- 1 3RR
- 2 Why Creationism is pseudoscience
- 3 Unreferenced material
- 4 Please watch your edit summaries. (Copied from Silly rabbit's talk archive 9).
- 5 I replied
- 6 History photo- which is better for the Wind Turbine article?
- 7 Woodmorappe
- 8 Thanks for invitation
- 9 Request comments
- 10 Suggestion
- 11 Brisbane workshop and meetup invitation
- 12 Brisbane meetup with Sue Gardner invitation
- 13 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 14 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Enough, already. You don't have consensus for removing the statement. Sources have been supplied, and you have given sophomoric arguments all over the Talk:Flood geology page. Stop it, or you WILL be blocked from editing. See WP:3rr. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Patent nonsense. There is no consensus either way for the statement. So you cannot claim concesus for keeping it. The statement is unverified (and I suspect unverifiable) and EVERY source supplied for it mismatches the statement. It fails WP:V, which supports the removal of such statements. The whole sentence is no weaker for the removal, and is in fact better for not sounding so weaselly. You threaten 3RR action falsely, as I have one revert to the article in the last 24 hours, while you have more reverts to the article in the last 24hrs than I have, so you are actually closely to a breach of 3RR than I am. I don't see you listed as an admin, so you draw a long bow to declare what will happen. The whole article has been repeatedly identified as POV in the talk page, with POV tags removed without concensus on any of the identified specific issues. The statement has been identified as dubious because the sources don't support the assertion. I at least have not been removing the cites, merely tagging them and trying to get the matter discussed in order to reach concensus. Of course submitting the sources to discussion in the interests of concesus would have been much simpler, but that wasn't tried. If the arguments were so sophomoric then it should have been easy to address them, rather than remove the tags and pretend that there is no controversy over the statement.LowKey (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I copied this to Silly rabbit's own talk page - in keeping with that user's own stated preference for replies, and it was deleted with "Troll" in the edit summary. Such hypocracy.LowKey (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Why Creationism is pseudoscience
In relation to your recent change in the AiG article, I'd like to know if you realy believe that the only reason that Creationism is considered pseudoscience is because most scientists think it is wrong? Obviously that is *not* why, but I want to understand what you think before I re-write it to make this point clearer. --PhilipO (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Most scientists value the contributions tio science creationists have made. (see kepler newton einstein Mendel pasteur Redi Boyle - all the greateset scientists in history. Hey Philip, can you talk with your foot stuck in your mouth. I dont think SO! Hi to lowkey. (Estoniankaiju (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC))
Yes, you did add the unreferenced material. Please remember that even if you simply reverted to an earlier revision, you are still responsible for the content therein. Also, I find nothing incivil in referring to the True Believers of flood geology as "fringe lunatics". How exactly is this incivil? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Please watch your edit summaries. (Copied from Silly rabbit's talk archive 9).
(I am copying this here as Silly rabbit has a final word and then archived the discussion. The discussion is far from settled)
Please maintain civility in your edit summaries. "Lunatics" is hardly civil. Also make sure of your facts. I did not add the text that you removed here [], I merely reverted your earlier removal of it.LowKey (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have replied on your talk page. You did add the supposed facts in question. Even if through a reversion, you are still responsible for them. Also, in the context of our debate over how to present the WP:FRINGE views of a handful of religious zealots in a manner that does not assign WP:UNDUE weight to the *extreme* fringes of scientific study, I don't see at all how the use of the somewhat hyperbolic term "lunatic" can be dubbed incivil. If you feel offended because you are yourself one of the aforementioned fringe group, then perhaps you should abstain from editing said article, rather than lash out at me when I use a characterization of the subject of the article that you feel is inappropriate. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have no argument with you removing the text as uncited. However, it was not my addition. It was someone else's. I reverted your removal because in your edit summary you gave a reason that was simply not valid, regardless of the content that you removed and I restored. You then removed it a for different given reason, and you will note that I have not restored it. Ah hang it, it's not worth arguing about this. I really don't care about your removal of the text as long as your stated reason is valid. (It wasn't particularly well written to start with).
- As to civility, do you seriously not understand how "fringe lunatics" is not civil? Well how about..(From WP:CIVIL, emphases added)
These behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment: Rudeness Insults and name-calling Judgmental tone in edit summaries (e.g. "snipped rambling crap") or talk-page posts ("that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen") Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice Taunting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves Ill-considered accusations of impropriety; for instance, calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors Quoting another editor out-of-context in order to give the impression that he or she hold views they do not hold, or in order to malign them Making personal attacks, including but not limited to racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs Using derogatory language towards other contributors or, in general, referring to groups such as social classes, nationalities, ethnic groups, religious groups, or others in a derogatory manner Harassment Feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb"
- The fact that you consider "fringe lunatics" to be only "somewhat" hyperbolic and not all uncivil, and yet characterise as "lashing out" my rather low key request (I even said "please" - with no emphasis) which included a simple example of what I was getting at, may indicate that you really do need a wiki-break.LowKey (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I am happy to move all of this to either my talk or your talk if you wish. I find it hard to track discussion going on in two places. (I like to read back before responding)LowKey (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think you may be missing the point here. If you take such offense to the characterization of a decidedly fringe group as fringe (and all the baggage that goes with that — hyperbolic charges of "lunacy" included), then perhaps you should recuse yourself from editing the article in the first place. You have already demonstrated a repeated pattern of unwillingness to adhere to consensus, and otherwise tendentious editing at the Flood geology article. Accusations of incivility are just another part of that same pattern. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Also the "playing dumb" and "Using derogatory language towards other contributors" charges that you quote obviously do not apply to anything that I said in an edit summary or otherwise. I have a feeling that this entire thread was started just in order to provoke me, and so it is in real danger of being archived. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
What comes after this is new, and posted AFTER Silly rabbit archived the discussion I don't know if Silly rabbit will respond to any of this, or even read it, but I take exception to the rather rapid move from accusing me of provocation and warning of imminent archive to archiving the discussion, thus preserving Silly rabbit's last word. I do not wish to re-initiate the discussion on that user's talk page as it is obviously not wanted there. Nevertheless I have a right of reply, especially as the "last word" included a number of false accusations.
- It's not a matter of whether I take offense. The edit summaries are counter to WP:CIVIL. If it's fringe call it fringe. When you use "lunatic" or "zealot" you are name-calling. The minority (even extreme minority) of a given group does not entitle you or anyone to use insulting names for the group.
- Back up the accusations or remove them. In the Flood geology discussion, you claimed consensus when none existed (I saw it as confirmation bias in action) and when I said so, rather than establishing what the existing consensus was you RfC'ed for a wider consensus. In view of that wider consensus I decided to stop editing that part of the article altogether (and said so in the discussion). Up until that point, from the initial RfC on my only edit to the debated section (the lead) was to revert someone else's edit back to YOUR version. How is this an "unwillingness to adhere to consensus"? How is my protection of your version (which I disagreed with) tendentious editing on my part?
- How on earth is any of THAT related to giving you a minor nudge about civility (especially considering that I left the edit itself alone and merely asked you to watch the edit summary)? The accusations of incivility are due a pattern of incivility, mostly in your edit summaries where they cannot be easily removed. However I will also include your earlier false accusation of 3RR breach, along with the empty blocking threat; and your treatment of my response to the accusation as a "troll". Out of the 13 examples of "behaviours that contribute to an uncivil environment" 7 can be attributed to your recent editing. That's more than half. I succintly and without embellishment asked you to tone it down, and instead the insults increase, and I get accusations, and I also get "invited" to edit elswhere (which seems to be your pattern of response to disagreement).
- I have actually tried to stay away from articles that you edit (although intersecting areas of interest make this near impossible) but there are articles that I have edited for the first time - after checking histories and not seeing your username, and you still reverted me.
- I included "playing dumb" and "Using derogatory language towards other contributors" due to your response to my calm request. So true, they were not about your edit summaries, but they were "otherwise".
- Well, I see you already archived it, and in your edit summary you are STILL uncivil in that you accuse me of "clearly" provoking you. I was asking you to take more care to be civil.
- I would also like to point out that although I emphasized 5 examples in the list from CIVIL, only 2 were actually identified as being in any way not applicable to the edit summaries that I was referring to. The "rudeness", "insults" and "judgmental tone" examples were not challenged at all.LowKey (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
On the Wiki alerts page (from the evidence on this page it does seem that silly rabbit has been uncivil but my response is assuming that silly rabit was being reasonable (as he was before his recent block and perhaps that block caused this dispute)).
To your reply to my reply (I agree with you now). I think I should contact other Wikipedians for their opinion.
Sorry about the comment with the tag. I thought that it was appropriate, but since I seem to have the wrong idea about everything I removed it.
History photo- which is better for the Wind Turbine article?
I noted your interest in a history section for this article. Possibly you might have an opinion on Talk:Wind_turbine#History_photo-_which_is_better_for_the_article? -J JMesserly (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
You may have satisfied the editor's concerns when you edited the section header. But I've watch listed the page and will take a closer look if the disputes go on. I think I've more sourced material on Woodmorappe now that might fit well in the article-but it may have to wait a bit. There's other stuff that I've been working on, and before I take up much more, I want to wrap those up if I can. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for invitation
I, for one, thank you for your invitation to this apparentely new wiki. I have followed other christian\creation wikis for different periods of time. Although I am currently disillusioned with wikipedia, this new christian one has a lot of potential,I will definitely create an account there if nothing else. Glancing over your page, I agree with all your stances, I am a die-hard biblical creationist myself. I assume you sent this to all christian wikipedians, I hope you receive similar responses from them. have a nice day, with or without userboxes! (Estoniankaiju (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC))
Brisbane workshop and meetup invitation
Next: Tuesday 6 June 2017
Hi there! You are cordially invited to a series of Paralympic History workshops and a meetup next Saturday (26 May) and Sunday. In attendance will be University of Queensland faculty members and Australian Paralympic Committee staff. Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Brisbane/5. Hope to see you there! John Vandenberg 08:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Brisbane meetup with Sue Gardner invitation
Next: 11 February 2013 5-8PM - Drinks and light dinner at SLQ with Sue Gardner
Last: 3 August 2012
Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup on 11 Febrary 2013 with Sue Gardner.
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)