Hi Hrarn. I'm considering nominating Hak Ja Han for deletion. Would you like to discuss the issue on the article's talk page? Redddogg (talk) 15:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hak Ja Han Redddogg (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. The school paper wasn't an easily verifiable source. We'll focus on verifiable sources from now on! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.149.18 (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Hrafn, I have reported your continuing removals of the edits, sources, and citations which I add to the Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio article. I am notifying you in accordance with Wikipedia rules. I have tried to satisfy your challenges but it is clear the material I present means nothing to you and arbitration must be found elsewhere. Hopefully a truly unbiased reader will settle the matter. Dale Leppard —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaleLeppard (talk • contribs) 06:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. A new topic requires a new section
2. This warning is malformed in that you didn't tell me where you reported me.
3. You forgot to sign it.
4. Your report on WP:ANEW is likewise malformed, in that it did not supply difs.

0/4 -- pretty much par for the course. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn, I'll be happy to stop removing templates if you stop putting up nonsensical ones. You are clearly biased against people connected with this organization if not the organization itself and your own words confirm it. I am confident that administrative findings will support me. I am aware of your aggressive approach with other discussions but I will not be intimidated by your efforts and I stand behind my work. Officer or not, my COI is no more than yours as one who has issues with the structure of the organization itself. Where I have been open in my affiliation and name you have been secretive. At the end of the day I would rather be in my shoes. I will at least thank you for the one legitimate complaint that you raised regarding the newspaper, and for whatever your motive I thank you for ceasing the reversions until we have the results. DaleLeppard (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the outcome of the WP:ANEW report is that you are both banned from editing the article for a week,[1] it's in the hands of others now. Hopefully DL will start finding other interests and learn to assume good faith as required by policy. Improved civility from DL is needed, with an acceptance that policies are there for good reason. Hrafn, while your statements appear fully correct as far as I've seen, please try to be kind to this newbie when helping to explain the essentials of policies, if the need arises again. . . dave souza, talk 21:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave: the need will 'arise' in one week. DL is completely unrepentant about his WP:COI editing. He is also denying the contents of some of his edits (in spite of difs clearly demonstrating that he made them) and defending others (in spite of the fact that they have been corrected by other, uninvolved, editors). DL is not a 'newbie', having been an editor since December 2007 -- he's just completely disinterested in learning policy (except to quote it out of context) or accepting other opinions (not just mine, but Guettarda's among others). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn, I assume good faith and fully trust that DL will learn. The hard way if need be ;) . . dave souza, talk 21:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that people are capable of learning from their mistakes is rather different from assuming good faith. Particularly when one has seen no glimmer of such a capacity to date. The Devil's Dictionary defines cynic as "A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[2] - no need to refer to indidual users in edit summaries like that. It is simply inappropriate to have a tag directly inside of a subsection header like that. Directly below the subsection header, sure, but not inside of it. Cirt (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were the "individual" whose objection to the tag I was responding to, so I see no reason why you shouldn't be named in the edit summary. Information contained in section titles needs to be accurate, just as any other content. A tag "directly below" it would be ambiguous. I prefer not to have to tag them -- but sometimes am given little choice by the actions of other editors. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[3] - Please stop referring to individual editors like this in edit summaries. It is not conducive to a constructive and collaborative atmosphere. Please comment on content, not on contributors. That is the second time you have done this, after, I brought this up, above. Please stop. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 11:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were insisting on belabouring the obvious point of whether FFWP and the UC were the one and the same -- and failing to allow time for an explanation on talk & thus forcing me to insert a perfectly superfluous reference (how many times is a reference required for mere alternate names?). I was annoyed at your behaviour, so I criticised it in my edit summary. I was commenting on your actions, so used your name to identify it. It was not a "personal attack" as defined by WP:NPA. As far as I know, Wikipedia convention does not interpret merely using an editor's nick in an edit summary (or anywhere else) as a "personal attack", so your demand that I not use yours would appear to be baseless. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets just try to stick to describing what we are doing in our edit summaries, rather then engaging a in meta dialog about others. Prodego ^talk 12:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting a page for us to debate Creation - Evolution, so if you have a problem with something, I'll take it there. Refreshments (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#FORUM. My comments on your page were merely an attempt to point out difficulties you might experience, should you attempt to make an article out of material you have at User:Refreshments/Draft: Scientific Evidence for Creationism‎. Oh, and the name's not "Hugh". :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was quick. I was about to change the wiki evolution to modern evolutionary theory (since the term 'evolution' is so broad) and *poof!* there goes my change of "creationism" to "ID" from 30 seconds ago. I guess there isn't room for any editorial changes when it comes to this topic, seeing how closely watched it obviously is; I won't try it again and waste my time. However, I wanted to comment on this, not because I'm some Discovery Institute supporter (hello, I'm not even a Republican!), but because I found some of the language on the page to be veering away from the language of a dictionary. I was coming at this from an editorial perspective; I have absolutely zero desire to get into the messy debate that goes on about these topics.

Anyway, since it seems that you are the gatekeeper, I'll just ask you to consider allowing two changes: 1) the 'evolution' bit of 'anti-evolution' to 'modern evolutionary theory.' Evolution is too broad of a term--not very specific. Modern evolutionary theory is what is being taught in public schools, which is the context of the sentence and topic. Using the term 'anti-evolution' is technically incorrect, considering that the definition of the term 'evolution' is not really what this group opposes (since any scientist supporting ID would also say that of course 'evolution' is occurring every day). Also, using language like 'anti' usually comes off as biased and doesn't help anyone. (For example, consider an entry defining NARAL as "anti-life" and watched over by pro-life wikipedia members--this would be unfair due to not using the term that the group would use for themselves ("pro-choice" or "pro-abortion rights"). We would not allow that as it's biased language.) It's totally unnecessary to use this defensive language when the entire article cuts their ideas down anyway. My main point is just that it would be more accurate to say "challenges modern evolutionary theory." That's quite clear and does not take sides as it merely describes what the group was advocating--it's not supporting it in any way.

2) May we change "creationism" to "ID" "theories" ('theories' being a separate wiki)? First--to comment on the word "theories"--look at the wikipedia definition. I already understand that ID is denounced as not being a 'scientific theory' for different reasons and that that term is emotional (kind of bizarre how emotional, actually). I'm not using that term. Rather, a 'theory' is simply a theory--nice and generic, and in no way does it imply that it's a bona fide Scientific Theory as everyone so emotionally rails against. Also, I thought 'theories' was more accurate (and would even more clearly remove it from the former assumption) since the kind of ideas the group was advocating to be taught were a loose group of theories they believe contribute to the broader overarching theory of ID. Finally, there is a big difference between creationism and ID. Clearly, however, that delineation is not acceptable on wikipedia (considering the entry on ID that basically states that all scientists interested in or supportive of ID theory are really just creationists, which is just not correct--I have heard plenty of people speak on the topic who were clear about being non-religious/agnostic/atheist). So why the need to define what they call ID as creationism, since that accusation is already in place on the entry defining ID? It's unnecessary; let's just state in a matter-of-fact way what they were advocating.

Maybe I'm just wasting time...notice I didn't attempt to change anything else, since I assumed that the wording was all volatile material. I just wanted to bring these little words up, because if the gatekeepers of these pages want entries in their favor, would it not benefit *everyone* to encourage more accurate terms and less language that could be accused of being biased? Thanks for hearing me out. Efrafra (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. ID is not a (scientific) theory, therefore calling it such violates WP:WTA#Theories and hypotheses
2. ID is not even a "theory" in the colloquial sense, as it is really just a set of arguments-why-evolution-can't-happen (e.g. Irreducible complexity, Specified complexity). It offers no positive theory (as ID advocates themselves admit on occasion).
3. The DI's disagreement with evolution is not confined to the modern evolutionary synthesis -- it quite frequently wanders into palaeontology & who knows what else.
4. "Finally, there is a big difference between creationism and ID." Baloney! ID is Neo-Creationism. It retreads the same old creationist anti-evolution arguments, with the same relgious motivation, it just dresses it up in sciencier language and does its (imperfect) best to hide the fact that by 'Designer' they really mean God (but repeatedly let the cat out of the bag when they don't think anybody on the other side is looking). (The reason that this gets a bald "Baloney!" is that I've heard the 'ID isn't Creationism' assertion dozens of times -- always with no, or spurious, substantiation.)
5. Finally, your edit was not a 'minor' edit and the edit summary was misleading.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guess you've been watching TFN and the exciting news that ID creationism can once again be tried out in public school science classroom teaching, and tested in court. Looks like classes could get very detailed, with children being asked to “analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning any data on sudden appearance and stasis and the sequential groups in the fossil record" and "Analyze and evaluate the evidence regarding formation of simple organic molecules and their organization into long complex molecules having information such as the DNA molecule for self-replicating life.” So, they'll be pulling out all the stops again to pretend that ID = science. . dave souza, talk 09:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuated equilibrium & abiogenesis as high school science topics? How to confuse the kids in two easy lessons. :/ Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You made a request for comments. The stuff needs to stay, so people know what they are commenting on. As far as "disputed section" goes, let's not bias the discussion. At the end you can see what the consensus is.Likebox (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If at the end of the day, people think that hypnosis, ball lightning, etc, is OR, then delete them. I am sure that they won't, if they bother to read the sources.Likebox (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The accuracy of this list has been disputed by a number of editors: dave souza, Kenosis, & myself. You appear to be the sole editor supporting the current list. Removal of the tag stating that it is "disputed" is thus "in bad faith". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen portions of the discussion page that I have written get deleted. Not archived, but deleted. Have you threatened removal for those people? I am all for keeping the sanctity of your page, but not at the cost of misinformation. An amicable solution would be preferrable for both of us as I am sure I can use any number of IP addresses.

I ask to allow me to respond to why I believe I am not violating the rules, then you archive if you have a consensus. You left messages for me already, leave a message with a consensus of the contributors and I will have no problem with your archival, after being allowed a day to respond to why I am being archive. Further, stop deleting my discussion.

Is this a fair resolution? Thanks Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.190.1 (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your interminable WP:SOAPboxng on Talk:Objections to evolution is not "relevant to improving the article" so may be deleted at any editor's discretion. Either give your discussions a basis in sources (without WP:SYNTH) or policy, or expect your comments to be archived, userfied and/or deleted. You appear to have exhausted the patience of all the editors on that talkpage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Unification Church political views, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unification Church political views. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to the talk page for discussion. This is the sort of thing that should be discussed, where one party says only sites critical, and the other says no sites critical or pro. It looks weird, without explanation, for an encyclopedia article, particularly as these are not peer-reviewed links. Please join the discussion rather than creating an edit war. --KP Botany (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if you've seen this one, I'm guessing not, because it needs serious work. I've shifted the POV towards neutrality a bit, but I know it can be improved. It's still biased towards creationism. I changed the cringe-inducing "Not surprisingly, supporters of evolution oppose Bush's creationism" in the Creationism section to "Supporters of evolution, backed by scientific consensus, oppose Bush's creationism" but I don't like the "supporters of evolution" wording because it's tautological. I know you can do better. Cheers... Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it wasn't necessary. Regards! V1^t 14:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This level of excessive detail certainly "wasn't necessary" in an article WP:LEAD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for info. V1^t 16:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You had commented earlier on the talk page, so you may wish to comment in this ongoing Request for comment: Talk:Hak_Ja_Han#RfC:_Sentence_about_marriage_to_Sun_Myung_Moon. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the Todd Friel AfD, I decided to look back at the original AfD. I read my first line in support of keeping the article, "sources don't establish notability, facts do", and was amazed. Wow, that view has truly changed. Although you drove me completely crazy a couple months ago, you did teach me much about notability. So thank you. TheAE talk/sign 02:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Robert V. Gentry, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert V. Gentry. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Borock (talk) 06:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you might be interested in having a look at this article, and making any comments you feel like on the talk page. I think it's in your general interest area. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at it when it was posted on WP:FRINGE/N & have now watchlisted it. I agree its a problematic article, but I'm not sure how much I can do, as what sources it cites are mostly offline (especially Encyclopedia of the Qur'an) -- meaning that it is difficult to prove that the article over-reaches the sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has posted (some of) the relevant parts to the talk page (that isn't what I quite thought they meant). One problem I have is that it seems to directly source itself to the Qur'an to support arguments. And it's just not very well written. Cheers, Verbal chat 18:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This edit, stricken with[out] remorse after chiding by Auntie, has left your witty response stranded – as well to remove it ;) . . dave souza, talk 19:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here you removed AIOWiki from the see also. Why isn't it a crediable source? Erwin Springer [talk] 00:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although not a RS, I would agree that AIOWiki has "a substantial history of stability [in existence for several years] and a substantial number of editors [over 200]." Seems fine as a EL, but not a source. TheAE talk/sign 00:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

200 editors? Maybe. But this would appear to indicate that few, beyond the 6 admins are in any way active. (I did a quick analysis of it based upon the 500 most recent changes as of a couple of minutes ago, and 94.8% of those edits were due to 5 admins. Erwin Springer alone was responsible for 2/3 of these edits.)

It is true that most edits are due to admins, (I don't know much about wikipedia and reliable sources) but we have no "untrue" information. Erwin Springer [talk] 01:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not claiming that the wiki has "'untrue' information" ("inaccurate material"), however it probably fails WP:ELNO #2 as "unverifiable research", in addition to failing #12. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 01:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand now, thanks. Erwin Springer [talk] 01:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain at Talk:Mt._Blanco_Fossil_Museum#New_Man_as_a_source. --GRuban (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Missler (4th nomination). Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go take your hair-splitting, how-many-angels-can-dance-upon-a-pin, idiocy somewhere else. I ain't buying.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You suggested several times that ID and EAAN are intimately related. It seems there are two main arguments on your side: Plantinga presented the argument at Intelligent Design conferences (Creationism's Trojan Horse p269). It has been discussed in a book about ID and its critics. Here is my response. The argument is an argument against Naturalism given evolution. It can't be reformed to be an argument against evolution given naturalism, because as Plantinga says himself, "for the naturalist evolution is the only game in town". James Beilby writes in his foreword to Plantingas Argument(Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism - Essays on Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, 2002, p. vii) : "Plantinga's argument should not be mistaken for an argument against evolutionary theory in general or, more specifically, against the claim that humans might have evolved from more primitive life forms. Rather, the purpose of his argument is to show that the denial of the existence of a creative deity is problematic. It is the conjunction of naturalism and evolution that suffers from the crippling deficiency of self-defeat, a deficiency not shared by the conjunction of theism and current evolutionary doctrine." The conclusion of the argument is interesting for any non-naturalist or theist (and may be presented at any conference concerning all sorts of theisms/deisms). But this doesn't relate the argumet more intimately to ID than any argument of natural theology. As a matter of fact, an ID proponent has a problem deploying the argument: if he convinces his naturalis friend of the truth of ID instead of evolution, he can't use EAAN anymore, since evolution is a premis of EAAN. What part of "The ID movement is not only opposed to the theory of evolution, but to naturalism more generally" did you fail to understand? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] EAAN is in the book for the mentioned reasons. There is also a chapter on theistic evolution in the book. Yet, theistic evolution clearly isn't related to ID in the sense required by wikipedia. What part of Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics did you fail to understand? TEs are "critics" of ID, as anybody with half a brain can see. Plantinga & his EAAN are part of the ID movement. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Plantinga may or may not agree to evolution. He may even be a proponent of ID (which is not at all clear). But even if he was a fierce proponent of ID, this doesn't automatically relate all his work to ID. I have read quite a lot of Plantingas work (Knowledge of god, god and other minds, naturalism defeated, God, Freedom, and Evil, The Analytic Theist: An Alvin Plantinga Reader and some essays) and he never so much as mentions ID. ID is not present in his work and most notably EAAN is not related to ID, because it has evolution as its premise. WP:DUCK. (i) Plantinga is a prominent ID supporter ("which is not at all clear" -- complete and utter dishonest BALONEY!). (ii) EAAN argues against one of ID's bugbears (naturalism). (iii) Plantinga has presented EAAN at at least one ID conference. (iv) A prominent ID-observer, Robert T. Pennock has included considerable discussion of EAAN in an anththology on ID. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] I hope to have convinced you that for the sake of the quality of wikipedia the ID passage and tag should be gone. If this is not enough, we'll have to let other people decide who's got the better arguments. Thanks.--194.124.140.39 (talk) 06:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] It has convinced me that I don't want to see you, your tendentious argumentation or your idiotic edit-warring ever again. Good day to you sir. You are not welcome on this talkpage. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Frederick Sontag, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Sontag. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Borock (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. [4]

Please do not hound me, per official English Wikipedia policy cited above. Thank you. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed: you write a large amount of material that is non-compliant with WP:V, WP:NOR & WP:NOTE -- as evidenced by the shear volume of your contributions that get reverted, deleted, redirected and userfied. It is therefore neither "tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior" to occasionally take a glance at your contributions & tag/template/recommend-for-deletion. To be blunt I am almost as sick of your paranoia (see also this absurd claim of persecution) as by your pervasive violation of policy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 01:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second request: Your reference to my supposed "paranoia" is a personal attack. Take it back, or I'll register a complaint. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed: your unsubstantiated accusation of persecution that evoked the accurate (and thus WP:SPADE) description of "paranoia" was in gross violation of WP:AGF. Your demand therefore appears entirely WP:POT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see that you added this tag to the article in December 2008, but didn't use the talk page. Can you discuss what you see as original research so that I can attempt to fix it? Also, is there a reason you are using multiple cite tags without just tagging the section? Are there claims made here that do not seem reasonable? Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost 5 months ago, so I'm having to reconstruct my thinking here, but I think the {{or}}s are for the amount of editorialising ("clearly written works are aimed at a wide readership", "although the term has been widely used it is often misunderstood", "perhaps the most thorough introduction to memetics"). The reason I didn't "just tag[] the section" was that I've previously had complaints for removing non-compliant material without giving tags for the specific material objected to. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I see it now. I'm trying to help fix it as time permits. It wasn't immediately obvious, because the first place I go to find these things is the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 09:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably time to ignore him until he has something useful to say. Guettarda (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now why do I lack the ability to listen to my own advice? :) Guettarda (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because if they didn't have the power to get under our skins and make us react at least just a little irrationally, then they wouldn't be trolls. DNFTT is a bit like 'don't think about elephants' in that regard. It may be good advice, but in practice it's very hard to follow, in other than a less-than-perfect manner. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An ANI thread in which your edit(s) were brought up has been marked as resolved. It was closed as "wrong venue" - you may, however, wish to review the thread and follow-up wherever it went afterwards. –xeno ^talk 15:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you for your personal attacks at WP:WQADrew Smith What I've done 03:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I easily found sources to show clear notability for David Friedman, I think you should withdraw the nomination for deletion. Fences and windows (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Clear notability"? Don't make me laugh. You dug up a bunch of awards too obscure to rate wikipedia articles, a (too) obscure (to rate an article) song performed by a major artist, and a bunch of unnamed (and thus likewise obscure) songs performed by other major artists. None of this meets WP:COMPOSER. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your "cleanup" of the Harrison references has greatly reduced their utility to the reader, removing all internal references. I am pondering whether to revert them, despite the subsequent edits (some also unhelpful). I shall be continuing to work on this article, and suggest you refrain from further "improvements" until this process is over. Thank you. Johnbod (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. When referencing an article, it is standard practice to cite simply the article as a whole. I would suggest that if there is difficulty finding the information referred to in a 7,000-8,000 word article, this would probably mean that an unhealthy amount of WP:SYNTH was involved. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember hearing a more ridiculous suggestion frankly! Why? Obviously if no internal reference is given to such an article, then the whole thing has to be read until the point is encountered. In an article like Harrison's, with conclusions at the end, the initial statement of a point may not be the only or most concise one. It is not "standard practice to cite simply the article as a whole" at all - where do you get this idea? In a printed article, page numbers are naturally expected, and in online ones, whatever section refs etc that are available. Why precise references, and quotations such as you removed, should "probably mean" WP:SYNTH is beyond me. Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to create a separate page for the 2009 edition because of the tournament's enhanced stature. With the South American champions and several Champions League participants, I believe that this tournament has achieved the stature to warrant the detailed coverage that a separate page can provide. If we leave it on the main Peace Cup page in its current format, all we'll document is the participants in the final. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooperwx (talk • contribs) 19:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What "enhanced stature"? It is a vanity tournament that gets no significant coverage (generally merely passing mention in articles about the doings of the competing teams). It existing purely because the Unification Church has seen fit to pay for it to exist. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the stature is not enhanced, but it will surely garner more attention being that it is out of Korea and in a football mad area and a time zone where most fans of the involved clubs can follow it. I must admit I'd never heard of it until Celtic was forced to pull out. Then I looked at the field (on Wikipedia) and was shocked at the big names. How do we determine how much Wikipedia would benefit from documenting the details of a sporting event? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooperwx (talk • contribs) 19:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basing the (re)creation of an article on the prediction that "it will surely garner more attention" is WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia waits until significant third-party WP:RS coverage eventuates. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The heading says it all. I'm finding your rigorous editorial scrutiny hard to adjust to, but hope you will accept my apology and continue to work with me to improve A Scientific Theology. Muzhogg (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the prod template to the article Ted Peters, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. If you wish to contest the proposed deletion, please remove the “prod tag”. from the article. All contributions are appreciated, but the nominating editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the “prod” template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Varbas (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[ Overlong and ludicrous defence of gross violation of WP:PSTS, via overly long synopses of The Inevitability of Patriarchy‎ & Why Men Rule‎, deleted. Discussion has commenced on their talkpages & further comment on this thread here is not welcome & will be reverted without comment. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC) ][reply]

I've just nominated an article you edited for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean M. Kelley. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone re-re-redirected SYN to synthesis, thus confusing the bot. Rich Farmbrough, 11:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

{{SYN}}, not {{Syn}}. Rich Farmbrough, 21:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I see you reverted Anyone77's wholesale changes; I did a bit of pruning on his next more judicious edit...I think the canopy business is mentioned on the mechanics of creation science page, so I consider it notable for a paragraph or two, but I'll bow to your judgment here. The quoted text is way too damn long though. Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to drop a note in regards to this edit. You're actually mistaken, and there are examples where YouTube is perfectly fine as RS. rootology (C)(T) 05:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that irrelevant exception to the general rule. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 00:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on your mastery of the philosopher's analogy. Except, of course, that your example is too clear...anyone can understand it, even if they haven't mastered the obscure language and terminology that (some? most?) philosophers use in an attempt to ensure that no one outside of their subfield can understand what they're trying to say. Guettarda (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nice analogy. Reminds me of what the greatest philospher of our time said about zebra crossings. . . dave souza, talk 15:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The more I read about EAAN, the more I read of Plantinga's "arguments", the more I think of our dear departed friend. EAAN is a clever argument (clever like a 12-year-old "proving" that the rules don't apply to him), but you can't change reality through clever arguments. Guettarda (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prof.Tomson (talk · contribs) is almost certainly a sock puppet/troll. The name is a play on Robert W. Thomson, a noted Armeniologist whose conclusions about the dating of Moses of Chorene some Armenian Wikipedia editors have found "unacceptable". --Folantin (talk) 07:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am grateful that you take some time babysitting the Mount Ararat article, Hrafn, but you sould avoid entering discussions with trolls. If an IP is making weird claims about Armenians or Mount Ararat, the first step should be to check if the IP traces to Richardson, TX. If it does, its contributions should just be rolled back. If new accounts then pop up to join the fray, it is likely that Ararat arev (talk · contribs) is feeling bored again, and these accounts should also be rolled back and blocked. Anything else is just likely to encourage the troll. Most trolls are essentially attention suckers and they get bored sooner or later if they realize they are having no effect on anyone. --dab (𒁳) 07:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please to be informed of this thread here... Cheers, Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you've been taking an interest in Pentateuchal criticism, an article which I started. I started it because I felt there was a need for a treatment of the entire range of critical approaches to the Torah, one that went beyond just the documentary hypothesis, and beyond the question of the books' origins and composition. Unfortunately it's too big a job for me to complete, or even advance. If you are interested, I'd be most grateful if you took it up. PiCo (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That article came onto my radar due to looking for sources to shore up Noah's ark & similar articles. Given that it was itself almost completely unsourced, it proved little help, so I simply tagged it, watchlisted it & moved on. I'm very much an editor who finds it necessary to find sources first, before writing articles, so I'm unlikely to be of much help on Pentateuchal criticism, beyond watchlisting & pruning material that chronically fails to be verifiable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You turned this into a redirect quoting WP:V "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.", but there has been little time for anyone to try to find sources as the article was only 1.5 hours old and had not been tagged with {{unref}}. I've reverted your edit, and added "unref". I've got no particular interest in the topic,just came across it while stub-sorting and decided it was wrongly named so Moved it. I usually add {{unref}} in passing, forgot on this occasion. Your edit, effectively deleting the article, seemed premature. PamD (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The creator, Ed Poor, has a long-standing reputation for creating unsourced/OR articles -- so no, its redirection was not premature. I would suggest that sources come first, then the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just too damn accurate for words... :) Auntie E (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<groucho>Let me tell that I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that The Onion would stoop to lampoon the viewpoint espoused by (among other heavily phidded individuals) "a leading spokesperson within the scientific community" as something less than rigorous, insightful, and all-around-really-quite-amazing.</groucho> Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, ordered your copy?
"formulated as a rigorous and positive scientific argument-specifically one called “an inference to the best explanation.” The book shows, ironically, that the argument for intelligent design from DNA is based on the same method of scientific reasoning that Darwin himself used.
Book & Bible Cover Size: Large"

Wonder if that method is Paley's natural theology, or the rather unworkable idealist school put forward in William Whewell's Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences? No doubt there will be reviews.... dave souza, talk 03:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, and I probably wouldn't even be aware of its imminent release if I hadn't been plugged into the Disco 'Tute's Nota Bene mailing list. It has produced scarcely a ripple as yet -- barely perceptible even when you know to look for it. I look forward to reading some more competent reviews of it when copies get beyond the echo chamber to those who actually know what they're talking about. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few days on, and still no attention from other-than-pro-ID sources, and no independent reviews: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. <shrugs> Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hrafn! You have reverted the parent-Categories I have added to som Evolutionism related pages: I have to oppose You! ;)

1. As what I can sum into th eterm of Evolutionism, there is also the question of creationism. So, I see it as realy religion-related topic (even, if both accept the existance of the God).
2. Except that, there are still people, who see Evolutionism even as absolute rejection of such its existance.
3. Even more there, could also be a realy non-religious understanding, as a everyday life philosophy.

So, You have reverted my categories twice for Category:Evolutionist Wikipedians (see the history: [5]), but I still would put it in them. How will we resolve this? ;) Franta Oashi (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Evolutionism is not a religion -- so Category:Evolutionist Wikipedians should not be included in Category:Wikipedians by religion
2. Evolutionists includes theistic evolutionists -- so Category:Evolutionist Wikipedians should not be included in Category:Nontheistic Wikipedians

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Oashi (see previous section) has created Category:Evolutionists and done a bunch of other category adjustments. Can you remember a case of a category something like "Evolutionists" that was created and deleted some months ago? I thought we had finished that argument. Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The CFD discussion (closed as delete) is here Guettarda (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably G4 applies to categories as well as articles? Guettarda (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Did you notice this discussion? User_talk:Oashi#Category Generation? Franta Oashi (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even when made in good faith, calling another editor's posts ludicrous and hysterical edges towards a personal attack because it echoes back so strongly on the editor and besides, it only stirs things up more. Stick to talking about the sources and content and more often than not, everything gets easier, one way or another. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hrafn. I've just proposed merging Unification Church and antisemitism into Divine Principle. Please join in the discussion, if you like. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you removed some links from the article citing WP:EL. What was the basis? I've been letting the links sit for a bit, and I'm interested to know why you removed, so I can advance my wiki policy knowledge. Thanks and cheers :) Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELNO #16 & #6 respectively Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the www.peacecup.com is in flash design and that's why I had to get the schedule of the tournament from goalzz.com website.

What other sources should I collect to keep this page alive?

Sorry for anything, it's the first page I add in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StormRuller (talk • contribs) 19:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" -- as I have already told you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason that you've taken such a personal interest in this soccer tournament when you've not been particularly active in editing on the topic before? matt91486 (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had been involved in Peace Cup for over a year. My aim was to prevent a constellation of articles proliferating that are simply "routine news coverage of such things as … sports". However I've recently run into a clique of rabid sports fans who clearly believe that wikipedia should be "routine news coverage of such things as … sports", more "routine news coverage of such things as … sports", yet more "routine news coverage of such things as … sports", 5-2, still more "routine news coverage of such things as … sports", 2-all, further "routine news coverage of such things as … sports", 1-nil, 2-1, yet further "routine news coverage of such things as … sports", 4-1, nil-all, spam, 3-1, 1-all, spam, "routine news coverage of such things as … sports", 2-1, spam, 3-1, spam, spam, …

As I have a distaste for lost causes, I am now leaving them (and I would suspect yourself) to routine coverage of every match and goal (and I would suspect every scuff to a footballer's boot if you could manage it) in mind-numbing, excruciating detail. It is WP:NOT what wikipedia is there for, but then again nor are the endless bare plot summaries, episode lists, recitations of raw election results, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc that editors insist on inflicting, and ganging together to preserve. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commentor are (i) themselves edit-warring against consensus & (ii) haven't read WP:3RR: "more than three revert actions"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You apprear to have broken the 3RR revert by three times reverting one of my edits to the article Creationism within a 24 hour period. I will make the amendment again and I implore you to allow the discussions that I have started at the Talk page for the article to reach a conclusion and for consensus to emerge before making any similar actions 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=301799887&oldid=301799578 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=301864068&oldid=301863828 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=301866409&oldid=301864857 --Hauskalainen (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I would further point out that the commentor's own edit action more-or-less simultaneous with this comment constituted their fourth within 24 hours, and so they themselves are guilty of precisely the wrongdoing that they, incorrectly, accuse me of. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC) )[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_World_Cup#Matches then these should be deleted as well? thx user talk:rokengalan —Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument for retention. And I would point out that the tables in question have a far more prominent source (the South African government) than yours do. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hrafn! Comments like this are problematic if accusations of edit warring come up. 3RR is not an entitlement. I agree that Hauskalainen's edit is "not an improvement", but keep WP:TIND in mind. Neither of you needs to revert after each and every exchange of opinion on the talk page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would constitute a good third-party source for Virtual Memory? I have found news articles, webpages with pictures of the show (both screenshots of episodes, and on-set photos taken by contestants), and a full episode on YouTube. I was going to add them, but figured I'd check to be certain they were acceptable.

Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.211.207 (talk) 05:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source. Third party means a party not involved in some way with the show. Fansites would generally be considered neither third party nor reliable. News coverage would need to be more than 'trivial' mention and mere announcements to count. Youtube (with a few very narrow exceptions such as the Whitehouse youtube channel) is generally considered to be never a reliable source. WP:NOTE gives more detailed info. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I understand. I don't think any of the sources will fit the guidelines...oh well.

Thanks a lot for getting back to me and taking the time to explain things. It'll definitely help me in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.50.232 (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Darwin was not both SIMULTANEOUSLY" (a creationist and an evolutionist).

On the contrary there is lots of evidence that Darwin believed that God had created the universe and the laws within it, including the laws that drive natural selection. His rejection of the whole contents of the Bible as historical truth is nowadays nothing unusual and many scientists have little trouble believing in a God that created the laws of the universe. Where is your evidence for thinking otherwise?--Hauskalainen (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Theist ≠ Creationist
2. Antievolutionism = Creationism (the Creationist movement was originally known as the anti-evolution movement)
3. General opinion seems to be that Darwin was an agnostic later in life.

But I'm quite tired enough of your arguments on Talk:Creationism, so don't really want to entertain them further here -- see the header at the top of this page. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...to see someone feeding me alphabet soup their thirteenth edit... :) Auntie E (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ETA: at least she didn't wikilink it... Auntie E (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Would be better if she(?) read it. Her edits are after all in gross violation of its instructions on sourcing. :/ Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The artful POV pusher knows to accuse others of what they themselves are doing. Auntie E (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at this this edit of yours, and I remember the discussion about whether to classify DI as non-partisan or conservative in the lead, but I don't remember any discussion about what they describe themselves as. I wouldn't doubt they described themselves as non-partisan, but if there has been consensus against this, I'd rather see it than dig through their website to find the answer. Auntie E (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the cited source doesn't say that they describe themselves as "non-partisan" (and the source I just removed didn't have them explicitly describing themselves as anything). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good; I was just confused by the summary. Auntie E (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was right (the revert) for the wrong reasons (the edit summary), is all. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 20:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the new thread I started here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may notice I undid an edit you made to a talk page. Let me know if you want we to explain why this is not a good idea. Regards, cygnis insignis 18:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My action was explicitly permitted per WP:TALK:

• "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article"
• "Removing personal attacks and incivility."

The comment served no purpose other than as another venting of Christian Skeptic's longstanding animosity due to the fact that the WP:CONSENSUS on Creationism articles pretty much never allows him to insert his pro-Creationism POV. It was neither even remotely civil, nor even remotely related to "improving the article". As such its removal was a no-brainer. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines says it is controversial, there is a lot of irrelevant material on that page, and the comment did not name anyone. There are several links I can provide, but this is one of the more specific ones. I can provide some links that discuss this in greater detail, if you are interested in helping the talk page focus on improving the article. cygnis insignis 19:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed the comment earlier when rather busy, it struck me as a grossly uncivil accusation aimed at other editors and hence a personal attack on specific contributors as well as a failure to assume good faith. Removal of a comment with no relevance to improving the article, per. WP:TALK, is much better than responding to such attacks. . . dave souza, talk 21:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the guideline only states that it is "controversial" (but by no means forbidden) for the second point -- the first point is uncontroversial. CS currently appears to have no interest in attempting to gain consensus for any edits, just in registering (with unnecessary bitterness) his dissent at the current consensus -- I therefore don't see what purpose leaving his comments in place, or attempting to address his comments or behaviour, serves. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, have dropped hint. . . . dave souza, talk 07:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been as subtle. cygnis insignis 13:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Critics have described reincarnation research of Stephenson's type as [[pseudoscience]].<ref name="shermer">''[[The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience]]'' by [[Michael Shermer]] & [[Pat Linse]], 2002, ISBN 1576076539 </ref>" Need a clue? Have a WP:TROUT!
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, I see you have added the unsourced criticism that Stevenson's work has been described as pseudoscience to the lede in his biography. I have created a section on the talk page where you comply with WP:BURDEN and provide the quotation(s) that support this. The section is here [6]. I'd be grateful if you could fill it in or remove the unsourced criticism from the lede until such times as you have been able to find a source that supports this. Thanks Noirtist (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] You should also know that there was a survey of sorts doen here [7] to determine whether the information you have added should be in the lede. At the moment, while many would support the text you added, there is an understanding amongst most who have commented that the sources provided so far do not meet WP:V. Anyway, feel free to add your comments to the discussion on talk. Noirtist (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please fix the listing for Russell T. Mixter I added to Wikipedia's "List of centenarians" article? Thank you!

Walter Breitzke

It might help if you (i) provided me with a link (like this:List of centenarians) & (ii) told me what needs fixing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I didn't quite understand what your issue is with this template. It is used by two articles already (Armenian Highland and Lake Van) and will be used many more times as this is a significant reference on the topic of Armenian History. (It is a collection of essays.) The template reduces significantly the amount of duplicate code to write when citing different essays. Serouj (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It is a hardcoded instance of template {{citation}}, where the same functionality could be provided by that other template." Creating a template for every source you want to cite would very quickly leave template-space very cluttered. "Duplicate code" can quite easily be handled by copying and pasting. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not if there should be CHANGES made to the citation. In that case, EVERY instance would have to be MANUALLY redone (needless to say, FINDING each reference would take quite a long time). With templates, any errors can be centrally managed. This is quite a legitimate use of templates, especially for a book like this that will be referenced many many times, and each article individually. Serouj (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read here for an understanding of the conventions that I am using in the Armenian Highland article. It is standard practice. Serouj (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the closest WP:NOTE comes is "Editors may also use the older system of template-based footnotes, such as {{ref label}} and {{note label}}" -- which is a precursor to <ref></ref> & {{reflist}} -- and not designed as a means of linking items in the reflist to items in the further reading section. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 21:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't useful to link the years especially when there specific events in the article are related to them ? I might be wrong - I always find useful to have a "live time line" available when I read about history. Regards. --JeanandJane (talk) 05:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It "isn't useful" -- it is a form of WP:OVERLINKING. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Wim E. Crusio, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wim E. Crusio. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Crusio (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has come to my attention that, in addition to Firefly322's general whining, they're again making claims of WP:HARRASS at User talk:Gwen Gale#Request (still being followed...). This is my response to Firefly322's "examples":

1. Roy Abraham Varghese: Firefly322's preferred version is nothing more than a mal-sourced (its sources include (i) a press release (ii) a publisher's endorsement-blurb & (iii) a source that does not even mention Varghese's authorship) bibliography (and as such fails WP:IINFO & WP:BIO). I would also point out that I've been a regular on this article for 8 months.
2. William Kelly Harrison Jr.: I would suggest that my additions to this article are an unambiguous improvement.
3. F. Alton Everest: likewise an unambiguous improvement, I think.
4. Os Guinness: I don't think that my edits were unreasonable, given the woeful lack of sourcing on this article.
5. Thomas Schirrmacher: the only alteration I made to Firefly322's edits was to correct a typo. I did however tag a completely unsourced 'biography' section in this WP:BLP and remove a vast amount of WP:SYNTH commentary from its vastly bloated bibliography (I would note that sole comment on article talk was supportive of severe pruning, and that the bibliography is still luducrously long, given the lack of sourced content.)
6. Modern Theology: an unsourced & uninformative stub. Prod or redirect would seem to be the appropriate response.

In summary, I would suggest that I have had a positive impact on these articles. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if I may be permitted to present an example of my own:

• Divine Action and Modern Science: which gives the reader a greater understanding of the topic: Firefly322's favoured version, or my own rewrite?

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• User_talk:Gwen_Gale#Request_.28still_being_followed....29

This thread begun by you is a personal attack, which is not allowed. Although your edits seem to have been made in good faith, meant only to help the project, you can't help by also posting scathing cracks about other good faith editors: Comment only on sources and content, not on other editors, even more so if you're following them through the wiki having a go at trying to clean up articles they've started. It's very ok to quietly do what you see as "cleaning up" after another editor, it's not ok to nettle them with personal comments in the meantime, since the latter could easily mix up into (and be taken as) harassment, which has not yet happened and I'm leaving this friendly warning in the hope that it won't. Thanks for your thoughtful edits. If you run into something that strays from policy or could be more keenly written, please bring it up with the editor in a civil way. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thread in question was on (i) sources & (ii) edits, which I believe is within the guidelines of talkpages. As I pointed out in #1 above, I have been a regular on the article in question for 8 months, so it is not the result of "following them through the wiki" (I would further point out that I have a number of related articles such as Antony Flew & Christian apologetics on my watchlist, so this is hardly outside my area of interest). It was not "nettl[ing]" but an expression of annoyance at Firefly322's WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Given Firefly322's long-standing penchant for wild accusations (recent examples: WP:POINT[8][9], accusations of incivility for simply editing an article[10]), I have long since stopped caring what they think, and tend to only comment on outrageously miswritten articles (Roy Abraham Varghese & William Kelly Harrison Jr. immediately come to mind), or outrageously (& explicitly) spiteful removal of legitimate templates. If Firefly322 can't learn to either (i) write articles of sufficient quality that they don't near-ubiquitously require immediate repair (see also Thomas H. Lee (engineering professor) as an example) or (ii) take such remedial work in good grace (instead of with histrionic antipathy), then I would suggest that they are bound to encounter some fairly blunt responses. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Put it this way, following someone's edit trail and cleaning up after them is ok. Personal attacks are not ok and are blockable. Following someone and cleaning up after them whilst making personal attacks is WP:Harassment, the outcome of which can be swift and long blocks. This is a volunteer, high traffic, open editing project, which draws editors with many and sundry outlooks, skills, goals and ways. This can lead to much gnashing of teeth, most of us have to deal with that in editing here and hence, most experienced editors learn that each day, they must make choices as to where and how they want to spend their volunteer time. Attacking other editors only stirs things up (and away from encyclopedia building), along with driving them further from what you are trying to say and what you want them to understand and heed. Personal attacks bring only harm to an open editing project like en.Wikipedia. If you carry on making personal attacks, I will block you from editing. Comment only on content and sources, not other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Put it this way:

1. I dispute that this thread constitutes a personal attack. It was a blunt impeachment of "content and sources".
2. I dispute that it resulted from "following someone", as I have been a regular on that article for eight months. Except for the last couple of days, Firefly322 has been wholly inactive on it, for a period extending long before my first interaction with it.

I do not object to accurate criticism of my behaviour, but would insist that it have a factual basis. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope you don't mind me butting in here unasked. Hrafn, please take this as an attempt to help. We were at odds on the Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith article, even starting to edit war about it. At some point, I started talking with User:Verbal, who had been at your side in this conflict. Verbal responded reasonably, we both realized we had been getting hotheaded. At that point, I realized that a lot of my opposition to the redirect for PSCF to ASA had been because of the aggressive way in which you were taking apart my every comment, to the piont of "teaching me English". Granted, I'm not a native speaker, but that should cut me some slack, I think, not be a reason for snippety remarks. My point here is, had you been less aggressive in your comments, we probably would have gotten to a compromise much earlier. This would not only have been easier on me, it would have spared you aggravation, too, I am certain. Firefly is adding good faith content, you are often improving a lot on his articles. If you could just be a little bit nicer to him, FF would probably not mind you following that much and start appreciating your improvements and, probably, become motivated to listening to your advice and in time improve his style. Just my 5 cents... --Crusio (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't object, but I may not agree with what you have to say. When you stated "I'm sorry, I must have misread the comment of Verbal just above mine, … Oh, right, that is what he said... :-)" you were both being "snippy" and "teaching me English" yourself. As I had been very careful to accurately characterise Verbal's statement, I objected to your 'lesson' and returned one of my own. The majority of the other "taking apart" was in the context of your repeated proposals to move the material I had written on the ASA article demonstrating how the ASA & JASA were intertwined be moved to the PSCF article. Did you really expect that I wouldn't "aggressive[ly]" oppose such a suggestion, or not react to the suggestion (consciously or subconsciously) as WP:BAITing? Yes, we tend to bring out the worst in each other. That would appear to be either both our faults or neither's fault. If you wish to negotiate mutual verbal de-escalation, I would be very happy to do so. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• All I'm saying is that a more conciliatory approach from the start might be more productive and less aggravating for all concerned, including yourself. --Crusio (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid that a discussion involving Firefly322 and Colonel Warden has a very low chance of bringing out my "conciliatory" side (such as it is). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I've already said that following someone's edits is ok. However, that thread is a personal attack. If you think the editor's writing or article building skills are so lacking as to be disruptive to the project and you get nowhere by talking to the editor about it in a civil way, start an RfC. Please keep in mind, there is no policy against crummy writing and dodgily built articles when these happen through good faith edits. Consensus is overwhelmingly likely to handle worries like that, though it can take a bit of time. If someone edit wars, take it to WP:AN3. If there is vandalism, take it to WP:AIV. If sourcing is thin, throw in some reliable sources. If the writing is weak and you care about the article, fix it. If there are PoV or weighting worries, bring them up on the talk page. If a topic isn't notable, either give it a CSD tag, prod it or take it to AfD. Anyway, now you know: Personal attacks aren't allowed on en.Wikipedia as a means for dealing with content or any other worries, ever. Also, please keep in mind, you can't wikilawyer your way out of heeding the policy against personal attacks. The easiest way to skirt making a personal attack is to comment only on sources and content, not on the other editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen:

1. Given that you equated the combination of "following someone and cleaning up after them" & "making personal attacks" as "WP:Harassment", and as the only page I am currently accused of "making personal attacks" on is Talk:Roy Abraham Varghese‎, the fact that I didn't "follow" Firefly322 there seemed relevant. If this point is mere WP:WIKILAWYERing, then I apologise.
2. Likewise I thought that the fact that the thread was related to "content" (the fact that the version that Firefly322 had restored had already been tagged, edited & then redirected as heavily problematical, the fact that it had already been pointed out that it was merely a bibliography) and "sources" (the fact that the Time article makes no mention of Varghese‎'s authorship had already been raised) was relevant. Again, if this point is mere WP:WIKILAWYERing, then I apologise.
3. I cannot help but to think that the advice to "start an RfC" and the point (that I had myself previously realised) that "there is no policy against crummy writing and dodgily built articles" would tend to be contradictory.
4. Where appropriate, I have already been following your advice to "either give it a CSD tag, prod it or take it to AfD", where appropriate -- however that process has been hindered and heated by Firefly322's own obstreperousness.

I am not claiming to be an angel, but do suggest (at risk of a further accusation of WP:WIKILAWYERing) that my 'crimes' have been exaggerated. If no such defence is to be countenanced, then I must needs find myself some sackcloth and ashes. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow me to provide another uninvolved (well, as in not presently involved) opinion. Hrafn, you contribute good work to the project, but if your work were less beneficial, you would likely have been blocked more times for incivility. If you toned down the snark without altering the edits, you'd save keystrokes, WQAs, and warnings like this, and Wikipedia would benefit more from your contributions. Jclemens (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The equivocation in the "not presently" does rather undercut your disinterestedness, especially since I seem to remember seeing that your RfA turned up an explicit admission on your part of having WP:BAITed me. The bemusement at being lectured here while simultaneously being accused by Firefly322 on Talk:Roy Abraham Varghese‎ (the core of the WP:NPA accusation against me) of having violated WP:IAR (an act that would appear to be quite paradoxical), has just risen to derision, I'm afraid. Sober admonishment and Monty Pythoneque surrealism is not a good mix. I'm not saying that at another time another admin might make points on the subject, but not you & not now. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not equivocation, honesty. Learning to deal with your style made me a much better editor, and while the experience was incredibly frustrating at the time, it has taught me how to source articles beyond assail. I still doubt that you'd feel cheery sharing a beer with me, but I respect your adherence to process and sourcing. It's in that sense that I offer my encouragement, which you are free to ignore. Jclemens (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen

• I accept that I have been warned for WP:NPA by an uninvolved admin. That I disagree with the assessment does not alter the fact that I have been so-warned, and thus can expect to be treated in the future as if I have been warned, if I'm foolish enough to evoke further action.

Crusio

• If you wish to blame your own jackassishness on mine simply gives me precedent to blame my own jackassishness on others (in this case Firefly322 & Colonel Warden). Or we can accept responsibility for our own jackassishness.

Jclemens

• You would have shown better judgement if you'd left well alone on this. Do you really think, given our previous history, that you'd be acceptable to me as 'the voice of reason' -- particularly at a time when I'm feeling more than a little pissed of with Wikipedia in general? In blunt rebuttal to your original point, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that WP will have given me the boot until long after the time that I've given it the boot. I edit because it seems enjoyable and/or worth while. If it stops seeming that way, then I stop.

I will leave you all with this somewhat 'unusual' statement:

Back to the conversation, I believe that explaining using a list as done here goes against the last of the WP:5. It seems to persuade by means of a list (rules for a computer), eclipsing normal discussions. Few people are going to want to interact with someone who creates new sections with information that seems only fit for computer batch processing.

— User:Firefly322, Talk:Roy Abraham Varghese

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am apparently violating WP:IAR by:

1. Inquiring about the relevancy of an assertion of notability to notability guidelines; and
2. Using list-formatting in my talkpage comments (eek -- this means that this comment is also a violation)

Is the correct response to find some rules to ignore, or to swear off ever using list-formatting on talk or mentioning notability guidelines again? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whaaaaaa??? That hurts my head trying to consider how list-formatting in a comment violates any guidelines, much less an abuse of IAR. I think I'll go contemplate a one-sided bottle for a lil bit now... Auntie E. 17:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed Chance or Purpose? for deletion. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted it -- it was all copyvio from a book by Terry Mortenson and stuff by him on answersingenesis. Dougweller (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (for the former) & I'm not surprised (for the latter). :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you may wish to kill off Talk:Scriptural geologists‎ while you're at it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another Admin did that, sorry, had to attend to cooking! Dougweller (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the article as a bare stub, as the subject has been discussed enough by other authors so far as I can see. I hope I've made it clear on his talk page that he can't just copy and paste and then paraphrase. Dougweller (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this undo. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I may make a comment on this user. He appears to be new and I don't think templating him to death is needed and I don't think any good can come from it. He appears to want to discuss what he wants to add and I have told him to take it to the talk page of the Kent Hovind article. I would ask you to start off the conversation, maybe that will get him to talk instead of edit war and post on everyone's talk page. I am trying my best to keep this user from being blocked, because I think he is new and just doesn't know the ropes yet. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user had been edit-warring on Kent Hovind long before I came on the scene, and has accused me of being crazy and WP:SOCK-puppeting ("Hrafn I believe is masqerading with multiple user names"). If he wants to go off the deep end in such spectacular fashion (even inserting his personal attacks onto Jimmy Wales), then they should expect consequences. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think what he is going, the sock allegations, the personal attacks, and even posted at sooo many people's talk pages (maybe canvassing) all need to be addressed, but I don't want to push the guy over the edge with a bunch of templates at once and him feel the weight of Wikipedia is coming down on him. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He needed no pushing -- he was sprinting over the edge under his own steam. And the templates were richly merited by his own inappropriate escalations. Better that he "feel the weight of Wikipedia" than to continue rampaging around like a bull in a china shop. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I guess I am just trying to help :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. From his reaction to attempts to educate him to date, if he's listening to even one word in five, I'd be surprised. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it rather ironic that a user who's page starts "On WP:Civility:" would violate by WP:AGF and WP:DTTR, while inappropriately going straight to a level three warning all in a single edit as you did on MichaelQSchmidt's talk page in this edit. Whether the tags should have been removed or not is debatable, but what isn't debatable is the acceptableness of your response. Michael most certainly was acting in good faith and had made a clear attempt to improve the article before he removed the tags. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me contradict you:

1. The intent of giving the quote itself was ironic, demonstrating how superficial civility can cover the knives being out.
2. Given that he twice removed legitimate tags from an article under AfD, I considered it to be sufficiently egregious as warranting a level three.
3. WP:DTTR is an essay, and as such cannot be "violate[d]" -- especially when there is good reason for going against its advice. I interprete it as containing the implicit assumption that "the regulars" will themselves act in a responsible manner (i.e. will not remove legitimate templates from an article under AfD).
4. To claim that {{refspam}}ing three TRIVIAL coverage (as WP:NOTE defines this term) citations that merely confirm the unlikely-to-be-challenged point of the film's alternate name is "a clear attempt to improve the article" is ludicrous. You have jumped the shark.
5. WP:AGF is a working assumption, and therefore a refutable one. It is not a demand that editors engage in mental gymnastics in an attempt to find some (no matter how bizarre) hypothesis to make an editor's actions fit 'good faith' ('the editor left the keyboard, and it was his kitten walking across it that left the message').

Does MichaelQSchmidt push my buttons? Yes, and given our history I would suggest probably intentionally so (to make a "politely" worded but grossly misrepresenting 'invitation' to an editor that you'd previously had run-ins for such misrepresentation could be interpreted as WP:BAITing). Should I react with less heat. Yes. But it is not easy to do when the individuals' actions evoke an as-yet-suppressed overwhelming impulse to denounce his lack of integrity in extremely forthright terms. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And in response to this comment:

No, ThaddeusB it is you who is being "ridiculous". To claim that adding two trivial-coverage (a fact that I had already pointed out on the Afd) third party sources, for the unchallenged and unlikely to be challenged statement that the film has has been renamed, "address[es] the tags" is outright ludicrous. No, this does not come within lightyears of meeting "the normal definition of notability." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would further note that your keep !vote has no basis in fact.

On the foundation of all this, do you really think that you have any credibility with me whatsoever, as either unbiased or well-informed? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not acceptable to assume bad faith, nor is it acceptable to jump straight to a level three warning without any prior warning. As to your other comments, It seems to me a lot of editors "push your buttons" given your history of complaints about your civility. Perhaps the problem lies not in them, but in you.

I will simply ignore the implied attacks on my intelligence and move on. Have a nice day. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, could you take a look at Free will and Free will in theology and tell me if a theistic (especially Calvinistic) belief in an incompatabilist free will makes any sort of sense. I'm getting more than a little cognitive dissonance. Most incompatibilists appear to be determinists (rejecting free will), and that appears to be especially so of the Calvinists. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do.

To me, a theistic belief in an incompatabilist free will would make sense if one rejects determinism. And I always thought that determinists were philosophical pariahs, but I really don't have a clue on this issue and I may be totally off. Gabbe (talk) 10:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Calvinist belief in predestination would appear to be determinist. Beyond that, most theistic beliefs appear to be compatibilist. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How am I supposed to reply to you without posting on your talk page? That has to be the oddest comment I've ever seen. You start the discussion and you complaing about me replying?? I've used this form of reply for years here, without a single negative comment. Fine ... you stay off my talk page as well then! Nfitz (talk) 06:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• {{Usertalkback}} is a standard template so its contents is hardly an 'odd comment' here on wikipedia. I'll be quite happy to "stay off" your talkpage (which I only went to in the first place when you continued reverting without addressing my point on article talk that your reverts had no basis in policy) if you'd desist in violating WP:V. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that my latest edit needs references. I do know a little about the subject, and references will be coming - but not tonight, I have to sleep. PiCo (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References are meant to come with new material. I could have deleted it, I decided to do you the courtesy of only templating it instead. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think now I'll re-write it without the tables - they take up to much room. PiCo (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've shortened it to a single paragraph and added a cite. I'm not very happy with the source I've chosen, he's a Creationist, but at least he holds an academic position, which should make him quotable against any other Creationists who object to this material, and he does actually reflect mainstream thinking.PiCo (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the plot section was deleted due to vandalism and I was simply restoring it. ReaverFlash (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you don't mark it as a revert, how're people meant to know. That's what edit summaries are for -- use them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tipping me off that "it was later removed". I searched the history of Divine Principle and found that Borock removed it.

Since this fit the pattern of (1) Afd consensus is merge; (2) article text is replaced with a redirect; (3) little or none of the article text can now be found in the merge target - it certainly looked like the article was redirected without the promised merge as has happened before.

If you'll allow me to keep the re-merged material, I will consider the promise well kept. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. All you needed to do was check the history of the merged-to article for the timeframe of the original redirect -- all of about 2 minutes work.
2. Prodded/AfDed material tends to be highly marginal, so it is highly unsurprising that much of it fails to survive long-term.
3. In this case, the material was riddled with {{or}}, {{syn}}, pop-culture-references, etc -- so is even less surprising that it failed to survive. Cite it or lose it is always the case.
4. I note that while you have cited it, you've done so solely to UC sources, undermining a recent effort to try to get as much as possible of Divine Principle sourced to third parties.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

["Unproductive" commentary & WP:SPADE responses to them removed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC) ][reply]

The references now contain more text than the article. It is now an appalling stub. The article has been removed, and what's left deserves deletion and possibly a redirect.Verbal chat 10:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree -- and I have stated as such in my 'Revised basis for opinion'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Age of the Earth - we seem to have been editing at the same time. Has Template:Rp been depreciated? or just not your preference? I had just "discovered it" and thought it would solve a persistant problem of specific page refs. Seems preferable to the "notes/references" thing. Notes, to me, should be just that "clarifying notes" and references are references not notes. Is there some policy page somewhere I've missed? Vsmith (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More 'self-depreciating' -- its documentation says it "should not be used unless necessary." WP:CITESHORT is the more standardised style. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps calling the section something other than "notes" would help: while the "notes" heading has been encouraged, the Layout guideline suggests some flexibility: "footnotes" would bring it into line with publishing practice. The Age of the Earth#Notes looks really confusing, not helped by a mix of shortened citations: is there actually a full Dalrymple (1994) ref somewhere? Skimming the out of order list, there's just Dalrymple, G. Brent (2001), and Dalrymple, Brent G. (2004). Maybe I've missed it. In my opinion, far better to use inline Template:Harvard citation with the reflist in a notes or footnotes section, giving the page numbers, and show all the main references such as books in a "references" section, listed alphabetically and using Wikipedia:Citation templates so that they're automatically linked down from the reflist. Just saying, dave souza, talk 17:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Darymple 1994 ref was moved to the "new" reference section when the "short" reflinks were inserted. And yes, it is confusing, even if it is "more standardised". Vsmith (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Harvard citation is a pain in the butt, requiring a different version of the {{cite book}} from that contained in WP:CITET (which is where I go to to find citation templates). If others are willing to expend the fuss and bother over it, then they're welcome to -- for myself, I prefer the KISS approach. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[ "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." I think that is "specific" enough. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC) ][reply]

You're talking about a different question. That may be specific enough about something else. You claimed a passage I had written contained inconsistencies and gaps. Even if you're right that it should be deleted as OR, that doesn't mean the passage has inconsistencies or gaps. What inconsistencies or gaps are you referring to?

Obviously the proposed graphical method was in this article before I did any edits on it. I rewrote it, eliminating mathematical errors and eliminating long passages of kindergarten-level tutoring. The fact that I did several edits rather than one resulted in some intermediate versions with inconsistencies. But your claim was that I had put "inconsistencies and gaps" into the final version that you deleted. When I asked for specificity about that, you changed the subject and wrote what appears above.

Here's a question about OR: when a claim in mathematics is readily verified by the reader, is it "OR"? If I claim that 777 × 286 = 222222 without citing a source, is that "OR"? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I have reverted your 2nd section -- creating a second section to repeat the demands of your first serves no good purpose.
2. Yes, I "claimed a passage I had written contained inconsistencies and gaps." Now, having taken a fresh look at it, and having made a careful examination of the edit history, I will concede that I was mistaken. I still have my doubts as to whether the explication has sufficient clarity for a lay audience.
3. Regardless of whether my reason for the parenthetical "glaring inconsistencies & gaps in explication" was well-founded or not, I was correct in stating "I don't see a source" -- so WP:BURDEN clearly applied. An edit summary is meant to give an adequate explanation of an edit, not to be a chiselled-in-stone/nailed-to-the-mast avowal of of the absolute and eternal truth of every component of one's reasoning.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three proposals in two days would appear to be excessive. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to give people a choice. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To date your "choice[s]" have elicited the grand total of one supporting opinion between the three of them. You're quite simply not giving people the "choice[s]" that they want -- rather, you're forcing them to spend time arguing against all the "choice[s]" that they oppose. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested renaming Unification Church antisemitism controversy to "Divine Principle antisemitism controversy." Please give you opinion on the talk page if you like.Steve Dufour (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just suggested merging Unification Church antisemitism controversy to American Jewish Committee, since that is the main subject of the article. Please comment on the AJC talk page, if you like. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

already done so. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unification Church antisemitism controversy (2nd nomination).Steve Dufour (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Manfred Curry has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.Scoop100 (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You marked NASA Astrobiology Institute for deletion as copyvio, without specifying the source. The source appears to be [11] which is a US government source, and therefore public domain. I've removed the speedy tag. DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect, I "specif[ied] the source" in the edit summary -- given that the template's documentation listed no parameter for this. Even if public domain, an article that is verbtim copied is both WP:PLAGIARISM & {{quotefarm}}. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:CP#Plagiarism_that_does_not_infringe_copyright is instructive in handling such situations. Jclemens (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the speedy copyvio templage certainly does have a parameter for the source [[Template:Db-copyvio]] You say {{db-copyvio|url=http:// (etc.)}} and even if it isn't a web source you can put in where it was copied from there after the vertical bar. -- similarly if you need to add a comment. url=whatever -- and related pages. But I'm surprised you have forgotten that plagiarism is not copyvio and that we do not speedy delete for plagiarism (nor quotefarm); we do not even delete for these, we just source it properly if its from a free source and of adequate quality, or if it's a quotefarm--which normally means too many separate quotations, under fair use, not one big chuck of PD--we rewrite. See WP:CSD, WP:COPYRIGHT, and WP:PLAGIARISM. (incidentally, I am one of those least happy with plagiarism for PD--normally the material needs to be be rewritten to a considerable extent. But it's still not a reason for deletion by itself, let alone speedy. Wikipedia did a great deal too much of it in the past, and it never was a good idea. --but that's a matter for editing, not deletion.) DGG ( talk ) 08:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you read my comments more carefully -- I stated "the template's documentation listed no parameter for this", not that such a parameter doesn't exist -- and I really don't have the patience to track down undocumented parameters when the edit summary serves the same purpose almost as well. We may not "speedy delete for plagiarism (nor quotefarm)", but we do for blatant advertising -- which an article that consists entirely of material copied verbatim from the topic's own 'about' page clearly falls under. I would be "surprised you have forgotten" this (and failed to notice the 'Advertising' tag on the 'Article issues'), if I wasn't already aware that you were a radical inclusionist, willing to put forth ludicrously flimsy arguments for keeping articles, no matter how WP:NOT encyclopaedic, non-notable, or otherwise worthless. ( I could of course have replaced the refused {{db-copyvio}} with {{db-spam}}, but given your views, that would seem to be a waste of time.) I may have to put up with such argumentation elsewhere, I do however have greater freedom here -- and any further such WP:WIKILAWYERing will be simply removed as "unproductive", per my header banner. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dana, James Dwight (1866). Manual of geology: treating of the principles of the science with special reference to American geological history, for the use of colleges, academies, and schools of science. Bliss. pp. 642, 659, 767, et al. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

This is a book from 1866, and I dont understand why You removed it with the other two. Regards! V1^t 18:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about this one: Shrock, Robert Rakes (1977). Geology at M. I. T., 1865-1965: a history of the first hundred years of geology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. p. 30. ISBN 0-262-19211-X. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)? V1^t 18:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but if you sandwich a legitimate reference between two creationist ones, there's always a chance that it'll get missed, and be bundled in with the revert. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok:) I understand- just thought that something is wrong with this one, and its partly my fault too. Regards! V1^t 19:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I notice we've been back and forth a couple of times regarding the wording of "scientific community" vs. "others within the scientific community." I've started a section on the article's Talk page to discuss it further, which can be found here. - Qinael λαλεω | δίδωμι 21:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Roy Eugene Davis that you blanked was restored by Rich Farmbrough. Since the article exists now, the ongoing RFD seems to be moot. I'm going to close the discussion so I'd suggest, if you think the article should be deleted, that you take this to Articles for Deletion. —mako๛ 01:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you get your facts and your policy straight. A WP:REDIRECT is not a WP:BLANKing, nor does it require a WP:AFD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After the recent RfD, it does now... B.Wind (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Roy Eugene Davis, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Eugene Davis. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. B.Wind (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More unsourced rambling by Ed Po{{or}}. Lacking sources it is "unproductive" (see header above).
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You asked a question in a recent edit comment. According to church sources, the Unification Church proper, along with a host of other groups inspired by Rev. Moon, constituted the Unification Movement. These groups network together to fulfill Moon's vision of creating the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. Other sources regard the church and its associated groups as constituting one organization. Donald Fraser (then in the US Congress) called this the "Moon Organization". <= This link could redirect to the Fraser Report. Note that the church regards these other sources as misunderstanding the way the movement is organized; some of these source may even be engaging in deliberate misinformation campaigns, seeking to discredit the church, the movement and/or Rev. Moon. I hope you will cooperate with me - and by the way, adhere to WP:NPOV - by going along with either (a) the church's own view of how it works and is organized or (b) what impartial outside scholars and sociologists say, rather than (c) what opponents say. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special creation. Borock (talk) 07:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MooniesBorock (talk) 07:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove subsection headers that are commonly used on virtually all articles about books on Wikipedia. Please engage in discussion at Talk:Inquisition: The Persecution and Prosecution of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon. Cirt (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do not

me

your ludicrous

seriously. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neat editing job. I sincerely appreciate your contribution to the editorial improvement of the article I started. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And here the source: Grants and Prizes - Academy Sponsored: [12], [13]. So do you think the Source/Reference Tag needs to be kept now? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Has been a pleasure to work with you on Alfred de Grazia. Appreciate your principled and consistent position combined with willingness to listen to reason. Even if we still do not necessarily agree! Itsmejudith (talk) 08:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah do I agree the "examiner" is not a great 3rd party source, except perhaps to establish that this guy wrote a book on the topic. As it is, the article relies too heavily on primary sources (like radio programs). The subject is notable enough that AfD isn't an option, so maybe either improve it, or stub it down to only what's supported by WP:RS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking substantive reliable third-party commentary, and particularly material tying it all together, I would suggest stubifying. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hrafn. I actually agree with you here! :-)

I think that, outside the Church, they would FAR more likely be referred to as "mass weddings" than by "Blessing ceremonies" (a term that has little currency OUTSIDE the church))

In-house terminology is different from encyclopedia terminology. Members rarely say "married" or "marriage", preferring in-house terms blessed and Blessing - a reference to the "Second Blessing" of the "Three Blessings" found in Gen. 1:28

1. Be fruitful
2. Multiply
3. Take dominion

I'd like to discuss with you and Dufour about the distinction between the religious ceremony and the civil ceremony or procedure, also. What's the best talk page for that? (And can you help me find sources that Cirt will approve?) --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, that isn't on-topic in any talkpage AFAIK, isn't a topic I'm particularly interested in and (also AFAIK) is probably not an easy topic to map out the underlying facts (as both civil and religious ceremonies are becoming increasingly heterogeneous and individualised) let alone discuss. Sources are easiest to find by taking a set of keywords or a key phrase (preferably that have a low chance of unrelated usage) and doing a Google Book search for them (Google 'Web' has to low a chance of turning up reliable sources, Google Scholar generally has too low a chance of giving access to underlying text), following up on Amazon if necessary (if you have an a/c, as they often have full-text-search-access that Google lacks). Generally though it's like panning for gold -- you need to pan through a lot of dross, and often have to change where you're looking a few times, before you turn up any real 'colour'. If you have online access to any more specialised databases (my local public library gives me access to a handful -- the most useful being Gale Biographies), they can also be useful. Of course then there's always dead-tree (I maintain a small reference library, mostly relating to the history of Creationism). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did the changes on Huna then wrote an explanation on the talk page, you caught me in the middle of that. OK on notability? Probably best to answer over there on talk. Makana Chai (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn, I would encourage you to use the talk page a bit more and stop reverting other editors. You've made claims about notability here that aren't based on any sound arguments. Slow down, stop being so aggressive, and engage on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Viriditas: Makana Chai reverted the the notability tag without stating a good reason and without rectifying the problem. The article when I tagged it was only (thinly) sourced to WP:SELFPUB sources, demonstrating no notability whatsoever. The WP:Synthesis that Makana Chai has recently introduced appear to be from sources that don't mention Long or New Thought at all, and therefore add nothing to notability. The {{find}}s that I added to article talk likewise fail to turn up all that much. I would request that you refrain from commenting further unless and until you have a verifiable factual and/or policy basis for your claims, as otherwise your comments are "unproductive" (see header above). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Unproductive"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hrafn, what part of "stop being so aggressive and engage on the talk page" are you having problems understanding? Filling the article up with tags and notices is highly disruptive. Stop doing it and express your concerns on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whereabouts, if you don't mind me asking? I live a little west of Brisbane. LowKey (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canberra, Melbourne & Sydney (I suspect there's a joke in that somewhere, and I probably resent resemble it ;) ). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought about a joke. Not a sausage. Although I guess Melbourne would qualify one as "a man for all seasons (on an given day)". I was going to comment about my own Sunshine State, but we are in the middle of a thunderstorm right now (a season's ration of rain in a few minutes!). LowKey (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More that those three cities often seem to think that the rest of Australia doesn't exist. I can remember making frequent business trips from each of them to the other two, but never to any other Australian city. I've lived in far more volatile climates than Melbourne's (which I remember for mild winters, warm summer downpours & hot winds from the interior). Given the choice between Melbourne's climate & Sydney's, I'd pick Melbourne any day. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And stay off my talk page. Your WP:CIVIL violations are not warranted. Nfitz (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tsk, tsk. Nfitz, plese provide verification instead of attacking editors for following policies. . dave souza, talk 17:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir! I've edited LUX Style Awards but I've no (internet) source to prove it. Therefore you've deleted my addings to article mentioned above. I agree, but I've watched LSA on TV and have also checked with local newspapers, I'll check on internet (again) to find anything about LSA. One last thing: why Wikipedia is necessary, then? If I still have to search the "whole" internet to find a "reliable" source for what I'm knowing without browsing internet.Regards! . User:Katurquote 2146hours GMT, 26th of Oct., 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 21:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

This is a notice to all who participated in the recent AfD of Human suit, here, that resulted in a consensus for delete. This article has been recreated as "Human disguise", and has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human disguise. Thank you. Verbal chat 21:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely correct, but this is an encyclopedia; important information must be stated explicitly, it's absence cannot be justified due to it being logically implicit. I won't revert it back just yet, if you still have an issue please respond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.231.252.200 (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saying the same thing over and over, merely using slightly different words, is not conveying "important information", it is merely being redundant. And the correct forum for discussing Angel is Talk:Angel. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take it to the article talk page if you have any disagreements. Thank you. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't restore unsourced material in violation of WP:BURDEN. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toru Goto (religious persecution) Redddogg (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Denialism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

I find it quite unfortunate that we seem to be butting heads recently on some articles relating to the topic of Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church - a topic that you appear to have a significant interest in on this project. Perhaps you could suggest a particular article from this topic you would like to see improved - and we could work on improving it, together? Cirt (talk) 03:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that that would be a good idea -- I suspect that we're too different in editing style to work well together at close quarters. However, I think a common emphasis on the importance of sourcing and WP:V makes us natural allies in UC-related articles (an area where historically this been very laxly enforced) -- as long as we can avoid butting heads too often that we forget the fact. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you change your mind let me know - it is a shame that so far, there are zero articles on the topic of Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church on Wikipedia that are WP:GA or WP:FA. Cirt (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I fully agree with you that we share a common emphasis on the importance of sourcing and WP:V. Perhaps we could build on that and work on the positive commonalities to work more politely in the future, to better constructively improve articles on the topic. :) Cirt (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dan Fefferman, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Fefferman. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a question asked at administrators noticeboard about this article [14]. I looked, read the discussion, and came away with a couple of thoughts, which I would like to share. Please bear with me...

1. I would like to see this article exist on it's own. I think the subject meets the notability guidlines.

2.I prefer the version that you claim as your own, based on prose writing style.

3.I dislike seeing responses like "SO?" which was directed at one of your posts; but likewise, I dislike reliance on what I see as "fringe" policies like WP:Peacock (Peacock is purely a matter of prose. Words can be changed, hyperbole toned down.) I do however, put a lot of stock in AGF, and a lil' peace, love, and understanding.

I have a question for you (as you decided to merge this article); was it ever taken to WP:AFD, or a similar broad based forum? It's pretty hard to find a page like Talk:Daniel Greenberg, until some irate editor hits one of the noticboards with their complaint.

The only critisism I have in this case is that there wasn't very much discussion over the proposed merger, at least in my estimation. I am not willing to overturn your action, but I ask that you would, and then list this at AFD and discuss it in a broader context. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. There would appear to be insufficient third-party material to support an independent article, or to meet notability guidelines.
2. The only mention of WP:PEACOCK was "removal of … WP:PEACOCKery not in the cited sources" -- with the clear implication that WP:V was being relied upon as well -- and was an explanation of the current status quo, not part of an argument for merging.
3. An AfD is not required, and is in fact strongly depreciated, for proposing a merger. So no, the article was not taken to an AfD. It was however listed at WP:Proposed mergers -- which could be considered your "similar broad based forum".
4. Mergers are generally determined by those with the articles involved on their watchlist who bother to comment. I've seen mergers proceed where, even after allowing a reasonable amount of time, there has been zero comment.
5. No I would not be willing to take this to an AfD. (i) Because I consider it neither to be necessary nor appropriate (the 'D' in AfD stands for "deletion"). (ii) Because I have had more than enough contact with Nfitz for the time being -- and no desire whatsoever to evoke further interaction with that editor.

If you want Daniel Greenberg to exist as an article again, the way forward is (i) to find additional reliable third-party-sourced information on him to add to his section. (ii) If/when this section becomes sufficiently large, then formally propose a WP:SPLIT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable enough to me, particularly the part about third party sourcing. I will add that plenty of article's go to AfD, and are discussed on the merits of merger, rather than deletion. I suppose I suggested AfD on the basis of "volume of traffic" there. I looked at the proposed merger page, but couldn't find the discussion regarding that entry. Perhaps, you would post the link? Thanks, in advance. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. AfDs are generally not used unless deletion is at least being contemplated, even if, at the end, merger is decided upon instead.
2. AfDs often (though not always -- I've seen a few AfDs re-relisted due to insufficient comment) increase the quantity of comment -- but often at the expense of quality (I've seen a lot of ill-thought-out, kneejerk, opinions on AfDs).
3. WP:Proposed mergers is a forum for listing merge proposals, not discussing them -- discussion proceeds as normal on the thread in article talk.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Hrafn, I'm finally starting to get it: you prefer a more strict orderly style of work - while I tend to be sloppy (as we were in the pre-2005 days of Wikipedia. So this correction was necessary, to make up for my "good idea, bad style" contribution.

I guess I'll save you some time and trouble if I can anticipate such corrections. ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments at Sudbury school. I have proposed the merging of Sudbury Valley School into Sudbury school. If you would like to vote on the merger, please visit Talk:Sudbury school#Merger Two. PYRRHON  talk   18:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an idea I'm interested in:

• Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves ...

Do you agree with this? And if not, why not? --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a blanket admission, no. Subject to certain qualifications (say … those contained in WP:SELFPUB), yes. Subject also to WP:WEIGHT (noting that self-published or questionable sources are seldom 'prominent'), most certainly. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P)

Have you considered it? (Not according to [15]). I personally think you're a great fit. Maybe a little hotheaded at times, but you've almost single-handedly kept a number of crank articles in check. No blocks in 20,000-some-odd edits? That's all I need to see. --King Öomie 17:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've considered it in a vague way. My reasons for not going for it are: (i) it would mean that I'd have to take on even greater stress of attempting to suffering fools gladly (not something I've ever been good at) (ii) my lack of ability at (i) has made me more than a few enemies -- who would no doubt be more than happy to parade, hype & flog-to-death my slightest historical transgression if I went RfA, (iii) I'd really prefer to stay an involved editor than try to be an 'uninvolved admin' (iv) more politics -- where's the fun in that? Thanks for asking, but no thanks. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that's understandable. Even more trolls and haters would pour out of the woodwork.

By the way, did you know that most dinosaurs were the size of small cats, and so could have totally fit on the Ark? =P --King Öomie 18:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any input you have in regards to the continuing debate at Talk:Creation myth#Courtesy Break III (the renaming debate) would be greatly appreciated. This has to be the 31st inning. --King Öomie 19:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, News World Communications, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/News World Communications. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hrafn,

Even before finding the neutrality question relating to the ‘Creation myth’ title to have been boxed in, I had thought to write you a message regarding the Argumentum ad nauseam comment. Just hoping that there was no sense of an “argument from repetition” within the developing content of the discussion. No offense has been meant.

Regards Gregkaye (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Aubrey Burl. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aubrey Burl. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for showing me the right template to change from "no references" to "needs better references". --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) WP:TEMPLATE gives a good directory for such things (with WP:TMC for cleanup templates), if you're interested. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Tom McDevitt, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom McDevitt. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of Unificationists, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Unificationists (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Northwestgnome (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Junko Sakurada, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junko Sakurada. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Northwestgnome (talk) 09:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a lot of activity on that page, and I know you've edited it before. I'm not sure of the balance of the new section on "Signature in the Cell" although it's better than it was to begin with. Could you check it out? Thanks, Auntie E. 17:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Vision Forum. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vision Forum. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Fringe Theory Ground Rules and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--Swood100 (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hrafn,
Now, I like to think of myself as a bloke with some sort of both native and educated insight into fiction, both popular and literary, but that when I came across the quote on your user page a coupla weeks ago, I found myself completely reassessing my understanding of Adams' whole œuvre. I'd never really considered the moral qualities in his works as measured against his intellect. "[A] man of an imagination sublimated and eccentric; propitious neither to the regular display of sound judgment, nor to steady perseverance in a systematic plan of conduct" - well, that most certainly put into a whole new light for "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", and for that matter Adams' own life.
Why respond now? Well, the weal from where I slapped myself hard on my forehead has only now stopped being visible...
--Shirt58 (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Today I received an email from Alfred de Grazia threatening a law suit against me and Wikipedia for using material from Ted Morgan's Literary Outlaw, whose defamatory content was subject of a libel suit against publisher Holt and author Morgan, which found in favor of plaintiff. Here's a passage from de Grazia's email: "Much of the material on these pages is false, malicious and grossly exaggerated, quite in keeping with the character of Burroughs and sympathetically depicted by Ted Morgan, the Author. It is typical of you to seize upon it and promote its publication even farther. I must inform you that materials on this page were matter for a lawsuit against Henry Holt and Ted Morgan, the Author, which ended in a legal settlement under which damages were paid to me by Henry Holt and the Author. They also signed and provided me with a statement that no copies of said book would be sold anywhere (such as in Great Britain, where the attitudes of the courts towards parties publishing and distributing defamatory matter, such as Yourself, the Author, Wikipedia, and Henry Holt, are notably stern)."

I was not able to determine today when and who originally used Morgan's book for a source. Do you recall who? Using the hardcover edition of 1988 from the St. Louis Public Library, I quoted the relevant passage in response to some editor's concern over just what was related. In America, a paperback edition came out in 1990 from Avon, but there is no local library holding this edition and I cannot readily compare the two versions. Would this initiative of de Grazia's be grounds for reconsidering the use of Morgan-based content in the DeGrazia entry? Any feedback would be appreciated. Phaedrus7 (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You added the 'drifters' quote at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alfred_de_Grazia&diff=next&oldid=318097216, but the case I find doesn't mention de Grazia [16]. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any additional notes for the article to succeed the next FAC, please put them in the peer review. Also, would you be interested in co-nominating Objections to evolution? - RoyBoy 03:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please weigh in at the Examples discussion at Talk:Fringe theory? Thank you. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wolfview (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]