel free to contact me on my talk page, or on my advocates desk, or email me with any concerns. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 23:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although 3O may be for two person disputes, just adding an outside opinion can help things out. If you'd like to email me, just use the "email this user" link under the toolbox on my userpage. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 22:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

red and blue (names not states)

A new user's name will display in red until that person (or anyone else for that matter) writes something on their talk page. Then their name turns blue. Mr Christopher 02:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Irekei

The article Irekei has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Gamecruft, not notable.

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} 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. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Ultima-Shadowclan.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Ultima-Shadowclan.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Shadowclan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shadowclan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadowclan (4th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]