User talk:Momosean

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Momosean, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Drunkonbananas 08:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Epic of Evolution[edit]

Please do not edit Epic of Evolution. There was a discussion regarding whether it should be kept. The decision was that it should be redirected to The Great Story. If you continue to edit Epic of Evolution, it will be protected from editing. — goethean 03:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


An article I wrote was deleted and the reasons are not clear(see below). A committee decided to delete it, for reasons that didn't make sense to me. Is there any point to me posting the article again? I still think it's a worthy article, as do others who have told me so. This is the first article that I have written and unless I get some clarity on how this works, it may be my last. Momosean 06:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok I took a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epic of Evolution. Once there is a discussion like that, the way to bring back the article is to follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Posting the article again is not a good idea - it will probably get deleted again, given the consensus established at the deletion discussion.--Commander Keane 06:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am still puzzled by the deletion of the Epic of Evolution article. I wonder if it was deleted because one person found it to be opposed to their worldview rather than for the stated reasons.

I looked over the events leading the deletion of the Epic of Evolution article and found the situation to be strange. At 17:06 on Dec. 20, Goethean proposed the article be deleted. 5 minutes later Goethean deleted all but a stub. 4 minutes later Goethean rewrote the stub, creating an article that was innacurate (false attribution of a statement to Chaisson who made no such statement) and vastly different than the original article. Then, after this totally different stub version was posted, 2 reviewers voted to delete it because it wasn't notable. Another reviewer said the article was neutral and one voted to redirect. The tone of these reviewers and the time of their posting make me think they based their decisions on Goethean's major deletion/revision and not on the original article. Based on the new stub article resulting from Goethean's edits, I would agree that the article had become not notable and based on Goethean's inaccurate stub, I would also agree to redirect it. So I am wondering if this article was deleted because people based their decision on Goethean's significant edits instead of on the original article? The timing and nature of the comments lead me to this conclusion. And if this is the case, how can the matter be rectified. I suspect that Goethean's motives for proposing the deletion of the Epic of Evolution were because the article went against Goethean's worldview. There is evidence on Goethean's talk page that Goethean is pro-Intelligent Design, a position that is at odds with mainstream scientific evolution. It may be that Goethean used these bizarre editorial tactics to try to subdue the mention of evolution. The evidence for Goethean's pro Intelligent-Design stance is on Goethean's talk page. There someone mentions Goethean's contribution to an article about Intelligent Design proponent Alvin Plantinga. This is a note to Goethean's talk page: "I noticed you have been, at least recently, the more active contributor at the Alvin Plantinga article. You may be interested in knowing that an article about the Evolutionary argument against naturalism was created yesterday. And that it is already nominated for deletion. If you can contribute to the discussion it would be appreciated. --Leinad ¬  »saudações! 17:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)" I am new to Wikipedia. Perhaps there is another reason for why Goethean instigated the deletion of this article. Momosean 08:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you may want to bring these concerns up at deletion review -- if nothing else, you may be able to get a second discussion started, so that you can make sure your side of the story is heard. Luna Santin 09:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
There is evidence on Goethean's talk page that Goethean is pro-Intelligent Design, a position that is at odds with mainstream scientific evolution.
Apart from being an outrageously idiotic comment wrong, I consider this a personal attack. Editors can be permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia for repeatedly making personal attacks. I suggest that you cease immediately. — goethean 15:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


Actually, I reduced the article to a stub in order to save it from being deleted. Your assumptions regarding my 'worldview' are entirely incorrect and I request that you stop speculating on such matters. The stub-article was about the book Epic of Evolution. The book, if it were more notable, would be an appropriate subject on which to write an article. The article that you wrote is entirely inappropriate, consisting of unsourced speculation that various historical figures from different cultures had a singular vision. To make matters worse, your unsourced assertions were presented as fact rather than opinion. As others have said, bring it up at deletion review. — goethean 15:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Goethean, my intent is not to personally attack you, but to discover the truth as to why you initiated the deletion of this article. This article was not an opinion peice and in fact represents the work of many, many people who were cited in references and links. There is no speculation whatsoever in this peice. The fact that not all the references are listed is not that they don't exist, but rather that they are too numerous to list. If your intent was to "save" this peice by reducing it to a stub, then it seems you should not have incorrectly attributed words to Chaisson which were not his. Furthermore, just because Eric Chaisson's book and this article share the same title does not mean that this article is only about his book. If this were the case, then half the articles in Wikipedia would have to be deleted. Articles are encyclopedic because they reflect the work and interest of many people. As for speculating on your worldview, I hope you will correct me by your admission that you do not support Intelligent Design as science, and that your contributions to the articles that mention Intelligent Design were to rebut the notion that ID is science, or to point out that the overwhelming majority of scientists, (including Christian scientists) dismiss Intelligent Design as pseudoscience. Goethean, from your passion on this, I sense that you a someone deeply concerned about the welfare of truth because of its benefits to humanity. I think we share this.Momosean 14:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

An attempt to summarize the "Epic of Evolution" controversy[edit]


Let me first just say thank-you for contributing to Wikipedia. A number of people sometimes forget that this invaluable encyclopaedia cannot exist without the contributions, big and small, of ordinary people like you and me. Some of the users who have posted above may not be aware that you're a new contributor and that you're still trying to learn how Wikipedia works. So please don't take their comments personally.

Now, down to business. I've reviewed the discussions about this article that have been ongoing in a number of different places, and I would like to make an attempt to summarize the issues that seem to have arisen with regards to your contributions to that page:

  1. Tone/Style Problems: Some of the phrasing in the article doesn't take a neutral point of view (NPOV) -- a lot of the article sounds more like an argument rather than the unbiased imparting of strict facts. This, on its own, isn't usually a reason for deleting an article, but it probably does exacerbate some of the other issues noted below.
  2. Original Reasearch Problems: Wikipedia, as any other encyclopaedia, is limited to reporting current knowledge and is not meant as a place for publishing original research. Although you've sourced a number of different authors, I believe it is the synthesis of material in the article itself that forms the basis of concern for other users. So far as I'm aware, none of the authors you've listed have properly been exponents of the "Epic of Evolution" anywhere in their writings. The concern here is that, while the article does in fact source these thinkers, the synthesis of material is what remains unsourced. If they cannot be sourced promoting this idea, then they cannot be included in the article in the way that you've included them.
  3. Possible Duplication of Material: Both the "Epic of Evolution" page and "The Great Story" page use these two terms interchangeably, for the most part. You would have to make an argument that the "Epic of Evolution" is so substantially different from "The Great Story" that the material it covers warrants its own page. Based on the views expressed so far, I don't see the argument for a separate page; this is the reason why the "Epic of Evolution" page now redirects to "The Great Story".
  4. Notability: A smaller number of users have argued that the information contained in the article simply isn't notable enough to warrant its inclusion in an encyclopaedia -- encyclopaedias aren't meant to be a sum-total of human knowledge, just an overview of it. That said, it is my own personal view that if the above problems can be resolved, you should be able to establish notability.

Although you've responded a number of times in the discussions over this article, I don't think you've addressed the above issues sufficiently. Consequently, it was proposed that your article be deleted -- this isn't meant to be an attack on your view of the world, just that there are issues with the article which haven't been resolved. (See the discussion on this point.) However, you should be aware that nothing on wikipedia is ever really deleted for good -- every page has all of its previous versions saved in its history, and the article can be brought back; but in this case, only after the issues that have been brought up have been addressed. Since Wikipedia only works on the basis of consensus, I would strongly advise you not to resurrect the page yourself. If you do so, other users will interpret your actions negatively and you may be barred from making further edits.

Of course, if you think there are good responses to these concerns, you should present them on this page, the talk page for the article in question, and/or request that the decision to delete the article be reviewed. In any event, I would like to encourage you to continue contributing to Wikipedia, and I would be more than happy to help you with any other concerns you might have. --Todeswalzer|Talk 22:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)