User:ImprobabilityDrive/Creation-Evolution

To all those that are piling on
To all who are piling on, in the words of Arbustoo, the check user will "vindicate the user." The behavior exhibited by the evolutionary gang on this forum, in my opinion, is truly contemptable. This is an Encyclopedia, not Panda's Thumb or TalkOrigins. The content you blank complies with wikipedia standards, and is being blanked merely to spin the article, IMHO. I will expect (and no doubt not get) an apology from every person who either contributed to or goaded others to contribute to this retaliatory assualt. ImprobabilityDrive 02:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Taking things out of context eh? Good bye. Arbustoo 16:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I find ImprobabilityDrive's latest rantings to be even more out of touch with reality. Having failed to substantiate the Sternberg incident's notability within this article (and in fact having failed to even make a serious attempt to do so), he now alleges (again, wonder of wonders, without any substantiation), a wide-ranging conspiracy by 'the evolutionary gang' (is this any relation of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy?) to "contribute" and "goad" to his outing as a sockpuppet -- regardless of whether individuals have even mentioned the possibility. For myself, I find it improbable that ImprobabilityDrive is GNixon, and have had no contact with the other alleged identities. So much for this monolithic 'gang.' It is just a bunch of people who happen to be interested in this article and are concerned about ImprobabilityDrive's combative attempts to alter it against the informed wishes of the consensus. Hrafn42 03:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You know ID, we're not a gang. You should read the arguments we have about what makes up NPOV, notability and the such.  This is between those of us whom you claim is a gang.  I don't agree with certain edits.  Read some of the comments that I've made to User:Silence about his edits of the Evolution article.  If you want to engage in polite discourse, then you shouldn't call other editors "trolls", you shouldn't claim that only you know what is right or wrong, what is NPOV or is POV, and you shouldn't make mass-edits without consensus.  What's wrong with the art of politicking for what you want.  Why don't you write personal emails, trying to get some movement towards your POV.  But you know, I might understand your thoughts about Sternberg, if you'd only explain why you think he's notable vs. the other issues so prominent to this controversy.  But calling us a gang is not going to get you anywhere.  And then understand the frustration here.  Every month a new set of editors, who represent an anti-Evolution POV enter the fray, yelling about this, demanding changes here and there, etc. etc. etc.  If you look at the history of some of these articles, the same editors have been at it for months and years.  No that does not give them preordained rights to what is right or wrong (I saw your issues with LMU, and I don't agree that edits can't be made because the article was X years old).  However, that being said, there is a wealth of knowledge amongst many of us.  I, personally, am neither stupid, ignorant, nor close-minded.  Throwing wiki-rules in my face is insulting.  Showing me logic why you want to do so and so to this article will gain my respect, and maybe, not always, but occasionally, my support.  I dare say that would be across the board.  Orangemarlin 05:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I was reading up on the other views presented, and responding to them, but FeloniousMonk moved the discussion. You will note that the discussion was in regard to the very reason this article is locked, that progress was being made, that arguments were not exhuasted, and so on and so forth.  I know you appreciate FM's shoot first take names later approach.  In spite of this, would you, or somebody, move the conversation back to this page so that we can make progress.  ImprobabilityDrive 05:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How is this section not disruptive? If you were truly interested in constructive editing you'd step back for a while in an act of good faith. FeloniousMonk 05:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sir, with respect that is not due, you have interrupted a conversation regarding content that was in dispute, using the appearance of authority provided by your admin status, and in which, progress was being made. Do not preach to me about disruption.  ImprobabilityDrive 05:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Moving a disruptive discussion to a subpage or userpage is absolutely within the bounds of both policy and convention at Wikipedia, as has been explained to you by a neutral admin at WP:AN/I under the heading of your bogus complaint. And action taken to minimize disruption is expected of admins, so I suggest you find another issue and move along, as this discussion is disruptive and ill-advised as well. In fact, this section should be userfied -- moved to your talk page. FeloniousMonk 05:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)