User talk:Standonbible/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Standonbible. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Welcome!

Hello Standonbible, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, some of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a great page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! JoshuaZ 14:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

In regard to your earlier question.

Essentially, whether it is your viewpoint or AiG's is not that relevant, the issue is neutrality. In particular, changing "majority of the scientific community" to "secular, naturalistic scientific community. The other edits are also POVy although to a lesser extent. I'm puzzled by your statement that "Several of the edits were personally requested of me by the head of the AiG Answers Department." Could you clarify what that? Thanks. JoshuaZ 14:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I understand that, but please understand that the phrasing "secular, naturalistic" is still highly POV (it wasn't in a section that described AiG's terminology but rather in the general narrative). By the way, do you know if AiG has asked anyone else to edit Wikipedia? JoshuaZ 14:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

As a result of this conversation, JoshuaZ, has asserted that you are an employee of AiG whose employer asked you to make POV edits. I have asked Joshua to retract that statement, and a similar one, but wanted to make you aware that you are being drawn into an RfA as a result [1]. agapetos_angel 02:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I must personally commend you for your honesty in discussing that AiG asked you to make the edits (the use of the word employee was a mistake on my part which I have retracted). The fact is that we seem to have had serious problems with dishonest editing by AiG affiliated individuals and the RfA is the result. I apologize for dragging you into this, although I strongly suspect that Mr. Hodge was fully aware of this and decided not to alert you to what was going on. JoshuaZ 02:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I've asked Joshua to also remove your name without compromising the substance of his evidence. Please don't let this minor bump turn you away from Wikipedia. We are generally very nice as a whole. agapetos_angel 03:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Agapetos, not be rude but how would that be at all possible? Do you want yet more evidence in this case to be simply emailed to the ArbCom? ArbCom transparency is a good thing, and I'd rather let this young man have an opportunity to respond/off any insight he has as to what is going on. Also, let me strongly echo Agapetos' comment that we are generally nice people. In fact, even during this dispute, Agapetos and I have edited some of the same articles(I think(Agapetos, did you edit the Boyd article I edited?)). JoshuaZ 03:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussed on your talk page, Joshua. (No, I don't think we edited the same one, but we have shown we can play well together) agapetos_angel 05:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm lost

Alright, I think I am lost here. What exactly is an RfA and what does it have to do with me? What is ArbCom?

Mr. Hodge told me that he had heard about several misrepresentations on the Answers In Genesis article here at Wikipedia. Quote: "If you see anything you know we don't believe, go ahead and change it."

I am not employed by AiG. I am a junior in highschool (though like I said I have had an article published on the AiG website).

So could someone please explain to me what is going on? If there is an attack on my character or that of Answers In Genesis I would like to be able to work with whoever is making any allegations to fix things.

In Him,

standonbible 14:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Clarifications: ArbCom is the Arbitration Commitee, they hear disputes among Wikipedians that have not been resolved through less formal means. The main page for those is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. The particular arbitration in question is here Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel. I hope that clarifies things. JoshuaZ 15:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, it might help clarify matters if you told precisely which edits you made prior to getting a user account. Hopefully we can clarify this as soon as possible if it is just a misunderstanding and whether your conversation with Hodge occured before or after the Aig/CMI split. Thanks. JoshuaZ 16:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

So far as I know, no one has made any allegations concerning either your character or AIG; please rest assured that we're just seeking information. If by accident you made an edit which is against one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, we'd just let you know, enter a link to the correct policy page, and no harm done. It happens all the time with no bad reflection on any editor. I hope this reassures you; if not, please let us know your concerns and we will be happy to help in any way we can. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Evolution, AiG, Wikipedia, AA, JZ

Here is the "tree of life" showing the evolution by reassortment of H5N1 that created the Z genotype in 2002 and here is evolution by antigenic drift that created dozens of highly pathogenic varieties of the Z genotype of avian flu virus H5N1, some of which are increasingly adapted to mammals. Evolution. Right before our eyes. WAS 4.250 17:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Genetic sequence evidence literally provides a picture of "the missing link" between humans and other apes. The picture labeled "Human Chromosome 2 and its analogs in the apes" in the article Comparison of the Human and Great Ape Chromosomes as Evidence for Common Ancestry is literally a picture of a link in humans that links two seperate chromosomes in the nonhuman apes creating a single chromosome in humans. It is THE missing link since it is the ape-human connection that is the big deal in the first place. And while the term originally refered to fosil evidence, this too is a trace from the past corresponding to some living beings that when alive were the physical embodiment of this link. WAS 4.250 18:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

With regard to editing AiG in Wikipedia: we do verifyability here, not "truth" - meaning just cause it's true doesn't mean it belongs in here. What does belong in here is stuff that's noteable and verifyable. If it is inaccurate and isn't sourced it is proper to delete it and politely ask for an unbiased source, even if you have biases or are connected in some way to the subject of the article (that's what I think, anyway). AA did that in an article and was told she couldn't by JZ and others for a series of reasons that changed over time. So resolving this mess will be up to a few people called arbcom that have been chosen to make judgements on matters like this. WAS 4.250 17:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Question

I noticed you made this comment on the Arbcomm page

No example of gene duplication and polyploidy uniting with natural selection to increase genetic information can be seen today. This is scientific fact regardless of whether it looks bad for evolution or not.

I'm puzzled by what you are trying to say here.

Do you mean "gene duplication or polyploidy"?
How can gene duplication or polyploidy not increase the genetic information in an organism?
What do you mean by "uniting with natural selection"?

Thanks. Guettarda 16:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Guettarda:

I don't wish to get into a debate here, but gene duplication and polyploidy (mutations) cannot on their own increase the usable genetic information in the genome. "Usable" has a very important definition: for Darwinian evolution to operate properly, there must be an increase in genetic information leading "upwards" (i.e., reptiles to birds) that also is aided by natural selection.

The only way that natural selection can aid such increase would be if the function of the organism is increased as a result of the mutation. But NO random mutation (see below as well) has ever been observed to increased the function of an organism and also served as a "step-stone" to a higher level.

In Him, standonbible 02:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"Creationists often say that all mutations are harmful and deleterious, and degrade the genome. They say that mutations can only scramble the information that's there, and that mutations cannot produce new "information." This page shows why they are wrong." from [2] WAS 4.250 18:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I do not wish to become embroiled in an argument. Suffice it to say that the "random" mutations spoken of by WAS are in fact not random at all. Every time that the scientists subjected the bacteria to this particular kind of stress, the same "mutation" occurred. Why? The genetic code was designed so that under stress, a frameshift mutation would reveal new, necessary codes clouded by junk DNA.

If your computer malfunctioned and printed out this article backwards, letter by letter, and the backwards version was a treatise on time dilation and the space-time continuum, you would not applaud your computer's mistake for creating the treatise. You would applaud the designer of the article for writing it in such a way that even more information could be obtained even if a mistake was made. Give honor where honor is due! It would require extreme intelligence to write a code so that it would reveal new information upon copying error. Guess Who?

In Him, standonbible 02:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I completely respect the fact that you "do not wish to become embroiled in an argument". Peace. Love. Truth. Be happy. WAS 4.250 02:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Help request

Hi standonbible (for some reason I keep adding an extra s for stands). I saw your plea on my user talk but it seems you were informed by others before I replied. If I can still assist, please let me know. agapetos_angel 11:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Question

Was this you before you registered? thanks! Special:Contributions/66.57.28.247. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it was not. standonbible 02:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable for newbies to learn how wikipedia works by anonmously editing and learning from that experience. Whether or not these edits were Standonbible is not relevant. What is relevant is to point out edits that delete accurate relevant sourced information is not apropriate. Further to point out that in general if you make an edit and someone reverts you do not revert them back but instead to take the issue to that talk page and talk about it. These are lessons many newbies learn the hard way, and then become helpful contributors. WAS 4.250 16:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Way to bite me, WAS. You don't even know why I asked, nor did you think that I might want to discuss the edits with the author, in which case it would be relevent to know if I was speaking to the author. I myself edited anonymously before registering, and I am well aware that most users do. What got into your cheerios? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

How did I bite you? I spoke to SB, not KC. If you learn something from what I said to SB, fine. If SB chooses to answer you on this or anything else, fine. That you wish to speak to SB in no way diminishes my right to speak to SB. What got into your cheerios? WAS 4.250 19:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Regenerate Our Culture AfD

Hi, I'm the user who proposed the 'Regenerate Our Culture' article for deletion. I'm posting here to let you know that I've done so. You can respond on the article's AfD Page. Thanks! Nortelrye 02:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Nortelrye! standonbible 13:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Another question

Hi, You've refered to some edits as an anon in your evidence you gave to the arb com that I can't find in the edit history of the AiG page. It would be really helpful if you could tell everyone what IP address you were using. That would probably help clear matters up. Thanks for all your cooperation in this matter. JoshuaZ 18:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately we recently switched over from Adelphia Cable Internet to Bellsouth DSL. On top of that, our DSL is set up in such a way that our IP address changes every time you reconnect the Ethernet cord. standonbible 22:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Humor. That's humor, right? Sometimes I get lost in these little games, but that's humor, right? WAS 4.250 00:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, by any chance would you know if this edit was from you? JoshuaZ 20:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. It's not humor. Something is really screwed with our ISP.

No, JoshuaZ, that edit was not made by me. I made a few edits in regards to a picture of a T-Rex on the page and some other syntax-related issues. Those are all the edits I can remember distinctly. standonbible 13:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Weasel-words in Comet article

Hello. What exactly are the problems with the Oort cloud model that you refer to in the Comet article but do not enumerate? -- Xerxes 15:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

These are not problems per se, but rather I made the statement that certain scientists have found problems with the Oort cloud model. An enumeration can be found at the Oort Cloud page under a section I just added called "Detractors". I wasn't sure how to link to that section in the Comet article so I left any link out. In Him, standonbible 15:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed the wording around and added a link (I hope). This should help you. standonbible 15:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Certain scientists, alright. Can you provide a non-AiG link? What Nature study are they referring to? I'd like to check it.--Jyril 15:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with a primary AiG link? Answers in Genesis has the most comprehensive collection of authoritative PhDs in the young-earth creationist movement, so it is only reasonable to cite them primarily when discussing young-earth viewpoints. But that's OK. Here is a link to a similar article on the Institute for Creation Research website (you can add this link to the Oort page if you want to). And here is the citation of the Nature article from the AiG website:

Stern, S.A. and Weissman, P.R., Rapid collisional evolution of comets during the formation of the Oort cloud, Nature 409(6820):589–591, 2001.

I hope that satisfies you. Feel free to ask any other questions you may have! standonbible 23:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Jesus

You have actually violated 3rr on this article and I invite you to self revert back to the version 3 other editors are supporting. Sophia 16:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I did not realize that. I will self-revert, but I expect the Talk page discussion to continue. standonbible 16:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)