User talk:Tisthammerw/Archive 01

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my 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

Intelligent design

 * Hi. If you want to insert an NPOV tag (and I think you really wanted sectNPOV you need to explain specifically how the section violates NPOV.  Given the amount of trolling that page attracts, it would be much better if you could raise the issues on the Talk page first.  The best thing to do is to outline the specific changes you would like to make, and why.  Thanks.  Guettarda 22:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I actually was referring to the factual accuracy, not POV (though the article does have POV problems). The section I was referring to did have factual errors in both philosophy of science and in some cases even intelligent design. (Criticizing ID is one thing, distorting what ID theory actually says is quite another.) BTW, I have already gone to the discussion page first. --Wade A. Tisthammer (11/3/2005)


 * My point is that you need to explain your problem with the section. You can't just say it's "factually inaccurate" - you need to address what's wrong with it.  These tags are a last resort, not a starting place.  You need to start by outlining your problems with the section and how you would change it.  What is factually inaccurate?
 * In addition, factully correct is POV. Everything is POV.  NPOV is a matter of producing a balanced statement which takes into account the major POVs, and presents them is a wat that does not make fringe views seem more mainstream than they really are, nor does it make the mainstream seem more marginal than it really it.  Guettarda 23:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I did explain my problem with the section. And if "factually correct" is POV, and if everything is POV, why do we have the factual-dispute tag? Wade A. Tisthammer 23:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of being factually correct. It's a matter of reporting what the scientific community says are the reasons for not defining ID as science. This is not such a subtle distinction that it should be this hard for anyone to understand. FeloniousMonk 23:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but the article does not report the criteria as the position of the "scientific community" but as fact. Additionally, it's unclear that the criteria listed are even representative of the entire scientific community. Note for instance my example of Del Ratzsch. Also, Michael Ruse made some similar criteria in one creationism court case (e.g. falsifiability and tentativeness) and that has been criticized by even anti-creationists. Also, if the scientific community misunderstands the ID position, that is still no excuse to put forth a distorted version of ID in the wikipedia (I discuss the distortion part on one of the discussion pages regarding it being a featured article). Wade A. Tisthammer 23:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No, the article states very clearly: "Typical objections to defining Intelligent Design as science are:"


 * Not to take anything away from Ratzsch or Ruse, but they do not speak for the scientific community, which is what that section describes. Those few dissenting voices does not invalidate the criteria for demarcation. Your objections and arguments have been noted and were not found compelling by the regular contributors. You need to accept and stop dirupting the article with reverts. In fact, you've already reverted 4 times, violating the 3 revert rule and I could have you blocked temporarily from editing, read WP:3RR. So this is your warning against reverting and disruptions. FeloniousMonk 23:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Before that, the article states very clearly "For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:" and even after it makes that claim it states very clearly "In light of its failure to adhere to these standards..." Perhaps it was only representing the scientific community rather than stating facts when stating the criteria, but even if true that should have been made more clear. And again, the claim that the section represents the scientific community is questionable; note what I said about Ruse and his criteria.

On what grounds did you (or anyone else, if there is anyone else) not find my criticisms compelling? You have failed to give any reason why, and you have failed to give any reason justifying that my criticisms are among only a "few" dissenting voices regarding the philosophy of science (e.g. regarding tentativeness).

P.S. I apologize for not knowing about the three revert rule.

Original Research

 * I noticed at the Second law of thermodynamics article you've been going back and forth with contributors there over a link you've inserted to a outside site or page that you maintain. This raises some concern over original research, which is prohibited here under the No Original Research policy, WP:NOR. Please take the time to read and become acquainted with the policy, and make sure you're not supporting claims in articles with original research. FeloniousMonk 21:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

If you read the web article, you'd see that this was not exactly the product of original research. It has a dozen references to back up what the creationist position actually is. Additionally, the WP:NOR says nothing about links. The "no original research" only seems to apply to the wikipedia articles, not to links. Otherwise, I know of some links that should be removed from the wikipedia because they seem to have original research.

FeloniousMonk Accusation #1

 * WP:CON. Learn it, love it, abide by it. Your ignoring it is getting to be troublesome. FeloniousMonk 05:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:NPOV. Learn it, love it, abide by it. You're ignoring it is getting to be troublesome. Oh by the way, I especially like this part:


 * Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy).

And yet that is exactly what your reverts do. Additionally, you have not provided evidence that the consensus is to revert my edits (at least, those who are aware that the reverts violate WP:NPOV policy). Wade A. Tisthammer 05:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but your understanding and application of WP:NPOV has been shown at Talk:Intelligent design to be wanting. You've got more than five other very well-educated and well-read editors at there who all say you are wrong on this point (and others), and who have very patiently spent hours of their time explaining to you why that is. You, on the other hand, have been utterly resistant to reason and evidence, and have decided to take the low road by ignoring consensus and inserting and reinserting content rejected as POV and OR. If you want to be taken seriously I suggest a good place to start is rethinking your position and your strategy and abiding by the consensus and the NPOV policies. FeloniousMonk 06:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Really? Please show me even one editor who disagrees on the point of distorting the minority view. It wasn't Guettarda, nor was it KillerChihuahua. Indeed, few (if any) editors have even addressed this issue here in this discussion section. I welcome all "very well-educated and well-read editors" to look at what I've said regarding distortion of the minority view. But most, including you, have largely ignored it. I justified my claims by giving explicit references. You, on the other hand, have been utterly resistant to reason and evidence, and have decided to take the low road by appealing to consensus and continue incessant reversions while ignoring the real problem. Wade A. Tisthammer 06:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

ID edits

 * You seem to think that your edits are all uncontroversial. However, there is ample evidence to the contrary. Your claim that there is somehow a "disproof" of IC's designer being IC is peculiar. I have seen your argument to that effect on the talkpage and it appears to me to be original research in that you are interpreting Behe "flatly" in a manner that recasts the argument in a way that pleases you (as an ID proponent). However, what you haven't addressed is the fundamental issues that the ID article:


 * is reporting the ideas and the criticisms of the ideas to which the "who designed the designer" is a well-documented counterpoint.
 * is reporting sympathetic only to the extent that sympathetic reporting is demanded by WP:NPOV. We do not need to take ID at its word for anything when reporting on criticisms.


 * Joshuaschroeder 06:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

My comments on IC are not original research; I have given an explicit citation to support my claim regarding the ID position. The alleged ID position is that "by Intelligent Design's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex." I have challenged the accuracy of this; regarding whether this really is an ID argument. I have shown that it is not. Behe himself points to the possibility of the designers not possessing irreducible complexity; ergo it does not appear to be an ID argument that a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must be irreducibly complex. Behe is the leading advocate of irreducible complexity in the modern ID movement. With all due respect, what more do you want? Wade A. Tisthammer 06:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Moved from User_talk:FeloniousMonk
Because I've found you to be unreasonable, resistant to any evidence that contradicts your position, incapable of recognizing when you're wrong and unwilling to abide by consensus, I see no benefit in continuing this conversation, so I'm moving this to your page. Your objections are noted, and I disagree. FeloniousMonk 02:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I have explicitly mentioned what kind of evidence would contradict my position. If anything, it is you who are resistant to evidence that contradicts your position, as I have been the one to cite sources whereas you have not (which brings up some good questions: where have you ever given any evidence regarding what I claimed were distortions of the ID position?  And why have you consistently refused to provide evidence of consensus?).  Wade A. Tisthammer 18:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, what article was 68.57.33.91 referring to? Is it the same article that I claim is in violation of the NPOV pseudoscience policy? Wade A. Tisthammer 22:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * User:68.57.33.91 was refering to Wikipedia's ID article. If that is the same article you're refering to, I think you'll find there's consensus there that your interpretation of WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV are flawed. FeloniousMonk 22:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Really? And I suppose it's Wikipedia policy to distort the minority view?  As opposed to, say, representing the "the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view"?  I think perhaps you need to read the WP:NPOV section again.  BTW yes, I was referring to the ID page.  And I suspect user 68.57.33.91 was correct.  The neutrality of this article is a joke, and I'm not laughing. Wade A. Tisthammer 05:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You've got more than five other very well-educated and well-read editors at Talk:Intelligent design who all think you are wrong on this point (and others), and who have very patiently spent hours of their time explaining to you why that is. You, on the other hand, have been utterly resistant to reason and evidence, and have decided to take the low road by ignoring consensus and inserting and reinserting content rejected as POV and OR. If you want to be taken seriously I suggest a good place to start is rethinking your position and your strategy and abiding by the consensus and the NPOV policies. FeloniousMonk 05:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Really? Please show me even one editor who disagrees on the point of distorting the minority view.  It wasn't Guettarda, nor was it KillerChihuahua.   Indeed, few (if any) editors have even addressed this issue here in this discussion section.  I welcome all "very well-educated and well-read editors" to look at what I've said regarding distortion of the minority view.  But most, including you, have largely ignored it.  I justified my claims by giving explicit references.  You, on the other hand, have been utterly resistant to reason and evidence, and have decided to take the low road by appealing to consensus and continue incessant reversions while ignoring the real problem. Wade A. Tisthammer 07:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There is broad consensus on that page that your proposed changes violated WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and that's why they were rejected. There is also broad consensus that your actions violate WP:CON. That individual editors do or do not respond to each of your incessant objections is not proof that they are not opposed to or supportive of your position, but more likely due to them finding your constant drum beating against consensus tiresome. Taken with your constant attempt so add and re-add the same rejected content right up to the 3RR limit twice in as many days has probably earned you a place on their ignore list. Again, WP:CON; learn it, love it, live it. FeloniousMonk 16:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, WP:NPOV. Learn it, love it, abide by it.  I especially like this part of WP:CON:


 * Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy).


 * And yet that is exactly what your reverts do. I've provided clear and specific evidence that the ID position has been distorted.  Just because individual editors do not respond to the incessant evidence I proffered is not proof of consensus.  Please provide evidence of consensus regarding my proposed changes regarding the distortion of the ID position violate WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.  Speaking of original research, please give authoritative citations of ID adherents claiming that "fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design [is] that every complex object requires a designer" and "by Intelligent Design's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex."  Note that I gave citations when I was accused of original research (does a consensus exist regarding me being guilty of original research after I supplied those citations?) and I think it is fair for you to do the same especially given the evidence I put forth.  Wade A. Tisthammer 22:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You need to accept the fact that your arguments did not find any support or gain consensus, and move on. Constantly beating a dead horse, you're likely to wear out your welcome, both here and at Talk:Intelligent design. Your refusal provide reasonable and realistic criteria for evidence that you'd accept as proof of being wrong means I see little benefit in continuing to entertain your objections here or elsewhere. FeloniousMonk 22:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I have repeatedly requested evidence regarding a consensus regarding the distortion of the ID position and you have consistently refused. I have cited clear and specific evidence that you have ignored, and the Wikipedia continues to present these distortions of the actual ID position.  How can you expect me to move on?  Would you?  (You haven't, even when I provided clear evidence that the position is distorted and failed to provide any evidence of your own.)  I did provide reasonable and realistic criteria: if you want to say that ID has a "fundamental assumption" get this "assumption" straight from the horse's mouth.  Don't make it up, and don't rely on hearsay.  How is this unreasonable?  You have not explained why.  Wade A. Tisthammer 23:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, my opinion of what you've been doing is markedly different from how you characterize it, but I'll let others who view your history make up their own minds.


 * Since you've badgered us all so there, I've posted a supporting cite to Dembski stating explicitly that his CSI and Behe's IC both prove that design is the result of a transcendent designer, i.e.; one who is complex and who's origin yet still must be accounted for. That puts to rest your objections on this point. FeloniousMonk 00:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Not really, because this still doesn't address the distortions the article makes (e.g. regarding the alleged "fundamental assumption"). Wade A. Tisthammer 01:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk Accusation #2
Over the last three days the majority of productive and established long-term editors at Talk:Intelligent design have concluded that your actions have been disruptive and likely made in bad faith. Consensus has been reached among the same that your objections were without merit and that you have been ignoring and discounting all supporting evidence offered to you while insisting on your own original research definitions and reasoning.

Despite being warned you persist in repeatedly raising tendentious and specious objections long after, and spite of, this consensus being reached. You need to recognize and abide by consensus and your disruptive behavior needs to immediately stop. FeloniousMonk 01:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * FeloniousMonk, your actions of maintaining your claims and refusing to cite your sources seem more disruptive than the objections I have raised. Wade A. Tisthammer 15:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk Accusation #3
You've made your point, many, many times at Talk:Intelligent design, and consensus is that it doesn't need a cite, that your objections are specious and that you've been disruptive. You've been warned several times now. You need to accept consensus there and move on. FeloniousMonk 19:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, you have warned me about being disruptive. And I am again warning you about being disruptive.  There, we've exchanged our views.  Happy now?


 * Additionally, how am I disruptive? Note that I did not originate the section I was responding to.

Dispute resolution
Arbitration? You need to go through the steps of dispute resolution first. But why are you targeting FM? You should include the rest of us too. He hasn't done anything but be more vocal than the rest of us. See Resolving disputes. But be honest about it - your dispute is not with FM, it's with FM, me, KillerChihuahua, Bill Jefferies, CSTAR, RoyBoy...and all the other regular editors on the ID page. Guettarda 21:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * FM has indeed the most vocal and as a consequence seems to be the most disruptive; reraising points and accusations without providing the requested citations. I have tried to go through dispute resolution through the talk pages, but that so far has not appeared successful.  My requests for relevant citations are repeatedly denied, my own citations are often ignored (see for instance this section).  I operate in an environment where I get responses like, "you can't actually be as dumb as you are pretending to be".  Last resorts are beginning to look more appropriate.  If you wish, we can use a Mediation Cabal or some other thing first.


 * You repeatedly refuse to accept perfectly valid citations. It's disruptive to say "not good enough" every time someone answers your objections.  It appears that you don't even read the answers given to your questions - like my post earlier about IC.  You ask a question, and when it is answered you simply repeat it.  You don't even have the decency to read the reply...either that, or you read it and then ignore it.  Whatever your game, FM has been incredibly polite with you and willing to put up with your behaviour.
 * As for my comment - that's assuming good faith. I can't believe that was a serious reply, I don't believe you are as lacking in cognitive ability as that reply reads.  I think you were just continuing to be rude and disrespectful to your fellow editors.  You have refused to listen to reasoned and reasonable arguments.  How it is that "last resorts" are in order when you have failed to listen to anything your fellow editors have to say is beyond me.  Apologies for your rudeness in more in order, apologies for wasting everyone's time are in order - time that could be spent improving Wikipedia.  If you have any interest in the encyclopaedia project, make some good-faith contributions elsewhere.  Right now you are using up the energy and time of a host of productive editors.  Give something back to the project.  You owe Wikipedia for all the time and energy of its volunteers that you have wasted.  Give some back first, before you insist on wasting other people's time through dispute resolution.  Guettarda 22:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * First, I put up the issue in the Mediation Cabal. Second, what are these "perfectly valid citations" you refer to?  My request was simple and (I believe) reasonable: cite a leading ID opponent who makes this argument (i.e. that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own arguments).  None of the citations did that.  Many of the citations did not even mention irreducible complexity.  If you know of a "perfectly valid citation" by all means please provide me with one!  Otherwise, please don't pretend one exists.


 * I have read the replies, and apparently you have not read mine if you don't understand why I believe the replies don't answer the questions (e.g. on providing a citation of a leading ID opponent who makes the argument) and are not reasonable (e.g. the cited sources that do not even mention irreducible complexity). BTW, can you cite an instance of my alleged rudeness?  Particularly when you are the one who said "you can't actually be as dumb as you are pretending to be"?  Or would it be better off to avoid ad hominem attacks altogether?


 * Regarding your comment, you assumed good faith with that insinuated insult? Let's go over the issue again.  Under Behe's definition, a system is irreducibly complex only if it needs all of its components to effectively function.  A human is not irreducibly complex, because a component (e.g. the appendix) can be removed and yet the human can survive easily and live a normal life.  Why did you feel the need to respond with an insinuated insult here?  Wouldn't it be better to just explain why you think this reasoning is flawed?  Wade A. Tisthammer 22:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Provide you with yet another one? Why waste my time.  You keep saying they aren't good enough.  The evidence is there, over and over, on the talk page.  And you keep saying "not good enough".  We were at the same place two weeks ago.  Guettarda 03:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Please pay attention to my reasons why they are not good enough. Remember, I asked for a citation of a leading ID opponent who makes the argument (that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning) to show that it is not original research.  Many of the citations do not even mention irreducible complexity.  How are these citations good enough?  Note also that my request for such a citation (of a leading ID opponent making the argument) was never granted.  So far, the evidence is nowhere; certainly not at the talk page.  Wade A. Tisthammer 19:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent design
Your behaviour on this article and its Talk page is now becoming mere disruption; you're ignoring very clear consensus (which includes those who have stated their opposition to ID and those who have defended it), and refusing genuinely to discuss the issues with other participants, preferring to play increasingly transparent games of verbal ping pong. I hope that you realise that there's a limit to which this can be allowed to go on, and that Wikipedia has mechanisms to stop it. It would, however, be much more productive (and pleasant) if you revised your attitude, and concentrated on trying to improve the article rather than to transform it into a one-sided propaganda piece. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 08:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You have apparently accused me of trying to "transform it into a one-sided propaganda piece." Huh?  Where is this coming from?  All I did is request a citation (in accordance with Wikipedia policy) to show that a given argument ("by Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex") is not original research.  Does this simple request for a verifiable citation constitute trying to transform the article “into a one-sided propaganda piece”?  Is asking people to abide by this Wikipedia policy considered “disruptive”?  I think some people are overreacting here.  I never thought asking for a citation to show that an argument is not original research would dredge up so much bitterness.  I am sorry to see things have become like this.  Wade A. Tisthammer 20:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent design straw poll
I don't know if you're still following the article, but I think you'll be interested in this poll: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design/Marshills_NPOV_objections#Strawpoll Trilemma 01:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I shall cast my vote.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR warning
You're on your 3RR on second law of thermodynamics. Don't break it now will you? &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 20:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Since I was first informed of the rule, I have never violated it. I will not start now despite how disruptive you've been on the second law of thermodynamics entry.


 * BTW, you may want to read the message I've sent you. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for your message. I am capable of reading my own talk page.


 * I am aware you haven't violated the 3RR, just that you were edit warring and on the verge. We don't want you to trip up.


 * Your edits to 2LOT were against consensus and more creationist POV pushing (there might be a a pattern here, hmm, where have I seen you before?). I was not the first to revert them and no doubt others would act in a similar way too.  Is that a good enough explanation?


 * Anyway, please report my "admin abuse". As far as I'm aware, I've done nothing wrong, in case I have I apologise, but I don't think so. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 21:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Dunc, please tell me, what "creationist POV pushing" are you talking about? All I did was remove a distortion of the minority view.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk Accusation #4

 * Wade, you're way out of line at User_talk:Duncharris. It is you who has been disruptive. Duncharris has been cleaning up after your repeated inserting of your own POV, which is exactly what an admin is supposed to do. Don't for a minute think that you can bully him into not doing his job with threats and baseless allegations. This is very thin ice you're skating on, Wade. I advise to rethink your strategy. FeloniousMonk 22:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Please give me any shred of evidence that I have made false claims. This is (I think) a serious allegation to make, and you have made it without evidence. I advise you to rethink your strategy. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, why am I out of line? What POV have I been inserting? You have not explained (neither has Dunc). You accused me of making false claims, an accusation without evidence. If you think my claims are false, simply follow the links and see for yourself. Don't for a minute think that you can bully me with threats and baseless allegations. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Addendum Felonious, out of curiosity, how is deleting a number of my replies from the talk sections without warning or explanation not disruptive? If I suddenly deleted some of your comments on talk pages wouldn't you raise heck and start accusing me of being disruptive? Let’s not get hypocritical. --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk Accusation #5

 * You need to stop ignoring consensus and pushing your POV and distrupting the Second law of thermodynamics article. You've carried on there on too long and taken it too far. Read WP:POINT. The disruption you've caused far outweighs any benefit of your activities. FeloniousMonk 05:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What POV are you talking about? I was not pushing any POV. On the contrary, it has been others who have been POV pushing. I was just removing a false representation of the creationist position. I have been able to give a number of citations to prove my claim of the actual creationist position (and I have cited prominent adherents, in accordance with Wikipedia policy), all you did was ignore them and revert back the creationist misconstruals. Why? What could possibly be gained for distorting the minority position like this? Why have you ignored my citations? Why have you failed to provide any of suitable ones of your own in accordance with Wikipedia policy? You have carried on here too long and have taken it too far. The disruption you've caused far outweighs any benefit of your activities. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "On the contrary, it has been others who have been POV pushing." Your opinion is not supported by facts or consensus, both of which you repeatedly deny the existance of. I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to reason with you, I'm only going to insist that you respect the project and goals by following its policies and not wasting the time of others with tendentious and mendacious objections to content that enjoys wide support. FeloniousMonk 21:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No, my statement is indeed supported by facts. Again I ask, if I am pushing a POV, what POV am I pushing? You have not explained despite my repeated requests here and elsewhere (and perhaps never will, considering this "POV" seems to be a figment of your imagination), instead you have continued with your tendentious and mendacious objections. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
I would like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year. Guettarda 17:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you. --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediator response
The edits on Creationism should be put in other places. Mainly this is on physics topics and there are a lot of other possibilities to create new articles on Creationism and relationship with/or/and second law of thermodynamics. I am waiting your response.
 * I suggest you create new articles for Creationism and relationship with/or/and second law of thermodynamics and let the article of second law of thermodynamics free of ambiguous links. -- Bonaparte  talk  13:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

My response you have not given any reason, justification or explanation why the links are "ambiguous" here. Yes, the second law of thermodynamics is a physics topic but then again so is this particular creationist argument (I've seen it discussed in other physics literature as well) and I should note that the section on the creationist argument remained for over a year without removal before I corrected the misrepresentations of the creationist position that started this whole mess. I've asked on the talk section that if my (albeit somewhat paranoid) suspicious ideas that have come to mind are ill-founded, why the change of heart? I have not received a straight answer.

That said, your points do carry some weight. Although the creationist position is a significant minority view, and although other tangent links have been presented in the links (e.g. the second law and human economics) the second law and creationism might best be on another article if only because putting it on the second law entry sadly seems to have generated more heat than light. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Creation-evolution controversy link section
While you finally found the right article for your link section, it was removed for reasons delineated on the talk page. Please address the points there. --ScienceApologist 04:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I find it very strange that you yourself recommended that I should put the link section there only for you to remove it shortly after. Very well, I will address the points there.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Mistaken revert
My apologies - I reverted some of your edits on Talk:ontological argument in error. Hopefully I have now restored them. Please let me know if this is not the case. Banno 08:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The error seems to have been corrected. Apology accepted.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Drawing a conclusion
While we will continue to disagree on the appropriateness of linking to your page, it is apparent that there is little agreement with your point of view. Is it out of place to suggest that you agree with the consensus, in order to draw the discussion to a conclusion? Banno 07:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This whole thing started off after a disagreement with another editor, who then has gone on a campaign to remove all links to anything I've created. That hardly seems fair.  I have not gone "over the head" of the majority to make the edits myself, but there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with discussing the issue.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you have difficulty with an editor, make use of Resolving disputes.
 * Do you think that further discussion will result in changes to ontological argument? I think not. But you may do as you please. Banno 00:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Question from A ghost
Could you please explain your edit to Irreducible Complexity? I created a section for your response.--ghost 21:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, didn't see your attempt.--ghost


 * No problem. (For those just tuning in, my attempt was made here.)  --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

re: Irreducible complexity
I'm sure you've noticed this already but you're right up against the 3 revert rule on Irreducible complexity. I know you're also participating in the discussion on the Talk page. May I recommend spending more time making your case on Talk and let the article itself sit for a while? I know that personally I'd like more time to think about the facts and arguments being made and less time trying to track the reverts back and forth. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, I have noticed that. I've made my case on the Talk page and have indeed planned to let the article sit for a while (I have little choice over the next 24 hours or so).  Hopefully it won't last that long, provided some other users come by.  This is a clear cut case of an editor (me) removing challenged material that has no cited source, perfectly in accordance with Wikipedia policy on citation.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 04:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk Accusation #6
Discussion at Talk:Irreducible_complexity shows that consensus is that a cite was not required for the content you objected to and your oft-repeated objection was seen as specious and mendacious. Please stop disrupting this article if you have nothing to contribute but another endless stream of baseless objections and refusals to abide by consensus. FeloniousMonk 18:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, please provide evidence of consensus, especially considering that the RfC seemed to agree with me regarding the necessity of providing a citation. What’s more, Wikipedia policy is on my side regarding the necessity of providing citations.  So how can you call my objection baseless?  Let me cite Wikipedia policy for you:


 * Providing sources for edits is mandated by No original research and Verifiability, which are policy. What this means is that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor. [emphasis mine]


 * I, an editor, have removed the challenged material because it has no source. Your reinsertion of the uncited challenged material is baseless.  If anyone is disrupting the article here it is you.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I provided cites. Jim62sch provided cites. You don't like the cites; nevertheless the info is cited. Well. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Where, pray tell, have cites been provided to show that Bertalanffy came up with the concept of a biological system ceasing to function if any of the various components were removed? We know that Bertalanffy saw biological structures as complex systems, but little else.  Also, see the irreducible complexity entry again and you'll see there are no citations there regarding the Bertalanffy issue.  You didn't provide the cites, Jim62sch didn't provide the cites, the info is not cited.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Archiving
Might I suggest you archive your Talk page? It seems to be dominated by a single discussion, and keeping it so visible might not be conductive to moving on. A simple link to an archive should be enough to remind everyone of past discussion. Thank you. -- Ec5618 13:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, very well. I will take your advice.  Thank you.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Calling FeloniousMonk disruptive

 * Ec suggested that you archive, not that you engage in personal attacks. Grow up, Wade, leave your bitterness and persecution complex in the schoolyard.  Ec's request to you was very simple, with a very good piece of advice: "keeping it so visible might not be conductive to moving on."  So, what do you key in on and misinterpret?  Why, "A simple link to an archive should be enough to remind [emphasis added] everyone of past discussion", of course.  And you wonder why you get nowhere on the ID and IC pages -- your behaviour is disruptive and not conducive to the success of the project.  Jim62sch 22:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And it's not just ID and IC pages he's disrupting. Recently Wade joined forces with four other disruptive editors who are fighting to reference self-published material on personal web pages in the Natasha Demkina article . He entered the fray as an assigned "mediator," but his mediation has been disruptive and anything but impartial. He continues to dismiss our explanations why he's wrong by saying we haven't explained how he's wrong. He simply ignores what we post and pretends that we haven't answered him. He is currently attempting to redefine "primary source" to allow pro-paranormal editors to cite a crackpot's self-published personal web page. Askolnick 17:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * May I ask that you give an explanation for your accusations? In what way am I disruptive?  By acting as a mediator in trying to satisfy the desires/concerns of both sides?  Many times you do not answer me regarding why you find my compromises unacceptable.  For instance, you're original objection was that personal web pages cannot be given as secondary sources.  My compromise was to use the web page of this apparently prominent adherent as a primary source (in turn, the other side would have to relinquish their demand to have it as an external link) for a statement about this person that was already in the Wikipedia entry (the statement depended instead on a secondary source).  Using it as a primary source is allowable under WP:RS, thus apparently satisfying your WP:RS concern regarding personal web pages and secondary sources.  You did not answer many of the questions I asked regarding why you find this compromise unacceptable (as of this post).  For instance, are you now saying Josephson's criticism should no longer be included in the Wikipedia entry? If you do think it should remain in the Wikipedia entry, why not rely on a primary, first-hand source since this is allowable under WP:RS--the basis of your original objection?  --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What personal attacks are you talking about? That I called FeloniousMonk disrputive? FeloniousMonk has been disruptive, e.g. deleting RfC's he doesn't like. Incidentally, if calling someone disruptive is a "personal attack" FeloniousMonk is guilty of that as well (e.g. the second time he removed one of my RfC's). --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You missed the point. Again.  Jim62sch 23:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Wade talks a good story here, but his history tells a far different one. What he calls my disruption has actually been in fact a response to attempt to put right his disrupting creationism-related articles, which anyone can see he has a long history of.
 * His intentional misrepresentions of me here and at Talk:Irreducible complexity constitute a personal attack. His repeated restoring of the personal attack after it was removed   clearly justifies our identifying him as chronically disruptive long ago and only compounds the evidence against him now. His continued disruption is quickly wearing out the community's goodwill. FeloniousMonk 23:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You just accused me of making a personal attack when I made this post. Would you mind telling me what that attack was?  I said you were disruptive, yes.  But you have been disruptive.  What do you call willfully ignoring WP:CITE and putting back uncited challenged material?   What do you call deleting the RfC I put in response to that?


 * Additionally, you yourself have called me disruptive the second time you removed my RfC.   You have also accused me of being disruptive on numerous other occasions.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What is "the point"? And what personal attacks are you talking about? You could make yourself a bit more clear here. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Wade, let me do the analysis for you: "applies Wikipedia policy rather selectively" would be an ad hom, not an observation as you are implying dishonesty; "...appealing to an imagined consensus...", is clearly ad hom as it implies a certain level of either incompetence, stupidity, or a delusion disorder; "...whether this news blog qualifies might be open to debate--at least for FeloniousMonk..."; another ad hom as the second portion of the comment could have been left out were not your sole purpose to cast aspersions on FM; "...it has been my experience that FeloniousMonk himself often exaggerates..."; ad hom (implication of dishonesty) and, as with the rest, an accusation made without citation. Do you get it now?  Jim62sch 10:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wade A. Tisthammer, the point was that there was no need to criticise other editors, when you had an opportunity to burry the hatchet. You could have tried to put this behind you. Instead, you chose to keep this conflict going. -- Ec5618 23:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Bury the hatchet? FeloniousMonk has hardly pulled back from his criticism of me.  There was no opportunity for us to put it behind us.  Besides, he has been disruptive.  As I said before, what do you call willfully ignoring WP:CITE and putting back uncited challenged material?   What do you call deleting the RfC I put in response to that?  --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There was every opportunity. Every single time you dredge up these accusations, no matter how valid you may feel they are, you are choosing to exaccerbate the situation, instead of trying to mend it. There was every opportunity to 'take the right road', as it were. -- Ec5618 23:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In fairness I must admit your point may have some validity, and I have often refrained from making such recriminations. But further experience suggests there is no hope for mending the situation.  It appears there was no opportunity, because even when I refrained FeloniousMonk has been unrelenting in his accusations, attacks and disruptiveness.  FeloniousMonk has been disruptive as I've pointed out before (with citations).  He has ignored Wikipedia policy and has been disruptive.  It seems like this sort of thing should be pointed out given that he constantly accuses me of such things in my own talk page.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * RFC is meant to resolve disputes, not perpetuate them.
 * There was (and continues to be) broad consensus among regular contributors to these articles that your objections repeatedly raised are specious, and your repeated rejection of supporting cites indicates bad faith on your part.
 * Despite this you continued to make the same arguments for months that went nowhere, prompting myself and others to deem you a disruptive chronic malcontent.
 * We gave you every chance to redeem yourself at Talk:Intelligent design and contribute in a more positive manner, but you persisted in ignoring consensus. Your first RFC found little traction and produced no results. There was broad consensus that your objections had little or no merit. By raising subsequent RFCs you compounded the allegation of disruption in raising bad faith objections. Again, RFC is meant to resolve disputes, not perpetuate them. Any misuse of RFC should expect to be removed. Your claims that they were not meant to subvert consensus and continue your pov campaign are more than a little disengenous. FeloniousMonk 23:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As other editors have pointed out, the article on intelligent design is "policed by the bitter opponents of the subject of the article." Many editors have come by and tried to reform the article, but they are met with opposition from the overzealous opponents who police the entry, after which the would-be reformers quit (as I did).  It is thus not surprising you have managed to form a "consensus" regarding my objections that the minority view has been distorted and that the article contains original research.


 * And how have I persisted in ignoring consensus? You have failed to explain what you mean by this.  If by "ignoring consensus" you mean I maintain my position in spite of the tyranny of the majority, then I guess I'm guilty.  But this hardly seems like a fair criticism given what actually happened there.  For instance, there was the claim that "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that every irreducibly complex object requires a designer" which appeared to be original research.  You maintained to include the challenged material without a cite, thus running contrary to WP:CITE.  And even when I provided a citation showing this "fundamental assumption" did not exist the "consensus" (assuming one existed, since you have not always been able to provide prove the existence of the alleged consensus  ) ignored the citation and proceeded merrily on.  (See here when you first brought up the "fundamental assumption" claim and ignored my citation, see also here when the claim continued to remain in spite of my citation.)  Do you actually expect me to be convinced here with such behavior?


 * And if course, if you don't want to discuss my objections further, you can stop bringing them up as you did here.   I also brought the issue up here:


 * Perhaps you find my request to adhere to Wikipedia policy disruptive. But if you honestly think so, you have the option of not continuing the discussion. Notice that most--if not all--of my posts in this page have been in response to people who have brought up the subject somehow. If you don't want trouble, don't ask for it
 * You said, "Your first RFC found little traction and produced no results." Indeed, considering you removed it.    Or perhaps you are talking about a different RfC.  If so, which one?  You still seem without grounds to ignore WP:CITE as you did  and also without grounds for removing the RfC.   Your belief that the Request for Comments (RfC) I made regarding WP:CITE would continue the dispute (regarding whether a citation is needed for the challenged material) is not adequate justification.  And if anyone is guilty of bad faith here it is you, for willfully ignoring WP:CITE and removing the RfC on the issue.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)