User talk:Biofase/1

Unnamed section
Sorry, it was during school and i did not have time to finish what i was saying. Ok, that has cleared it up. I was more seeing the two communities as seperate, wheras everyone can use and edit it. Thanks for that. Stakingsin (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC) i sometimes forget the four swirly things, i will get the hang of it though.
 * No problem. :) Biofase (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

partial list of well-respected creationists (who no credible academic has, or would, ever called pseudo-scientists)

 * Meredith G. Kline
 * Henri Blocher
 * Stanley Jaki
 * Richard H. Bube

So this exchage does not seem off topic. Contributors seem to be talking past each other. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Firefly322 is wrong (as usual). Bube is a well-known theistic evolutionist, and there is no indication on their articles that Kline, Blocher or Jaki are/were creationists. Given that Creation–evolution controversy‎ neither places quote-marks around 'scientists' nor calls anybody "less than scientists" or "pseudoscientists", both the thread & Biofase's final comment are clearly off-topic, per WP:TALK. A clue would be a wonderful thing (but I doubt if a WP:TROUT would be appreciated, or sufficient to induce one). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV/UNDUE discussion
Biofase, I think that an edit conflict caused confusion. My comment about personal remarks was directed towards Dreamguy, not you. Sorry for any confusion, I know my post ended up below yours, so the confusion seems easily understandable. I was just trying to express my opinion that project pages should avoid targeting specific editors. I agree completely that there are issues, but might perhaps disagree on their exact nature and substance. Resolving these differences and achieving consensus is exactly what the discussion is designed to achieve, not where it's supposed to start, so I look forward to further dialogue. Thanks for your patience and understanding, Doc  Tropics  17:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite alright. Was a bit confusing but didn't really take any offence at it. :) Biofase flame | stalk 18:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Formatting fix on your comment on ThaddeusB's RfA
Hi. I took the liberty of fixing the formatting for your two comments on ThaddeusB's RfA, so that my neutral showed up as the eighth neutral and not the first (as it did here.) I hope you're alright with that, since I didn't edit anything else in your comments. One two three... 21:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Biofase flame | stalk 02:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/ThaddeusB
I wanted to take a moment to delivery a personal thank you (not "thank spam" :)) for your involvement in my RfA. I actually appreciated your "giving me a hard time" so there was certainly no need to apologize for it.  I am glad that you found my overly long and detailed responses worthy of your support.  I certainly enjoyed writing them. :)  I will keep your comments about the importance of protecting BLPs in mind as I serve the community in my new role.

Thanks again, ThaddeusB (talk) 05:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We seem to be of like mind so I think it's safe to say that I will support you in most things you get involved in. Not sure if you're watching this, I had to do this earlier . Not sure if I should put a header or if the bot will do it later. As it seems it will only be needed in another 5 years it might be best to try out your new tools and just delete them. Biofase flame | stalk 15:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and deleted the empty "archives". Its not the first time I've seen auto-archiving get messed up. On a page I was involved with someone copied the archive template to the archive page, which of course made the bot archive the archive causing quite a mess. At least this one was easy to fix. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Rivendell Institute
You have contested my speedy delete on the grounds that it's a university/school, but I'd like to point out that Rivendell Institute isn't a university or school, it's one of several “Christian study centers” that have grown up around the school. Hence the reason I believed it to fit CSD. Irbisgreif (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter much. Policies should be taken in the spirit they were intended and without a community view of it's exact nature and notability it is not an obvious candidate for which speedy deletion was intended. Biofase flame | stalk 04:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I felt that a group that was relatively small, albeit being associated with a school and having some importance to the school, should be put up for speedy, just as a chapter of a Fraternity would be. I'm not re-contesting the speedy though, I'm just trying to make clear the thought processes I had when I tagged it. If more editors explained why they did things when things get contested, it would be easier for everyone to WP:AGF. Irbisgreif (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, though an article that is new and at first glance appear to be reliably sourced is bound to be untagged unless it is obvious vandalism, advertising or self-promotion. If you feel it should be deleted you can always propose a deletion but it's bound to be shot down as well primarily because it's new. As the guide says "if in doubt don't delete" as anything that turns out to be useless doesn't hurt anyone, won't use much server bandwidth, and even if it's deleted it still takes up the same space on the server(s). Biofase flame | stalk 04:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

rollback
was ill-considerd and meant no disrespect. I am glad we continue to discuss our differernces on the talk page and I hope my respect and assumption of good fatih is evident, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Multiple points of view
In case you haven't seen my comment on Catherine's talk page, I'll mention this to you as the person who used the phrase. In Wikinfo, each side writes their own articles giving their own points of view, but they must include see-also's at the top. Is that the sort of thing you had in mind? Peter jackson (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. I haven't seen wikiinfo yet so I don't know exactly how that works. NPOV requires a subject to be treated from the mainstream point of view(s) giving coverage in proportion to its coverage in sources. This has many problems:
 * One side of a subject may for multiple reasons have less coverage in sources than another. This does not necessarily mean that it is less notable than the other side.
 * Applying proportions in any amount is counter productive. Yes the policy does state the "flat earth" view is a minority view that should be given the appropriate coverage but just because an earth article may have one sentence saying it is round does not mean it shouldn't also have one stating the flat-earth view.
 * Different people have different ideas of which sources are the mainstream ones. One has stated that the "scientific" view should always be the most prominent one ignoring the fact that some issues are more public domain than they are science issues.
 * Neutral may in fact be non-neutral when it is clear that the sources are biased.
 * Giving equal consideration to multiple views where possible would avoid having to decide which view is the most prominent and with nobody being able to claim NPOV as an excuse to further their own POV would result in much more neutral articles. If every view gets as much attention as is possible at the time they will even each other out over time. Wikipedia's insistence on being the mindless drone that only replicates what is already available has opened a wide door for propaganda masquerading as reliable sources. If more views are given equal validity such misinformation cannot reasonably be included without being pointed to so it may eventually dissipate. I don't think we can say all views should be in different articles. Likewise if there's too many issues surrounding a subject there's no reason to limit it all to one article and doing so may in fact suppress some views. Biofase flame | stalk 22:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How would you divide up views if you want to give them equal space? Pushers of a particular view might claim it's actually 2 (or 1001) slightly different views. You can pretty well always find subviews, I'd expect.
 * WP:DUE does give some guidance on determining mainstream & significant views.
 * A further point is that covering all views in 1 article, which is what you seem to be advocating, might lead to some extremely long articles. For example, the article on Christianity would have to cover the views of all 30,000+ Christian denominations as to what Christianity is. Peter jackson (talk) 10:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Visual Detection of Imaginary Roots in a Parabola
Hi, Your !vote at the above article's deletion discussion doesn't contain any reasoning. WP:AFD doesn't work by counting votes, but on policy and reasoned argument (theoretically!), and consensus. Have a look at the links at the top of the page for more info. Cheers, Verbal chat  08:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for adding a reason. However, I'm not clear on who you are agreeing with or why, and WP:BEFORE isn't concerned with AfD reasoning. Thanks, Verbal</b> chat  18:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Benwa Balls Merging.....
I'll second the merging of this content. If you ask me, the main article sounds dubious by itself because its reference links to a page that sells them. Merge the appropriate content and have Ben Wa Balls redirect to the section you had in mind... JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Biofase/Userboxes/Hurt you
User:Biofase/Userboxes/Hurt you, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Biofase/Userboxes/Hurt you and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Biofase/Userboxes/Hurt you during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 09:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Biofase/Userboxes/Hurt you
User:Biofase/Userboxes/Hurt you, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Biofase/Userboxes/Hurt you& and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Biofase/Userboxes/Hurt you during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Dronebogus (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Clothed male naked female


Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, the introduction of inappropriate pages, such as Clothed male naked female, is considered vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MrBauer24 (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)