User talk:Wekn reven i susej eht/Archive 1

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! . dave souza, talk 08:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Wekn reven i susej eht  Talk• Contributions 11:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

YEC or OEC
You asked me. I'm a YEC. rossnixon 03:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 06:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

More Outdated Material
An older creationist idea, proposed by creationist astronomer Barry Setterfield, is that the speed of light has decayed in the history of the universe.

This sentence is talking about c-decay. That idea lost its popularity with mainstream creationists in the early 1990s. If anyone objects to my proposal, I will: a) Further exposit on my reasons, citing many sources. b) Change my idea because whoever objects has given reasonable evidence for the idea's positive reception among modern creationists. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Although the sentence mentions that the idea is older, it does not mention how old it is.


 * Dr. Humphrey's idea = 1994 Barry Setterfield's idea = 1987 Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: 'Be concise: Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood.' unless you have to make a detailed, point-by-point discussion. Then I'll understand. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If no one answers w/in 3 days, I'll assume it's o.k. to make the edit. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not see any reason to exclude properly sourced material just because it is older. We do not throw out those aspects of Isaac Newton's work that have been superceeded by modern relativity theory. Doing so may be contrary to WP:Recentism. I would leave it at least ten days as interested editors may be busy or on vacation.--Charles (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wekn, your suggestions often end up being rather long and hard to parse, which I imagine is a roadblock for some editors reading through them and providing feedback. If you could cut down on the amount of text you're quoting from the article, that might help. For instance, this proposal quotes the entire paragraph, when you're only actually discussing one sentence. Just quoting that one sentence would be ok. Also, using &lt;blockquote&gt; tags would help differentiate the sections you're quoting and your own words. Either that or italics. (You've recently edited your initial comment. Thanks.)


 * As far as content goes, Charles is correct that we don't exclude content simply because it's 20+ years old. The article explicitly mentions that it is an older idea. If you'd like to expand that mention to include a date, that would be fine. However, this article is about the entire topic, which includes stuff from the 80s (and indeed, ideas much older).  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think an accurate history of the ideas proposed in creation science is important because, as a pseudoscience that generally attempts to reconcile itself with real science, it's inevitable that old ideas will be dismissed and new ones created on a fairly regular basis. Some of the ideas proposed by creation science over the years may sound plausible to an uneducated reader and it's important to note the history that shows that to date all ideas proposed have been soundly rejected by the scientific community and many within the creation science community as well. Noformation (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * @Charles: I'm so sorry that I miscommunicated the kind of edit I was going to make; I meant exactly when the theory was believed (late 80s and early 90s). You are very correct; the matterial is' properly sourced' and I will move the date up to 10 days (from the date of the first comment. As for the graviton theory (Isaac Newton), it is still accepted by some quantum physicists (although at a slightly higher percentage than c-decay for nearly all 'creation scientists' who can at least claim a Ph.D. in a related field), making it a great comparison to the c-decay "hypothesis". You see, if in a wikipedia article about Isaac Newton (although his theory is a theory and is over 200 years older than Setterfield's), assuming it hadn't stood through the test of time+science but was believed by some group of pseudoscientists, it stated that it was an 'older idea' w/out mentioning how old, one might assume it was still being believed by pseudoscientists today. @Jess: You're right about me needing to cut down on the words. I'll consider the suggestion and try a better format+more time editing. As for the 2nd paragraph, that's what I was planning to do. This is an introduction to the topic, but I think in the long run we might just have to open up briefly with the most accepted creationist idea and move the less-accepted ones to the article covering the topic (it isn't necessary to cover the entire thing in one or two paragraphs). @Noformation: explained in my reply for Jess. Also, the date of the idea doesn't matter nearly as much as the reception.

Thank all for the feedback. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, your initial comment indicated you would delete the sentence. If, as you've indicated above, your intention is to clarify the sentence by adding a date, I don't see any opposition here. WP:BOLD; Go ahead and try it. If you get reverted, then come back and discuss. (If I've misunderstood you, and you still wish to delete the content, then I'm still opposed to that, however). Thanks for editing your initial comment, BTW.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, clarification is never a bad thing! However, this info should not be deleted  N o f o rmation  Talk  22:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the deleting miscommunication. I should have phrased it differently. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I had absolutely no intention of deleting the content, just adding a date. Just incase any editors have any good objections to making this edit, I won't make a move towards adding a date until 09:31, 7 June 2011. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Your list
This discussion used to have a lot of posts, but was found to be useless. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 13:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

YEC, OEC, or Evo?
''YEC, OEC, or Evo?

''Can you make clear your beliefs regarding the origin of the universe on my talk page? Thank you. Weknreven i susej eht Talk• Follow 08:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)''

You asked on my talk page and requested that I answer on yours.

First, what does it matter?

Second, I'm glad you can't tell.

Third, you can't tell because I don't know. :) I'm neither a scientist nor a theologian, but a dabbler in both fields. I'm curious enough to wonder, but not curious or diligent rich enough to apply myself to years of hard study to find out. Oh, I may as well go ahead and say I can't imagine much of YEC could possibly be true; my dabbling has uncovered a great deal of honest ignorance, willful ignorance, and egregious duplicity there. It is far easier for me to imagine God created a spark of life which he allowed to evolve.

Fourth, when I find the time and inclination I will post or link to an explanation of why I hang around those articles. The gist will be that:
 * I believe in God.
 * Science depends upon the rational application of the scientific method.
 * The Bible is neither a reliable history nor science text.
 * Wikipedia should be an impartial storehouse of historical and scientific fact.

Yopienso (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply! Wekn reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 08:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used mainly for trolling, disruption or harassment. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm not a sock puppet. Is there some way to prove that? Wekn  reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 17:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you were a sockpuppet in that SPI case. I was talking about all those usernames that began with Tro, which seemed very suspicious. I was beginning to think if you were the sockmaster because of those edits. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 17:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What is a sockmaster? Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 17:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Another thing, not all the usernames start with Tro; the others would be: Tri, Wek, Da, and something else. I really am sorry about that. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 17:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not running a bot. It was all manual. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 17:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A sockmaster is the user that abuses multiple accounts. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 17:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I only have 1 account. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 17:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

So your claim is that you manually created welcomes to all sorts of accounts by hand? A bunch of these accounts were created four years ago and never edited, yet you thought to welcome them now? Also, the text you added above is from some random article talk page. You also created a bunch of "templates" (which I have deleted) that consisted entirely of snippets from random talk pages. I'm sorry, but I don't think you're here to contribute positively - but I'll leave that to whichever admin reviews this case. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you really jumped the gun in blocking this user. I seriously doubt that an ANI would result in a block here - you and me have both seen users do far worse than anything Wekn has done and with far less consequence.  Wekn, may I suggest that you file an incident report at WP:ANI?  N o f o rmation  Talk  22:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes (actually, I used OrangeMarlin's welcome w/my name). I did it just to make sure. The text from above was originally going to be in a 'exemplary discussions' subpage, but I didn't know how to create a subpage. The articles I chose weren't random. I am here to contribute positively. I may or may not be able to prove that to the wikipedia community. I understand your predicament. Whatever you say goes. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 18:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been doing some reading. Isn't there some tool that helps prove if someone is/isn't a sockmaster? Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 18:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen and been involved with a decent amount of talkpage discussion with this user and he has generally been easy to work with. He makes bold edits that usually get reverted, but thus far I have had no reason to assume bad faith because as we explain our reasoning for reversion, this user doesn't engage in edit warring and doesn't really even complain.  I think it's obvious Wekn is biased towards a creationist standpoint, but that's ok because we all have our biases.   I do think he is new to wikipedia and is slowly learning the ropes but at least in my experience, he has not been disruptive.  If there was an ANI or SPI that I am not aware of then you can disregard this.  If not, then perhaps a checkuser is in order before we jump right into a ban for sockpuppetry and an ANI is certainly in order if the ban is for disruptive behavior.  While I agree that some of this usertalk business seems strange, it's very possible there is a non-malicious explanation and I think we should AGF until and unless we get a solid reason not to  N o f o rmation  Talk  20:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm going to spend a lot of time reading every single WP policy I can find before I make another edit (exept to my user page). Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 08:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Give him another chance
This user was never warned, at least not from what I can see. Why not use the guidelines set out in the give 'em enough rope essay, and allow the user to edit again. I know this is not policy, but if poor editing patterns return he can be reblocked. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This case is a bit puzzling. Wekn started out rather stereotypically, but was amenable to reasoned discussion, and has done some useful work including finding dead links that needed updating. Then Wekn seems to have gone on a spree of welcoming users indiscriminately, which is odd but probably reflects enthusiasm after being welcomed, and creating useless templates which is more of a nuisance. It's right that these activities have to stop, but an indefinite block seems excessive: a warning and a second chance to behave productively seems in order. . . dave souza, talk 22:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll leave it to the reviewing admin to decide. My main reason for the indef was to stop what I found to be particularly disruptive behavior. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And that decision is being challenged by three people now - two of whom are on the opposite end of the philosophical spectrum compared to Wekn, I might add - so I think the correct thing to do would be to WP:AGF and unblock him. Me and User:Dave souza are both involved with a lot of the same pages as Wekn and if we ever have a problem with him we will surely report it.  And, as User: Ryan Vesey pointed out, he was not warned and so I really think you've overstepped your bounds as an administrator. You may have found his edits disruptive but clearly there is no consensus on that point.  N o f o rmation  Talk  00:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any abuse of admin powers here and I can understand the reason for the block, but I do think it likely everything was meant in good faith. So, as the blocking admin is amenable, I have unblocked -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I suppose I may have jumped the gun a little bit myself; I just see a lot of terrible editors spend months on fringe topics and get away with disruptive editing for the entire time while Wekn has actually been quite pleasant compared to a lot of the other folks on the creationist side and ended up getting banned. Either way, it's all over now and we can get back to arguing :) N o f o rmation Talk  08:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would agree with Dave that the problem is an excess of enthusiasm, rather than any ill intent. This has perhaps been compounded by a failure to understand (or at least to keep in mind) that the main focus in Wikipedia is improvement of the articles, and that excessive activity in other areas (welcomes, userboxes, etc) will be viewed somewhat dimly (particularly if it happens to cross the path of a admin investigating decidedly ill-intended activity such as WP:SOCKPUPPETry). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Dave: Thank you. The templates were originally going to be subpages on my user page, but I wasn't sure how to create them. Thank you, HelloAnyong for deleting them. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 08:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I understand the reason for the block, too. I shouldn't have been welcoming people who probably were never going to show up again. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 08:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Hrafn; thank you. Sorry! Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 08:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Wekn, anytime in the future someone accuses us of being biased to the point of excluding editors who disagree with scientific consensus, please do point to this example where we came to your defense even though we disagree on a lot. I'm glad you were unblocked without incident, happy editing :) N o f o rmation  Talk  08:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely! I'll be sure to do that. Once again, thank you. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 08:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Notes to self until block expires
-Write a refutation somewhere on a subpage of this article:  Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 11:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

-Look further into this:

-Debunk this:  Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 12:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)