User talk:Hrafn/archive5

Evolution Theology
Please educate me, Hrafn, if you will. I don't want to remain ignorant and I respect your experience using wikipedia. My experience is limited, as I'm sure you know. Why is the Wired article that references Evolution Theology not appropriate as an external link? Is it because I also included it on the talk page for Evolution Theology? I don't understand. MBDowd (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

HrafnTalkStalk 05:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) New threads belong at the bottom of talkpages.
 * 2) Do not edit articles on which you have a WP:COI.
 * 3) Read WP:EL. It makes the point that "Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic", and then lists criteria, at WP:EL as to what is appropriate.

Thanks! Most helpful. Sorry about putting this at the top of your talkpage. I'm moving it to the bottom. MBDowd (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Apology
Thanks for taking the time to educate me, Hrafn. Sorry I did not even see your note to me at the top before I edited your talk page. I seem to go from one mistake to another. When I read the pages you directed me to, l saw what an ignorant fool I was for creating and editing pages as I did. Thanks, again. MBDowd (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You didn't see it because it previously wasn't there. After a spat of editors doing the same thing, I decided to put a notice up. Also, as I archived all the older threads shortly after you posted, it is now legitimately at the top (seemed to make more sense than to move it, when I was meaning to archive the older stuff anyway). Cheers. HrafnTalkStalk 18:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope the idiot-proofing worked
There is no need to be smug. The article Angel should discuss the concept of the Fallen Angel in Christian mythology. The editing history of the former article is filled with a bunch of entries being undone at your hand. Also, I asked YOU specifically if you felt you were the magic guardian of the article, that's why I responded on your user talk page. 98.221.133.96 (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

...also, to simply label someone an idiot and ignore them flat out for challenging your actions isn't admirable. In fact, it's downright "unwikipedian." 98.221.133.96 (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My response to you is the same as my response to anybody else wanting to introduce new material into any article: find a WP:RS. And the appropriate place to discuss this sort of thing is Talk:Angel, not my user talk. Wrong place on wrong page, to talk about something to which the solution is in your hands -- yes, I simply deleted your comment the first time around. Life's too short. HrafnTalkStalk 15:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, I hope there's no hostility or ill feelings. I went to your specific discussion page to discuss your undoing of my entry.  I understand the need for verifiable sources and research.  Nonetheless, Wikipedia itself has an article on fallen angels.  Perhaps a paragraph was a bit much, but a simple statement that would mention the concept and link to the said article from the article on angels is, in my opinion, valid.  Unless of course the article Fallen Angel is itself not valid, in which case it should be deleted.  Again, not to add original research or unresearched claims, I think that since an article on the said topic does indeed exist, it wouldn't be inappropriate to address the concept briefly and add a link to the page which does follow Wikipedia guidelines.  I'll add this to the discussion page on angels as well.


 * The Fallen angel article is very badly sourced -- just two general references to two different versions of the Catholic Encyclopaedia. Anything contained in it would therefore need sourcing from scratch before being added to another article. At some stage, some editor is going to have to go through Fallen angel and work out what isn't sourcable to those encyclopaedias -- but that's a fairly large and thankless task. HrafnTalkStalk 04:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, and this is a serious question not meant to be provocative, in your opinion, what is "appropriate" conversation matter for a user's discussion page? 98.221.133.96 (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Anything unrelated to specific changes to a single article. HrafnTalkStalk 04:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Unification Church articles
I've just nominated several Unification Church related articles for deletion: Michael Jenkins (Unification Church), Andrew Wilson (theologian)‎, Robert Parry, Tyler Hendricks‎, and True Children.Northwestgnome (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette
Just a friendly notice as wikiquette procedure requests. I've posted a request to get third party perspective on our Relationship between science and relgion article interactions at Wikiquette alerts. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Firefly322: Given that you have:
 * 1) Made material misinterpretations ("Not at all a minority viewpoint") of edits that you have made ("A few yet significant number of scholars");
 * 2) Made accusations of "POV", "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" & "WP:TRUTH" being the basis for my editing;
 * 3) Repeatedly removed legitimate maintenance tags; and
 * 4) Repeatedly accused me of being a "WP:TROLL" ...

...I have no hesitation but to tell you to stick this GROSSLY BAD-FAITH AND WP:POT "friendly notice" where the sun doesn't shine.

I would suggest any editor looking for the basis of this conflict look at articles that Firefly322 has created:
 * Religious Experience (book)‎ (which another editor has placed [:template:context]] on)
 * Science and Religion in American Thought
 * Science & Religion: A Symposium‎

These articles are not merely WP:IMPERFECT (a policy that Firefly322 continually invokes to cover a wide range of gross deficiencies), but simply template:cleanup-laundry-lists of template:quotefarms of reviews -- and I would so template them, if not for the fact that this editor would simply remove those templates too. HrafnTalkStalk 04:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hállo
Ertu frá Íslendingur? .:DavuMaya:. 07:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, merely appreciative of the common, Germanic, roots of many words -- including "raven" :) HrafnTalkStalk 07:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

God luck on intelligent design. Not even the voice of uninvolved reason, muah, has made much progress in organizing the debate to WP standards. If I were to choose a word that might best fit the scenario presented it would be megalomania. I'm refraining from it. It's too divisive and virulent, you'll need at least two administrators to arbitrate Consensus. .:davumaya:. 20:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A small request
Hi Hrafn, our paths have never crossed, so please excuse this intrusion. Would you reconsider the use of the word "stalk" in your signature line? There are some editors here who have had real-life experience with being stalked as a result of their work here at Wikipedia, and some of them find it offensive to see that word used in a casual or humorous manner. It's just a suggestion, made after I asked another editor a similar favour and he did some research to see how many other talk/stalk signature lines were in use on Wikipedia. Feel free to contact me if you are concerned about this request. Thanks, Risker (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"in response to" "avoid" "completely"
I have made a substantial alteration to section 33: first paragraph -- "avoid" to become ID "completely reformulated"..."in response to"

It is intended to reflect your input as well as that of others -- your continuing attention would be appreciated

--Championdante (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

ID conversations
Hrafn, I'd appreciate if you would resist the temptation to engage in rhetorical flourishes like "WP:CRAZY" and "Wonder of wonders." I'm sure you know that I wasn't suggesting "if it's not crazy to do so, do it anyway," and your latter comment could have made its point just as well without "wonder of wonders." Even if we disagree, I think we should try hard to keep the thermostat turned down, as PM has put it. Gnixon (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And I'd appreciate it if you did not give spurious arguments that make such "rhetorical flourishes" necessary. You were the one who brought up "not crazy to do so". And if you didn't dodge actually applying any definition of "theory" like it was a hail of bullets, I wouldn't get to the level of exasperation that leads to prefixing "wonder of wonders" onto a comment. HrafnTalkStalk 18:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A better response to "spurious arguments" is a levelheaded debunking of them, rather than rhetoric. "Not crazy to do so" was an attempt by me to find some common ground with you.  If you would try to reciprocate, we might be able to make some progress.  As you're well aware, there was no "dodging"---I pointed out at least 4 definitions of "theory" that applied.  Regardless of whatever level of exasperation you've taken me to, I've tried very hard to avoid venting it on the talk page.  I wish you would extend me the same courtesy.  Gnixon (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Others attempted to find common ground by finding a less ambiguous term than the word "theory". You've decided to ignore that and are continuing to push "theory" after it has been explained repeatedly why it is unacceptable.  It would be helpful if you extended some courtesy to those actually working for a compromise instead of ignoring the attempt. Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * AE, that's not even close to an accurate description of the history. I agree with PM's 16:40 summary of the previous discussion, which was not reopened by me.  I'm anxious to find a solution that is acceptable to everyone, which is why, for example, I agreed with Hrafn that the quote in the first sentence doesn't define "intelligent design theory," arguing that we should rephrase the sentence entirely rather than attempt to salvage a non-definition.  Gnixon (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't accuse me of falsely portraying the talkpage without evidence. Others are working to find a solution. The word "theory" has been rejected as an acceptable compromise. You continued to promote the word despite that. How is this a misrepresentation? Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was accusing you of wrongly portraying the talkpage, which you're still doing. The straw man "scientific theory" has been rejected, but I and others maintained throughout the discussion that "theory" might be acceptable since it was commonly used by most sources.  Anyway, I certainly wasn't "promoting" the word, since I said it might not be best to use it; rather others were promoting the banning of the word as fundamentally inaccurate, even after, as PM summarized, that would run counter to the sources.  You've misrepresented that I reopened the discussion about "theory," you've misrepresented that I'm "pushing" for its use, and you've misrepresented that I'm not working for a compromise.  Gnixon (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I wasn't referring to the straw man "scientific theory." The word "theory" itself is not acceptable to the majority of users. This has been determined. I was referring to an ambiguous term "theory", not a false term "scientific theory." And if you weren't arguing for the use of the word "theory" here and here?   what was the point?  You maintained the word "might" be acceptable to three users; problem is, it was not at all acceptable to more than twice that number, shown in a big chart for all to see.  (BTW, there is either using a word, or not using it. No sense referring to "banning" except in order to make the other side look extreme) It was obvious the word was not a compromise word. So why won't you focus on one that would be? There are several to choose from. Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I really don't appreciate these repeated attempts to pronounce discussions closed based on the fact that a "majority" feels one way or another. That's not how we do things here.  There is an ongoing discussion about whether "theory" should be used, including a long thread started by the owner of this page.  None of the several alternatives to "theory" seems to be a good substitution for "X" in the proposed formula; nor does "theory."  This is why I'm becoming more convinced that a complete reworking of that first sentence is needed.  It would be much more productive to continue such discussions as reasonable people, rather than attempting to short-circuit them by declaring some consensus that doesn't exist.  Gnixon (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But that is how things are done at Wikipedia, particularly on controversial topics. I suggest you get used to and stop badgering and tying up the talk page with never ending objections and proposals that fail to meet the basic minimum required by the content policys. Whether ID is a "theory" is one such discussion. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As an administrator, you should be aware of the fact that "things" are supposed to be done by discussion and consensus. If you would have paid attention to the theory discussion, you would have seen that it established, apparently for the first time, that reliable sources have no problem referring to ID with the word "theory," although they certainly object to the implication that it is a scientific theory.  Ensuing discussions, notably one begun by Hrafn, have drawn attention to the fact that the first sentence of the article doesn't constitute a very good definition of ID.  I would have thought you were up to speed on the recent "theory" discussion since you recently archived it.  Gnixon (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, you've just prompted me to look back at the "theory" discussion, which you never participated in, and I'm surprised you've decided that I was badgering anyone. Rather, I and several others were having a rather productive conversation.  The only exception, and the user you should be shaking your finger at, was User:Odd nature, who provided no citations, made no effort to advance the discussion, and was rude to the point of name-calling ("slippery").  Why don't you go call him to task, or at least invite him to join this discussion?  Gnixon (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No offense, but this starts to look like an example of WP:BAIT.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 14:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Science of Getting Rich audio link
The audio link was provided for those who don't have the time to read the PDF version or to be provided for those who may be sight impaired by others who have access to the internet. The audio at Archive.org is open source and free for all. It was not excessive or redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.2.31.36 (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:EL: "Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic." Anybody who is sight-impaired who is using the internet will almost certainly have some sort of text→speech system working in any case. HrafnTalkStalk 16:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

How many?
I think I have my net spread pretty wide, but I still don't think there's a page on my watchlist ( 445 446 pgs) that hasn't your name listed in the history before I ever got there.

So, just curious, if I may ask: how many pages do you have on your list? Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just shy of 400 (398) -- but a fair number of them are redirects (of previous not-notable/unsourced articles, which I keep an eye on to ensure that they're not turned back into an article without sourcing and establishment of notability). HrafnTalkStalk 05:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Dang, never thought about redirects...heh. Oh well, I have plenty, in fact, going to go cut out some of the "cruft" of my list... :P Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Creation Science
Thanks for the revert. I didn't read the listed references carefully (or perhaps not much beyond the last one). It is better the way it is now. Dan Watts (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD
Hi Hrafn. I've just nominated Belvedere Estate (New York) for deletion. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Bold removal
Hi, I liked this change. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wild Accusations
Hrafn, could you please explain to me what exactly is the "wild accusations" I threw your way? DannyMuse (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Reverting TalkPage appeals to dialogue is really inappropriate." & "And, please do NOT delete my talk page entries." -- when all I did was move your comments to the correct place for new threads. HrafnTalkStalk 05:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You made the above point several times both on my talk page and on the DB talk page. I apologized for my mistake. Did you notice? The horse is dead so it won't mind you beating it. But, just so you know, I don't respond well to bullying. - DannyMuse (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't want people repeating things at you, then stop being so clueless as to talkpage guidelines and what other people's edits are actually doing. Your careless, clueless style makes dealing with you a far greater hassle than it needs to be. If you want people to stop 'flogging the dead horse' then get it right the first time, not the fourth. HrafnTalkStalk 07:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for those kind, encouraging words of counsel. DannyMuse (talk) 08:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

3 Revert Rule
Hrafn, are you aware of the WP 3 Revert Rule? You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You're currently at two and counting!!! - DannyMuse (talk) 08:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:POT. And the additions I have been reverting recently have either (i) been wholly unsourced or (ii) giving grossly WP:UNDUE weight to a notoriously dishonest petition. HrafnTalkStalk 08:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would further point out that only three reverts in exactly 24 hours (to the minute, as it turns out) does not violate WP:3RR and that, as they were on two unrelated passages in the article, it would be a hard sell to claim that they can be lumped together into a single WP:EDITWAR. HrafnTalkStalk 11:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

David Berlinski
Hrafn, thanks for your thoughtful edits to the DB page, especially the rm double-attribution, quotes within quote template. - DannyMuse (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
The lady doth protest too much, methinks. - Hamlet Act 3, scene 2

Curious the way you seem to be following me around. I don't know if I should be flattered or creeped out. Seriously, I do appreciate that you've toned down the rhetoric, but your editing seems paranoid, really. I'm not inviting a flame-war here, but you may want to step back and get a little perspective. Is it REALLY necessary to quote the party line every couple of sentences? I totally get your position, it's as clear as clear could be. A sense of style would be a nice upgrade. Cheers! -- DannyMuse (talk) 08:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you'd bothered to read the edit history of that article, you'd see that I've made numerous edits on it, the oldest over a year ago. It has been on my watchlist for approximately that long, so it is hardly surprising that I took a very close look at your numerous (and in my opinion at least, mostly ill-judged) edits to this article. HrafnTalkStalk 08:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I knew you'd been there before. It's just weird that you've made revisions to every single edit that I have made today except to those on the Book of Job article. I guess you're not a fan.


 * It's too bad that you can't find a way to be cooperative. But you might be interested to know that I have come to view your opinion of my edits as "ill-judged" as a compliment. You're so contrary the more you hate them the better they must be. Now I'm worried about the edits you leave alone. I'm worried I was too "weak-sauce" on those. Maybe I'll go back and give those two edits another look. - DannyMuse (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

evolution is overwhelmingly supported by science
"... in fact evolution is overwhelmingly supported by science ..." So, how many times do you think you need to say this before it has the effect you hope for?

I realize you might take this the wrong way--and I hope you don't--but as our relationship is not exactly cordial here I'm not sure how to engage you in any sort of meaningful dialogue that could foster understanding and cooperation. I have tried everything I know of that has worked in the past and it's not working here. Frankly, it just seems that if you don't get your way you simply revert rather than discuss. The way you throw around WP:whatevers I know you KNOW about Assume good faith and Civility policies, so I'm not sure why you seem to not be applying them now. If you'd care to explain, I'd be happy to listen.

I used to contribute to WP a lot a few years ago and took a Wikiholiday. I came back recently with the idea of having some fun contributing to articles of interest and of which I've done some research. Is the problem that you're feeling territorial and protective of articles that you've worked on? If so, I can understand that. I've felt the same way myself. If that's the case, don't take it personally! Like you, I just want to make Wikipedia as good an encyclopedia as it can possibly be. It is important not to be insulted if your changes are reverted or edited further. Don't you agree?

I always think, the great thing about WP is that anyone can contribute to it; the bad thing about WP is that anyone can contribute to it. Nevertheless, the best experiences I've had working on Wiki-articles have been through respectful cooperation working collaboratively. That is after all what Wikipedia is all about. I hope you haven't forgotten that.

BTW, are you familiar with WP:BRD? Might help.

Some things to think about, Happy editing! - DannyMuse (talk) 08:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As to WP:BRD, I have documented talk the reasons for my reversions a number of times (e.g., ). None of the changes you have proposed have gained any acceptance on talk, a point which I have made on your own talkpage, only for you to immediately remove that thread. There is nothing in WP:BRD that promises will occur without first gaining a consensus from other editors. HrafnTalkStalk 09:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I like to keep my talk page neat and tidy. As any good wikipedian knows, you can always look it up! There is no motive there, remember to assume good faith! - DannyMuse (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * BRD is an essay (like COAT) and hence is of little value. On the other hand WP:CIVIL is a policy, and "So, how many times do you think you need to say this before it has the effect you hope for?" seems to be just a bit snarky, not to mention a clear vio of the very policy (WP:AGF) you invoke above. Maybe we should have a WP:IRONY essay or guideline or policy.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 19:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A Question
I was wondering if you would mind answering a sincere question. Since you believe that "evolution is overwhelmingly supported by science", why do (you behave as if) you feel threatened by dissent? -- DannyMuse (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Short answer is, I don't (feel threatened). :) <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 19:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you really unaware that you are perceived that way by others? -- DannyMuse (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Beyond a general realisation that people's capacity to get the wrong end of the stick is without limit, yes. You perhaps did not realise that I'm "a consortium of editors from" Kansas Citizens for Science? I didn't until it was pointed out to me here. What you misinterpret as "feel[ing] threatened" is merely irritation at badly-constructed arguments for an absurd position. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 03:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because evolution is well established, is that any reason to not make Wikipedia reflect that fact? Is it any reason to ignore the principles under which Wikipedia operates?--Filll (talk | wpc ) 19:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Filll, of course not. Appropriate discourse should be given in an appropriate and balanced way in the appropriate articles. Would you not agree, in principle at least? -- DannyMuse (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Balancing' heavyweight science (combined with detailed research into the history of creationism) versus lightweight argumentation (often based on bare assertions) is what resulted in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District‎ decision. Do you really expect wikipedia to present this massive inequality of evidence any less unequivocally? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 03:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

New Thought and related topics
I have been watching your edits which some times infuriated me. But I have to tell you you have kept the articles integrity. In particular the Unity chruch article. Take care.JGG59 (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC


 * Vandal on the NT articleJGG59 (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The section they're removing is unsourced, so it's difficult to tell if they're removing it as WP:IDONTLIKEIT vandalism, or simply challenging the verifiability of this piece, without bothering to do us the courtesy of providing an edit summary explaining themselves. I will assume good faith & assume the latter -- so will tag it. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 10:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Closer examination gives the impression of 'well-meaning but heavy-handed & not particularly competent' rather than 'vandal'. We should therefore do our best to ensure that this editor doesn't inadvertently damage the article, while doing our best to avoid an inclination to WP:BITE (though I will admit that I've never been one to 'suffer fools gladly' either). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 10:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

New Thought

I am a minister of the Unity Church of Sun City Arizona 623-974-6443. In all of my years I have never even heard of a connection or a question about the relationship of Unity with Spiritualism. Some Unity members may also be Spiritualists, but I have never met one. So why is there a section distinguishing Unity from it? There isn't a section about distinguishing Baptists or Catholics or ? from Spititualism...

Likewise, List of Christian Denominations has New Thought under Spiritualism. What source for this? That section also fails to list Religious Science as two churches RSI and UCRS.. Also Universal Foundation for Better Living is omitted.

I tried to delete the comparison in this section, but it comes back. I will be extensively editing New Thought and Unity Sections. See unityonline.org:

Unity is a positive, practical, progressive approach to Christianity based on the teachings of Jesus and the power of prayer. Unity honors the universal truths in all religions and respects each individual’s right to choose a spiritual path.

I personally object to Wikipedia stating: Many traditional Christian writers have raised criticism aimed at Unity concerning matters of how Unity interprets the Bible[15]. Neal Vahle states only that some within the fundamentalist right classify Unity and other more liberal denominations as cults. Traditional, mainstream, authors do not. We are members of the Center for Progressive Christianity and cooperate with masny in our community that are mainline ministers/ministries.

Thanks

Rev Jim Yeaw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.206.8 (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case you have a conflict of interest and should not be editing these articles. Please read WP:COI.

Also your edits repeatedly cite webpages that do not appear to exist ('broken links'). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Freedom Leadership Foundation
Hi, Hrafn. I removed the notability and references tags you placed on the FLF article after supplying some additional information and links. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * and I have restored them again as (i) the former head of this organisation is not "independent" (ii) the source is self-published. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 15:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, okay. I get it. Thanks! --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion from RS/N
IMJ is right about venue but I don't want to go to the entry talk page so I'm moving the discussion here. You last wrote:
 * "PelleSmith, your position is ludicrous. Wells' involvement in the UC is not "UNDUE attention to certain details", it is arguably the most central aspect of his life -- utterly pervasive in its influence. Would you likewise argue that Pope Benedict XVI's belief in Catholicism is a mere detail? If one had to sum up Wells by stating two things about him, they would be his commitment to Unificationism & his opposition to evolution. Can you find any other aspect of his life that RSs give greater emphasis to? If not, then how can giving these two points prominence of placement possibly be WP:UNDUE? Hrafn4:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)"
 * Exactly what reliable sources talk about the importance of his "religious beliefs"? Let me guess, any number of them pontificating on this link:
 * "As early as the 1970’s, as a member of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church, Wells became convinced that evolution was false because it conflicted with his church’s belief that humankind was specifically designed by God." -- Panda's Thumb
 * I don't see any mention of his religious beliefs in the lead of the entry. I don't see any mention of his religious beliefs in his DI bio. Or this bio from another ID website. Conveniently the link provided in his info box to "his website" actually appears not to go to a personal website at all but rather specifically a collection of papers written for and too the Unification Church.  I note also that in the main part of the entry, where his various ties and "affiliations" with the Unification Church are mention nothing whatsoever explains the connection between Unification theology and his views on creationism and evolution.  The statement is made: "He later described that plan: 'To defend and articulate Unification theology especially in relation to Darwinian evolution.'"  This statement is entirely meaningless to the reader however, who clearly knows little to nothing about Unification theology.  That there is a clear link between conservative and biblically literalist Christian beliefs and creationism is a no-brainer, but what exactly is this overwhelming importance of "Unification beliefs" specifically that you want me to see?  You claim that one of two things that need to be known about him is that he believes in Unification theology, but I see absolutely nothing in the entire entry that explains why this is important at all.  Can you clarify this please?  I'm still unsure why this should be one of two things mentioned in the infobox.PelleSmith (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"Exactly what reliable sources talk about the importance of his 'religious beliefs'?" More tangentially, Unification Church, J. Isamu Yamamoto, Alan W. Gomes cites him as a "Unification theologian" (p56). And numerous sources (e.g. Head and Heart: American Christianities, Garry Wills p505) link his anti-evolution stance to his Unificationism (frequently using the "destroying Darwinism quote).
 * Wells himself in the essay 'Common Descent on Trial' in the anthology Darwin's Nemesis: Phillip Johnson and the Intelligent Design Movement, William A. Dembski, Rick Santorum
 * His statement in Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D. is also widely cited in many sources, e.g.
 * Creationism's Trojan Horse
 * The Republican War on Science
 * Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design, Michael Shermer
 * In the Beginning: Fundamentalism, the Scopes Trial, and the Making of the Antievolution Movement, Michael Lienesch

I believe I have established my point, so stick by claim that your position was ludicrous, and unsupported by the literature on Wells. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 09:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If you were to argue that the article doesn't sufficiently coherently narrate the thread that Unificationism has played in Wells' life, I'd probably agree with you. This could probably be improved somewhat, but is constrained by the largely snap-shot material it is based upon and a prohibition against synthesising form this ourselves into a more coherent narrative. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 09:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "If" I were to argue? I have argued exactly that.  If making basic sense of a connection between Unification theology and intelligent design requires "synthesizing" then there is clearly a problem here--see WP:SYNTH.  Insinuating a meaningful connection is no better than actively synthesizing one.  You fail to answer the thrust of my argument once again.  I recognize that sources make the same unexplained statements that the entry makes--stating a connection without making any sense of it.  (Hint -- when I answer my own question just after asking it there is a very good chance the question was rhetorical.)  If you say Wells links Unification theology to his ID beliefs then you can quote him or otherwise use his information to make this meaningful in the entry.  Some rather blatant and basic facts remain, most of which you have not even tried to address.
 * We simply don't list "religious beliefs" in the infoboxes of BLPs (I welcome some evidence to the contrary).
 * Something that isn't important enough to mention in the lead of the entry probably isn't weighty enough to be one of two things mentioned in the infobox (especially of a BLP)
 * The importance of "Unification" beliefs specifically has not even been established anywhere else in the entry, over and above the basic premise that most readers already know about ID--that it is connected to conservative and literalist forms of Christianity.
 * I submit once again that mentioning his religious beliefs in the infobox serves only the purpose of orienting the reader towards the fact that what is to follow probably flows from fringe Christian beliefs and not form any amount of eduction in the fields of religious studies and/or biology (a point hit home by the fact that only his affiliation to DI and his religious beliefs are apparently of such note as to be in the infobox in the first place). As noble as you and others think this may be, its completely out of line.  For instance he has two PhDs, none of which are mentioned in the infobox, but his personal religious beliefs are?   What you are supporting is obvious--"we should not mistake Wells for a scientist, instead we should make darn sure we know he's a religious nut."  Well, again, however noble you think this is its simply not how we write balanced BLPs.PelleSmith (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 14:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ""If" I were to argue? I have argued exactly that." -- No you did not. You argued that the article gives his religious views WP:UNDUE weight. A fallacious point that you continue to hammer with your "I submit once again that mentioning his religious beliefs in the infobox serves only the purpose..." final statement.
 * "If making basic sense of a connection between Unification theology and intelligent design requires "synthesizing" then there is clearly a problem here--see WP:SYNTH." It does not. This "basic point" is made by the sources I cited above. However, as these sources are not specifically biographies of Wells, they do so in a fairly 'snapshot' manner as I stated, and so do not give much narrative flow. Narrative flow is however not "basic information".
 * "Insinuating a meaningful connection is no better than actively synthesizing one." Thank you for that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT assumption of bad faith. I have just listed a bunch of sources that make that exact point -- including Wells himself.
 * "I recognize that sources make the same unexplained statements that the entry makes--stating a connection without making any sense of it." It is not "unexplained" -- Wells himself makes it! (see below)
 * "If you say Wells links Unification theology to his ID beliefs then you can quote him or otherwise use his information to make this meaningful in the entry." It's already in the bloody article:
 * If we "simply don't list "religious beliefs" in the infoboxes of BLPs", then why is there a "religion =" field in "Template:Infobox Person"? Are only dead people allowed to have a religion. Where in WP:BLP does it state "don't use this field in the infobox"?
 * "Something that isn't important enough to mention in the lead..." -- I've corrected that oversight. Where something is mentioned in both the infobox & quite a bit in the article body, WP:AGF would suggest that the lead failing to mention it is an oversight, not some dastardly plot to give WP:UNDUE.
 * "The importance of "Unification" beliefs specifically has not even been established anywhere else in the entry" Read it again. Wells' university study, his opposition to evolution and his work since are all related to UC. About the only thing in the article that doesn't flow from this is his working as a taxi driver.
 * "I submit once again that mentioning his religious beliefs in the infobox serves only the purpose of orienting the reader towards the fact that what is to follow probably flows from fringe Christian beliefs and not form any amount of eduction in the fields of religious studies and/or biology" Probably? Wells himself states that they do -- read the quote above.
 * "For instance he has two PhDs, none of which are mentioned in the infobox..." Then stop whining about it and include them.
 * "...but his personal religious beliefs are?" They stopped being merely "personal" when he trumpeted them from the rooftop (figuratively speaking) as the root cause of his campaign to oppose evolution.
 * Neither his statements, nor those of others, make any substantive connection between actual Unification "beliefs" and his various fringe perspectives on biology and human evolution. Its not already in the bloody entry.  Do you still not get this?   I don't claim that the entry gives his actual religious views UNDUE WEIGHT.  In fact his actual religious views seem to be oddly missing from the entry, especially given how prominent of a Unification theologian you claim he is.  The only thing the reader gets is that he has religious beliefs, that his desire to debunk Darwinism is associated with his religious beliefs and therefore whatever those beliefs are they must be the only true source of all his other beliefs.  To reiterate, a simple statement saying: Because of my belief in Unification theology I wish to dedicate my life to destroying Darwinism" communicates zilch about the actual epistemological genealogy of his anti-Darwinist beliefs -- though it sure does insinuate a hell of a whole lot about said genealogy.  I'm fairly certain you understand that insinuation is not what we are going for here.  This situation makes the mention of these beliefs UNDUE in the infobox, since again, we are not presented in any way with how said beliefs are important.  The statements you refer to are empty and meaningless.PelleSmith (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Religious "beliefs"

To give you a taste of the kinds of biographies out there that still refrain from listing religious "beliefs" in infoboxes have a look at Oliver Cromwell, Christopher Hitchens, and Tom Cruise. As I said I welcome relevant counter examples. For instance the fact that "religious beliefs" are a category in the info boxes of John Calvin and Martin Luther is not exactly relevant. There are also others that mention, amongst a plethora of information, "religion" (as in affiliation, not "belief"), examples include Barack Obama and George W. Bush. These politicians are not particularly relevant either, since affiliation with a religious group is part of the unofficial political litmus test (and as noted part of a barrage of information)..PelleSmith (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You fail to distinguish why "the fact that 'religious beliefs' are a category in the info boxes of John Calvin and Martin Luther is not exactly relevant". They, like Wells are prominent theologians in their denominations. Why is it verbotten to mention 'include in an infobox' the denomination of a theologian? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 14:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They are remembered in history for being prominent theologians who developed radically different ways of "believing". Their entries also show us how central this aspect of their lives is.  Wells' entry does not in any way.  There is not discussion of his own version of "Unification theology".  Again, the idea that he believes in Unification theology seems clearly to be highlighted for some other purpose, not to discuss any achievements in that area.  It isn't forbidden, but its clearly UNDUE.  It would be less suspicious if it were presented as an institutional affiliation as opposed to a "belief"--belief, as I've argued, serves a very specific purpose in the larger argument aligning his perspective on evolution with the Unification church.  In other words there is nothing neutral about it.PelleSmith (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you please explain to me how I have violated WP:AGF so that I may improve upon my on Wiki behavior. If you do not or cannot could I please ask you to retract your accusation.  With all due thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Your whole diatribe has been a Procrustian effort to make everything done in the article and everything I say fit into your view of it as some Machiavellian effort to invent a connection between Wells' beliefs and his anti-evolutionism, when there is a wealth of RSs making this point in Wells' own words. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 04:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC) <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 04:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Conveniently the link provided..."
 * "Insinuating a meaningful connection is no better than actively synthesizing one."
 * "I submit once again that mentioning his religious beliefs in the infobox serves only the purpose of orienting the reader..."
 * "The only thing the reader gets is that he has religious beliefs, that his desire to debunk Darwinism is associated with his religious beliefs and therefore whatever those beliefs are they must be the only true source of all his other beliefs."

Seriously?

Did you seriously just close that thread because you didn't like where the conversation was going? How mature of you. Those are not unreasonable demands at all. Please have a look at Rosalind_Picard for an example of a subsection that actually attempts to deal with what the individual has said themselves about the overlap of their scientific and religious beliefs. The Wells entry does not in any way actually discuss his religious beliefs, it only states that he has them and that these lie at the root of his scientific beliefs--leaving the readers to make only one conclusion--clearly his scientific beliefs are entirely unscientific. That may be the case, but its a BLP problem as long as its simply there as a pointy insinuation. That BLP problem is made worse by the fact that it is one of two facts about him in his infobox. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I called this thread to an end because it was seriously unproductive and because your tone was seriously pissing me off. I have given you one last reply, will now archive this thread and will revert without comment any further attempts to reopen it. Good day sir. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 04:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) (Lacking a RS giving enlightenment on the subject) I don't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys whether there exists an "actual epistemological genealogy" within Unification theology (based upon deep contemplation of the Divine Principle) for Wells' anti-Darwinism or if, like Henry II's knights, he simply heard Moon rant against 'Darwinism' and went off to do his bidding. Nor (lacking said RS to enlighten the issue) does wikipedia policy care. We have RSs. They (like Wells himself) give the connection prominence, but do not discuss details. That is all we have, and all we need.
 * 2) Your attempt to distinguish Luther and Calvin from Wells was unavailing and actually counter-productive. That they are such iconoclastic and seminal figures gives less reason to pigeonhole them within the traditions they spawned.
 * 3) To the best of my knowledge, Picard has no theological qualifications, has not worked in a sectarian seminary, and has not explicitly linked her specific beliefs to her anti-evolutionism. Further (again to the best of my knowledge) she has never placed her private beliefs into the public sphere''. The comparison is therefore highly inapt.

 New Thread Further attempt to reopen old thread

So you wont mind when I remove "religious beliefs" from the infobox then? Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 06:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not stated that viewpoint. If you can get a consensus for it on article talk first, fine. As I have already stated, I think Wells' religious commitments are at the core of his life story -- but then again I've never been a big fan of infoboxes generally (so would be more in favour of simply removing the infobox if it's so contentious). This is not however the venue for achieving such a consensus, so this thread, like the above one, and the one I deleted completely, is also closed. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 07:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If his religious commitments are at the core of his life story then I am simply asking for some information about them and their relation to his life story. You may not care about this, but some of us actually get concerned when "religious commitments" are blindly equated with anti-scientific and/or "irrational" modes of thought.  Whether or not that is the intended effect of the current presentation is not the point either (this isn't about "bad faith" or "good faith" edits but about how the entry reads).  Sure enough making this equation helps to discredit his poor science, but it doesn't convey any reliable information about the connection between his beliefs and said poor science.  "Insinuation" is quite often anti-informative and also quite often may have serious consequences, even more general ones, like perpetuating some false "culture war" dichotomy between religion and science, not to mention inadequately portraying the biography of a living person.  You'll probably delete this again, but I don't find it worthless to try to repeat this point.PelleSmith (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As I stated above, this thread, like the above one, and the one[s] I deleted completely, is also closed. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 07:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Geoscience Research Institute
My fault; I saw the two inline references and missed the fact that the book was also used. Thanks for fixing my error :) Shell    babelfish 06:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Watson (creationist)
I added a reference to David Watson (creationist). You may want to revisit Articles for deletion/David Watson (creationist). --Eastmain (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Your revert
Hiya, I was curious why you reverted me here, when I attempted to setup a bot at Talk:Creationism. I am unaware of any guideline that says that pages need a certain mount of "minimum traffic", though if you could point me at such a discussion, I'd be happy to read it. --Elonka 05:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The talkpage in question (which to the best of my knowledge you have never participated in) needs archiving on the order of about once a year, and frequently goes a month or two without any new comment (let alone a new thread). So, as a regular participant who has previously taken some responsibility for maintaining this talkpage, I decided that this bot-archiving was unnecessary (and would result in a frequently completely-empty talkpage, losing a sense of past discussions) and simply archived the older threads myself. As far as I know, whether to bot-archive or not is a matter for consensus. You have not sought one, so can hardly be aggrieved if your unilateral decision was reverted. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 06:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My own attention was brought to the page because I regularly scan for talkpages which have grown to over 100K in size. As long as a page is being archived manually in a regular fashion, no additional action is usually required. However, Talk:Creationism was not handled, which is why I stepped in.  There is generally no need to "check consensus" for archiving, and WP:BOLD applies instead. Also, your understanding of what the bot would do, is not correct. The bot would only archive things down to a minimum of 5 threads, and then would leave things alone. In fact, your own archive removed more information from the talkpage than the bot would have, as you removed all threads but one.  See User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo, especially "minthreadsleft".  --Elonka 06:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "There is generally no need to 'check consensus' for archiving" -- this is directly contradicted by User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo: "NOTE: Before setting up automatic archiving on an article's talk page, please establish a consensus that archiving is really needed there." In any case, when you're WP:BOLD, you have no cause to complain when you're reverted, per WP:BRD. I try to keep the talkpages I'm a regular on regularly 'trimmed', but sometimes an individual page falls through the cracks (if you know of any tool that automatically tells you the size of all talkpages on your watchlist, then I'd welcome the information). I will admit that I missed the minimum thread constraint in the documentation -- last time I read it I was desperately trying to work out why it'd 'stalled' on a heavily-trafficked talkpage (resulting in unreadable talkpage lengths), so probably missed the subtleties. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 07:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would further direct you to WP:ARCHIVE: "The decisions when to archive and what is the optimal length for talk pages are made according to the Wikipedia policy of consensus among the editors on each particular talk page." Unilaterally making a decision pertaining to the on-going archiving of a talkpage on which you have never participated does not appear to be consistent with this guideline. If you feel that such a talkpage requires attention, you would be better off placing on it. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 07:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I placed the bot in good faith, as I have on multiple other pages. If the editors on Talk:Creationism don't want automated archiving, that's fine, it's not something that I'm going to edit war about, though I'd caution you to be careful of WP:OWN.  Generally when something as simple as making an archiving change results in an immediate revert, that's an indication that someone may be a bit too close to that page. As for the archiveme template, I'm actually one of the editors who routinely checks its category, Category:Archive requests, to keep it clear.  So I'm someone who removes that template, not someone who adds it, heh.  When I run across a page that needs archiving, I often have to make a determination on whether to manually archive it, or set up a bot. In many cases I have done manual archiving (feel free to check my contribs).  In the case of Creationism, since it's a sensitive topic, I opted to use a bot instead, as it's (normally) less controversial, since threads get archived in a fair manner, and that way no one complains that anyone else is archiving things too early.  If you want to keep manually archiving the page though, that's fine, and thank you for your work.  --Elonka 15:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Gap creationism
I have requested a third opinion concerning sources, citations, and quotations. --shift6 (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, Again
Hrafn,

Actually, I have tried to seek and obtain a consensus on talk first. I haven't noticed you contributing there lately. Perhaps you'd like to review the recent threads and participate in a discussion.

In the meantime, rather than engage in an edit war, I'll appeal you your call for discussion. Could you please tell me specifically which of the following of my "alterations are inaccurate & POV" and or "controversial changes"? Please be specific, giving reasons for you claims of inaccuracy, POV and controversy:

[Snip: repetition of material already on article talk.]

Please take the time to review each edit on an individually. I took the time to make these edits one at a time to make it easier to discuss on a point by point basis. Please so some respect for that. If you have issues with any of them, then address them specifically. Suggestions for alternate wordings would be appreciated; wholesale reversions of multiple edits are not. Thanks!!! -- DannyMuse (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Actually, I have tried to seek and obtain a consensus on talk first." Not on these points you haven't -- all that I've seen is a large amount of hair-splitting over the unrelated point of the proper use of 'Darwinism'. If you want a "point by point" discussion, you need to raise the matter on talk first. Edit summaries do not allow more than a brief explanation, and most editors don't want to waste time reverting a whole series of edits individually, just to give you feedback on each one. Trawling through the difs to give replies to each of your talk points was enough of a hassle. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to reply to each of my points. DannyMuse (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I know we don't agree on much, and probably never will. But I again wanted to thank you for at least taking the time to respond. DannyMuse (talk) 05:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Book reccs Research
Hi Hrafn,

Hate to abuse wikipedia for my own personal gains, but I'll risk it. Actually, I'm going to label it "research". Any good recommendations for books about the anti-creationism side of the creation/evolution debate? I've got "Tower of Babel" on my list, I've already read "Creationism's Trojan Horse", "Finding Darwin's God" and some book with horizontal orange stripes, quite thin, by some name I recognized but don't recall now. Contemporary of Gould but didn't really like him. Richard Fortey? Probably not. WLU (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The one I refer to most (though I gave up on reading it cover to cover) is The Creationists. It's more neutral-to-mildly-critical than anti, but it is very comprehensive (particularly on the older stuff). It more concentrates on the personalities than the claims (and has an annoying habit of blurring exactly when quite a bit of stuff happened -- you often have to work out dates by context). Other than that, I can't think of any 'must have books' that you don't already have (CTH & ToB are my numbers 2 & 3). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 19:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Lovely, thanks, I wasn't even aware of that one. WLU (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Computer Theology: Intelligent Design of the World Wide Web
It sure is surprising that you would remove from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_on_intelligent_design a book that has "Intelligent Design" in the title? What's your rationale? Computertheology (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)ComputerTheology


 * The article is on the Neo-creationist anti-evolution argument/movement. It has nothing to do with "ntelligent Design of the World Wide Web". <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 04:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I now understand your rationale. The article says: "This is a list of works addressing the subject or the themes of intelligent design." It does not mention arguments or movements; would the description in the article then be considered to be inferred from the reference to Wikipedia's Intelligent design article? Then an explanation could be that you would associate "Intelligent Design" in the title to computer design. It is not the case (e.g. page 382): "Intelligent Design" has actually the same connotation as in the other books mentioned in the article. The difference, though, is that Computer Theology: Intelligent Design of the World Wide Web compares the evolution of human societies and computer networks and find parallels in their elaboration: however, in the latter case, intelligent design is a matter of history (as computers and networks have ostensibly been designed), not of theology (or philosophy, depending on the point of view). Thank you for forcing the discussion -- perhaps with this explanation the situation is somewhat clearer?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Computertheology (talk • contribs) 04:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No. It states that it is "a list of works addressing the subject or the themes of intelligent design." Note the wikilink. Intelligent design "is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." This topic is unrelated to Intelligent design (software engineering). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 04:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Approaching it from the point of view of the difference with Intelligent design (software engineering) is indeed a sensible approach. Thanks for the clarification. Computertheology (talk) 05:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)ComputerTheology


 * List of works on intelligent design is on the basis of the definition of ID in intelligent design, not Intelligent design (software engineering). If you think there's enough material to start a 'List of works on intelligent design in software engineering' article, you're welcome to try. I woul;d however suggest that you read WP:STAND & WP:NOTE first. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 05:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Frank Kaufmann AfD
Cross-posted to the AfD, and Jclemens's page Let me begin by saying that this AfD has become something of a disgrace. The flinging around of various charges, needs to stop. It has become exceedingly difficult to see past all the heat generated between the two parties central to the discussion. This is unacceptable, and I would propose that both users (Hrafn and Jclemens) not respond again on the AfD, so that others more dispassionate about the subject can calmly discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of keeping or deleting this article. I will post my recommendation (keep, delete, merge, or redirect) at the AfD shortly. S. D. Jameson 11:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 14:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not accept your assessment of the AfD. Both Jclemens and the anonymous editor came into it swinging with 'Keep' opinions that amounted to little more than 'keep because I don't like Hrafn'. That I initially responded to their repeated WP:BAITing is to my discredit. But in my defence I will point out that I attempted to hide the "heat-generating commentary" before you became involved, only to have this reverted by Jclemens, who immediately afterwards launched yet another attack. I had also already stated that "I do not intend to further respond to these attacks here on the AfD itself", so find your 'proposal' to be decidedly 'bolting the door after the horse has bolted' with respect to myself.
 * As far as your claim that "Yet, as I said before, there does appear to be the slightest germ of notability here, as Kaufmann has, it seems, had one or more of his writing picked up by UPI as an 'outside perspective.'" I would point out that United Press International is owned by the Unification Church's News World Communications, so is not particularly "independent". I do not know if this changes your opinion, but would suggest that this point at least deserves a mention on the AfD.
 * So am I understand the above to mean that you are unwilling to even entertain the idea of a merge and redirect, leaving the history intact? I've truly been trying to find a "middle way" here, as I believe my both my comments at the AfD, as well as my edits to the article as it is currently constituted will attest. S.  D. Jameson 14:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not state that. I merely pointed out that there was a flaw in your basis for claiming a "slightest germ of notability". That you skipped right over this point gives the impression that 'splitting the difference' is more important to you than the underlying facts, and so gives this compromise more of a Faustian feel than a Solomonic one. I haven't made my mind up yet, but your failure to address this flaw before pressing me to compromise makes me less likely to do so rather than more. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 14:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's quite unfortunate. And I wasn't attempting to "press" you to do anything. I'm only suggesting that perhaps compromising is better than arguing endlessly. S.  D. Jameson 14:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you had been reading the AfD carefully you would have noticed that I stopped "arguing" some time back, as (i) Jclemens has exhibited not interest whatsoever in arguing the merits of the article and (ii) his latest ad hominem attacks had already long since been rebutted in the talk page where he originally made them a month ago. That you still haven't addressed the UPI-Unification Church connection implies that this was merely an excuse not a valid reason for not recommending the article's deletion. If you, like Jclemens, are disinterested in discussing the merits of this article, then we really have nothing further to discuss. I would however ask you to inform readers on the AfD of the UPI-Unification Church connection. If you do not, I may feel compelled to 'bend' your 'proposal' by posting this information myself -- as it is clearly probative fact, not "heat-generating commentary". <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 15:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your frustration is understandable, as the article was rife with OR and other concerns. With that said, the UPI-Unification Church connection is irrelevant to my recommendation. My recommendation was based upon the fact that the UPI still retains some credibility, and as such, is not unreliable regardless of their ownership. I see no evidence that the UC is simply using the UPI as its mouthpiece, which would be the only problem with my reasoning, if that were true. That Kaufmann's work has been picked up by them lends him a kernel of notability, in my view. At least enough, that is, to merge any relevant material into the main UC article, and maintain a redirect to that main article at the page titled with his name. S.  D. Jameson 15:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would point out that the issue is independence not reliability. That they chose to publish opinion pieces/op-eds (not reporting) by an individual with close ties to their owners is of very highly doubtful value in establishing notability. Such pieces tend to be selected on a basis of 'who you know' not 'what you know'. As to your placing the WP:OR in the past tense, the anon-user is still active (now registered as 'Mybesteffort') and what I have seen of Jclemens' editorial habits do not differ too far from Mybesteffort's. The current article is a badly sourced 'fleshing out' of a WP:COPYVIO skeleton. Even if an article on this questionably notable individual is eventually viable, it would benefit from starting from scratch rather than inheriting this tainted baggage. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 15:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is, obviously, perfectly acceptable for us to disagree on this matter. The fact of your disagreeing with my interpretation of the matter, though, does not change my view of the situation. I feel that the article (any relevant pieces of it, that is) should be merged into the UC article, and the page should be redirected to the same. What about the actual opinion I have formed (merge and redirect) do you have a significant problem with? (Please do not point to the "UPI/UC connection" here. That's not the recommendation I've made, but a portion of the evidence supporting my recommendation.) S.  D. Jameson 15:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm currently in two minds -- 'half a loaf is better than none' versus 'thin edge of the wedge' -- that has a reasonable probability of letting the same old WP:OR & badly-sourced puffery (& personal attacks if I try to do anything about it) back in further down the track (WP:AGF does not mean assuming that unrepentant editors will change their habits). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 16:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I'd encourage you to allow the process to run its course here. I've a feeling that if merged and redirected, Mr. Kaufmann's article won't be recreated. There just seems little chance that this UC figure will attain sufficient notability to maintain an article separate from the UC article. S. D. Jameson 16:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Re the "sigh"
"I thought we addressed this at your talkpage. I guess not." I do not consider it reasonable of you to expect me to remain silent when you are concealing information probative to others evaluation of your argument. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Above I twice asked you to inform the AfD of this matter -- irrespective of whether it changes your own view, it is probative information.
 * 2) On the second occasion, I explicitly stated that if you wouldn't, I might.
 * 3) You did not post the information yourself, and did not ask me not to, so I went ahead.
 * Your statement that I'm "concealing" information is ill-conceived. I simply didn't find it in any way relevant to my reasoning, as I explained above. You're in no way "topic-banned" from that AfD, so posting there isn't a problem. I just think the UPI/UC thing is a bit irrelevant to the issues at hand there. S.  D. Jameson 17:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Failed to disclose" is probably a better characterisation than "concealed" -- I don't always think of the most apt characterisation at the time. I made no secret of the fact that I remained unconvinced by your "germ of notability" thesis, so you should not be surprised that I considered this information important enough to post. I would have preferred to have had you do it, as doing it myself raises the potential for Jclemens to take it as an excuse for restarting his ad hominem attacks -- but thought it was sufficiently important to warrant the risk. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be your right. This has certainly been a unique exchange, as I believe we're mostly in agreement as to what type of coverage Kaufmann needs on the project. S.  D. Jameson 17:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your problem was that you were attempting to winkle me out of what appeared to be the 'safe' option (of deletion) to a riskier-seeming position. This meant that I had an instinctive distrust of the position, and needed some good logic in order to move. The "germ of notability" did not provide that logic, so it wasn't until I remembered the 'merged information doesn't need to pass WP:NOTE' point that I became fully comfortable with it. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Templating established users
You should not template established users, Hrafn. It is considered impolite and, especially in this case, quite unhelpful. I would once again encourage you to step back from this issue. You're clearly frustrated by it, and becoming moreso helps no one, least of all yourself. S. D. Jameson 19:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And repeated personal attacks are considered "polite"? What Exucmember is engaging in is a series of blockable actions. This warrants a formal warning. Or do you consider this, this, this & this to be good wikiquette? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 19:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Attacking your views -- even aggressively so -- doesn't constitute "personal attack." Even if it did, templating established users isn't a good idea, as it doesn't foster collaboration. The best course would be to take a 24 hour break from this, come back, and if you're still upset by what Exuc wrote, leave him a personal note at his talkpage. That would be received far better, I think. If you still weren't satisfied, and felt you had been personally attacked, you could always take it up with the appropriate forum, and see where that went as well. Either way, dropping a template on an established user's talkpage isn't the best idea. S.  D. Jameson 19:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack" as it says on WP:NPA, and Exuc was clearly making such accusations without valid justification. I don't feel strongly about templating regulars, and Exuc evidently needed a reminder about policies. Having said that, in any further communication with Exuc it would probably be best to avoid templates, while still linking to relevant policy or guideline pages. In my opinion. . . dave souza, talk 20:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Where? This is an honest question, but per my reading of the diffs Hrafn posted, I'm not seeing where Exuc made any personal attacks. I don't even see where s/he accused Hrafn of making personal attacks. Did I miss something? S.  D. Jameson 20:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This accuses Hrafn of making personal attacks on an anon "newbie", when all the remarks are about actions and not personal attacks in my opinion. . . dave souza, talk 20:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While it may not conform to the strictest definition of "personal attacks", what Hrafn posted in response to the anon IP (now User:Mybesteffort, I believe) was bite-y in the best interpretation of it. I don't feel that accusing Exuc of "personal attacks" based upon that diff alone (and templating him, nonetheless) was the best (or most helpful) option available to Hrafn at the time. That was really my only point in my initial post here. S.  D. Jameson 20:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

S.D.Jameson:
 * Your claim that Exucmember merely "Attacking [my] views" is false:
 * "As has been the case in the past, Hrafn has made aggressive edits on the basis of assumptions which are informed by his strong biases and lack of knowledge of the subject matter."
 * "I simply do not have time to match the massive effort of Hrafn to kill this article. Editors encouraged to investigate for themselves and decide whether or not Hrafn's personal attacks against a newbie and charges that he is strongly biased are reason enough to distrust some of the interpretations and characterizations he provides, both in talk page comments and in edits to the article."
 * "If charges that Hrafn is biased are true, it would mean that the biased commentary on discussion pages and the content of his edits might adversely affect the judgement of editors participating the AfD, so Hrafn's alleged bias is in fact a legitimate issue here. We all like to think we can't be influenced, but a myriad of psychological studies show that we can be very influenced by subtle factors."
 * These were attacks against me, not my "views".


 * The "newbie" that I am accused on WP:BITEing started editing by restoring a bunch of unsourced (and as I later discovered WP:COPYVIO) material and posting the following personal attack against me:


 * This newbie 'chewed my leg off', and I am being accused of WP:BITE for pointing out to him the policies that this attack violated? Do you really expect me to take such an admonishment to heart?

If you're willing to take over this clean-up work, I'd be happy to dump it onto you. However, I would note that Exucmember is already none to happy at your own recent pruning on a single article (see Talk:Frank Kaufmann) -- so would suggest that he's likely to start calling for your own ejection from UC-articledom if you do substantial clean-up across multiple articles (as I have). At the very least, I suggest you take a look at the quality of sourcing on such key UC articles as Divine Principle, Unification theology & Unification Thought. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 06:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Exucmember has exhibited no interest in 'collaboration', rather his interest appear to be in the of exclusion of an editor whose insistence on compliance with policy has disturbed the cozy insider club of UC regulars who have happily built up an house-of-cards empire of poorly-sourced (and often completely unsourced), frequently non-notable (to anybody outside Unificationism) and often impenetrable articles. In support of this assessment of the quality of UC articles, I suggest you take a look at:
 * the vast number of prod-notices on UC-related articles on User talk:Ed Poor that have resulted in deletion or redirect
 * The large number of articles that I've recently merged into List of Unification Church affiliated organizations (a list I created to avoid further prod-ing articles on non-notable UC-affiliated orgs).
 * Talk:Divine Principle to see an outsider's baffled incomprehension of an article that I had just merged in (at the suggestion of its main author, a UC-regular).

An open & pre-emptive reply to anybody wishing to criticise my conduct on UC-related articles
<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 09:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Don't tell me to leave them alone unless you're willing to adequately clean them up yourself, and take the abuse from some of the regulars that this entails.
 * 2) Yes, I'm human and occasionally react with some heat to this WP:BAITing (particularly if it is sustained). Unless you're prepared to either squelch this baiting or to yourself take over the clean-up that has provoked it (see above), do not expect me to be particularly positive in my response to requests to (unilaterally) modify my behaviour.
 * 3) If you're a UC regular -- then you created this problem by your collective failure to self-police the quality of UC-related articles. I have no sympathy for you, and will ignore your demands to for me to 'get out of Dodge' until you yourselves 'clean up Dodge'.

An open & pre-emptive reply to the accusation that I am biased against or "hate" your pet topic.
Please read User:Hrafn/It should be NOTEed that we should all get NOTted. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 11:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about your edits to Frank Kaufmann
I have some concerns over your recent edits to this article: Please explain. Toddst1 (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This edit seemed to remove properly sourced information that was in compliance with WP:BLP yet you say you removed it per WP:BLP
 * This edit appears to change poorly formatted citations into tags
 * This edit appears to have removed a valid citation.

I have already explained reason for the first edit at Talk:Frank Kaufmann (points 3 & 4) and the second at Talk:Frank Kaufmann. The third edit was to remove another citation to the same 'author biography' as point 3. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 15:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:3
Hi. I put a comment at WP:3 that involves an apparently unresolved issue regarding a comment you made about an article I wrote. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That you would waste people's time with a WP:3 on a comment that you allowed to go unrebutted for a month, whose error I immediately retracted when you pointed it out, which was in any case peripheral to my main argument -- the latter being corroborated by by another editor's speedying the article (thus meaning that there are three opinions currently already), should surprise me. Unfortunately, given my experience with you, it doesn't <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 16:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

[Removed per WP:NPA -- if you call me a "troll" for correcting your deficient editing and understanding of policy, you should not expect "friendship or good-will" <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk ]
 * I've requested an WP:3 again to try and resolve this through proper channels. --Firefly322 (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Launch as many WP:3s as lights your fire, makes no difference to me -- but it does seem more than a little WP:POINTy. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 02:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Creation Science
Discuss at talk page. Dan Watts (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Already discussed it there. Please gain a WP:CONS before making controversial edits. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 05:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Worth saving?
Since you edit on many creationist article perhaps you can look at Articles for deletion/List of creationist museums, Articles for deletion/Michael Cremo, Articles for deletion/Carl Wieland, and Articles for deletion/Thomas E. Woodward to see if their notable. We66er (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have an opinion on this? There is a discussion on Talk:Answers in Genesis. Thanks. We66er (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Alan Richardson
[ Moved to Talk:Christian apologetics <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 04:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC) ]

Please don't delete entire article - please fix
Again, Hrafn, please do not delete entire articles for under-referencing. Please try to fix the article. It contains reasonable information and needs a bit of a fix. Or nominate it for deletion. Madman (talk) 05:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:PROVEIT
Read it. Read it again. Keep on reading it until you actually have a faint glimmering of understanding as to what this core policy means. If you want this unsourced material kept then the onus is on you to find sourcing for it. So kindly keep your unfounded demands off my talk page until you get these facts through your head. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 05:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think your editing style is coming dangerously close to disrution of wikipedia to make a point. No where is there a policy saying that no article is better than a poorly sourced article. What the policy says is that if there are facts that are controversial then those should be challenged and if sources cannot be provided they should be struck. What you are doing is wholesale removal of articles without ever stating what is your quarrel with any of the contained facts. This is arrogant and extremely detrimental to the wikipedia project. Please do consider to revise your somewhat fanatic interpretation of WP:V.·Maunus· ƛ · 14:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes there IS "a policy saying that no article is better than a poorly sourced article" -- it is WP:V. Kindly read this policy. It does not say "that if there are facts that are controversial then those should be challenged and if sources cannot be provided they should be struck." It states "any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." A -tag is an explicit challenge. If you [Madman] wanted this material kept, you [he] should have sourced it when it was challenged, instead of WP:EDITWARing to restore unsourced material in violation of core policy. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 15:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have never even edited the article in question. So please back off with the insinuations. I have started a discussion on the WP:V talkpage. ·Maunus· ƛ · 15:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies. I misread your sig for Madman's. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 15:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)