User talk:Hrafn/Archive11

Did you mean to do this?
This edit looks like an error. Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you help me?
Hrafn, Could you look at my edits and get me on the right page for this idea of raising money by selling Wikipedia-Loaded_Hard_Drives? I see that you are very experienced with thousands of edits. I don't know if you want to help with fundraising, but that is where I started and I am sort of lost. LadyJosie (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * LadyJosie: I am not interested in the "idea of raising money by selling Wikipedia-Loaded_Hard_Drives". I have not ever expressed any interest in this idea. I think it is a bad idea (given how cheap read-only media such as DVD or BluRay are to produce). I think it is a bad time for the idea (given the current shortage of HDs). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sorry to have bothered you. My intent is to raise money. Any particular idea can be abandoned, no problem. This place should be endowed! One super rich guy donating 1/2 his money would do it.  Know anyone? LadyJosie (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive742. -- Crowsnest (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

RSN re: Catholic Answers
I am enjoying your comments a good deal. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt
Continued argument of issues already considered WP:DEADHORSE on WP:RSN is considered "unproductive" (per my talkpage header) and have and will be reverted without comment. Continued spamming of them to my talkpage will likely result in a complaint for WP:HARASS. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

And any further comments from this individual are deemed "likely to be unproductive", and are thus both unwelcome and will likewise be reverted. You are not welcome here. I had to put up with quite enough of you nonsensical argumentum ad nauseam on WP:RSN, I have no interest whatsoever in putting up with further here -- GO AWAY! HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

John Gribbin, your help is needed and appreciated
Hi Hrafn, I have noticed your edits on the John Gribbin article. As you may have noted, I have been putting some effort into "improving" the article. Your edits are appreciated. I am interested in your continued critical review of the article's development. I will try not to argue, too much. lol DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Update, Thanks for your recent work on the John Gribbin article. Your edits are appreciated. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

User:89.211.240.233
Hi Hrafn, Regarding, who you warned (11:54, 12 January 2012) re sourcing edits to  MBC 1 (Middle East), this same and similar IPs are being used to add non-existent airlines and change airport names to unverifiable names. I also caught them using a source (the only ref they have provided so far)  that did not mention the fake Airline Cikgu Jasmin Airways at all. I have noticed that the same IPS were sometimes hitting the TV pages as well.
 * These IPS seem to be the same editor, based on pattern of editing, reverting reverts of the other IPs vandalism, and all geolocate to "Qatar, Ad Dawhah, Doha" and "ISP Qatar Telecom"
 * (TV page edits)
 * (TV page edits)

The issue is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. Hope this is of interest. Regards, 220  of  Borg 00:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Department of competent writing
LOL, Hrafn! re: Yeah, it's true, I barely know what I'm doing. I just know how to pick a good topic, but I can't write for beans. Otherwise I'd be churning out books instead of volunteering around here. --Uncle Ed (talk) 05:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * have an editor with WP:COMPETENCE rewrite from scratch.


 * If you realise that you lack the competence, then why the hell do you keep on creating these crappy little WP:QUOTEFARMs? You are essentially treating WP:AFD as WP:Requested articles. This is blatantly WP:Disruptive editing. If you want somebody to create an article on a topic, then request it through the proper channels, rather than attempting to force other people to (re)create them by creating such a bad first attempt. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing up this article. I've been half following it and a few others of Eds at AFD over the last few days, but real life has kept me from being able to dedicate any real time to cleanup.(except for earlier today when I couldn't stop myself from at least running down some actual reviews to at least even out Eds quotefarm a smidge) You're a trooper, keep up the good work.  He  iro 07:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This new interest of Eds should be fun to watch, lol. He has already been on a small spree of creating talkpages without articles and articles which should be redirected around the subject. Sigh.  He  iro 17:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh dear >:) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies
Hrafn - Wanted to write you and apologize for being a jerk. I took your reverts way to personnally on the Penguins site. I have been trying to improve that site for months and have been battling several anonymous editors and their idiotic insertions and I saw your reverts as undermining my attempts to make the page "right". However, that does not excuse my reaction. On the Calvary page, I did an honest misinterpretation of your comment. It was not malicious, as was shown when I cut and pasted your remark, and I did it only to serve a point that I was ONLY counting Smith's references (even if I can't count - you'd think an engineer could...). It was not my intention to embarrass you or subvert your stance and I would be happy to add this fact to my recent post on the Calvary Talk if you took my comment as a subversive tactic. Finally, my offer at the end of my last post on your page was genuine - not sure if you read it after all the "love" I spread your way. I greatly enjoy adding weight/volument to pages that I think are lacking, however I often go overboard in this attempt and put in information that is not supported by the reference (as you commented on repeatedly). I spend very little time on Talk sections as I don't have time for the drama that tends to rear it's head when people are having what should be civil discussions - however that is unfortunately the name of the game today on the internet. As such, the offer stands for your help on the Penguins site (or others that we have common interest in) - if you are interested. No stress either way as it looks from your history you have your hands quite full with your own interests. Have a good weekend. Ckruschke (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * I've been battling many of the same editors, which is one of the reasons I've been pushing verifiability so hard -- as the only way of telling truth from hoax. I suspect we have a different view as to what is "right". Mine is that Wikipedia is meant to be something different from IMDB (which is heavily into plot summaries, cast lists, etc), a viewpoint that I think has reasonable support in WP:IINFO (YMMV). Also it seems odd to attempt to duplicate a style of presentation that another site is already doing successfully. Anyway, that's where I've been coming from on the Penguins thing. My take on Calvary Chapel is somewhat similar -- their own website already presents Smith's/their vision of themselves -- the object of an encyclopaedia article should surely be an objective viewpoint. Also, I tend to have far more articles (over 1,000) on my watchlist than I am involved with intimately in editing. For the most part, I simply monitor for obvious errors, addition of unsourced material, vandalism & policy compliance. Only a small minority for which I feel I have sufficient understanding of, and sources for, do I get involved heavily in writing. Neither 3-2-1 Penguins!‎ nor Calvary Chapel would be in that latter category. I suspect that you take on editing rather differently, with a less wide ranging but more consistently intensive approach. To each their own. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 01:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Good points. I don't go to IMDB unless I'm checking a specific reference from a movie, but I agree with your point - if that site already captures all the movie and TV show info, why duplicate it here. The other side of the argument is that for an encyclopedic repository of information to be complete, you probably need all the info on episodes, air time, etc - right? However, there are pages, like Columbo, that I think have gotten a little bit out of control such that no one would be happy with the butcher job that is necessary. I think we just bring two pretty different viewpoints to Wiki. However, our methods seem to be similar - I also watch almost 1000 pages, but most of my edits are reverting nonsense. Gotten to the point where I feel like a gatekeeper protecting Wiki from the darker lawlessness of it's own Democracy. As far as Penguins and Calvary Chapel, they are definitely in my wheelhouse - I've attended CC's since 1998 (not a Kool-aid drinker though) and with young kids I've watched all the Penguins and VeggieTales episodes multiple times. Thanks for the thoughts. Ckruschke (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * I would argue that episode listings, along with book chapter listings, track listings, etc belong more in a database than in an encyclopaedia. The former being a complete data dump, the latter being meant to be a summary. Of course I'm well aware that not everybody agrees with me -- as can be seen from the continued existence of the vast outpouring of (often largely incomprehensible) data in the articles linked to by List of minor planets. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with your "data dump" analogy. Many pages guilty of that. However in the almost pure Democracy (i.e. borderline Anarchy) that is Wikipedia, where everyone does what they feel is right in their own eyes, its hard to be an arbitor for standards. Keep the faith. Ckruschke (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

AfD
Please see: Articles for deletion/K. P. Yohannan. Thanks. BigJim707 (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Constance Cumbey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unitarian church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * John C. Whitcomb (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Wheaton College, Stratification and B.D.


 * Sternberg peer review controversy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Michael Powell

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material"
Do you even check to see whether a statement might be true before you summarily delete it? You twice removed all mention of the Conservative Grace Brethren from the John C. Whitcomb page, when two very simple mouse clicks (e.g., here and here) would have immediately told you that Whitcomb was instrumental in foundation that denomination. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The original cited source made NO MENTION of Conservative Grace Brethren -- and even your new source makes NO MENTION of him being an elder of it. Again, what part of "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" do you fail to comprehend? YOU restored the material, therefore the burden of evidence is on YOU! HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sun Myung Moon talk page
Looks like an off-topic post, i.e., unrelated to improving the article. Would it be okay to hide it or delete it? --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Evolution as fact and theory
Hi-- I've added a few comments to the talkpage for this article, and invite you to take a look. Thanks. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Calvary Chapel
Hi, I just wanted to say I looked over some of the material you wrote about Calvary Chapel, some of which I thought was insightful. I kind of gave up on the group think gang last year. From the talk page, it doesn't appear much has changed. Sliceofmiami (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait...
You haven't left us, have you?--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Proforma
You were mentioned in an ANI thread. I apologize that you were not contacted about it before close, as I thought you had seen it via the AFD discussion and had no input. JJB 14:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

thank you for your productive insights on the Ashton article

 * Thank you for bringing this to my attention! My initial comments were based on the revision of the article in which the entire creationist section was taken up almost 60 - 70% by a long quote criticizing only the contributors to Ashton's book. My problem with this focus isn't so much that GROVE chose to pay attention to them in his review, but that his review takes up such a huge part of Ashton's article section in the of even though the quote used does not reference him by name even once. If what you say is true about Ashton, then it almost seems to me that it would be preferable if the creationist section was shrunk down. After all, if he is not notable for it on his own then it doesn't deserve it's own section, does he?

I mean, I see it this way, using an example -->. Barack Obama is a basketball fan, but that is not why he is notable and he does not have a section of his article that basically composed of criticisms of the teams that happened to show up on his March Madness roster card thingy, right? Such a list of criticisms would be relevant to those teams but not relevant to Barack Obama, and if the only thing we knew about Barack Obama and basketball were that the teams that he likes are not very good (but nothing about him personally!) then the best bet would be not to create a whole section to it because he is not notable to the field of basketball.

Same with Dr. Ashton. If his the ONLY verifiable, notable, reliably-sourced info regarding his creationism comes from a review of a book that he wrote about other people that focuses on those other people and not him in any respect, then he is not a notable creationist and his views should not receive their own independent segment.DrPhen (talk) 06:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This goes back to an argument raised on the AfD, that if he is only known as an editor of a book of testimonies of more-famous creationists, is he really notable as a creationist? But if creationism drops out, then we're really only left with the chocolate book as a source of notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I saw that debate but I wasn't sure what that was going on because it was closed a few hours before I saw it. I really do not longer think that Dr. Ashton is notable as a creationist, if his only notability derives from the fact that 49 other people were criticized because of his description of them and inclusion of their words in a book. To me, it's the same as creating a whole section in the Obama article about his March Madness bracket or putting a long section of criticism of Abraham Lincoln's presidency in the Doris Kearns Goodwin article. In fact, I think that that last one is an even superier example -- Goodwin is famous for her book about Abraham Lincoln but it would be wrong to essentially make her Wikipedia article solely about Lincoln rather than her historiography about him. I'm not sure if it's strictly against policy to do that but it really is a stretch because the book review wasn't really about Ashton specifically but focused on the people he wrote about. DrPhen (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Unscintillating, but I do not make a habit of addressing stale accusations (you trawl all the way back to 2008) based upon hearsay, contextomy, and/or the wild accusations of long-banned WP:SOCKPUPPETs. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

John F. Ashton

 * Hey! Do you know what happened to the John F. Ashton article? I see that it's been deleted, but you said that there was no consensus on the articles for deletion. Did someone renominate it or something? I can't say that I think it was the wrong decision -- I get the impression that Ashton isn't really all that notable for anything, and that most of his apparent notability is mostly due to really imaginative and generous interpretation of the reliability/notability of sources, but I didn't know you could do a second articles for deletion so quickly after the old one and end it in less than a day! Anyway, I just wanted to check in and say that I really appreciated all the work you put into making this article as good as it could have been. DrPhen (talk) 03:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I saw that, but I didn't really understand how there can be consensus now if there wasn't consensus before, and there didn't seem to be any other changes besides that. I guess it's probably some arcane Wikipedia policy thing that I haven't seen before. Anyway, happy editing! DrPhen (talk) 05:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the new closing admin did a better job (than the original admin or myself) of sorting through all the debris (particularly a large amount of argument by assertion) to work out which side had more !votes and better arguments. One more reason why I don't want to become an admin -- the job requires far to much attention to stuff I tend to 'bin' as WP:TLDNR. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Haeckel, Darwin, and use of the word 'recent' to describe Darwin's understanding of the African origin of modern humans
i don't understand your insistence upon using this word 'recent'. Darwin would never have used it to describe his notion, and it implies a level of detailed understanding about the course of human outmigration which Darwin had no access to.

'recent', in this connection, ordinarily serves to distinguish between the earlier Homo Erectus and Archaic HS outmigrations which occurred much prior to the last major one, of modern Homo Sapiens (HSS), occurring in the last 100k years or so. none of these refinements of understanding would have been available to Darwin, and so attributing the use of that word to his understanding is, to my understanding, misleading, imprecise, and incorrect.

Could you perhaps explain why you objected to my inserting the more generic african origins, which had a nice link, etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jriley555 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I've suggested merging Divine Principle to Unification Church. Check out my reasoning on Talk:Divine Principle and see what you think. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

From Darwin to Hitler
Judging from the activity at From Darwin to Hitler, it seems the current editor is raising objections you've replied to. SalHamton (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Creation geophysics for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Creation geophysics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Creation geophysics until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jps (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello?
Did you start editing from a new account or have you disappeared forever?--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)