User talk:Yqbd

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I thought useful:


 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Brilliant prose
 * Featured pictures
 * Boilerplate text
 * Current polls
 * Mailing lists
 * IRC channel

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. About, Help desk, and Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Be Bold!

20:34, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent design
I've blocked you for 12 hours for going over the three revert rule on Intelligent design. JoshuaZ 17:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I could use a break. --Yqbd 18:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours
I have blocked you for 24 hours for your recent edits to the intelligent design talk page, this edit in particular. Raul654 18:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

3 aug 2007
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on talk:Intelligent Design. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. ornis ( t ) 04:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You have now made seven reverts to Talk:Intelligent design, accusing multiple editors of vandalism. This is a serious accusation and a violation of WP:AGF. Please curb your behaviour or you may be banned or blocked from editing. Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 05:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Eight by my count. ornis ( t ) 05:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Nine. ornis ( t ) 05:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess you don't think it's obvious. I'd like to know your opinion on the actions of ornis, Filll, and Kenosis removing discussions while you're at it and what you plan on doing about it. --Yqbd 05:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Yqbd has implemented at least eight reverts by my count, all on exactly the same ussue: here. here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. All of these directly involved a very substantial mass of presently irrelevant argument about the notion of "peer review" of intelligent design in the scientific community, already extensively consensused and extensively discussed in the article. Offhand, I'd say this is more than beyond the WP:3RR limit. Enough already, please. No need to go through administrative channels, I sincerely hope. Take care. ... Kenosis 05:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your opinions. I'll have to disagree with you and we're back to square 1. --Yqbd 05:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Every editor you have accused of vandalism, plus myself and I think JoshuaZ, seems to think that the style, size and content of that particular section of yours is not appropriate for the Talk page and would be better removed to a subpage. Now, if you were engaged in a dispute with just one other editor, you would have a very good case for saying that they were acting inappropriately, and arguably vandalising the Talk page, by moving (not removing, note) material to a subpage. I known you know this, since you yourself were recently blocked for modifying comments by other editors that were critical of this very section. But when one editor insists that their debate must be carried on in their own way, and repeatedly reverts edits made by multiple other editors - when no other editor supports your actions or your accusations of vandalism, then you need to take a long hard look and ask yourself if it isn't you who is being disruptive to the proper functioning of wikipedia. Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 05:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * IMO, I question their assertions in a efficient, organized, and easy way. They are free to respond to questions however they want they want. --Yqbd 05:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * But every other editor disagrees with your opinion. Where does that leave us, given that wikipedia works by consensus? Or don't you care what other editors think?  Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 05:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I already asked them questions of what they think and I'm waiting for their response. Looks like they're the ones not responding or caring what other editors think. It's up to the authorities of this place in the end or the majority with the most time. --Yqbd 06:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Olive branch
This is just a little note to say that I hope you can find a way to discuss subjects such as Intelligent Design constructively with other editors. I know that most of the editors on that page can come across as having very little patience. This is in part because of their past experiences with particularly uncompromising and zealous editors. I'm afraid that the style in which you attempted to discuss your proposed changes was interpreted as disruptive by some of the regular editors - I think simply because of the amount of space it took up.

A Wikipedia Talk page isn't a courtroom or a soapbox. It's a place where, to be truly successful and productive, you need to make your arguments as concise, polite, and constructive as possible. It is also invaluable to read, and attempt to take on-board, the core wikipedia principles, in particular those covering neutral point of view and  verifiability.

I hope this helps. Wikipedia benefits from every editor who volunteers to help in good faith. Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 04:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
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. This is the third block in as many days - I seriously considered making this an indefinite block. Stop disrupting this article right now or you will lose your editing privileges permanently. Spartaz Humbug! 07:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm gathering some information on your block; please give me a minute ~ Anthøny  08:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So, did you notice ConfuciusOrnis, Filll, and Kenosis modifying or deleting my comments and their reverts without discussing the reverts? I don't think they were even discussing much of anything else on the talk page. --Yqbd 20:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[Talk:Intelligent design]
I am especially curious about your thoughts on D. A. Axe's articles since he says his peer-reviewed research in the Journal of Molecular Biology "adds to the case for intelligent design" and also Ø. A. Voie's article since it's from 2006 which is after Behe's statement from 2005. --Yqbd 06:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * From talk origins

Axe (2000) finds that changing 20 percent of the external amino acids in a couple proteins causes them to lose their original function, even though individual amino acid changes did not. There was no investigation of change of function. Axe's paper is not even a challenge to Darwinian evolution, much less support for intelligent design. Axe himself has said that he has not attempted to make an argument for design in any of his publications (Forrest and Gross 2004, 42).


 * You might find the rest of the article enlightening. ornis ( t ) 07:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * From CreationWiki

This only serves to prove the claim. It is interesting how at no point does Talk Origins actually refute the fact that intelligent design had been published in peer-reviewed journals.


 * And you may find the response enlightening. --Yqbd 07:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, the timestamp of that talkorigin article is "created 2004-3-19, modified 2005-12-22" and older than the 2007 post about Axe's quote. --Yqbd 07:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So an obscure journal published and then disavowed a literature review because the outgoing editor circumvented the peer review process. This is your example of peer reviewed research? Or is it the paper that carefully makes no claims whatsoever about ID, but which the Discovery Institute says the author says provides some support for ID because it decreases the likelihood of certain complex protein sequences arising purely by chance? Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 03:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you saying you don't trust that Doug Axe wrote back the following, which the New Scientist declined to quote? --Yqbd 04:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have in fact confirmed that these papers add to the evidence for ID. I concluded in the 2000 JMB paper that enzymatic catalysis entails "severe sequence constraints". The more severe these constraints are, the less likely it is that they can be met by chance. So, yes, that finding is very relevant to the question of the adequacy of chance, which is very relevant to the case for design. In the 2004 paper I reported experimental data used to put a number on the rarity of sequences expected to form working enzymes. The reported figure is less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Again, yes, this finding does seem to call into question the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design.


 * Don't forget to read this. --Yqbd 04:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but I have no interest in reading anything further from the discovery institute today. To the best of my knowledge they are not considered a reliable source on questions of fact, only of their own opinions. Therefore I fail to see what they could possibly say that would be relevant to this issue.  Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 04:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How convenient. --Yqbd 05:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

8 August
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 03:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So pro. --Yqbd 04:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am asking you nicely. Please change your current editing behavior. If you do not, I can promise you that you will lose your editing priveleges, at least for articles having to do with evolution, intelligent design and the creation-evolution controversy. You might lose more than that. You might get your login blocked completely, or your IP address banned. So please, please please change your approach. Try editing other articles for a change. Because if this does not stop, there will be consequences. Ok?--Filll 18:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

9 August
Please do not revert other users' edits while there is an ongoing discussion about those edits, as you did here. Wikipedia works by consensus and an important part of that is discussing changes to articles, not simply reverting to one's own preferred version against the stated opinions of other editors. Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 04:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And consensus works by editing and Amarkov said Amarkov's revert was a mistake. "The basic process works like this: someone makes an edit to a page, and then everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it." --Yqbd 04:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful." --Yqbd 04:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Edit warring works by editing. Consensus requires either that no editor reverts a unilateral change to an article, or that after a revert there is discussion, leading to a new consensus. Discussion necessarily involves reading and responding to, not misrepresenting others posts, as you just did. Amarkov also said that there might still be a good reason to exclude the information your revert added. To me, that seems like a very good reason to discuss reasons, not ignore them. Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 13:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you should read consensus and WP:DISRUPT . "The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined." --Yqbd 17:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The guidelines are pretty clear. Consensus is not fixed. It can change... but in this case, it has not, although one editor does not accept that, and is being disruptive and engaging in an edit war. Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 18:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Consensus is not fixed", but it has not changed because it is fixed? What? --Yqbd 18:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason that consensus has not changed is that you have failed to persuade any other editor of your viewpoint. Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 18:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And the reason the consensus has not changed is that you haven't provided any new evidence from reliable sources. Hrafn42 04:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What was the point of asserting that here? --Yqbd 05:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You say disruptive, I say bold. --Yqbd 18:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You can say "I am Napoleon" for all I care, the facts quite simply don't back you up. Hrafn42 04:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Asserting "the facts quite simply don't back you up" doesn't do much without "the facts". --Yqbd 05:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
You've clearly reached the limit of the community's patience at intelligent design and its talk page with your endless and baseless objections which misrepresent and ignore both sources and facts and your edit warring there. Despite warnings and a previous block your disruption of the intelligent design article shows no sign of abating. Earlier this week I proposed, and found wide support for, following the steps at WP:DE and seeking at a minimum a topic ban for you. Consider this your last warning about making any further bogus objections and edit warring before the community takes steps to stop the disruption of this article.

In the meantime we will userfy any and all sections you create with tendentious objections to your user page in order to free up talk intelligent design for fruitful discussion. FeloniousMonk 05:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree and will have to challenge sections you attempt to "userfy". --Yqbd 05:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * By all means, please do. It will simply compound the charge that you're chronically disruptive, making the community's case that much easier to make.


 * You've clearly met 3 of the 4 hallmarks of a disruptive editor:
 * Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
 * '''Cannot satisfy Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
 * Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.
 * Sure you want to continue down that path? FeloniousMonk 05:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Polls "sixty-four percent view human beings were created directly by God."
What's wrong with adding "sixty-four percent view human beings were created directly by God." to the Polls section?

According to a 2005 Harris poll, ten percent of adults in the United States view human beings as "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them" and sixty-four percent view human beings were created directly by God.

If intelligent design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist", then there should be no problem with adding the 64%. --Yqbd 04:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps because there is a separate article for Creationism which is also quite large, and the less unnecessary overlap between the two, the better. The phrase in question clearly refers to a creationist belief rather than anything specific to intelligent design. Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 04:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So, do you think intelligent design is not a subset of creationist belief or a distinct set or a partially overlapping set? --Yqbd 04:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you think we should merge this article into Creationism? Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 04:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No comment. --Yqbd 04:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps posts consisting only of rhetorical questions do not tend to contribute much to a discussion. Very well. Since Creationism and Intelligent Design are separate topics with separate articles, we as editors are obliged within reason to clearly distinguish between the two, to reduce the amount of redundant overlapping material in both articles, and to correctly assign material to the most appropriate article. It seems to me that the belief that "human beings were created directly by God" is pure creationism, not ID. Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 13:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * ID is partially a subset of pure creationism, so the poll results of the belief that "human beings were created directly by God" is relevant. Only mentioning the 10% is misrepresenting. --Yqbd 17:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * ID is creationism, but creationism is not ID, therefore support for creationism is not support for ID, therefore the level of support for creationism is irrelevant in the ID article. That is about as simply as I can put it. Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 18:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Human beings were created directly by God" would patially overlap "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them".
 * People that identify "God" as the "powerful force or intelligen being" would choose "Human beings were created directly by God".
 * People that haven't identified "God" as the "powerful force or intelligen being" would choose "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them".
 * Part of the 64% also believe "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them", but "Human beings were created directly by God" is more specific. --Yqbd 23:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The poll explicitly identifies "created directly by God" with Creationism, and "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them" with Intelligent Design. In other words, the source says that 64% believe in Creationism and 10% believe in Intelligent Design. Attempting to say that the source says anything else is either synthesis or misrepresentation, depending on what is said and why. And attempting to say anything else without reference to a source is  original research. Is that simple enough or would you like me to clarify further?  Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 00:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not synthesis and it's not misrepresentation. It's pretty much a direct quote from the source. If anything, you're doing the synthesis by bringing the Wikipedia articles, Creationism and Intelligent Design, into this. Do you think it's incorrect to say part of the 64% also believe "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them"? --Yqbd 01:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you ever seen any Venn diagrams with ID and Creationism? --Yqbd 06:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Take a look at Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive30 and the part from &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC) where he says, "Additionally, as I explained to you before as ID is a subset of Creationism it (ID) should be the second template." --Yqbd 06:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(un-dent) Okay, let's take a step back. Let's assume that we can agree that the changes we make to articles should be governed by wikipedia's official policies and guidelines, for example: All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy; Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. If you read either one of the links in the quoted sentence, you will find that we can generally only add statement X to articles if there exists, somewhere in the real world, a  reliable source that says statement X. Are we good so far, or did I lose you somewhere? Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 01:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So far so good... now let's take a look at the source in question. If we scroll down to "TABLE 7:SUMMARY OF KEY QUESTIONS ABOUT HUMAN EVOLUTION – BY EDUCATION" and then cast our eyes down the column headed "All Adults (n=1,000)" to the last group af figures, entitled "HUMAN EVOLUTION", we see the following:
 * Belief in evolution 22%
 * Belief in creationism 64%
 * Belief in intelligent design 10%

You should also see the same data repeated in Table 8, which is a good sign that it wasn't just a typo or something. But how can we be sure that these figures are the same percentages as those in Table 5, the one just using those long phrases to describe peoples' beliefs? Let's try scrolling back up for a moment to "TABLE 6:EVOLUTION IN THE CLASSROOM" where we can see the following three sentences in the left-hand column:
 * "Evolution says that human beings evolved from earlier stages of animals."
 * "Creationism says that human beings were created directly by God."
 * "Intelligent design says that human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them."

This is solid confirmation that the source associates the phrase "human beings were created directly by God" with creationism, rather than with evolution or intelligent design.

Just to recap: you should be able to see for yourself that what the source actually says is that 64% believe in creationism, 22% in evolution, and 10% in intelligent design. Now, as I mentioned earlier, the guidelines of wikipedia pretty much forbid us from stating that the source says anything else. The guidelines also say that we shouldn't state things without using a source to back us up. Still with me? Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 02:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Label the percentages however you want. This is very simple. Does part of the 64% also believe "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them"? Does part of the 64% also believe and represent supporters of Intelligent Design? --Yqbd 06:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's like a poll with 22% saying they don't have a car, 64% saying they have a Toyota, and 10% saying they have a car. You wouldn't only put "10% have cars" in the Polls section of a car article to make people think only "10% have cars". -- Yqbd 06:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that we cannot label the percentages however we want. We have to deal with how the source labelled the percentages. Using the car ownership analogy correctly, Harris conducted a poll in which 64% said they own a car, 10% said they own a Toyota, and 22% said they did not own a car (remember, ID is a subset of creationism, just as Toyota is a subset of car, not the other way around). You seem to be arguing that some of those 64% who identified as car owners are in fact Toyota owners. The problem is that the source does not say that. Therefore, what you are saying is original research and quite unacceptable under wikipedia's  principles and guidelines. We cannot say anything that the source does not say. This is, as you say, very simple.  Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 20:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Toyota doesn't just make cars. Not all Toyota's are cars. Toyota also makes trucks, and SUVs. Toyota is not a full subset of cars. Toyota and cars partially overlap each other. --Yqbd 00:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Then your choice of analogy was rather poorly thought out, because the source does not say that there is any overlap. The source divides respondents into one of four categories, depending on which answer they chose. There is no overlap between those categories; they are mutually exclusive; the four percentages add up to 100%.
 * Human beings evolved from earlier species. 22
 * Human beings were created directly by God. 64
 * Human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them. 10
 * Not sure/Decline to answer 4
 * That is what the source says. Attempting to say the source says anything else is misrepresentation; attempting to say anything without a source constitutes original research; neither is acceptable. Clear enough?  Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 03:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The source doesn't have to say there is overlap. I don't see where the source says there isn't overlap. You said, "ID is a subset of creationism" and now you say that there is no overlap between "Human beings were created directly by God" and "Human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them." --Yqbd 03:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you say they are mutually exclusive, then you could be implying that all the 64% believe Omphalism and that they do not believe "Human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them." which is what you would call, "Attempting to say the source says anything else is misrepresentation; attempting to say anything without a source constitutes original research; neither is acceptable. " --Yqbd 03:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If we cannot agree on whether there is overlap between the 64% and 10%, you should have no problem adding that 64% polled "Human beings were created directly by God" since that is exactly what the source says and is relevant to the article. It is fair to add the 64% and let the readers decide for themselves. --Yqbd 03:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My mistake, thought the figure was incorrect, turns out it isn't. There may be other reasons to keep it out, though. -Amarkov moo! 04:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see my discussion of this issue at Talk:Intelligent design. Hrafn42 07:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 06:05, 9 August 2007 Hrafn42 (Talk | contribs) (132,730 bytes) (→Polls - This poll also has 46% saying "Yes, apes and man do have a common ancestry" -- therefore the results on creation/evolution of humans is contradictory)


 * So do you want the 46% mentioned with the 64% also or do you want to declare the poll unreliable and remove the 10%? --Yqbd 18:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The wording of this poll makes it worthless. About half or more of all scientists that believe in evolution, and half of the general public are creationists by that ridiculous definition. Including me, and Orangemarlin. So it is just plain stupid.--Filll 00:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, why does the DI want to include the additional fraction? If ID isn't religion, then that fraction shouldn't be that relevant. JoshuaZ 00:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My impression from dealing with creationists and fundamentalists and biblical literalists over the years is that they will bend their definitions to suit themselves. When they want to look like a large group, they will adopt a very loose definition. When they want to exclude others, they will use another definition.--Filll 00:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Part of the 64% that believe "Human beings were created directly by God" also believe "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them". Part of the 64% may believe their religion because of "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them" and some of them may not. Either way, part of the 64% believe "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them". Does anyone disagree? --Yqbd 01:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't follow at all. For example, one could believe that human beings were created directly by God but not believe that humans complexity required that. See for example Omphalism. JoshuaZ 01:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Which is why it's part of the 64% and not all of the 64%. --Yqbd 01:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, so what? The number that believed that life is "so complex" etc. was 10%. JoshuaZ 01:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say all of the 64% believe "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them". I said part of the 64% believe "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them". Therefore, Omphalism has been taken into consideration and the people that believe "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them" are 10% + part of the 64% which is more than the 10% that's represented in the Polls section. --Yqbd 05:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "So do you want the 46% mentioned with the 64%" -- No. The 46% contradicts the 64%, rendering both figures unreliable, so neither figure should be included (which is what I already said in Talk:Intelligent design, if you could be bothered reading it instead of asking questions that have already been answered). Hrafn42 03:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Now answer the second part, "do you want to declare the poll unreliable and remove the 10%?" --Yqbd 05:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In other words what? Even assuming the referenced poll(s) are reasonably repeatable and reliable as to the particular questions asked, and even assuming the way the questions were framed are meaningful in some way that can be carried beyond the next public election cycle, the point is what? That ID is political? Perhaps that the content of biology classes in secondary schools should be determined by polls? Or, what? ... Come to think of it, I withdraw the questions, which were merely rhetorical. ... Kenosis 06:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If the 64% is unreliable, then the 10% should be affected also. --Yqbd 06:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The 64% is unreliable because it is directly contradicted by the 46%. The 10% is not directly contradicted, so we have no direct evidence that it is unreliable. Incidentally, the problem is primarily with the people polled agreeing with contradictory viewpoints, rather than with the poll itself. The poll is only at fault to the extent that (with more careful and searching questions) it could have resolved these contradictions. Hrafn42 07:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're trying to say only a percentage is able to be unreliable by saying only the 64% of the 100% is unreliable, then let's say only 46% of the 64% is unreliable and just add 34.56% to the article. --Yqbd 00:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yqbd: That argument demonstrates a profound ignorance of statistics. As I said above (and in Talk:Intelligent design, why don't you read what I say, before responding) is that both the 64% and the 46% figures are unreliable. Your 34.56% has NO MEANING WHATSOEVER! Hrafn42 04:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should read what Sheffield Steel wrote.


 * That is what the source says. Attempting to say the source says anything else is misrepresentation; attempting to say anything without a source constitutes original research; neither is acceptable. Clear enough?  Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 03:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like you're "Attempting to say the source says anything else is misrepresentation; attempting to say anything without a source constitutes original research; neither is acceptable." --Yqbd 03:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No Yqbd. I am merely pointing out the fact that members of the Harris poll's sample are expressing views that are prima facie self-contradictory on this issue. It is your 34.56% that is OR (and meaningless pseudomathematics besides). Hrafn42 03:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then, do you have any objections to adding the problems of the 2005 Harris poll like the flaws of Zogby polls in the Polls section? --Yqbd 04:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How is the 10% not affected and not unreliable? If you say the 64% is unreliable, then more or less than 10% could agree that "Human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them." --Yqbd 04:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have already directly addressed this point in a comment above. Hrafn42 05:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you agree that there is partial overlap between the 64% and 10% and that part of the 64% that believe "Human beings were created directly by God" also believes "Human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them." --Yqbd 05:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "I have no interest in discussing the matter further with someone who seems focused purely on nit-picking and twisting others' statements and not on substantive discussion." Hrafn42 05:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

undergirds [sic]
"These activities betray an aggressive, systematic agenda for promoting not only intelligent design creationism, but the religious worldview that undergirds it."

What's the reference for there being a "religious worldview that undergirds it"? --Yqbd 05:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as to 'popularize' our ideas in the broader culture."


 * "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."


 * "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory,"


 * Do you even bother reading the article? <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 05:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there an uncivil reason for asking that? --Yqbd 17:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

We have repeated quotes from the main people in the DI that ID is just religion. We have a court determination that it is just religion. We notice that the DI uses the same discredited arguments that religious creationists use. The textbook for ID was the same textbook used for creationism, with a few edits of a word processor. How much more do you need? --Filll 12:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

On the simplest level, the answer to this question is that the reference immediately follows the text in the article, which is fairly unsurprising, since that style is used extensively throughout wikipedia. A higher level answer - a meta-answer, if you will - is that no reference is required, since we are directly quoting a statement by an individual. Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 13:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Polls "sixty-four percent view human beings were created directly by God."
What's wrong with adding "sixty-four percent view human beings were created directly by God." to the Polls section?

According to a 2005 Harris poll, ten percent of adults in the United States view human beings as "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them" and sixty-four percent view human beings were created directly by God.

If intelligent design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist", then there should be no problem with adding the 64%. --Yqbd 04:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps because there is a separate article for Creationism which is also quite large, and the less unnecessary overlap between the two, the better. The phrase in question clearly refers to a creationist belief rather than anything specific to intelligent design. Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 04:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So, do you think intelligent design is not a subset of creationist belief or a distinct set or a partially overlapping set? --Yqbd 04:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you think we should merge this article into Creationism? Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 04:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No comment. --Yqbd 04:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps posts consisting only of rhetorical questions do not tend to contribute much to a discussion. Very well. Since Creationism and Intelligent Design are separate topics with separate articles, we as editors are obliged within reason to clearly distinguish between the two, to reduce the amount of redundant overlapping material in both articles, and to correctly assign material to the most appropriate article. It seems to me that the belief that "human beings were created directly by God" is pure creationism, not ID. Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 13:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * ID is partially a subset of pure creationism, so the poll results of the belief that "human beings were created directly by God" is relevant. Only mentioning the 10% is misrepresenting. --Yqbd 17:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * ID is creationism, but creationism is not ID, therefore support for creationism is not support for ID, therefore the level of support for creationism is irrelevant in the ID article. That is about as simply as I can put it. Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 18:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Human beings were created directly by God" would patially overlap "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them".
 * People that identify "God" as the "powerful force or intelligen being" would choose "Human beings were created directly by God".
 * People that haven't identified "God" as the "powerful force or intelligen being" would choose "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them".
 * Part of the 64% also believe "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them", but "Human beings were created directly by God" is more specific. --Yqbd 23:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The poll explicitly identifies "created directly by God" with Creationism, and "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them" with Intelligent Design. In other words, the source says that 64% believe in Creationism and 10% believe in Intelligent Design. Attempting to say that the source says anything else is either synthesis or misrepresentation, depending on what is said and why. And attempting to say anything else without reference to a source is  original research. Is that simple enough or would you like me to clarify further?  Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 00:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not synthesis and it's not misrepresentation. It's pretty much a direct quote from the source. If anything, you're doing the synthesis by bringing the Wikipedia articles, Creationism and Intelligent Design, into this. Do you think it's incorrect to say part of the 64% also believe "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them"? --Yqbd 01:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you ever seen any Venn diagrams with ID and Creationism? --Yqbd 06:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Take a look at Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive30 and the part from &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC) where he says, "Additionally, as I explained to you before as ID is a subset of Creationism it (ID) should be the second template." --Yqbd 06:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(un-dent) Okay, let's take a step back. Let's assume that we can agree that the changes we make to articles should be governed by wikipedia's official policies and guidelines, for example: All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy; Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. If you read either one of the links in the quoted sentence, you will find that we can generally only add statement X to articles if there exists, somewhere in the real world, a  reliable source that says statement X. Are we good so far, or did I lose you somewhere? Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 01:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So far so good... now let's take a look at the source in question. If we scroll down to "TABLE 7:SUMMARY OF KEY QUESTIONS ABOUT HUMAN EVOLUTION – BY EDUCATION" and then cast our eyes down the column headed "All Adults (n=1,000)" to the last group af figures, entitled "HUMAN EVOLUTION", we see the following:
 * Belief in evolution 22%
 * Belief in creationism 64%
 * Belief in intelligent design 10%

You should also see the same data repeated in Table 8, which is a good sign that it wasn't just a typo or something. But how can we be sure that these figures are the same percentages as those in Table 5, the one just using those long phrases to describe peoples' beliefs? Let's try scrolling back up for a moment to "TABLE 6:EVOLUTION IN THE CLASSROOM" where we can see the following three sentences in the left-hand column:
 * "Evolution says that human beings evolved from earlier stages of animals."
 * "Creationism says that human beings were created directly by God."
 * "Intelligent design says that human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them."

This is solid confirmation that the source associates the phrase "human beings were created directly by God" with creationism, rather than with evolution or intelligent design.

Just to recap: you should be able to see for yourself that what the source actually says is that 64% believe in creationism, 22% in evolution, and 10% in intelligent design. Now, as I mentioned earlier, the guidelines of wikipedia pretty much forbid us from stating that the source says anything else. The guidelines also say that we shouldn't state things without using a source to back us up. Still with me? Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 02:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Label the percentages however you want. This is very simple. Does part of the 64% also believe "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them"? Does part of the 64% also believe and represent supporters of Intelligent Design? --Yqbd 06:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's like a poll with 22% saying they don't have a car, 64% saying they have a Toyota, and 10% saying they have a car. You wouldn't only put "10% have cars" in the Polls section of a car article to make people think only "10% have cars". -- Yqbd 06:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that we cannot label the percentages however we want. We have to deal with how the source labelled the percentages. Using the car ownership analogy correctly, Harris conducted a poll in which 64% said they own a car, 10% said they own a Toyota, and 22% said they did not own a car (remember, ID is a subset of creationism, just as Toyota is a subset of car, not the other way around). You seem to be arguing that some of those 64% who identified as car owners are in fact Toyota owners. The problem is that the source does not say that. Therefore, what you are saying is original research and quite unacceptable under wikipedia's  principles and guidelines. We cannot say anything that the source does not say. This is, as you say, very simple.  Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 20:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Toyota doesn't just make cars. Not all Toyota's are cars. Toyota also makes trucks, and SUVs. Toyota is not a full subset of cars. Toyota and cars partially overlap each other. --Yqbd 00:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Then your choice of analogy was rather poorly thought out, because the source does not say that there is any overlap. The source divides respondents into one of four categories, depending on which answer they chose. There is no overlap between those categories; they are mutually exclusive; the four percentages add up to 100%.
 * Human beings evolved from earlier species. 22
 * Human beings were created directly by God. 64
 * Human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them. 10
 * Not sure/Decline to answer 4
 * That is what the source says. Attempting to say the source says anything else is misrepresentation; attempting to say anything without a source constitutes original research; neither is acceptable. Clear enough?  Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 03:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The source doesn't have to say there is overlap. I don't see where the source says there isn't overlap. You said, "ID is a subset of creationism" and now you say that there is no overlap between "Human beings were created directly by God" and "Human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them." --Yqbd 03:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you say they are mutually exclusive, then you could be implying that all the 64% believe Omphalism and that they do not believe "Human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them." which is what you would call, "Attempting to say the source says anything else is misrepresentation; attempting to say anything without a source constitutes original research; neither is acceptable. " --Yqbd 03:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If we cannot agree on whether there is overlap between the 64% and 10%, you should have no problem adding that 64% polled "Human beings were created directly by God" since that is exactly what the source says and is relevant to the article. It is fair to add the 64% and let the readers decide for themselves. --Yqbd 03:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My mistake, thought the figure was incorrect, turns out it isn't. There may be other reasons to keep it out, though. -Amarkov moo! 04:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see my discussion of this issue at Talk:Intelligent design. Hrafn42 07:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 06:05, 9 August 2007 Hrafn42 (Talk | contribs) (132,730 bytes) (→Polls - This poll also has 46% saying "Yes, apes and man do have a common ancestry" -- therefore the results on creation/evolution of humans is contradictory)


 * So do you want the 46% mentioned with the 64% also or do you want to declare the poll unreliable and remove the 10%? --Yqbd 18:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The wording of this poll makes it worthless. About half or more of all scientists that believe in evolution, and half of the general public are creationists by that ridiculous definition. Including me, and Orangemarlin. So it is just plain stupid.--Filll 00:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, why does the DI want to include the additional fraction? If ID isn't religion, then that fraction shouldn't be that relevant. JoshuaZ 00:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My impression from dealing with creationists and fundamentalists and biblical literalists over the years is that they will bend their definitions to suit themselves. When they want to look like a large group, they will adopt a very loose definition. When they want to exclude others, they will use another definition.--Filll 00:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Part of the 64% that believe "Human beings were created directly by God" also believe "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them". Part of the 64% may believe their religion because of "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them" and some of them may not. Either way, part of the 64% believe "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them". Does anyone disagree? --Yqbd 01:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't follow at all. For example, one could believe that human beings were created directly by God but not believe that humans complexity required that. See for example Omphalism. JoshuaZ 01:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Which is why it's part of the 64% and not all of the 64%. --Yqbd 01:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, so what? The number that believed that life is "so complex" etc. was 10%. JoshuaZ 01:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say all of the 64% believe "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them". I said part of the 64% believe "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them". Therefore, Omphalism has been taken into consideration and the people that believe "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them" are 10% + part of the 64% which is more than the 10% that's represented in the Polls section. --Yqbd 05:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "So do you want the 46% mentioned with the 64%" -- No. The 46% contradicts the 64%, rendering both figures unreliable, so neither figure should be included (which is what I already said in Talk:Intelligent design, if you could be bothered reading it instead of asking questions that have already been answered). Hrafn42 03:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Now answer the second part, "do you want to declare the poll unreliable and remove the 10%?" --Yqbd 05:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In other words what? Even assuming the referenced poll(s) are reasonably repeatable and reliable as to the particular questions asked, and even assuming the way the questions were framed are meaningful in some way that can be carried beyond the next public election cycle, the point is what? That ID is political? Perhaps that the content of biology classes in secondary schools should be determined by polls? Or, what? ... Come to think of it, I withdraw the questions, which were merely rhetorical. ... Kenosis 06:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If the 64% is unreliable, then the 10% should be affected also. --Yqbd 06:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The 64% is unreliable because it is directly contradicted by the 46%. The 10% is not directly contradicted, so we have no direct evidence that it is unreliable. Incidentally, the problem is primarily with the people polled agreeing with contradictory viewpoints, rather than with the poll itself. The poll is only at fault to the extent that (with more careful and searching questions) it could have resolved these contradictions. Hrafn42 07:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're trying to say only a percentage is able to be unreliable by saying only the 64% of the 100% is unreliable, then let's say only 46% of the 64% is unreliable and just add 34.56% to the article. --Yqbd 00:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yqbd: That argument demonstrates a profound ignorance of statistics. As I said above (and in Talk:Intelligent design, why don't you read what I say, before responding) is that both the 64% and the 46% figures are unreliable. Your 34.56% has NO MEANING WHATSOEVER! Hrafn42 04:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should read what Sheffield Steel wrote.


 * That is what the source says. Attempting to say the source says anything else is misrepresentation; attempting to say anything without a source constitutes original research; neither is acceptable. Clear enough?  Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 03:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like you're "Attempting to say the source says anything else is misrepresentation; attempting to say anything without a source constitutes original research; neither is acceptable." --Yqbd 03:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No Yqbd. I am merely pointing out the fact that members of the Harris poll's sample are expressing views that are prima facie self-contradictory on this issue. It is your 34.56% that is OR (and meaningless pseudomathematics besides). Hrafn42 03:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then, do you have any objections to adding the problems of the 2005 Harris poll like the flaws of Zogby polls in the Polls section? --Yqbd 04:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How is the 10% not affected and not unreliable? If you say the 64% is unreliable, then more or less than 10% could agree that "Human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them." --Yqbd 04:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have already directly addressed this point in a comment above. Hrafn42 05:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you agree that there is partial overlap between the 64% and 10% and that part of the 64% that believe "Human beings were created directly by God" also believes "Human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them." --Yqbd 05:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "I have no interest in discussing the matter further with someone who seems focused purely on nit-picking and twisting others' statements and not on substantive discussion." Hrafn42 05:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal Requirements for "No articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals"
Regarding the removal of "No articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals", does everyone agree with Hrafn42's requirements? --Yqbd 03:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Yqbd: none of us particularly care whether these journals on your list are "peer-reviewed scientific journals" or not. For you to demonstrate that there are peer-reviewed articles supportive of ID, you must demonstrate, for each article, the following: Come up with competent evidence and arguments on these points, for a specific article, and we will listen to you (though there's an excellent chance that we'll disagree with you). Simply repeat DI propaganda, and you will get ignored. Hrafn42 03:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Does anyone else have any other requirements to show that "articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals"? --Yqbd 04:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) That the journal has a credible editorial and peer-review process (this leaves out Rivista di Biologia/Biology)
 * 2) That this process was followed (this leaves out the Meyer article)
 * 3) That the journal is competent for the subject matter of the article (this leaves out Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington for the Meyer article)
 * 4) That the article is genuinely supportive of ID
 * I think Hrafn4's requirements are fair. - PhDP (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is Discovery Institute reliable or unreliable?
Once and for all, why is Discovery Institute reliable or unreliable? --Yqbd 04:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The DI's core mission is to push a lie designed to confused people. Their publications typically mix some truth with much fiction. For stating their own position, they can be taken as reliable, but for most other things what they say should be taken with a grain of salt. Raul654 04:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the evidence for this assertion that "The DI's core mission is to push a lie designed to confused people."? --Yqbd 04:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the evidence for this assertion that "Their publications typically mix some truth with much fiction."? --Yqbd 04:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not about to go to the effort to provide references for the perfectly obvious. DI's core mission is to push intelligent design. Intelligent design is a canard - an deliberately false theory designed to repackage creationism as science. The end purpose is to duck court rulings that eliminated religion from the science classroom, by confusing people into conflating science and religion. As far as lies found in DI publications, they simple fact that they claim as supportive of their position discredited, withdrawn, or totally unrelated articles is fact enough. And I'm sure others more versed in their claims could make a laundry list of falsities found in their publications. Raul654 04:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Both the DI, and its individual members, have a record a mile long for misrepresentation, making and repeating unsubstantiated claims, making claims well outside their areas of expertise, and even the occasional outright fabrication. Some of the evidence for this is presented at Discovery Institute -- but that's only the tip of the iceberg. Hrafn42 04:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Discovery Institute is a wholly partisan source that has conclusively been shown to be pushing half-truths and outright lies by other, less partisan sources. As such the Discovery Institute is only suitable as a primary source. FeloniousMonk 04:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Overview - Despite this, proponents believe that a number of intelligent design articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals.
04:17, 12 August 2007 PhDP (Talk | contribs) m (132,474 bytes) (Undid. Discuss it. Anyway, it's already written in the article that IDists claim they have published in peer-reviewed journals.)


 * The likes of "No articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, nor has intelligent design been the subject of scientific research or testing." is also written in the article. Why is it allowed in the Overview and why is "Despite this, proponents believe that a number of intelligent design articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals." not allowed in the Overview? --Yqbd 04:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yqbd, I really don't see the point of the change you're trying to push. The article already explains that IDists think they have published in peer-reviewed journals (in the last part of "Peer review"). The fact that they have not published in a peer-reviewed journal is very important, it's why it is considered pseudoscience, it's in part why ID is considered pseudoscience, it has to be included in the overview. And then, later (in the Peer Review section), we can add info on this - PhDP (talk) 04:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? Because of WP:UNDUE. Hrafn42 04:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk False Accusations
FeloniousMonk moves valid active discussion from Talk:Intelligent_design to my User Talk page and accuses me of being disruptive. When asked for examples, FeloniousMonk gives examples of me correcting a typo or finding an incorrect link to a cited reference that ended up being corrected and updated. In one example, FeloniousMonk comments (rv vandalism) when I tried to move back one of the discussions that have been going on for days. --Yqbd 08:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Other examples from FeloniousMonk show that I have made edits and editors have reverted. We then discussed the edits and consensus was restored. On some reverts I legitimately oppose, we were having an active discussion which FeloniousMonk userfied because FeloniousMonk did not know what was really being discussed. --Yqbd 08:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are examples of FeloniousMonk's mass move of our discussions  .

These are the example's FeloniousMonk lists as being disruptive.


 * Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
 * I'd like examples of this please. --Yqbd 07:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * FeloniousMonk 07:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And what is wrong with each of those? --Yqbd 07:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 
 * I tried adding the full quote from the source and it was reverted. --Yqbd 07:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 
 * I tried to replace "modified to avoid" with "without" and it was reverted. We then discussed the revert. I asked for reference of the previous discussion and Sheffield Steel responded. --Yqbd 07:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 
 * Giving as an example shows how you don't know what is going on. I added "(Webpage cannot be found on 2007-08-08.)" to the reference and SheffieldSteel updated the reference.  Notice the comment, "(retrieved article - date was incorrect, website was revised, no biggie)" --Yqbd 07:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * These two edits for the mention of 64% of the poll, I believe, is relevant and more accurately represents the poll. The article just mentions what 10% believed. We were discussing this in the Talk page and you disrupted the discussion by userfying it. One of the editors also found something thought to be contradictary because of the discussion. Concession for including a phrase was also brewing. If you did know what was going on in the discussion, it looks like you were just helping one editor that was losing an argument about what the source says. --Yqbd 07:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 
 * This was reverted, discussed, and pretty much settled. The discussion could've been archived instead of userfied by FeloniousMonk. --Yqbd 08:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 
 * This is just an example of correcting a typo. --Yqbd 07:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 
 * This was reverted, discussed, and pretty much settled. The discussion could've been archived instead of userfied by FeloniousMonk. --Yqbd 08:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to Talk:Intelligent design while blocked.
Talk:Intelligent_design


 * Yqbd, you've been advised already that your interpretation that some of the 64% might support ID is unacceptable original research by yourself, and goes against the interpretation presented by the source. The fact that ID proponents claim creationist support while denying being creationist is an inherent contradiction in ID, and it's not our place to second-guess how the poll should have been constructed to deal with that or how it should be interpreted. .. dave souza, talk 09:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "The fact that ID proponents claim creationist support while denying being creationist" is not a contradiction since they are overlapping. Yellow light is a mix of or "has support from" Green and Red, but is neither Green nor Red. If it's not our place to second-guess "how it should be interpreted" then you have no problem adding the 64% to the Polls section so people that believe Creation supports ID can interpret it their way and people that don't believe Creation supports ID can interpret it their way. --yqbd 09:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Unblock Request 3

 * Reviewing admin: please see Community sanction noticeboard/Archive11 before unblocking. --  Wasell ( T ) 09:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't know there were more comments there. It's nice to know people are monitoring my talk page. That was a fast comment. --yqbd 09:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The difficulties of discussing anything with Yqbd should be clear to anyone following the sequence of block/unblock-request/decline-reasons on this page. For a far longer and more tedious example, see my attempt above to reason with and educate Yqbd which, after 23 posts discussing original research, synthesis and misrepresentation of sources, resulted in nothing more than a restatement of Yqbd's original intention.
 * I'm not sure that further unblock requests will be productive; there is no sign of any change in Yqbd's understanding of - or willingness to adapt to - wikipedia's modus operandi. Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 15:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So I'm clear, but it's difficult? Don't you see how ambiguous you are and why people having to repeat questions to get clear answers from you? You ended up contradicting yourself in our discussion saying something like, the poll was mutally exclusive and overlapping. See how I'm still willing to discuss the poll, but you're the one quitting while talking about "willingness to adapt". If these people can't see through your assertions, there's not much I can do. --yqbd 01:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * People like you seem to not want to discuss things through and quit because it's difficult for you. If answering yes or no questions were difficult for you, you should've said something. I thought I was making the discussion easy for you. I guess you hit your limit and want to be limited, although your user page seems like you'd be willing to discuss things. Maybe you're not used to the challenge since banning is easier. --yqbd 01:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by dave souza
The assessment by FeloniousMonk and ConfuciusOrnis is, in my opinion, fully accurate and if anything understates the disruptive and tendentious editing of Yqbd. The incessant demands on this page for answers and diffs gives some indication of Yqbd's style, but to demonstrate it in action on the talk:Intelligent design page I've had a look at one particular example. Yqbd began discussing an edit trying to link poll support for creationism with the percentage the pollsters identified with ID here, then after being given an explanation setting out how his reinterpreting the poll findings was original research, reasserted his original research here. After the explanation of policy was repeated in depth, Yqbd ignored that and returned to the original assertion, and again, and again. When the editor refuting the repeated claims declined to repeat the arguments, Yqbd stated "It's a valid question. Don't ignore it, but if you don't want to answer then I'll just give the conclusion", having not long asserted that FeloniousMonk was "just helping out your friends that are losing arguments" – ignoring the point that Yqbd had received no support from other editors for the claims and arguments. Rather a waste of time, really. ... dave souza, talk 19:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What exactly was wrong with the discussion we were having about the poll? dave souza just asserts that I ignored discussion when I tried to get clear answers from the other editors to understand them. He seems to side with the other editors and think just because they assert something that is the end of the discussion. --yqbd 09:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is dave souza response in Talk:Intelligent_design which I could not respond to because I was blocked. He just asserts that my position is wrong and doesn't support it correctly. These editors think they're correct and when you try to show how they are incorrect, they say you're disruptive. --yqbd 09:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yqbd, you've been advised already that your interpretation that some of the 64% might support ID is unacceptable original research by yourself, and goes against the interpretation presented by the source. The fact that ID proponents claim creationist support while denying being creationist is an inherent contradiction in ID, and it's not our place to second-guess how the poll should have been constructed to deal with that or how it should be interpreted. .. dave souza, talk 09:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "The fact that ID proponents claim creationist support while denying being creationist" is not a contradiction since they are overlapping. Yellow light is a mix of or "has support from" Green and Red, but is neither Green nor Red. If it's not our place to second-guess "how it should be interpreted" then you have no problem adding the 64% to the Polls section so people that believe Creation supports ID can interpret it their way and people that don't believe Creation supports ID can interpret it their way. --yqbd 09:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design Article Editors
Some Intelligent design article editors assert without support...
 * WP:DE
 * WP:TROLL
 * WP:RS
 * WP:V
 * WP:UNDUE
 * WP:OR —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yqbd (talk • contribs).

For the record, it's not my job to save you from your own self-destructive tendencies. I'm an arbitrator, not a babysitter. Raul654 14:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like no complaints from the artbitrator. Therefore, it wasn't disruptive discussions and FM shouldn't be moving discussions out of the talk page. --yqbd 01:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion
I don't think it's productive to repeatedly insist that other people explain to you how your edits were disruptive.

Maybe you could explain it to us instead?

This would demonstrate that you have read and understood Wikipedia's principles and guidelines and Talk page guidelines. I'm sure it would be the best thing you could do to maximise your chances of getting unblocked. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 14:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I already did show how the edits weren't disruptive and received no response. I'm looking for more explanations of how my edits were disruptive so I could show how they weren't. Must be nice to have admins on your side banning an opposing editor that doesn't just make a SPA and come back. --yqbd 06:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

God of the Gaps?
Look at me still posting to this banned user's talk page. Remember when I was suspected as having a single-purpose account to "disrupt" the Intelligent Design article. Well, if anyone is still reading...

After reading the |Major ID break through - Dembski has identified the designer! discussion, I wonder if critics accuse ID proponents with God of the gaps. --yqbd (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblock Request 5

 * What would you do if unblocked? How, if at all, would you change your approach to editing?  Mango juice talk 13:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I second the question. The basic problem is that the wider community felt that your contributions were disruptive, whereas you did not, so you were unwilling to change your behaviour. If that is still the case - if the problem persists, in other words - an unblock is unlikely. If, on the other hand, having read our guidelines and policies you feel that you can contribute without causing further disruption, an unblock is quite likely. This ties in with my above.   S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 14:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)