User talk:Davril2020

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. 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   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 17:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Re: Jesus-Myth
Excellent recent edit. Well written & NPOV. Well done. Merry Christmas...KHM03 19:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

David Irving
The IP in question has been vandalizing various pages (mostly David Irving) for weeks now. I've blocked it for a week, and hoping it will come to its senses during its time off. Jayjg (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Eve Online
Darril, I refer you to eve's front page where it states: "At 20:44 this evening a new PCU milestone was reached when 22.020 EVE Players were logged in at the same time." "Record 17,000 Concurrent Gamers Pummel EVE" etc, etc. It needs to be noted that it's accounts/characters online, and not individual players as CCP and the fans like to make out. --Bastion

True, but(in my mind at least) player implies each is a specific person, and I think it should be mentioned in some way that it most definitely isnt.

For a game like WoW or DAoC where it's only possible to run 1 character at a time, it's ok but in eve running multiple accounts is the norm, rather than the exception. --Bastion 20:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"Inappropriate Link"
It would be helpful if, as a responsible editor, you explained why you felt the link was inappropriate. You could have been courteous and left a message stating something so simple as "See TalkOrigins Archive talk page". As it is clear that it is associated with the discussion at TalkOrigins Archive, I will not revert your change (if at all) until that discussion has concluded, out of courtesy. Next time, however, please be more specific on what makes a change "inappropriate" unless it is clearly vandalism; several editors clearly did not feel that the link was so evidently inappropriate, as it has remained there through several edits (including reverts of POV material). This is a courtesy to others. Thank you for helping to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. The Jade Knight 04:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You are quite incorrect; if you bother looking at the talk.origins history, you'll see that I was not the one to insert the link (though I inserted it into the Archive page). As the discussion at the TalkOrigins Archive has not yet concluded, I think it's a bit premature to go around deleting things about which there is not yet consensus.  Please, however, refrain from levelling accusations unless you have done your research.  The Jade Knight 17:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete AfD
AfD nominations are made of three steps, which are described in Template:AfD_in_3_steps. You didn't perform the last step: adding the to the AfD page of the day. The trick is: once you have added to the page you want to nominate, the following steps are (very shortly) described at the bottom of the AfD box. (Liberatore, 2006). 10:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Email
Davril, I would like to email you but your Wiki email is not activated. JoshuaZ 03:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, sent. JoshuaZ 18:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design Talk
You wrote on the talk page, Unless contradictory sources can be found and verified and I pointed out further down that the Legal Times is such a source calling John Umana a "leading proponent of Intelligent Design". Thanks for participating!Bagginator 01:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you think of the others ive offered as WP:V and WP:RS? Here is my total list that meets that specific criteria. The San Francisco Chronicle, August 28 2005 calls Norris Gravlox, "a leading proponent of the intelligent design theory" the Tribeca Film Festival calls Jack Cashill, "a leading proponent of intelligent design." The Orlando Weekly from September 1st 2005 calls Mat Staver, "leading proponent of teaching intelligent design in public schools" and on May 26, 2006, the Legal Times calls John Umana, "a leading proponent of intelligent design" establishing WP:V and WP:RS.Bagginator 05:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Going to far one way is the same as going too far the other way. I can agree with you that using a humorist as WP:RS is not the way we should go with this. I disagree with you that we can only accept as WP:RS someone who has put in as much work as Forrest. Reporters are the perfect folks who should know who are and who are not leading proponents of an idea. Better even than teachers of Philosophy. As an aside, you didn't answer my questions about Jack Cashill. You listed him as being affiliated with Discovery Institute. Do you still hold that view and if so, why?Bagginator 05:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, i'd like to know what you think of William Harris. Is he affiliated with the Discovery Institute?Bagginator 08:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for responding. To answer your concerns about reporters I have to say I emphatically disagree with your opinion on this. Reporters are uniquely situated to report on who are the leading experts in any given field. This is why so often reporters say, "Experts say" without even bothering to tell us who the experts are. And the public generally trusts that because the media tends to know who the experts are. It is also by virtue of media coverage that people become the leaders of movements. So while the media are not experts of science, or politics, or geography, they are experts on who the experts are in science, politics, or geography. So when you write
 * Bear in mind that if we accept what these reporters say then equally we must include references to ID being creationism, absurd, full of lies etc. simply because other reporters with equal experience have said so, even when the author is clearly misinformed about the subject

I couldn't agree with you more. The media are not the experts to tell us what Intelligent Design is. They are, however, the ones to tell us who we should trust to tell us what Intelligent Design is. And so when newspapers and television reports call someone, "A leading proponent" this seems to me the best way to determine who is a leading proponent of anything, not just Intelligent Design. This also satisfies encyclopedic requirements for editing articles. So far I believe ive seen three methods for determining who the leading proponents are. In no particular order they are, we decide ourselves, we allow reliable sources to tell us, only those who have written a critical book of the Intelligent Design movement approximately four years ago and testified in a court of law on their findings are capable of determining for us who the leading proponents are. Am I to take it that you endorse this last view, or do you have another view of how we can go about determining who leading proponents are?Bagginator 05:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Identifying our point of disagreement
After reading your most recent response to my suggestion of changing affiliated to the more appropriate associated I think ive identified our area of disagreement. This, combined with other suggestions you've made about wanting to define what a leading proponent is. This is all original research. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and am happy to come up with whatever we all want to come up with. I believe we need to verify everything via reliable sources. Could you explain to me what rules of Wikipedia you are using to come up with your methods of editing this particular article and why it is alright for us to insert our own opinions over the opinions of reliable sources?Bagginator 14:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I also feel the following is constructive in regards to reliable sources
 * In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources. Such an account also helps ensure the article's neutral point of view.
 * You disagree with me on what constitutes a reliable source. But what is not deniable is that there are sources out there calling people not associated or affiliated with the Discovery Institute "Leading proponents" and according to this Wikipedia policy WP:OR we should at least make a note of this in the article.Bagginator 14:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: RfC at Intelligent Design
To answer your question, at this point I do intend one but i'm waiting on an advocate to help me out. Ive never been involved with an RfC before, not sure on when to properly begin one, or what form it should take. I asked for an advocate many days ago (Just after reading through the archives at Intelligent Design and realizing what a challenge it would be) and they still havn't responded. Hope that answers your question. To be clear, I actually solicited an advocate on his talk page and he helped me out briefly didn't have the time, and he referred me to their list.Bagginator 02:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Ed Poor is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or set of articles by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive editing, such as edit warring, original research, and POV forking. All bans are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 13:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Creation-evolution controversy Proposed Section
You reverted my addition; now it's your turn to discuss it (Talk:Creation-evolution_controversy). Pbarnes 23:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology forum
I thought that you might be interested to know that there is an evolutionary psychology forum over at the Psychology Wiki. It was set up a little more than a month ago but still hasn't been used yet. I'll inform other Wikipedians who I think may be interested, as well. EPM 21:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)