User talk:Hrafn/Archive10

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)

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

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)

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)

No. It is self-promotion rather than objective analysis of the College's organisational and academic strengths and weaknesses. A college is an organisation, and if you are saying that you cannot find third party information on it as an organisation, then you're essentially saying that you cannot find third party information on it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

AfD for Cognitive engineering Engineering psychology

I guess it doesn't really matter so much to me whether the article stays or goes right now. The way things are going, the article's probably going to end up no consensus, though I agree with most of your rebuttals to Wxidea's arguments, so I will probably change (back) to delete because whatever term inherits the content that's out there can be figured out later. I know further discussions about this are going to be long and plodding, but (and I am sure you know this) I just don't think we're going to settle this mess in AfD. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 07:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hah, I was so confused over the terms, that I put the wrong one in the header. :) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 07:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You certainly seem to be having fun with the WP:REDLINKs. <broad grin> I've come across this sort of argument before -- some editor huffing and puffing that a sociologist was a Social constructionist not a Post-Modernist. Unless they're able to adequately explain the difference to the average reader, I really don't see why I should care. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Guh, gosh-darned article name capitalization conventions. I'm sure when I go to make an article, I'm totally going to mess this up. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 07:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Wiki-capitalisation was invented to keep us Masters of the Wiki-universe™ humble by regularly making us look like complete idiots. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, I agree. The article's creator has some burden to demonstrate notable differences between the subject and other subjects that seem to tap the same fundamental concepts, like differentiating Football from Rugby. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 07:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You do realise that there's also the Rugby League versus Rugby Union differentiation, as well as Australian Football League and Gaelic Football, in addition to the more widely known Association Football and American Football (and who knows what else)? Fun, fun, fun, under the sun, sun, sun. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really about that Afd but I was short on section headers so I reused an old one

...And it was that afd that lead me here, after all. I think your pressure meter may be approaching max beep? You think that the article rescue squad are perhaps a bit zealous, I'm gathering? I was googling for a subpage of mine and saw that WP:SCHOOLS was on my old to-do list. Man, those were the days, when fifty people would show up with chains and broken bottles when you an elementary school was nominated for deletion. *nods off while reminiscing* Hah, snort, what? Hey, you kids get off my lawn! Oh, wrong discussion...

Anyway, I just want you to know that I understand frustration, and if you need to let off steam feel free to use my talk page. Or, if there's a discussion that you find interesting (particularly regarding sourcing) feel free to let me know.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The frustration can be intense at times, but luckily tends to be fairly shortlived. There's (currently) nobody wikistalking me to a sufficiently pervasive extent that I can't detach. And given sufficient distance, even the most deranged wikistalker starts to look humorous. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

GYC

Hi Hrafn, I have been vacillating between the two options, merge or try to maintain a separate article. I have put considerable history information in the 21st Century section on the SDA history article. But, this has made it unbalanced because little has been written about the 21st Century. Much can be written but so far there is little. Hrfan has shown these weaknesses quite effectively. He has also inadvertantly taught me a refreshing WP policy called Ignore all the rules. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I believe the GYC story and its development helps add to, or improve, Wikipedia. Your kindly counsel has been, and is, appreciated. Also, a few other editors have expressed an interest in a GYC article rescue. "An article should not be deleted just because it is ill-formed. Some writer worked hard on that article. Some reader can use that article. Those writers and readers, if reached out to, can help us preserve this worthwhile content." I plan to include this analysis on the talk pages related to this article, as a courtesy to all interested parties. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

May I make the following points:

1. The successful application of WP:IAR requires a WP:CONSENSUS (and generally a wide and/or unanimous one, as a dissenting editor can always call a WP:RFC if they choose), otherwise the whole thing degenerates into a dispute between 'ignore' and 'don't ignore' factions. There appears to be no such consensus on the AfD.
2. You keep on, repeatedly, claiming the 'importance' of this group but, when challenged, provide no evidence of this except for raw numbers (WP:BIGNUMBER) which do not demonstrate anything but insignificance, in proportion to the SDA church as a whole.
3. That the material in question violates three core 'pillar' policies of Wikipedia: WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it" (it also violates WP:NOR's requirement that articles be predominately based upon WP:SECONDARY sources) and WP:NPOV (in that it only expresses the viewpoint of SDA insiders). This is not something to be taken lightly.
4. Please don't refactor usertalk messages unnecessarily -- it results in an 'edit conflict' error when I attempt to reply to you.

04:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

GYFC, the AFD, and other SDA-related topics

As another participant in the SDA stuff, I just wanted to let you know I'm unwatchlisting all those articles. I don't need the stress of dealing with the battles that the pro-SDA folks are turning this into. Good luck. LHM 07:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't say I'm surprised. We have to do what we must to keep sane. I've had to make similar decisions myself in the past. It's unfortunate for Wikipedia as whole, but we can only do so much -- and it becomes a cost/benefit analysis of where we can do the most good for the least cost to our sanity. You'll be missed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Get it first, but first get it right.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Per my talkpage header, "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."

---

[ WP:Complete bollocks from some twit who cannot wrap their mind around the fact that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true", and that it is not "common sense" to expect somebody to take account of a source that is neither cited nor to hand, has been removed. This thread is closed, and the correspondent is invited to takes themselves elsewhere. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: the relevant source was the source that was cited! If Kbothwell had a problem with that source they should have either (i) tagged it with {{verify credibility}}, (ii) replaced it with a citation to what they thought was a better source, or (iii) taken it to article talk. Simply changing material, without changing the cited source, to material not in that source is clearly in violation of WP:V. (ii) Their baseless and ignorant lecturing is not welcome here -- they should take it up with somebody who does in fact care about what they think. Good day. ]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting review.

We've interacted across several pages, and I respect you as an editor. I'd appreciate it if you'd offer your opinion at the editor review I've opened for myself. Thanks, LHM 04:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Lump sum

Funny how I have to scream and beat people over the head to get an article fixed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is that this article is basically unfixable -- and 'screaming and beating people over the head' is just making them turn it into a {{examplefarm}} -- full of numerous irrelevant examples that merely mention lump sums, but don't discuss or explain them in any meaningful way. 18:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't even know how a checking account works, so you're asking the wrong guy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Adnan Oktar

Hi Hrafn. I brought up some issues with the article on the BLP notice board. Thanks. BigJim707 (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Jay E. Adams

Hey,

I just wanted to say thanks for the work you do. I have not had much experience contributing to Wikipedia and appreciate you working to ensure quality. Your corrections have actually helped decrease the learning curve for those who are learning how to contribue. Thanks again!

Timmillr 13:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

By chance I happened to be over at the ANI notice board on an unrelated matter, where I saw that Stephfo had filed a notice against you, but had failed to notify you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I strongly aplogize for that, I really did fail to notify you, I only noticed it now that there is such rule in force. I thought there is no such rule in force based on similar notice, related to me, "Just putting the board on notice that on Objections to evolution User:Stephfo has been WP:POINTY and has probably crossed 3RR at this point (I would do the report myself but I really hate putting together 3RR cases) as both his username and User:88.88.83.52. He appears to be a creationist attempting to push his POV and if you check out the talk page I think you'll see immediately why I'm bringing it here for attention. I'm also not quite willing to make the accusation, but his writing style is reminding me of someone else, I'll wait and see if anyone else picks up on that before I mention any names. Noformation Talk 01:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)". Please accept my apology, it is not my style to prevent my opponents to defend themselves if the rule states explicitly it should be so. Thanx for understanding. --Stephfo (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Wanted to thank you for catching that point about how Harper's stamps do not appear to be government-issued on anarchist stamps. I guess I just thought they were based on the fact that his family has a postal history, and that he seemed to be knowledgeable and trained in stamp design. making since the article went on and on about it. The AfD is still new, but it looks like the AfD momentum is heading straight for a delete. My mind hasn't changed, but I think I have bludgeoned my arguments enough, so I'm just going to back off from the article and the AfD. Again, thanks for tweaking the article for accuracy's sake. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, I can see how it'd be very easy to be wrong-footed by the quirky style of The Gaurdian piece's writing. If it's any consolation, I also got something wrong initially. I worked out that Harper's stamps weren't Royal Mail from the start -- I simply failed to realise that the 'official stamps' mentioned later in the article were Harper's (hence my having to strike that bit of my original comment). It wasn't until your reply that I read closer & discovered that they were the one & same. Sources! -- can't write a Wikipedia without them -- but they're all too frequently a pain in the neck. :/ Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

ID

Be careful, amigo, Missy is trying to provoke "bad behaviour". Soon, either he or Drll will be screaming "edit war". I'm not sure that Hagel's comments much matter other than to prove that he's a nutter.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 13:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I've followed Nagel since his endorsement of Signature in the Cell. He's basically a philosopher of mind having a hissy fit because scientific empiricism keeps encroaching on his freedom to pontificate on the 'Mysteries of Life™' (shades of the Deep Thought scene from Hitchhikers' Guide). It's difficult to see how any mention of him is merited, let alone expanding it. I don't intend to give them an edit war -- but I certainly don't intend to let their ludicrous claims go unchallenged. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. My thing is that I read his quotes and assign him to the category of idiot. But, maybe young and impressionable minds won't.

And yeah, sience is a bitch -- I keep hoping that someone will invent a "transporter" and the the uncertainty principle tells me it can't be done and I too throw a hissy fit. Damn.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 13:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but if we keep letting the opinions of 'idiots' into the article, won't we (i) end up with an idiotic article & (ii) end up looking like idiots ourselves? But then, if we idiot-proof the article I suppose natural selection will tend to mean we'll simply get smarter idiots trying to break into it. ;) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

ROFL. Unfortunately, natural selection doesn't object to idiocy. At least not today. Maybe tomorrow.  :( &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 14:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in the recent changes at Wedge Strategy.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

r&i

please note the recent debate on the subject.-- mustihussain (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Revision of section on ID

Hey, Hrafn, I wanted to just drop by and make sure you've seen the changes we've proposed to the "Defining science" section of the Intelligent design article. Dominus Vobidsu, dave souza, and I have been working on it, but if you have any comments/suggestions/objections regarding the content, I'd love to hear them. As it now stands, I've made a revision to the material last suggested by dave and am awaiting feedback. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 17:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Things seem to be going in the right direction, so I was staying out of the way. It tends to be fairly difficult to get me to shut up when I disagree with something, so my WP:SILENCE can generally be read as consent. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wedge strategy. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. As an aside, I understand the situation. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 15:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that I haven't edited this article in 10 hours, this warning is ludicrously tardy -- I am "currently" doing no such thing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, you reverted 4 times in a 24 hours span yesterday. I warned MissionNPOV as well. I personally agree that religious should be used as an adjective on the article, but the edit warring isn't helpful. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 15:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that I (accidentally) violated WP:3RR (I had forgotten the single revert on the previous day), just questioning whether a warning, long after the edit-war is over, is itself "helpful". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Coskel University for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Coskel University 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/Coskel University (2nd 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. BigJim707 (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear...

This is NOT an appropriate forum for complaining about reversion of ludicrously inappropriate categories. I am not interested in tortured reasoning as to why they might, in some alternate universe, be considered relevant. And I am profoundly disinterested in hearing further creationist POV-pushing on that, or any other, subject. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Signature in the Cell

You may be interested in checking out the recent changes in this article again. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You might want to give it another check, as well as the article on William Dembski. Someone out to inform the SPCDH (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Dead Horses), as well. [[12]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

All ID proponents

I've been talking with KillerChihuahua on the ID Talk page and expressed the view that you agreed to the latest change concerning the use of the word all within the lead. I hope I haven't misinterpreted your last comment there as an agreement, but if I have I apologize. I just wanted to let you know, as I have a difficult time speaking for others even when I'm fairly certain I'm correct. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 21:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the decision

Hi Hrafn, you are a tough helper. No matter what the decision coming down, I want you to know that your persistent interest in quality is respected. We will meet again. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles on Creation and the Ronald Numbers article

For the record:

1. I appreciated your telling us of your background in working with articles on creation. You are tough to work with, but your experience especially in these type of articles makes your expertise important to the genre.
2. I took a look at the Ronald Numbers article. It looks like a good start. I noticed that you have contributed to the article. Numbers is a very notable fellow. I did the infamous google search count and noted 1.6 million hits. Ever considered developing it further? Want some help? :)

Any way, it helps to know that you have such experience on the topics we share an interest. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have followed through on your advice to do a User subpage. You are invited to share your thoughts.

It is located HERE DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Leonard Brand

Hi Hrafn, I'm Hunter Kahn. I voted in the Leonard R. Brand AFD discussion, which I watched with great interest. Since you were the nominator, I just wanted to draw your attention to a comment I made to the guy who closed it. I think he meant well and did the best he could with what he had, but I did have a concern about the outcome, and thought you might want to read it. I was, and possibly still am, considering taking it to WP:DRV, but I'm not sure. (I don't really have a strong feeling about the article itself, I'm just more concerned about the possible bad AFD precedent.) What do you think? — Hunter Kahn 16:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hrafn and Hunter, I have responded to Hunter's concern at: User talk:Bigtimepeace#Leonard Brand belated signature DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of dead horses

I think it would be helpful if you stopped replying to Drrll on the OR noticeboard. Just let him have the last word, because, as you may have noticed, he will just keep repeating the same points indefinitely. At this point, all we can do is revert it if he actually tries to make the change he's demanding. Any hope of actually getting an agreement that the argument is closed is dead. For the same reasons you are asking him to let it go, please let it go. i kan reed (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll try, if only to see what happens when he's left with nobody to argue with -- will he claim a moral victory -- or will he start arguing with himself? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I have lodged a complaint regarding a recent offensive comment you have made. You will find the complaint, HERE

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Leonard R. Brand

Please refrain from being funny on Wikipedia. People may spill their coffee all over their keyboards. If you continue to make me laugh, you may be blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 23:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC).

Sorry, but Wikipedia has yet to create a swallow-before-reading warning tag -- a dreadful oversight I'm sure. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. There was no reason to delete non-contentious material. There was CERTAINLY no reason to delete a photograph. If you are concerned about sourcing issues, please add cn tags. -- 202.124.72.62 (talk) 09:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Careful amigo, you're at 3RR. You wouldn't want to get blocked. On the other hand it would be nice to have some peace and quiet at Brand... Revert!!! Revert!!! – Lionel ^(talk) 10:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've only reverted twice. But please feel freee to report me -- it might be good for a laugh. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You may not be laughing very long. Check 3RRN. I just reported a user for 2RR and he got 72 hrs. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

As part of a long-standing ongoing edit-war. Different circumstances. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You're not going to be happy until you get the last word, are you? – Lionel ^(talk) 10:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm argumentative -- but then this is my user talk, so I'm allowed the last word here. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

OK.– Lionel ^(talk) 10:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you a regular on Leonard R. Brand?

Then please, please, don't post here unless you really, really have to. I'm trying to put the wider interest of the project, and of my own mental health, ahead of my views on where article should be going by topic-banning myself from it. Please don't evoke the all-too-strong argumentative side of my personality by reminding me of your, and its, existence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

AfD

Please see the discussion of this article, which you contributed to: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texe Marrs (2nd nomination). Thanks. BigJim707 (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Stephen C. Meyer

Drrll has questioned a lot of the sources used on the Stephen C. Meyer article. You underatand the sourcing policies a lot better than I do, so I'd appreciate it if you could read the talk page and see if any of his concerns are justified. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Terry Virgo

Will you collaborate with me on this page? I would like to get a second opinion on sources. I have many Terry Virgo books, but need to sort out how useful they are. I know they can be used in certain circumstances and would like to get advice from another regular. ( Will be away till next Friday after today...) Hyper3 (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

WQA

Hello, Hrafn. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drrll (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You really need to avoid giving anyone a reason to take you to WQA - I've always felt I get a lot further by trying to be as polite as I can (hard at times) and let the others rave oon. It just gives others ammunition against you. Take the high road, see the error of your ways. Not as satisfying at times of course but it will make you a better Wikipedian and I think more productive at what you are trying to do. Dougweller (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I might find your advice a bit more welcome if the complainers at WQA weren't wall-to-wall WP:POT on the subject. If you think you can do better on Leonard Brand and the rest of the Adventist WP:WALLEDGARDEN, then you're welcome to try. I self-topic-banned myself from that article to attempt to circuit-break a deteriorating situation -- but lo and behold, they're still harping on about it -- and the fact that I called "incestuous" a situation where the reviewer of one of Brand's books wrote the forward for it, and the reviewer of another was listed in its acknowledgements page (along with a myriad of less blatant lacks-of-independence). Likewise, if you think any strategy will yield a reasonable response from Drrll, you are welcome to try. I will attempt to tone down the rhetoric -- but do not guarantee that my underlying argumentative nature won't show through. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not terribly interested (or have the time to get involved) in 7th Day Adventists, but I guess that attitude is what allows walled gardens. Dougweller (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed. I just took a very quick glance at that article -- and can report that with my departure it now appears entirely under the WP:OWNERSHIP of the Adventist fanboys. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Heads up about Iriscope

Hi Hrafn. Now I know we haven't seen, ahem, "eye to eye" in the past, and (blah, blah, blah, page notice, long story short, mutual STFUs, more bad puns...) but I think this could do with your attention.--Shirt58 (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drrll (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hatnotes

Please stop reverting my edits placing the hatnotes at the top of the article. Per Wikipedia:Hatnote: Hatnotes are placed at the very top of the article, before any other items such as images, navigational templates and maintenance templates (like the "cleanup", "unreferenced", and "POV" templates). Rreagan007 (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Please note that this obscure MOS appears to be quite out of touch with actual practice. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not obscure at all. It is reiterated here: MOS:LEAD#Elements_of_the_lead. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Very few articles place hatnotes before maintenance tags -- for one thing it looks very very ugly and distracting. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Re:Drrll

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This thread is closed as being not even remotely "productive". -- Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

---

I'm presently working with User:Drrll to help him improve his Wikipedia experience and to improve his interaction with the community. Could I ask you to please refrain from making comments like "for somebody who spends so much time whining piteously on WP:WQA, your mud-slinging is contemptibly WP:POT" and to focus only on discussing the topic? It would help greatly if you would show some self-control in this matter. Comment on the contributions under discussion, not on other editors. Viriditas (talk) 06:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Unless and until you can persuade Drrll to cease and desist WP:STALKing me to make unsubstantiated accusations, no you bloody well may not ask me that.
2. I would further point out that, based upon our previous interactions, you have ABSOLUTELY ZERO goodwill with me. You may wish to consider how this affects your suitability to mentor a user who appears to make getting in my face one of his main aims on Wikiedpia.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are not contingent on controlling the behavior of other editors. All editors are expected to adhere to them. I get the impression that you see Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEFIELD where ideological warfare is the norm. Perhaps you've been fighting too long and you need a break to see the big picture. This is an encyclopedia where editors of all stripes, from every conceivable background, work together to write articles. Take a moment to think about this before you reply. Viriditas (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I have just warned Drrll about stalking you, per your concerns. Viriditas (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas:

1. Neither describing an unsubstantiated accusation as "mud-slinging" nor describing [playing the role of victim on] WP:WQA whilst simultaneously making unsubstantiated accusations on article talk as "whining piteously" is a violation of WP:CIVIL. It is rather simply slightly colourful language, of the sort that you'll very commonly see on display on Wikipedia talkpages. And suggesting that it falls under WP:NPA is even more of a stretch.
2. Given that Drrll 'came out swinging' with an unsubstantiated accusation on Talk:William Lane Craig‎, that you accuse me of WP:BATTLEFIELD suggests that you are a considerably less-than-neutral mediator.

Given that you are doing your absolute best to cast everything as 'my fault', rather than making even the slightest attempt to WP:AGF, your intervention here is decidedly unwelcome. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Drrll's talk page comments merely noted, in his opinion, your "personal dislike of a reliable source". His comment is based on your evaluation of the source and is not a personal attack nor is it a violation of WP:CIVIL. My edits to User talk:Drrll show the opposite of what you claim. You said that you would not AGF with me ("you have ABSOLUTELY ZERO goodwill with me") and then claimed that I did not AGF. I disagree. In any case, it does look like Drrll followed you to the page, and I've asked him to stop. For the record, I have not "intervened" in the article or the talk page in question. I have contacted Drrll and yourself in the hopes that we can create a more civil atmosphere and resolve any outstanding personal disputes. I think it will help greatly if Drrll does not follow you around, and you should do the same. Viriditas (talk) 07:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

1. "Drrll's talk page comments merely" GROSSLY violated WP:AGF by attributing my doubts over Fox News to "personal dislike" when even its own article suggests reasons why Fox News may not be viewed as a reliable source -- particularly on issues related to the Culture Wars.
2. "based upon our previous interactions, you have ABSOLUTELY ZERO goodwill with me" summarised the fact that, as far as I can remember, not a single one of our previous interactions has been even remotely positive. You are therefore one of the worst possible editors to act as a mediator between Drrll and myself. Interpreting that as a refusal to WP:AGF is placing the worst possible interpretation on that statement, which is itself a violation of WP:AGF.
3. You therefore appear to be bending over backward to place the most positive interpretation on Drrll's actions, and the most negative on my own. This gives me even less reason to welcome your intervention.

Both yourself and Drrll are paid-up members of the 'We don't like Hrafn' club -- which maybe should have given you pause before appointing yourself as Drrll's mentor, given his predilection towards seeking conflict with me. I don't see how your continued intervention is even remotely productive, so am strongly tempted to curtail it (per my user talk page headers). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I respect your interpretation. You say that I don't like you. May I ask, what is it about you that I'm supposed to dislike? I'm genuinely curious, so please let me know. Is there some reason you believe others dislike you? AFAIK, I've only seen complaints about your lack of civility. Viriditas (talk) 07:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas: I don't know you well enough to know why you have an especially negative reaction towards me. I just know that it exists, and engenders a reciprocal reaction towards yourself. That makes an especially poor basis for interaction on behalf of somebody, such as Drrll, who has already (through WP:DEADHORSEd issues dragged through several articles, then several noticeboards) worn goodwill very thin. I don't especially want to be nice to you, I don't especially want to be nice to Drrll. Whilst I do want to obey Wikipedia policy (including WP:CIVIL), that makes a rather dry and emotionally-empty rationale -- my head sees why, but my heart isn't really in it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

May I please request diffs showing this alleged "negative" reaction? As I have said previously, my reaction to your lack of civility is to note it. You say you don't want to be nice to people, and I'm genuinely confused by that statement. Is there a good reason we shouldn't be nice to people on Wikipedia? Forgive me for any misinterpretation, but you seem to be very angry about something. This is supposed to be a collegial environment, not a battle. If you have any ideas on how to stop the bickering between you and Drrll, by all means implement them. Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Your request seems unreasonable. I see little point in searching back through talkpage histories for evidence as to why I think you don't like me. That neither do we have a clean slate, nor have our interactions in the past been characterisable as positive, should be a sufficient reason for me to feel disinclined to accept your mediation.
2. No I did not "say [I] don't want to be nice to people" -- what I in fact stated was that "I don't especially want to be nice to" you or Drrll. Leaving off qualifying adverbs misrepresents their contents, in violation of WP:TALK. The point I was making is that yourself and Drrll have given me little reason, at an emotional level, for me to want to be nice to either of you -- or to want to be nice to Drrll in order to be nice to you, so that left the intellectual "rather dry and emotionally-empty rationale" of Wikipedia policy.
3. I would suggest that given your one-sided demand in your opening comment, and your own inability to avoid engaging in "bickering" thereafter, you are precisely the wrong person to intervene here.

This conversation is over. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just some recognition of your efforts

Thanks for watching over the articles you watch over, particularly those revolving around creationism and evolution topics. I tend to see your username often when anonymous IPs are making ridiculous edits or when nonsensical arguments need rebutting on talk pages (e.g. Age of the Earth). Your efforts don't go unnoticed and are certainly appreciated. John Shandy` • talk 05:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:POT and rude comment from a lazy editor, who can't be bothered adequately formatting their own citations, or investigating their own arguments -- and seeks to blame me for these deficiencies.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I wish I could share the above. It's probably true in dealing with creationists, I don't know. But what I see is a Wikipedian behaving rudely, and lazily. You are quick to delete other edits, slap on tags, but contribute very little if anything of value. As per the recent incidents you were involved with on Admin noticeboard, you would do better to follow the spirit of Wikipedia etiquette and contribute more to articles instead of arguing. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

William Lane Craig article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Off-topic -- take it to Talk:William Lane Craig‎

---

"Consensus on talk" doesn't mean a thing to me. Browsing over the edit history, this article has been subject to an edit war between you, Theowarner, and anyone who wishes to expand on the article--which is childish, to put it lightly. At the very least the charge of not meeting notability guidelines needs to be removed, and the article does require expansion. Note the second pillar of Wikipedia: "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view." I believe purposefully stunting an article in the way you are doing violates this essential pillar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joycey17 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

If you'd actually bothered to read the article talk page, instead of simply stating "'Consensus on talk' doesn't mean a thing to me", you might have noticed that Theowarner is in fact heavily in favour of trimming this article -- and has even expressed a desire to see it deleted. As to notability, point to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and the tag will be removed expeditiously. The trouble is that none of us can actually find such significant reliable independent coverage. And how is sourcing almost the entire article to Craig and his ministry even remotely NPOV? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I think Joycey17 (talk · contribs) is what we call a "sleeper" account. It was created in 2007,[13] made one edit in 2010,[14] and now shows up to edit war and revert to an older version.[15][16][17] I have no objection to the account using the talk page, but this kind of behavior appears suspicious, as if it was trying to evade scrutiny of its other accounts. Viriditas (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've come across such a/cs myself from time to time -- if I stop to think about them (which I generally don't), I'd probably characterise them as (low level) serial-WP:SPAs. Every year or two, they find some new topic of interest, edit that topic (and generally only that topic) for a short time, before disappearing back into hibernation. They don't generally seem to be particularly harmful (and tend to be less obsessive than true SPAs), but I don't generally find them particularly helpful either (little interest in how Wikipedia gets things done). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please see

this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.243.177.240 (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

WLC, and ReasonableFaith

FYI, you were mentioned by name on the ReasonableFaith forum regarding the recent changes to the WLC article. I believe the discussion has died down now, with the OP acting like a troll, and everyone else at least marginally agreeing with the edits. However, I thought you should be informed anyway. Here's the link.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Forced Wikibreak

My monitor has died, so I'm taking an forced Wikibreak for the next couple of weeks until a new one arrives (Dell apparently do quite good monitors but completely crap logistics). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Questioning controversial claim designated as disruptive edit

Hello Hrafn, to avoid my further possible blockage due to your accusation of my edit as WP:DE, I inevitably had to follow recommendations for WP:DR and initiate a new discussion at WP:DRN noticeboard. Since the case concerns your actions, pls. take it kindly into your consideration. I hope we will manage to resolve our dispute in civil manner by using help of 3rd-party editors. I apologize for any inconvenience, thanks for your understanding.--Stephfo (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Unforced Wikibreak

Given that on returning from my wikibreak I am ambushed by a truly pointless, and monumentally WP:DEADHORSE resurrection of a dispute over the proper use of {{citation needed}}, I've decided to extend my wikibreak. I really don't need this sort of pointless aggravation. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Opinion on sources for astrology

Hey, Hrafn! It's great to see you back. I was wondering if you could take the time to take a gander at Scorpio (astrology) and this dicussion on FTN [[18]] and tell me if I am getting the sourcing requirements right. There have been huge fights on astrology-related articles over the last two months and this is just the latest. Thanks! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Haven't seriously looked at astrology in 20 years (my Moon is in Scorpio, which perhaps explains why I'm such a nasty fellow). My kneejerk reaction would be that a WP:RS on Astrology would be oxymoronic, except perhaps for some anthropological or similar treatment. If we're going to have an article on Scorpio (astrology) (as opposed to one on the history, sociology, or whatever, of astrology), chances are it'll contain material like its current contents, and sources similar to the ones in it. I don't personally find this sort of thing to be particularly encyclopaedic, but don't really see too much prospect of deletion or significant improvement. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't asking about the article itself, but about my reasoning about what kind of sources are reliable (and what sources aren't) in the FTN discussion. And yes, I've basically come to the conclusion that in-universe sources are not reliable. An oxymoron, as you put it. The basic question is whether in-universe sources that have not been discussed in serious real-world independent reliable sources can be used to support material about what astrologers believe. The situation is quite a bit different than on the creationist articles, because very few independent reliable sources exist, and because there are no widely recognized centers of authority in the astrological community as there are in the creationist/ID communities. Right now, my moon is in a chair. Don't know what that means because I can't find a reliable source. Thanks! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you on most of the points you raise there. I particularly agree (or disagree with the person arguing with you) that simply being published by a mainstream publisher is too low a hurdle for reliability in WP:FRINGE topics. The world is full of books by such publishers on topics such as urban myths, dieting, alternative medicine, self-help, etc -- even by the occasional prominent creationist. Most are not held to any particular standard, and so should not be considered WP:RS. In the case of practitioner-astrology, there doesn't appear to be any objective standard in existence that they even can be held to. However, assuming that consensus is that no-article or article-with-no-content is unacceptable, that leaves us in a quandary. The content has to come from somewhere. Given no standard-for-quality, the only conceivable standard would appear to be the abysmally low one of 'not so off-the-wall that too many other practitioners laugh at it'. This is the unfortunate consequence of being the encyclopaedia-that-regularly-ventures-into-territory-where-no-self-respecting-encyclopaedia-would-venture. I find such areas to be very frustrating, and am trying to teach myself to avoid them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thinking a bit further about it, an argument that might be made for a higher hurdle is the following: (i) all astrological claims are extraordinary claims (in that they lack both a factual basis, or even a well-established tradition for a basis). (ii) Per WP:REDFLAG, all such claims therefore require extraordinary sources. This still will leave you with people really insisting that the fact that people have their moon in Scorpio really does have a meaning (I seem to remember that my Ascendant is there also) and needs to be in the article, so needs some source to be acceptable for this meaning, but may at least give you some leverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Hrafn. This actually ended up at arbcom, where Amerdis made an impassioned plea for in-universe sourcing, and I made a 16 point response why in-universe sources are worthless. I don't think Smerdis's proposals are going anywhere, though. Read it at you leisure if you want: [[19]]. By the way, I owe you a lot because I learned a lot about sourcing from stalking you for over a year and then editing together with you on the creationist pages. You're right about it being frustrating. I've set my standards for sourcing pretty darn high, though, hoping that it may someday make a difference. I was just wondering if I set it too high, and needed a point of reference. Thanks a lot. You're one of the good ones! Wish you all the best! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about this at a further level of abstraction, Wikipedia's decentralised, WP:V/WP:RS system of sourcing works best where there is a reasonably clearly discernible hierarchy/pecking-order of authority of sources. Where such an external hierarchy doesn't exist, unfortunately Wikipedia cannot help but devolve into fairly arbitrary majoritarian rule. Such arbitrary majoritarian consensuses will tend to be unstable, so the whole thing will tend to be re-argued over and over again. A good reason for avoiding such topics altogether (either as an encyclopaedia -- e.g. through WP:NOT, or as an editor), I would think. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back, Hrafn!

I'm delighted to see you editing again. Bishonen | talk 04:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC).

Same here! Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 11:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Richard L. Thompson shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.Gaura79 (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I have asked another editor to help.

Hi Hrafn, I am concerned about your lack of civility towards me and have alerted another editor and have asked him for counsel. You may see my request for help here: User talk:Qwyrxian#Another editor DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this...I get that you'r frustrated with DRS. But this edit to the talk page is inappropriate. While there's problems throughout that (for instance, it's actually not true that Wikipedia requires everything in articles to be covered by an independent source), the phrase that really caught my eye is "drunk-the-kool-aid", which is implicitly comparing both DRS and the SDA in general to a group of cultists who committed mass suicide at the behest of their leader. That's...well, I struggle to find a better word than inappropriate. It would have been much better if you had skipped that whole section and just added the RfC. That way, you get a chance to walk away for a minute or day or even a few weeks while other editors try to deal with the issue who don't have a history of being aggravated by DRS. Then, you get to be less frustrated, everyone gets to spend more time actually improving the article (whether the eventual decision is to remove the statement in question, keep it, or re-source it). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian:

1. What was "inappropriate" was the stream of unsubstantiated, partisan assertions that this comment was responding to, and his misrepresentation of my own statements.
2. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." -- WP:RS I would point out that I never said "everything", but the cleasr implication is that the majority of sourcing should be independent.
3. "'Drinking the Kool-Aid' is a metaphor commonly used in the United States and Canada that refers to a person or group's unquestioning belief in an ideology, argument, or philosophy without critical examination." Your claim that it "is implicitly comparing both DRS and the SDA in general to [[Jonestown|a group of cultists" is thus a violation of WP:AGF. In actualy fact the metaphor is widely used, quite disconnected from any such direct comparison.
4. It is therefore a perfectly appropriate metaphor for DRS's "unquestioning belief in" the SDA viewpoint -- in the scientific legitimacy of their scientists' pseudoscientific views, that their in-house publications count as a "powerful source", and that the reporting in these sources of (frequently very minor) activities of these scientists elevates them to noteworthy.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Um, maybe you're just unaware of the metaphor's origination, but it entered into US colloquial language from the Jonestown massacre. I have always heard it used (being from the US myself) as for only the most extreme, blind, cultish behavior. For me, it's never a polite metaphor, but perhaps your experience with the phrase is different. On the issue of the source...remember, you're not arguing about the basis of the Roth article, but, rather, merely whether a single point in it is worth keeping (and note that I think I agree with you that the point is probably WP:UNDUE). Which, again, gets back to my point: rather than rant and rave at DRS, if you're right (and I'm willing to bet that with regards to the use of SDA sourcing, you're more often right than wrong), just take it RSN, start an RfC, whatever...that way, you get what you want on the article, which is to make it follow WP's policies. In cases where your interpretation of policy is not inline with mainstream consensus, you'll get told that, too. But the problem is that if you let your frustrations with what to you appears to be a poor choice for worldview get to you, then you end up boiling over, getting incivil, and then you're the one who gets hauled to ANI. If DRS is POV pushing by choice of sources (I'm actually going to respond to that diff you linked to in the talk page), then call him on it, get the sources removed, and make the article better. In other words, I'm telling you that you're own advice was best: you've already tried explaining the policy to DRS, so either you're wrong (in which case someone else will tell you that), or you're right, and you need multiple people to tell DRS that so that he stops. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

1. No, I am perfectly aware "of the metaphor's origination [sic]" -- but I am also perfectly aware that its use has long since extended far beyond these origins. What part of "commonly used" did you fail to comprehend? (≠"only the most extreme, blind, cultish behavior") I have seen it used in both corporate and political contexts (e.g. in the TV show The West Wing, by a political consultant talking about and to their own client).
2. The problem with DRS is that he insists on WP:DEADHORSEing every issue, over and over again. The CBOE argument (and relatedly the tiny grant, and the week-in-a-submarine) are just a replay of an earlier argument on another SDA creationist scientist's $50 book prize. Yes, I could take each and every one of these to RfC & noticeboards -- but very quickly the regulars would loose interest in such repeated notices. However, given DRS's continuous and unsubstantiated assertion of his "unquestioning belief" as a basis for editing, I may not have much choice in the matter.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Further, would you admit that "the way [he] view[s] the world is very heavily influenced by what information you receive from SDA sources to the point that [he has] difficulty viewing the SDA topics as an objective outsider would" (per DV on Talk:Ariel A. Roth), amounts to a WP:COI? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If he's got a stick, prove it with an RFC/U. Or, instead (because I don't think RfC/U is a very useful process), forget about the user, and just concentrate on the article and the edits. And when RSN agrees with you, take it out of the article, and if he reverts, the onus goes on him to establish his case (or risk edit-warring). Other editors won't lose interest; instead, if you are correct, a pattern will be established showing that there is a problem here that needs to be corrected on a higher level. If you are incorrect, well, you need to find that out, too. As for him possessing a COI, no, because I believe that COI is intended only to apply to family and employer-employee relationships. Pushing COI over into religious beliefs extends its reach too far. I think that religious beliefs, nationalism, or even being a "super-fan" can push one into a point where one cannot edit in an NPOV way, but that's a different question. As to whether Donald is in such a zone...I don't know. From just this one limited talk page discussion, I see inklings of it but not enough to be actionable, as well as some commitment to WP's principles; but I also don't edit the same pages the two of you do, so you may know something I don't. If you want to go down the path of trying to get him sanctioned, topic-banned, or whateve), then make sure you have all of your diffs lines up, and know that your editing will certainly come under scrutiny as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)