User talk:ThomHImself

Welcome!
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Hi, Tom! I noticed your edits on the "no free lunch theorem", and since nobody else has said hello yet, I just hopped over here to welcome you.

I looked at your web page a little. I'm not sure if you'll be primarily interested in mathematics, or in the engineering end of IEEE. Anyway, there's an ongoing discussion of math articles at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Mathematics, which you're certainly welcome to join. I'm not sure where the EE guys hang out, but you can probably find them by visiting this page.

Have a great day! DavidCBryant 00:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No free lunch in search and optimization passed GA!
This article is thorough and well-sourced, though certain sections (i.e. Example: NFL in a roulette game) could use a bit more. Additionally, some images describing the concept may be a useful visual aid. Other than that, it's a fine article. Also, it would be helpful if you helped tackle the backlog at WP:GAN by reviewing a good article. Nousernamesleft talk and matrix? 17:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

April 2008
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. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 07:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is time for dispute resolution. There is absolutely no wiggle room when it comes to defamation of a living person. ThomHImself (talk) 08:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam);
 * and you must always:
 * 1) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Conflict of Interest. HrafnTalkStalk 05:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have already explained in detail at the Marks talk page that I have no conflict of interest. From the Wiki policy on conflict of interest: "This page in a nutshell: Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals, companies, or groups, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount." The vast majority of my editing of the article has been to hold you and a couple others to Wikipedia policy. Thus the interests of Wikipedia have remained paramount. You have not responded at Wiki policy relevant to labeling Marks an ID proponent. ThomHImself (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverts
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. Baegis (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The WP:Three-revert rule does not apply to defense of WP:BLP -- especially removal of content without WP:BLP that is possibly defamatory. ThomHImself (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just out of idle curiosity, how is calling someone "a proponent of intelligent design" potentially defamatory? --B (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, and that of many other detractors of intelligent design (see the intro to the article), ID is "stealth creationism." It seems designed to fly under the radar of U.S. case law regarding teaching of creation, creationism, creation science, etc. There is a book entitled Liars for God. Many, if not most, scientists regard ID as creationism with the goal of subverting the law through duplicity. The duplicity is to deny that the goal of the ID movement is for school children to identify the Designer of life on earth as God. Marks openly says that Genesis and science are in agreement. Not all creationists are IDists, and to label an honest creationist a liar for God is surely unethically. It is possibly defamatory in the legal sense, given the harm it may do to an engineering scholar's reputation, ability to gain research funding, ability to draw consulting work, etc. I am not a lawyer. ThomHImself (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

trouble with your article?
Hi, I'm sorry to see there's some trouble with an article about you. Have you seen the BLP help page which gives advice about how to progress disputes about biography articles? Kind regards, Dan Beale-Cocks  00:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute. Robert Marks is this editor?  Well, that deserves a COI tag.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 01:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have always identified myself as Thomas M. English of Lubbock, Texas USA by way of my user page's link to my website. ThomHImself (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI & WP:DE notice
Given your admission here and the fact that you are edit warring  for the last week across several articles when your changes were rejected by the community, consider this as notice to comply with our policy on conflicts of interest, WP:COI and restrict your editing to the talk pages of Evolutionary Informatics Lab‎, Evolutionary informatics‎, Robert J. Marks II‎. If you continue to disrupt these articles through edit warring or continue to make specious BLP filings, I will seek to stop your disruption through a topic or indefinite ban per WP:DE. FeloniousMonk (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To demonstrate my BLP filings regarding Robert J. Marks II specious, you must show that someone has provided me a reliable source for claims about living persons. Even if you were to produce such a source now, it would be irrelevant to my claim that editors have violated Wiki policy in the past.


 * At Evolutionary Informatics Lab, you summarily rejected by reversion multiple edits by me advancing the consensus point of view. In my opinion, User:Guettarda's writing is poor, and I made his statements clear and direct. Your blanket rejection of my contributions to advancing the consensus point of view is strong evidence of bias against me, rather than objection to the content of my edits. If you had cared about article content, you would have revised sentence-by-sentence, as the history makes clear I did.


 * Given this and your participation in the Intelligent Design Project, which I have argued gives ample evidence of having committing to a point of view regarding Marks and his work prior to gathering reliable sources, I think is highly inappropriate for you, an administrator, to threaten as you have. If you wish to pursue this, I suggest that you find a sympathetic admin who has never edited on ID, evolution, pseudoscience, etc.


 * Regarding WP:COI, I disclosed details on my apparent conflict of interest at Talk:Evolutionary Informatics Lab before anyone called my hand. The policy on COI advises caution in, not abstinence from, editing. It also advises that an editor with possible COI hold the interests of Wikipedia paramount. When I insist that Wiki articles abide by Wiki policy on biographies of living persons, there is absolutely no doubt that I am acting in the interest of Wikipedia. ThomHImself (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please, by all means then, ignore my warning and carry on as you were. FeloniousMonk (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR
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. Baegis (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am defending Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. The three revert rule does not apply. You have engaged in no discussion whatsoever. ThomHImself (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Invoking BLP when no one else agrees with you is called 'gaming the system', and is usually taken as evidence of acting in less than good faith. You've chosen to tread a very precarious path making this claim, think carefully about your next steps. FeloniousMonk (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I see policing my own violations of Wiki policy in No free lunch in search and optimization as quite a strong indication that I hold myself to the same ethical standard that I do other Wikipedians. As I see it, organized groups of editors must not decide when to apply WP:BLP and when not. They may have the power to get away with selective application, but in my opinion they are ethically in the wrong if they try to do so. WP:BLP itself says when it applies. If there were any ambiguity as to its applicability in the attribution of ideology and advocacy to Marks, I would bend. But the policy makes it very clear that editors must not aggregate material from low-quality sources to draw conclusions that require high-quality sources. If I were to organize a large group of evangelical Christians here at Wikipedia and begin adding "evidence" from their websites to the Richard Dawkins article, and you alone were opposing that, how would you respond? It seems to me that you, as an admin acting in good faith to make Wikipedia function well rather than to win "the game," should give a straight answer to that question. ThomHImself (talk) 03:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you could, please organize this group of editors that you reference in your statement. That way we can more easily understand your motives so that we can remove you from further harm to these articles.  You have a phenomenal conflict of interest when editing anything related to Marks.  If you do not take notice of the guidelines involving such edits and restrict yourself to the talk page, your editing is subject to sanctions.  May I suggest that you try to edit Conservapedia?  They do not have policies such as NPOV and COI which may make editing easier for you.  Baegis (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody has done more than to observe that I have an apparent conflict of interest. I have addressed this openly and thoroughly at Talk:Evolutionary Informatics Lab and Talk:Robert J. Marks II. Your statement that there are sanctions for not following guidelines is false. WP:COI does not prohibit me from editing, provided I hold the interests of Wikipedia paramount. There would be sanctions if I were to edit with bias to serve my own interests. I have always sought a balanced presentation of information in reliable sources and reliable sources for material on living persons. My real-world identity and website are on my user page. My website identifies me as a scholar, and it seems to me you are essentially accusing me of scholarly misconduct here at Wikipedia. I suggest that you refrain from innuendo in your future remarks about my conduct as a scholar, and point out very specifically a) where I have advanced a point of view to serve my own interest and b) what that interest is. ThomHImself (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect DGA
When delisting GAs and altering articlehistory, pls see the instructions at Template:Articlehistory. Thanks, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.


 * Content dispute? Absolutely not. And "end run" impugns my ethics. (I am associated with my real-world identity on several Wiki pages, including my user page.) I have consistently held that Wikipedia should handle material on living persons as cautiously as it claims to in WP:BLP. This is about policy that is ignored in many statements about "ID proponents." I have begun with Marks because I have good reason to believe he is actually not an ID proponent. Rest assured that the community will be hearing from me about large-scale violation of WP:BLP in many claims about putative ID proponents. (I was amused to find that a high-quality source used to indict one putative proponent actually says that he is not an "active proponent," but "supports" ID through certain actions.) If someone were to produce a BLP-reliable source establishing that Robert J. Marks II is an intelligent design proponent, I would back off from the dispute about him immediately. But other editors at most synthesize the claim from BLP-unreliable sources. I just gave you a clear case in which two editors do not bother to do even that. They merely toss Marks' name in with Dembski's and then create the false impression that sources justifying claims about Dembski also justify claims about Marks. How did you form the impression that removing the unsourced and potentially damaging claim that Marks is an ID proponent was an end run?


 * To reiterate, there is widespread and systematic violation of WP:BLP in claims about living persons who are linked to ID. It seems there should be a way to raise an objection to abuse of Wikipedia that is not limited to a single article, but I have not found it in WP:Conflict resolution. I would appreciate your advice on how to proceed. ThomHImself (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I missed your email. To clarify (and yes... this IS a content dispute), you can not use WP:BLP as way to bypass WP:3RR for disputes on the content of an article. You seem to be dealing right now with the lovely battle of "my source is better than your source." This is completely understandable and not something that is necessarily bad, it happens all the time. I suggest that rather than attempting to exert your influence on the article through brute force, (which we have seen isn't working) you instead begin working your way through the dispute resolution process to get the issues with the article settled. The process takes time, but consistently does produce results.


 * To start with, if you are having a difficult time communicating with the other participants in the dispute, you might want to start giving some thought to checking out third party intervention. It is non-binding (but for that matter, everything short of arbitration is non-binding) but is often useful for dealing with this kind of problem. If you have any questions or would like to have additional information on where to go with the issue, feel free to contact me. Trusilver  18:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Also... one additional note. You might want to take a look at the reliable sources noticeboard, that may also give you a little bit of help into working with your WP:BLP issues. Trusilver  18:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable Perakh source at Robert J. Marks II
You seem not to want to engage in discussion. A sad fact of life is that web sources often vanish. Perakh's web-published opinion of Marks' writing is now unsourced, and is thus is no longer a reliable source for Wikipedia. Please engage in discussion of this matter rather than simply revert to the version you like. ThomHImself (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have long since rebutted this tendentious argument. Kindly stop regurgitating it on my talkpage. HrafnTalkStalk 10:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You cannot have "long since rebutted" it, given that the source only recently disappeared. ThomHImself (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR on Robert J. Marks II
You are currently at 3 revisions on the article. You know the rules of 3rr. They clearly apply in this case. Also, it is not a very strong move to have your first few edits after a 3RR block push right back up against 3RR. Please be advised. Baegis (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * First I added material to indicate how that a web source no longer existed. Hrafn reverted. Then I realized that another source, which stated an opinion of Marks' intentions in the nonexistent source, could no longer be regarded a reliable source, so I deleted the text that depended on it (mainly quotation). Orangemarlin reverted. Then I reverted for the first time. Now you, who were uninvolved in this round of editing, have arrived to "advise" me. There seems to be a pattern of tag teaming by anti-IDists. ThomHImself (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was going to just leave a nice warning here, giving you the benefit of the doubt on the 3RR. But given that you received a warning 5 hours ago, and you are like at 5RR, I'm filing.  You are pushing it.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 06:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I informed you on your user talk page that I am removing claims about Marks for which we no longer have sources, in compliance with WP:BLP. You removed the section I created, and left a note in the edit history telling me never again to post on your talk page. I also informed you that I also have been fixing broken links. There is constructive editing in what you are calling reversions. You are well aware that Marks has taken away some of your ammo by making information about his religious activities and beliefs private. Editors are going to have to respect his privacy now. ThomHImself (talk) 06:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that the source has been taken down, does not mean we no longer have it as a source. Mr. Marks runs the Evolutionary Informatics Lab. His actions and his employers' actions related to the site were partially the subject of a major motion picture, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. His views in this matter are encyclopedic. FCYTravis (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. 3RR on Robert J. Marks II, per a report at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The BLP exception to 3RR
A block you received for 3RR is being used as an example in a discussion at WT:BLP. You may wish to contribute your insights. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Fisher's Theorem Edit
If you are going to revert my edit you need to explain yourself, which you did not. You have no justification. Clearly you have a history of edit wars on here, so just skip it. -Kanbei85 3/15/18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanbei85 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * That would be "edit war," singular, for me, and "edit wars," plural for you. And, given that I was taking the side of my intellectual adversary, ID proponent Bob Marks, I obviously was not acting to advance a sociopolitical cause. What you did with your change to Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection was to replace a halfway reasonable account of the new article by Basener and Sanford, apparently added by a creationist or IDer, with propaganda that's been circulating in the creationist sector of the blogosphere. I don't want to hear jack from you about your neutral point of view. No one who's read and comprehended the Basener-Sanford article would characterize it as you did (aping the propagandists). ThomHImself (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I have read and comprehended the article, and I drew my description straight from the text of the article itself. Apparently you are unaware that Sanford (and presumably also Basener) is a creationist himself, so if my description of his work sounded a bit too creationary for your taste it is not likely a misrepresentation! If you are contending I have misrepresented their work then you need to make your case, not just bald assertions. --Kanbei85 (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Kanbei85