User talk:Random account 47/Archive2

=Talk=

Hi Ben,

Just read your piece at ID, and agreed with much of it. But could I suggest it would be easier to read if it were split into paragraphs?

Thanks, Ben Aveling 23:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Good point, but people have already responded, so it's kinda too late to change it now :P. Thanks though. --Ben 00:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Religious attacks
Please explain to me why you feel you have the right to attack my religious beliefs/call me a liar. This is exceedinly offensive, even for you. Guettarda 01:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't think I did that. --Ben 01:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * On Guettarda's talk page: Guettarda I don't understand what offended you. I am sorry if I caused you offense. I don't think I called you a liar. Either way I did not mean to and I apologize. If there is a specific attack against you that you would like me to remove from the page I will do it.--Ben 01:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Animal rights
Ben, it's hard to see how this edit could possibly have been made in good faith. The only reason I'm not classifying it as vandalism is because you're not an entirely new editor. Please edit within our policies, which I know you're aware of. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I found the article to be a stupid juvenile back and forth more reminiscent of troll blogging than an encyclopedia. "Animal rights is a radical movement..." and "The cosmetic mutilation of injecting fish with dye is..." Easier to joke about the shittiness of the article than to spend my time talking to a brick wall which judging by the discussion page is what I'd be doing. I was just hoping other editors clue in to the ridiculousness. 10:1 you think the world is full of nihilist sociopaths intent on destroying the environment, torturing animals, and in the end killing you and everyone else on the planet. I find having an extremist point of view is not the best perspective to have when trying to write neutrally and objectively. You know what mutiliation and radical movements are? It's things like armed squads in Sierra Leone who used to slit the bellies of pregnant women and rip out the fetus. Thinking animals deserve to be treated humanely isn't "radicalism". Tatooing fish is not "mutiliation". There are so many articles with extremists editing them as their own personal "wikiblog" it seems fighting for neutrality is for the most part a complete waste of time. Framing, spin, things like that, it's all politics and propaganda. "Get my view out or else omgs!" I'd like to get mine out too, but since I hate framing spin and propaganda, unlike editors like you and others, I have a hard time with it. I do have an idea for you though, how about heading down to the cosmetic surgery article and changing "surgery" to "mutiliation." I personally think cosmetic surgery is stupid, so if you add that it will get that point across--comparing surgery to mutiliation is a good way to attack the morals of people that do it. They are sick fucks mutilating themselves. While you're there, I'll see if I can't find someone to edit the sex change article wherever it is, and add "mutilation" to that too. That will be interesting, plus it will create dialog on the subject.--Ben 22:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * p.s. I like how you said "edit within our policies." Think about what the word "our" means. It excludes me. Now why on earth would you be thinking like that? I'm just an outsider intending to ruin everything, right? I'm not considered a "Wikipedian" to you. Maybe you should've said "the policies." You don't own the policies. --Ben 22:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Ben mate,

What did you think you were doing? Also this and this.

You know better than that. What happened? Drop us a line.

Regards, Ben Aveling 20:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Us? I didn't think you were part of a gang too. Whatever, I'll drop you a line: The line is "I don't care too much." Basically I can do anything I want now that Duncharris has made it acceptable to constantly tell people to go fuck themselves.--Ben 22:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Duncharris has not made it OK to tell people anything of the sort. The RfC is still open, but it has made it quite clear that a large chunk of his behaviour is not OK with most wikizens - perhaps not all, but certainly enough.  And he has been reasonably civil lately, as far as I know.  Not perfect, but within the normal bounds.  There was one addition to his RfC earlier today, but it isn't obviously related to any recent behaviour.  Regards, Ben Aveling 00:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Duncharris2


Would you please compare Dunc's contribs to mine, and indicate whether I have a right to better treatment than I've been getting? Uncle Ed 16:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[Removed utter bullshit 21:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)] 

Problems
Ben, I'm sorry to have to warn you like this, but I will consider blocking your account either indefinitely or for an extended period if the complaints about your editing continue. You have vandalized articles, you're causing continual problems on talk pages, you're deleting posts from talk pages, and you've apparently called an editor a "lair" (though I haven't seen that diff yet). This has been going on for too long to be ignored. Again, I'm sorry to have to write to you in this way. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Haha I didn't even notice you saying I am "deleting posts from talk pages." That's pretty fucking rich there. So when Guettarda removes 5 pages of discussion between many different people, discussions I'm not even involved in, simply because something in there offended him, he's just "removing personal attacks," right? Am I right? And when I say I'll take out whatever has offended him he turns into a mute, but of course keeps on keeping on deleting it even when other users I don't even know put it back in. Nope, no problem there. Just removing personal attacks. Poor Guettarda. But when I remove what I see as personal attacks which add absolutely nothing to the discussion and don't even have responses after them except for "I can't believe you said that to me" I am vandalizing and deleting posts. That's bullshit, and you should go fuck yourself SlimVirgin (A majority of editors and administators apparently agree that it is okay to tell people to go fuck themselves . Let's see how fast they come to my defense and say that that is as serious enough for me to "not have a cookie tonight" because I'll gladly forego that cookie to tell you that. By the way, it simple means "leave me alone" but in strong language, which is not against the rules. Even according to Guettarda.)--Ben 07:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I request another administrator evaluate the situation. You have been far too involved. Regarding your apology: I'm sure you are. Hey, did Guettarda contact you through your cabal's secret IRC bat-phone like FeloniousMonk does? Ooo and I like how you just take Guettarda's word for it. He's already flipped out once for absolutely no reason and said I was "attacking his religion" and "calling him a liar". Get another admin. You are in no position to block me and suggesting that you are is ridiculous.--Ben 22:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yep, I used a super-secret cabal tool - it's called Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Benapgar. Guettarda 22:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * So uninvolved SlimVirgin still has my weeks old RFC on her watch pages and responds within minutes to a single post there? Hmm, yes, that's pretty uninvolved... --Ben 22:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ben, you're not going to call me "involved" in order to stop me from taking action against you. I haven't edited any of the articles you're in dispute over, and I can assure you I intend to take action if the disruption continues. And as a matter of fact, I am indeed sorry to write to you like this. I'd much prefer it if you would settle down and become a useful editor, which there's still time to do. Wikipedia is a very forgiving community with people who turn over a new leaf. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Give me a break you've been at my throat since day one. Another administrator can do it just as well as you. To show good faith, simply get another administrator to do it if you feel it is necessary. It is simple. How many are there, something like 1000? --Ben 22:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There are 600 and I'm the one who is monitoring you. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm completely uninvolved. I've just looked at your recent history, Ben, including this, and I am blocking you for 48 hours for disruptive personal attacks. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for blocking me for a legitimate reason. I shouldn't have called Guettarda a piece of shit. I of course have every right to call him a liar, because he is a liar. Nobody here gives a shit if anyone tries to twist what I say just to get me angry at them. I have zero idea how Guettarda could have taken me intial post personally. If anyone has any other ideas, let me know.

I'm another administrator, I'm evaluating the situation, and I think you are very much out of line. This edit is an example of incivility that I would have blocked you for were you not already blocked. This kind of personal attack must stop. --Ryan Delaney talk 22:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I am extending your block to 1 week for this diff where you told SlimVirgin "go fuck yourself". Whatever you may believe, this is not allowed in any way, and you are going to stay blocked until you understand that. --Ryan Delaney talk 16:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Did you block Duncharris too? Of course you didn't. Them's some nice double standards. So basically what I have to understand is that there are different standards for me, a regular Wikipedian, and for Duncharris, an administrator. The difference is that administrators get to tell people to fuck off, and I don't, right? See, I always thought that "rules are rules" but thank you for teaching me that "some rules are for you, some rules are for other people, depending on how the administrators feel like wielding their power that day and whether you like the person." One thing is for sure though, those rules don't apply to administrators. A week's block for me? Let me compare so I can understand. How many week's did Duncharris get? He told a lot of people to fuck off and go fuck themselves. Let's see... ah yes. He was blocked for a couple minutes, then he unblocked himself, funny enough, telling that person to fuck off again while he did it. So I guess if I was an administrator I should unblock myself and tell you to fuck off, and everything would be fine and everyone would come to my defence. I just want to make sure I understand why I was blocked, and the reason is because there are different rules for Duncharris, am I right? --Ben 19:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

p.s. Thank you for explaining my interpretation of the rules as they apply to me and Duncharris on the incidents board, but I think someone erased it because all it says is that I was blocked for 1 week for telling SlimVirgin to go fuck herself, and it doesn't mention at all that I was just following the same rules as another administrator whom I was using as my role model. Weird. --Ben 19:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Both your incivility and that of Dunc have been the subject of RFCs. The difference here is that Dunc learned a lesson from his, stopping his incivility since his RFC, whereas you have not. FeloniousMonk 20:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I do believe you signed the "don't give Duncharris a cookie tonight" section for his numerous times telling people to fuck themselves. So, I also don't get a cookie tonight and get banned for a week. Next time Duncharris tells someone to fuck off are you going to ban him for a week? I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure he did already. Ask Ed, he probably knows. So, are you, or would you? I have good reason to doubt you have that much integrity. And since I'm positive you just looooove arguing politics on the Internets, here's a little politics: You remind me of Bush. As in: Here ya go DuncHalliburton, a free pass for whatever you want to do! (Hahaha, I just remembered Cheney even said "Go fuck yourself" on the Senate floor, but that's not the point of course, just funny.) --Ben 20:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ooooo I just grasped the irony too, not that it was that hard. But you constantly say everyone on the discussion page is involved in some sort of conspiracy and have an agenda, so its ALSO rather hypocritical for you to censure me for saying you have an agenda. Isn't it? Isn't it a bit hypocritical, yes, yes it is. A little hypocritical for you to censure me for calling Guettarda a troll? Yes. I do believe I've been called a troll many times, in fact, been subjected to numerous personal attacks ... on my religion (whatever that is)!! So, please block yourself because you are attacking my religion by saying I have an agenda (remember how I "come from a long line of Christian pov pushers) right? Remember that? So basically I've done exactly what you and all the other admins do everyday. Just all at once. So congratulations to Guettarda, my hats off to you for trapping me with your troll and getting me blocked. But please don't attack my religion! Haha just kidding. Have yourself a party! There won't be any good encyclopedias there, but you can feel that power at least. And congratulations to you too FeloniousMonk for being an unethical hypocrite and getting your agenda through! I'll be back in a week. Have a good time without me. Make sure you call anyone who is critical of your personal essay a pov-pusher with an agenda. Make sure Duncharris tells people to go fuck themselves. Make sure to make little snide jokes about Christians who like the idea of ID. I'm sure Jimbo would agree with all your actions and would never even consider that any of you are abusing your power by blocking me for exactly the same things you guys do day in and day out (that's sarcasm in case you don't realize it). And remember to revert my talk page a lot, God forbid I actually speak my mind. --Ben 20:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Had I been around to notice Dunc making that comment, I also would have blocked him for it. In any event, you are not entitled to behave as badly as the Wikipedian with the worst behavior who gets away with it. As I am familiar with your case but not the other, and I understand his civility problems have been resolved but yours (clearly) have not, I am enforcing the policy in your case and not his. If you have further complaints about personal attacks against you, please submit them to the mailing list, or when your block expires, to WP:AN/I. --Ryan Delaney talk 21:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Then make yourself familiar. Requests_for_comment/Duncharris. Sign where appropriate.--Ben 23:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Still waiting to see what you support on that page. I guess you must be busy. Your comments are obviously important, considering what you've blocked me for. It's good to know if you stand with Guettarda, FeloniousMonk, Snowspinner, Splash, KillerChihuahua and the like who said Dunc's actions were no big deal, or if you stand with say, Jimbo Wales, who said Duncharris is a "terrific disgrace" and said "he should be desysopped."--Ben 20:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You're adding to your problems
You've already been blocked for violating WP:NPA. Continuing to make additional personal attacks  during your block is not a good idea. Show your respect for the community, the project, and its goals by making ammends and not attacking others. FeloniousMonk 08:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

On Guettarda: For the record
For the record, here's what I said in response to Kernow, which Guettarda apparently automatically assumed was directed at him:

''Comment Perhaps being a proponent (or skeptic) of ID to the nth degree is a disqualification to the nth degree as to influencing how a Wikipedia NPOV article should be named? David Kernow 17:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)''


 * If that were true the "majority/consensus" editors would be disqualified. You think they'll recuse themselves? Of course not. That will get in the way of their agenda.--Ben 19:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's what Guettarda responded with to a post from Jim62sch:

''And Ben, to whom do you refer? If one is to make willy-nilly accusations of atheism, one should at least have the courage to name those one is accusing.''

Jim62sch 20:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought Ben said he had stopped calling me a liar/attacking my religious views. Looks like he has no intention of sticking to his word. Guettarda 20:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

And he also posted on my talk page:

''I see you're back to your old tricks. I thought you said that you were done calling me a liar? Guettarda 20:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)''

Any wonder why I called him a piece of shit? He's trolling, what do you expect? He did it before too, if anyone took the time to look at my talk page. Notice the first time I was civil. This time it was pretty clear he was either trolling (by purposefully misinterpreting to whom my comments were directed), or he just assumed it was him because he fit one of the criteria: a skeptic of ID to the nth degree, or an atheist with an agenda. It may be possible that Guettarda thinks I'm saying "only Atheists are skeptical about Intelligent Design" so when I say "atheists with an agenda" he gets offended because... he thinks I am.. hold on this is difficult...he thinks I am saying that it is only possible for atheists to be skeptics and that saying skeptics are atheists is attacking Christianity because Christianity is based on faith not on intelligent design so in that way I am attacking Christianity. Phew. That to me is a really weird and disturbing sort of perspective on ID, but that's the only thing I could come up with that doesn't involve Guettarda purposefully trolling me or having a little psychological slip-up and admitting he's an extremist skeptic and/or has an agenda. And of course Guettarda doesn't explain jack shit, he just makes frivolous accusations. There ought to be a rule against that in Wikipedia. Oh wait, there is. I'll just ask an admin on the page who knows enough about ID to see that..... Oh. OH.--Ben 07:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Since you had been previously asked to stop suggesting the only reason people oppose your views is that they are all atheist, I can imagine Guettarda being peeved that you, again, generalise, and call all editors atheist. Note, that while you claim Guettarda is jumping to conclusions, you did use the word atheist, instead of skeptic. In any case, the comment was wholly unconstructive, and a general personal attack (along the lines of, 'all editors are dumb').
 * 'Notice the first time, I was civil'. No you were not. You were making sweeping generalisation that you had been previously asked not to make. You were then called on making the generalisations.
 * I was talking about the other time. See the 23 Nov 2005 posts from Guettarda on this page. If that's what you meant, my bad, but I obviously don't agree.
 * Obviously, in you post above you are sugesting that Guettarda is lying, and has an agende, because (in your narrow worldview) anyone unconvinced by your arguments isn't listening properly. Please leave.


 * Just how in the fuck am I "attacking his religion" and "calling him a liar????" with my comments, either recently, or before. If I said "you guys are all Buddhists" and you were, say, a Sikh, would you say I was "attacking your religion and calling you a liar" just out of the blue?? Or would you simply say I was wrong or maybe even not respond because obviously I'm not talking about you because you are not a Buddhist.--Ben 08:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, you would be, if someone had previously asked you to stop making that exact generalisation. Not every editor here, not even all editors who oppose your edits, is atheist. You do not even have any reason to assume any editor is atheist, unless they have stated that nugget about their personal philosophical views. As for calling another editor a troll, please see . -- Ec5618 09:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Guettarda is being a dick, not me. I'm calling him on it. That's how I see it, and obviously it pisses me off. I do have good reason to assume some of the "majority/consensus" editors are atheist, for one FeloniousMonk says so right on his user page (or at least he did, he's changed it now), and for two, it's pretty obvious to me considering how the article is written. Plus I'm relying on my experience that on the Internet that there are a lot of very outspoken atheists out there, and generally they are the ones making deragatory comments about religion and religious people, which occur frequently enough on the talk pages for me to make that generalisation considering my experiences with a number of editors often citing themselves as "the consensus." For example, RoyBoy's "Who's on first? A disingenuous creationist" comment is considered "funny" not "a derogatory comment generalising creationists as disingenuous."


 * My generalisation was specifically about the editors on the page whom seem very likely to me to be Atheists--specifically agenda-driven advocates of Atheism who are on the page. The Atheism is not the bad part. Since I was talking about atheists I have no idea why Guettarda would respond as if he were being persecuted for being a Christian. That's why I think he was trolling. That time, and the time before--since he said the same thing before and didn't explain his reasons that time either. I think that either he's trolling me or there is something he is hiding which is coming out so to speak in his "righteous indignation." to my comment that it seems to me that that advocates of Atheism run the show here and edit the article based on their own biases which they can't seem to keep in check. I'm sure FeloniousMonk and Duncharris and RoyBoy are all strong atheists, and they probably even talk about atheism constantly on the Internet. You, I don't know, but you are probably an Atheist too. Out of all them you seem to be the most reasonable and less on the whole "Richard Dawkins is my hero because he pwns the stupid Christians" (which is the way I see the discourse on the discussion page). FeloniousMonk just rambles about wikipolicy and ignores everyone, Guettarda flips out for no reason, Duncharris and RoyBoy make fun of people, you sort of engage other editors, SlimVirgin pretends to be, or thinks she is being nice, but isn't because she just does whatever they tell her to do, many of the other admins don't pay attention, Ben Aveling tries to be nice but we'll see how long he stays around (notice how Gandalf2000, someone who is nice but was critical has left and hasn't come back), now there's this Jim62sch guy who has showed up to stick up for the article--he'll stay around for the empowerment but probably get bored and leave, Wade and ant show up every once in a while but they'll get frustrated soon enough because noone listens to them, etc. etc. This isn't a discussion zone, it's people critical of the article for the most part talking to a brick wall interspersed with hypocritical accusations of personal attacks and RFC's. Hey, I could lay it out more, but I don't think it will do any good, so I'm just going to keep on keeping on for now. I don't think anyone has the right to treat me with the contempt these people treat me with.


 * When it comes to the article, I want an informative and fair representation. I don't think the article is there, and I don't think the editors calling themselves "the consensus" want a fair representation, they want to "pwn" the concept so they can "lol" at the Christians. The problem is they are doing a very poor job and don't realize it--and any attempts to explain it to them are met with fierce, and I mean fierce, resistance. They just don't care. They think "lol this who designed the designer argument is pwning the religious right lol11!" It isn't. For one, this is an encyclopedia article not an essay with a thesis ("i.e. Intelligent Design is creationism") with "point proof comment." For two, they don't understand philosophy well enough that there are multiple perspectives on life, the universe, and everything and you can't "reason" your way to one or the other. You base your perspective on your own beliefs and experiences and knowledge--for example subjectivism and objectivism. Neither are right or wrong. They are points-of-view. So if I say I believe in an "undesigned designer" that is what "pwns" the who designed the designer argument. Unless someone can prove that this is inherent in the concept, and I mean prove not assert then that argument is completely moot--on the basis of reason--no matter if "the world's most controversial biologist" says it or not. Still noone has explained that proof, even though those that argue that point have been asked numerous times to just explain it, let alone cite it.
 * I don't know. That's enough explaining for me today. You, (or "you guys" since many of the people angry with me speak as a collective) do what you gotta do, but I'm not going to roll over anytime soon. "Please leave?" Not until someone pushes me out the door. And I think that given the chance for me to explain myself, other people will see it my way. Hopefully not out of their own biases, but simply because they know where I'm coming from. I think I'm coming from "being an editor of an encyclopedia." I don't know everything, but I know enough to at least defend why I edit the way I do. Do you or other people even care where I'm coming from? It seems most people don't, Guettarda just lays out his accusations and everyone jumps on me. At least you still have the decency to ask and to explain the way you see it which I appreciate. --Ben 10:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Persecution complex
Seeing as how I was originally blocked for 48 hours for suggesting Atheists are using the ID page to advocate their religion, let's see how my comments compare to the editors who were complaining about it. I'll slowly be updating this, obviously it is not fully representative of all the hypocrisy, but eventually I should have a good representation of the number of "consensus" editors who constantly say critics of the article are Christians, that critics have an agenda and want to use the ID page to advocate ID and Christianity, and those editors who constantly make fun of Christianity and constantly attacking critics (and those complicit in these "jokes").

In otherwords, these people can say the following with impunity. Compare for yourself my comments which got me the 48 hour block. --Ben 21:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Critics are anti-Atheist Christians
(but "consensus editors" are not anti-Christian)

From Talk:Intelligent design

POV tags

''of course, FeloniousMonk and friends are the final authority on what is neutral. of course! This article is an exception, yes! In fact, if you disagree with them, you can't even put in a POV. Guardians of this page are REMOVING POV tags, even though someone else has already cited the same imbalance as I have.''

''removing POV tags, FeloniousMonk and fellow atheists hovering over this page, is completely out of line and not called for, regardless of what your subjective reasoning is. Taking out my POV tags is offensive and you had no right to do that.''

"other article addresses a pseudoscience which is being seriously considered " "none of them are direct or credible challenges to science and education, and so are not analogous to ID and poor examples"

''now you got to love this reasoning! Because its a "hot topic" in today's political landscape, that constitutes even more reason to front load it with criticism. Because this is a political subject, it criticism is even more justified! here's what I see is going on: "We cant let those Xians redefine science! We must assemble, and act. We must grab that ID page, and make sure we "educate" people about what it REALLY is...fundamentalist hype. This is why we cant compare ID to those other articles, because ID is being seriously considered in schools! This article is an exception. oh yea, we dont have a POV. We are doing this with complete neutrality....of course :D " the agenda here is so plain, it screams at me. All I wanted was to simply come to this page and find out about the scientists who advoacte ID and their justification for it as a science. I wanted this information from THEIR perspective, not from the authors of "DEVOLUTION". I have no problems regarding criticisms and counter points, but please do it in a more objective fashion. I got only one perspective in this article: atheistic.''

Marshill 20:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Please restrict your edits here on the talk page to the article, and refrain from disruptive behavior, including spurious conjecture about other editor's religious beliefs. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Marhsill - calling everyone who disagrees with you atheists, and stating that there are many scientists who agree with ID, is hurting your credibility here. If you wish to add to the article, Be Bold. For Darwin's sake, I've been asking IDists to PLEASE help us understand what ID is. Make additions to the page that are cited that help us understand WHAT Intelligent Design is. Perhaps in your search you will see why the article is the way it is. --JPotter 22:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ditto with Jpotter's post. I have also been asking ID people to clarify ID, because right now - I don't think it can support its very own definition. By the way, I . am . not . an . atheist. With all due respects to the atheists in here, but I do feel a bit slighted that people analyzing ID are automatically labelled atheists. My religion is primarily Christian with adherence to Confucianism values. No conflict since followers of Confucianism are quite happy for it to be considered as a philosophy rather than a religion.Lovecoconuts 00:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

3 minutes later...

''Editors need to be aware that Marshill has a track record for the same behaviour over at The_Chronicles_of_Narnia and previously as 24.85.54.116. Putting up NPOV templates, ad hominem attacks, paranoid accusations, editing with out summarizing or explanations, etc. User has already received Wikipedia:No personal attacks and WP:3RR warnings on the talk page of The_Chronicles_of_Narnia (which was archived earlier today) and other notices on the user page [51]. The user has gone through this same rigamarole elsewhere and should know better. Cyberdenizen 22:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Onward Christian Soliders. --JPotter 22:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

On User_talk:KillerChihuahua

''"Please refrain from conjecture about the religious beliefs of editors. This does nothing to improve the article, Intelligent design, and wastes space. Depending upon phrasing, it is often a violation of WP:NPA as well. Please be civil. The near-constant accusations of "athiest" and "fundie" and variations thereof are disruptive"

''KC, I've tried explaining that, FM's tried, Guettarda's tried, Dave's tried as well, but to no avail. What the heck is so hard about understanding such a simple concept? It's getting quite frustrating. Jim62sch 17:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)''

Critics have an agenda
Jim62sch

''Precisely who are you, where did you come from, and what is your agenda? I realize that this ID page is a popular search result, and yet when I read your initial post I cannot help but feel that you came here with a very clear agenda that seems to be outside merely trying to improve the article. Hey, I could be wrong, but my gut instinct is very rarely wrong. Jim62sch 22:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)''

''MH, your agenda is clearly showing. It would have been wiser of you had you eased into your criticism of the alleged criticism. Nonetheless, you are missing far more points than I care to go into right now. Why not read through the discussion page, including the sections that have been archived and see what has happened and why. I realize that this will not change your agenda, but it will (maybe, one hopes) keep you from littering this page with irrational objections that have already been dealt with and, for the most part, resolved. Jim62sch 23:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)''

''MH: all of the info you have been given regarding Wikipedia's rules has been accurate, clear and concise; I'm not sure why you're having such difficulty with it. True (one supposes) it doesn't fit your agenda, which is now as clear and comical as the nose on Santa Claus' face, but, as in all civilized communities, we have rules regarding how to go about making constructive (not destructive) changes to articles that need to be followed. You are choosing not to follow them.

''As for your assertion re dialogue (I have written more dialogue...), allow me to point out that dialogue is not synonymous with diatribe. Jim62sch 17:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)''

FeloniousMonk

From Talk:Intelligent design (Archive 22)

''Well spoken! My personal bias is for ID but I've contributed to articles on both sides, and to both sides of the same article. NPOV is good, but I'm mainly interested in making articles flow better when they are read. Less is more. And with all these eyes the thing should be constantly improving, like a Zen rock garden. Not everyone who comes in here has an agenda. Endomion 04:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)''


 * Yet many do. The more vexing problem is not everyone who comes here has a clue about Wikipedia's goals and policies. FeloniousMonk 05:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

From Archive 21

''The existence of possible ulterior motives for the ID movement in general is well-documented in other sections, and will be made clear to any careful reader of the article. But the "purpose" in question here applies specifically to Design Inferences themselves, the conclusion that a Design Inference aims to establish. "Putative" lends an uneccesary argumentative tone, and conveys no helpful information to the reader. It only puts a question mark in their mind, without providing justification for the question mark. If you're not going to follow up and demonstrate what the purpose of the logic of a Design Inference really is, (as opposed to its "putative" purpose) then you've left the reader unsatisfied and confused, and possibly distrustful of the article's POV. SanchoPanza 20:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)''


 * If I agreed with you, which I don't, it would be easy enough to follow up and demonstrate that ID proponents view the design inference as merely a useful adjunct for advancing a social and religious agenda they are pursuing. Very easy in fact; there are direct quotes that say exactly that. If "putative" puts a question mark in the reader's mind, it's well justified. FeloniousMonk 21:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

From RfArb

Duncharris

''Ben is a lowly troll, as can be seen by his trolling at talk:intelligent design and indeed this frivilous complaint. He is the latest in the long line of religiously-inspired creationist POV warriors to try to tell us that there are POV problems with the articles on evolution or intelligent design because they follow the policy at WP:NPOV:''

"represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view"

''A lot of work has gone into these articles to make them NPOV on a tricky subject. (Yet again) A newbie turns up and wants to completely rewrite it. Yet he does not understand the (admitedly quite complex) motivations and subtleties of ID, for example drifting into theology, and cannot provide a scientific theory of creationism.''

''Yet irritated that he's not got his way he's throwing his rattle out of his pram and complaining that there is a cabal. This RFA is simply another escalation in a childish harassment campaign. I can hardly believe that I am being forced to respond to this trolling, and anyone just needs to look at his RFC to see how unreasonable this chap is being.''

''I reverted his coingate since I believe he can't be trusted, though that whole article is a mess and he really couldn't've made it any worse! I have no interest or knowledge on that subject, and reverting him may have been an error on my part, but he's just nitpicking and his own record speaks for itself.''

''I really have found this little episode quite amusing and for the record would like to say that I am not intimidated in any way by this pathetic individual. Dunc|☺ 22:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)''