User talk:Endomion/Archive

Flood geology
Nice fix, though it would be better if you could rework the calculation to include SI-units. I find it odd that you chose to calculate the height of Mount Everest in miles, when our article gives it in kilometres. -- Ec5618 23:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The Fundies mostly live here in the United States and don't much go for those "Satanic" "Globalist" metric units. Endomion 00:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Glad to see NPOV maintained on user pages. Still, are you going to be editing the section, or should I? -- Ec5618 00:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Neo-Creationism on AFD?
It appears that you had tried to place Neo-Creationism on AFD. However, I removed it for two reasons. First, you had nominated Neo-creationism, which does not exist, and there was no AFD message on Neo-Creationism. Second, the subpage Articles for deletion/Neo-creationism did not have a header--resulting in some formatting problems on Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 5. If you do want to place the article on AFD, then use template:afd on the article page, template:afd2 on the afd voting page, and template:afd3 on the log page. Once you insert template:afd on the article page, there is text and links to help with the rest. -Rholton 05:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, AFD is not the next step when your edits fail to gain traction in an article for whatever reason. FeloniousMonk 05:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"Neo-creationists appear to be the results of a 'microevolution' (so to speak) of your garden variety scientific creationist. On notability grounds alone the article should be merged." Endomion 05:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, 948 hits on Google for 'neo-creationism' and 350 hits for 'neocreationism.' Certainly significant enough to warrant an article, particularly since neo-creationism is a relatively new development, less than 10 years old, etc.


 * As far as neo-creationism being a variation of scientific creationism (aka creation science), I think you're confused about what scientific creationism is what neo-creationists say they are.
 * From Scientific creationism: "Creation science is the effort to provide scientific evidence supporting the account of the creation of the universe related in the Bible."
 * From the Discovery Institute, the largest neo-creationist group: "Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism."


 * There are literally dozens of other statements from either side of the creationism aisle that make the distinction, not to mention the hundreds from critics and neutral observers. And all see neo-creation as a clear and distinct movement from creation science/scientific creationism for the former's embracing of scripture and the latter's eschewing of it in favor of posing as mainstream science. FeloniousMonk 06:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Issues related to the Intelligent design article
I owe you an apology for not understanding better your concerns regarding the recent edits on the ID page. Jim's opinionated, but a good guy at heart. I'm concerned that you appeared to be taking things personally. That's not a good thing; I've been down that road. Can I be of any assistance? Drop me a line.--ghost 04:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

(Meanwhile ghost goes on WikiSabbatical)

While I disagree with some of the above editors at times, I disagree more strongly with you on your handling of the situation. Feel free to talk to me. Or add me to your list. Since you've not responded to me in three days, I assume I'm already on it.--ghost 15:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You did not call me a troll or disparage my contributions, but I will comply with your wishes. Endomion 15:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attack list
The list you've created above constitutes an organized mass personal attack. Not only does it say far more about you than it does about those you list, it makes the claim that you're trolling ID and related articles far more credible to the community. You'd be better served by abandoning this strategy, it only fuels the conflict you've created and serves others as RFC evidence. Please consider contributing to the project in a more responsible and productive manner. FeloniousMonk 16:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - My involvement with the articles related to Intelligent design is over. The section above is my post-game analysis of the methods employed in this perennially controversial set of articles.  Endomion 16:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well your "post-game analysis" is a blatant personal attack. Responsible editors need not have to tolerate this sort of behavior. FeloniousMonk 17:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank God for small blessings, FM isn't calling my User:Talk page a POV FORK. Endomion 17:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Did I mention trolling? FeloniousMonk 19:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for removing the list. FeloniousMonk 02:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC) Nevermind, I see you've just shifted it around. At least you're not lumping your fellow editors into POV/NPOV categories. Nonetheless, continuing to fan the flames of an already contentious and difficult topic thus is not helping the community. FeloniousMonk 02:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not getting my voice heard in the article or in the talk page. As a theistic evolutionist I really wanted to help make an accurate article, but the way I was treated beat that notion right out of my head.  I trust that you will conduct your edit war there and leave my user page alone.  Endomion 02:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

A troubling road
Endomion, I understand that we don't see eye-to-eye on some things. But I'm very concerned about the road I see you walking. I've seen others walk that road. It's not healthy. Feel free to talk to me if you like. I may take a couple days getting back to you, as my work demands vary greatly.--ghost 17:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You did not call me a troll or disparage my contributions, but I have complied with your wish to be added to the list of people who have nothing to say to me. Endomion 17:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * (shakes head) You misunderstood me. I did not wish to "have say nothing to you".  If that was my wish, I wouldn't have bothered reaching out again.  You seem to be feeling isolated and persecuted.  Those are feelings I don't care to see anyone go thru.  Again, you are welcome to talk to me.--ghost 18:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Introduction
"...planned by a conscious will..."


 * 14:08, 12 January 2006 Endomion (Let's avoid recursive definitions)
 * 14:46, 12 January 2006 Ec5618 (rv Endomion. Changing a quote is bad. For you, editing without first finding consensus is bad too.)

Verdict: Settled - the first sentence is a direct quote

Corrected the first sentence, which is supposed to be a quote of the Discovery Institute not subject to edits, to the actual quote.


 * 12 January 2006 Endomion (Since editors are not permitted to alter a quote, let's make sure we don't use an altered quote to start with)
 * 23:27, 12 January 2006 FeloniousMonk m (Reverted edits by Endomion (talk) to last version by FeloniousMonk)

Verdict: No group consensus at this time

Deleted the word "overwhelming"


 * 16:30, 12 January 2006 Endomion (NPOV - Use of the word "overwhelming" is itself an opinion)
 * 16:39, 12 January 2006 FeloniousMonk (rv "majority" is inaccurate and equivocates. Overwhelming majority is both attributed and factual. This was the result of discussion and consensus)

Verdict: Settled - the group consensus is for "overwhelming" proof

Changed "endorse" to "present"


 * 17:10, 12 January 2006 Endomion (NPOV - The word endorse implies the school board preferred ID over natural selection)
 * 17:57, 12 January 2006 Jim62sch (rev to prev, read the decision)

'''Verdict: Settled - the Dover decision uses "endorse" rather than "present"

Intelligent design in summary
Changed "presented" to "endorsed" per above rebuke


 * 18:33, 12 January 2006 Endomion (Group decision is to use the word "endorsed" instead of "presented")
 * 18:36, 12 January 2006 Duncharris (Reverted edits by Endomion to last version by Jim62sch)

Verdict: Not settled - the Dover decision used "endorsed" instead of "presented"

Changed "opposed" to "contrasted"


 * 19:23, 12 January 2006 Endomion (NPOV - ID is only contrasted, not implacably opposed to mainstream science)
 * 19:42, 12 January 2006 KillerChihuahua (Rv to last version by Duncharris: this has no support, is against consensus)

Verdict: Settled - the consensus is that ID is opposed by science

Origins of the concept
Changed "five proofs for the existence of God" to the more accurate "Five Ways for reason to apprehend the existence of God"


 * 20:46, 12 January 2006 Endomion (The link is to ((ref|five_ways)) why has it been changed to "proofs" ?)
 * 12 January 2006 FeloniousMonk m (rv. Because Aquinas considered them proof, that's why. Read the book)

Verdict: Settled - the Summa calls them the Five Proofs 

Intelligent design debate
Changed "contrast" to "opposition"


 * 19:53, 12 January 2006 Endomion (Changed from contrast to opposition to get in tune with group accord)
 * 20:06, 12 January 2006 Guettarda (rv - just because the word "opposition" is more accurate than "contrast" in one sentance DOES NOT mean that every usage of the word "contrast" MUST be changed to "opposition" - that's silly)

Verdict: Not settled - personal preference, no intractable objection to the use of the word opposition

What are you doing?
Are you actually documenting, on your own user talk page, how disruptive you are and how blatantly you ignore consensus? What possible reason could you have for that? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And you're being misleading as well, implying that when you Changed "endorse" to "present" in the first instance, it was in the same place and context as when you "Changed "presented" to "endorsed" per above rebuke" - that's simply foolish. Anyone can check edit history and see you're trying to manipulate the data. The edit summaries alone will give it away. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This outline is a way for me to determine what is established case law in this article and what is still problematic. Wikipedians who fail to assume good faith are free to express their opinions that it is revisionist history or what-have-you.  Endomion 20:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Case law? What the heck? And only WPians who fail to AGF are free to express their opinions? You do realize that reads like a setup - if anyone expresses an opinion, you've automatically determined that they are failing AGF. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's just yet another personal attack list. Don't you have something better to do with your time than obsess here on your talk page about your contributions failing to find consensus and maligning your fellow volunteers? The project has plenty of open tasks awaiting takers. Here, you can even make a buck doing so: Bounty_board. FeloniousMonk 22:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Currently says "Wikipedians who have helped me contribute to the Intelligent design article". Which has the merit of at least sounding constructive, however intended :-)  Endomion, have you read beware of the tigers?  I think William's words might have some relevance here.  - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 00:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments Guy. I think all parties involved should think about whether some of the actions and apparent predjudices of editors associated with this article are alien to the spirit of Wikipedia.  Endomion 01:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

 Talk:Intelligent design Daily Hot Sheet 
 * 13 JAN 06 - If A Male Critter Has Designs On A Hottie Is That Intelligent?
 * 12 JAN 06 - Now We Have To Show The Judge ID Is Not A Real Philosophy
 * 11 JAN 06 - Let's Compare Our Troll Endomion To ID Proponent Demsbki
 * 10 JAN 06 - '''Let's Use A Recursive Definition Of Intelligent Design And Be Trendy Like GNU
 * 09 JAN 06 - We Just Want This Article To Be About Biology Not Cosmology
 * 08 JAN 06 - The Personal Beliefs Of Intelligent Design Advocates Are Relevant
 * 07 JAN 06 - Endomion Is A Troll Day
 * 06 JAN 06 - This Article Is Written In A NPOV Because We Say It Is
 * 05 JAN 06 - 70% Exposition To 30% Criticism Is A Ridiculous Suggestion, We Like It The Other Way Around
 * 04 JAN 06 - Intelligent Design Can Be A Possessive Pronoun Because It's Really Smart
 * 03 JAN 06 - Let's Keep The Quote In The First Paragraph So No Outsider Can Improve It
 * 02 JAN 06 - The Issues Brought Up By Newbies Should Get Our Notability Imprimatur First
 * 01 JAN 06 - '''Everything Is Supported By Citations Why Not Crib The Definition Too?"

''' Top Ten Things I Learned From Editing Intelligent Design
 * 1) '''The Intelligent designer is not really God, so we must not redirect Him to God; also, we must not allow the Dover school district to teach ID because the Intelligent designer is really God.
 * 2) '''Biological science has "aims".
 * 3) '''Scientific facts are uncontested.  It's only ID that must be falsifiable.
 * 4) '''"Intelligent Design" is so smart that ID itself can make claims.
 * 5) Forty-five percent of Americans believe in the Genesis account of creation, but letting their side have the mike for once is giving them "undue weight"
 * 6) '''We must use the everyday English understanding of the word "theory" instead of the scientific definition, what do you think this political treatise is, an encyclopedia article?
 * 7) '''How dare you contest the neutrality of this article with a POV banner, people might think there was something wrong with it.
 * 8) The definition of Intelligent Design is design by intelligence.  Don't you dare change one word of that misquote from the Discovery Institute.
 * 9) '''Interior designer must redirect to Interior design because we say so.  Intelligent designer must not redirect to Intelligent design because we say so.
 * 10) '''What Jimbo Wales really meant by writing in a neutral voice is to dump ten materialist counterpoints on every supernaturalist point.