User talk:FeloniousMonk/Archive 5

FeloniousMonk 06:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC) We award a Barnstar and the Barnstar of diligence to FeloniousMonk for his great work on Intelligent design related articles. We recognise his seemingly inexhaustive efforts[1] in keeping the articles free from vandalism[2][3] and overzealousness[4] and applaud his efforts to provide detailed sources.[5] As anything worth doing can be difficult, FeloniousMonk if you need further help you can count on us to assist you. – RoyBoy, KillerChihuahua, Parallel or Together?, Ec5618, dave souza, Dunc, Bill Jefferys, Guettarda, Jim62sch, WAS 4.250, Plumbago, Samsara References: ^ Irreducible and Specific Complexity (ISC) ^ Scientific peer review ^ Intelligent Design in summary ^ Argument from ignorance ^ Notes and references Category: Overdue Barnstars

Point of order

I'm puzzled by something you wrote in an edit summary:

no, I didn't miss your point, I looked beyond it and saw how it accomodated your previous goal [1]

Rather than guessing what you meant by this, I thought I'd ask you. Are you referring to my goal of describing a topic neutrally?

Or do you mean some goal (which you impute to me) of taking an article which is already neutral and introducing bias into it, by such things as (1) cutting a section on a subtopic out of an article out and leaving behind a biased summary of it and (2) pasting the cut section into a new article and describing the sub-topic in a biased way?

It would clear things up a lot if you would tell me what you think my 'goal' is. Thanks! --Uncle Ed 18:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

You fixed my sloppy edit here. Thanks.

I meant to put it on my essay. Cheers. --Uncle Ed 16:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Category_talk:Pseudoscience

Hi FM, I trust you saw my replies there. Look forward to your thoughts when you have some time. Thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 17:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

knee-jerk reverts

Would you please look at what you're reverting before just hitting the submit button? ALL I did in my last edit was fix a typo, which you just reintroduced. Also, see the article talk page. -- nae'blis 19:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Bias against Ed Poor

I've reviewed Ed's history, and while he does have a history of POV pushing, he is not a bad faith editor, and in my opinion, you really shouldn't revert his changes without citing an actual problem in them. It's needlessly setting up tension. Please consider a less personal reason for reversions(which are fine in and of themselves) i kan reed 16:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but in my years of experience in dealing with him I've slowly and reluctantly come to a very different conclusion than yours. I wish you were right, but there are very good reasons he lost first his bureaucrat and then his admin status. BTW, chronic POV pushing is by definition editing in bad faith. FeloniousMonk 17:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Erroneous theology

I don't know where the heck Joan Bokaer has done her research at but Paul Weyrich is no Christian Reconstructionist. What would Mr. Weyrich have to do with a group of people who he considers to be heretics? Real Dominionists are bigoted against Catholics, period. Felonius, I am convinced you are nothing but an ignorant bigot. I hear the Black helicopters coming Felonius. :) Pravknight--Pravknight 01:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Pravknight, Wikipedia has a policy against making personal attacks. Please discuss the content not the editor. You will be blocked if you continue this type of negative behavior. --FloNight ^talk 01:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the evidence presented at Theology Watch is significant, hard to just dismiss. And it's no news that what people say and what people actually believe are often not one and the same, particularly when defending their ideologies. Our job here is to report what others say, in proportion to their significance on the topic, not determine if what they say is accurate.

If what Theology Watch says is just a conspiracy theory as Pravknight implies and Weyrich and David Horowitz say (a coincidence worth noting), then they shouldn't mind in the least something as harmless as a lefty-liberal conspiracy theory. FeloniousMonk 01:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The evidence posted on TheocracyWatch is innuendo. I can refute every bit of it. The way you have it written is biased, and violates the spirit of neutrality. Besides, its definition of Theocracy is debateable. I could just as easily concoct an article demonstrating that Joan Bokaer is part of a conspiracy to establish a Soviet-style atheist state.

Everything on that site is spurious, and the quotes are taken out of context. Bill Moyers,for example, is a Left-wing ideologue whose TomPaine.com website, which did a hitpiece on Mr. Weyrich, has ties to hard-left socialists. I did the Internet research myself using tax documents.

Mr. Weyrich didn't write the following article. I did.[2]

One of the sites referenced has been taken down, well it's here.[3]

The quality of TheocracyWatch's research is substandard and filled with ad hominem attacks bolstered by theological ignorance. It's extreme debateably atheist bias means they lack the theological insight or understanding of Christian language to understand what is being said.

I call it Left-wing McCarthyism or Christian baiting.

Calling Christian Conservatives Dominionists is nothing but Marxist semantics because the vast majority of us reject [Christian Reconstructionism]. I know many other religious Right figures personally too, and none of the ones I know subscribe to this Tomfoolery.

I ask you to leave my edits untouched. In journalism, at least American journalism, it is a violation of journalistic ethics to attribute something to any group that is partisan or has an axe to grind. We always say so and so claims, not According to x, y believes X because y might not believe X.

What irritates me is the language you have chosen and because you treat what TheocracyWatch says as fact, not opinion. I ask you to at least work with me to develop mutually agreeable language.

Do you think it is unfair to say that Dr. Bokaer has ties with Marxist sympathizers when it is verifiable? Is it that only Left-wing viewpoints are permitted on Wikipedia? If so, I would say that hardly constitutes a neutral POV.

I don't oppose including Left perspectives, just as long as it is written neutrally and provides point/counterpoint balance. My quotes from Mr. Weyrich constitute that balance. I ask you to leave them in place.

User:Pravknight--Pravknight 02:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Cberlet has already rewritten it into a form that passes policy muster, so the matter is settled there as far as I'm concerned. FeloniousMonk 02:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts to ponder

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research. --Uncle Ed 22:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

FM, Ed's edit summary is funny...it deserves a reply. •Jim62sch• 01:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Waste of time. Don't feed the trolls. FeloniousMonk 05:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked User:ExHomey

I blocked this account for imposter/username problems among other issues such as abusive socpuppets. See AN/I: [4] ExHomey opened a RFAr then reverted it. Please comment on whether this account should stay blocked if it is determined to be the "real" Homey. --FloNight ^talk 02:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I see Fred Bauder unblocked then voted to accept and merge the RFAr. Seems a complete waste of time, since there's no new evidence that Homey, Ex or otherwise, can add. That is other than the evidence of more disruption and sockpuppetry his implicit in his recent actions with this account. I'll likely comment at RFAr page tomorrow. FeloniousMonk 05:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Question

I have an interesting question for you. I've seen you around on Wikipedia quite a bit, and respect your opinion. As such, I'd like to know what you think about the following diffs: [5], [6], [7] and [8] from the same FAC, and [9]. I'm asking because you opposed User:Ambuj.Saxena's RfA for issues that to me appear very similar to what I have been doing constantly to scores of FACs for over a year. Thus, my question is: if I were to stand for adminship today, after seeing this evidence and knowing that I fully stand behind these edits, would you support? I have no desire to continue as an admin if you or others who I respect feel that I should not hold the position. Thanks for your help. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 07:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not ask other members to abide by rules that you do not abide by, namely the three reverts rule.User:Pravknight--Pravknight 00:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hyles

• Vivaldi (talk · contribs · logs) has returned and started making Hyles edits. User removed all notice of the ongoing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi

The tom tommorow cartoon

Is tom tommorow gpl'd(this definetly does not qualify for fair use)? i kan reed 15:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Still trying to find a justification to remove it from the article? The FU licensing template for comics {{Comicpanel}}, says:

This image is a single panel from a comic strip or the interior of a single issue of a comic book and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the comic or the writer(s) and/or artist(s) which produced the comic in question. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of a single panel from a comic strip or an interior page of an individual comic book

• to illustrate:
  • the scene or storyline depicted, or
  • the copyrighted character(s) or group(s) depicted on the excerpted panel in question;
• where no free alternative exists or can be created,
• on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit

Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law . Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use for more information.

It's use in the TTC article definitely illustrates the groups depicted on the excerpted panel, so it is fair use. FeloniousMonk 15:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

why does everyone keep assuming i'm some sort of creationist or something. The inclusion of an editorial cartoon did bother me, as it was an editorial cartoon. The main reason for my revert earlier was the cutoff, though. And you're misunderstanding fair use. "To depict the copyrighted characters" is not what you're doing. The copyrighted characters are the actual people drawn by Mr. Tommorow. What you're trying to illustrate is the people he's parodying. That's not fair use at all.

You're assuming bad faith concern about my perspectives on "teach the contraversy". This is honest goodfaith concern regarding the copyright of a protected work(one of the few non-negotiable policies wikipedia has, the only other I can think of is NPOV). i kan reed 16:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, and correct me if I'm wrong, I've never speculated on your beliefs and motives. What I have noted is that your fair use objection is your second attempt at finding a reason to remove the image, that is all. The image is useful because it clearly illustrates how the method of using contrived controversy works without making a specific allegation against ID supporters, which is a good thing. Either way, I've asked for clarification on it's fair use status there from a knowledgeable source and have removed the image until then. FeloniousMonk 17:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

sorry for getting insulted over a comment that bore no insult. I wasn't searching for a justification, the removal was mostly laziness when fixing the cutoff but then the reason you gave for putting it back struck a chord in the copyright part of my head. sorry for the trouble, but at least it wasn't another edit war, eh? i kan reed 17:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No trouble at all. Hey, it's a testy topic for a lot people, regardless of which side they're on. FeloniousMonk 18:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscientists Category

Please respond to my reply on Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_August_7 and clarify why you think a category is necessary, as opposed to a list. --Wclark 15:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Henry College

Sorry about that, the vandalism I was trying to revert was the re-naming of Lake Bob. I didn't mean to get rid of that section.

However, I did revert your latest edit, because for some reason about half of the PHC article had disappeared....

My apologies as well. Yes, that happens occasionally because there's a known bug with Firefox and Google toolbar users that sometimes causes that. Hopefully they'll fix it in the next release. FeloniousMonk 15:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Categorisation

Hi FM. Just wanted to bring your attention to this passage regarding NPOV and categories: Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Categorisation. Please note what the guideline page it links to says:

Not all categories are comprehensive: For some "sensitive" categories, it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples, while a list is a better venue for an attempt at completeness. Particularly for "sensitive" categories, lists can be used as a complement to categorization.

I can live with keeping cat:pseudosci if these cautions are kept in mind, and if we populate the cat cautiously and focus more on populating and annotating stuff like List of pseudoscientific theories, where arguments can be better described. I believe this actually does the scientific side a favor, because it won't appear that critics are oversimplfying and putting everything in one unqualified basket. That IMO strengthens arguments against stuff like ID, where I feel your barnstar was well-deserved. There is much we agree on and I'd prefer to leave any rancor behind. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 21:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33 proposal

Hi, FM, Jayjg has confirmed that Professor33, NeoOne, and CleanSocks are all sockpuppets of Giovanni33.[10] [11] Giovanni has now come as close as I think he can come (without losing face) to admitting sockpuppetry. He has agreed here that it doesn't pay, and has asked to be unblocked on condition that all suspected socks can be assumed to be his, and that he will not revert or make supporting arguments where they are, and that if he votes, his votes can be struck through. I've made a proposal here. If you really have nothing to do with your time, you can read Part One and Part two immediately above! Also, this section of Danny's talk page contains links to all or nearly all the places where this has been discussed. Don't feel you have to get involved, but if you have time, a comment at the noticeboard would be welcome. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 18:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ex-Homey

I would request that you reconsider your block on "Ex-Homey", given that there is some doubt as to whether or not his "alternate accounts" were actually sockpuppets. (See also the comments in his "request for unblock"). CJCurrie 04:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason for this block isn't about whether the sockpuppet accounts are his. Fred Bauder unblocked Ex-Homey so he could participate in arbitration only. Reverting notices on his sockpuppets,[12] harassing Jayjg on his talk page[13] and editing the articles that his prior content diputes lead to the arbitration he was unblocked to participate in[14] are not "participating in arbitration." Homey's has clearly violated the terms under which an arbcom member agreed to unblock him multiple times in the last 24 hours, and he has gone to disrupt the project once again. This block is justified and I do not intend to remove it.

BTW, admitted sockpuppet masters should not be editing userpages of their suspected sockpuppets, period. FeloniousMonk 04:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Two responses:

(i) I believe that your information is slightly out of date. Ex-Homey's "conditional" unblocking was removed earlier tonight, and he now has Bauder's sanction to participate freely on Wikipedia. (See my comments on the Admin noticeboard).

(ii) I don't believe that Ex-Homey is an admitted sockpuppet master: he's acknowledged using some of these accounts, but only on a temporary basis and only after discarding his prior account. At the very least, I think there's some doubt on this front.

I would again request that you reconsider your block, if only on procedural grounds. CJCurrie 04:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware Fred Bauder said that he was lifting the terms of his unblocking, but he also said part of the reason he was willing to let him edit was that Homey said he intended to edit quietly with another account. Instead, Homey chose immediately to return to his old disruptive habits, reverting notices on his sockpuppets, harassing others, and editing the articles that led to his problem in the first place. I'm certain Fred Bauder did not have those activities in mind when he tentatively lifted the terms of Homey's unblocking. Homey has once again shown his contempt for the community and abused its trust.

Sorry, but no. Take a look at his block log. He's a chronic trouble maker, and there's a limit to the amount of disruption the community should have to put up with. FeloniousMonk 04:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sneaky habits

Should I remind you of the three reverts rule. I saw you reintroduced your POV pushing into the Paul Weyrich article in what I perceive as your effort to paint him as an extremist by quoting him out of context. --68.45.161.241 16:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Tag wars

• Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed. [15]

--Uncle Ed 18:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

1) WP:EW is an essay, not policy or guideline. 2) WP:EW was never intended to assist those who misuse dispute tags to push pov by providing something for them to invoke and hide behind.

You've a long record, some of which is detailed at your user conduct RFC that you're ignoring, of misusing tags to force pov or factually inaccurate content into articles. Today's incidents are no exception and only compound what is seen there. FeloniousMonk 18:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Your accusation of "pushing POV" is hypocritical and also unfounded.

You've repeatedly charge me with violating NPOV policy by inserting POV and never, not once, explained how it would be a violation to "insert information that advances a point of view".

I can only assume that (1) you don't understand NPOV or (2) you are deliberately ignoring it. Because the ArbCom have ruled that:

• It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view.

If you think it's "wrong" to "force pov ... into an article" then you need to leave Wikipedia. I will start the process now, however only with great reluctance. --Uncle Ed 19:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Gee, Ed, seems to me you've missed the key words here, "well-referenced information". I don't recall you having provided references for much of anything. Odd huh? But if you feel you must "proceed" with whatever action your not-so-veiled threat implies, make sure your hands are immaculate. Quod scripsisti, scripsisti; quod fecisti, fecisti, nonne? •Jim62sch• 21:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk: Focus on the Family

I welcome your comments per the Dobson remarks about Mel Gibson. Rkevins82 15:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Paul Weyrich

I would note that Wikipedia's article on withcraft lists it as a synonym for Wicca. You are in violation of the very same 3RR rule you accused me of violating when I first joined.

We can either agree on language here, or there are always other options I could exercise. --Pravknight 23:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The subject is Wiccans in the military. That Weyrich, for reasons tied to his ideological agenda, chooses to call Wicca "satanism and witchcraft" when discussing the subject does not mean we are obligated to as well; read WP:NPOV.

Either do not understand WP:3RR or are unable to count. Please read the policy again. FeloniousMonk 23:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Misreading of undue weight

You wrote:

Those members of the scientific community who believe in ID constitute a tiny minority and that's one reason the majority position get stated to the exclusion of the minority there.

However, there is no policy at Wikipedia requiring the exclusion of minority positions. It means that they need not be given "equal time", not that for example a view held by 0.2% of those holding views on a topic MUST get less than 0.2% of an article. Jimbo has clarified this, and if you had any genuine interest in this project you'd want to know more about this so you could adhere to policy: instead of gaming the system, wikilawyering, and accusing me of groundlessly accusing me of POV pushing. --Uncle Ed 16:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed, whatever your beef with FM, it's clear that he acts in good faith. Calling him a liar is therefore unfair, and I hope you'll take it back. It seems self-evident that the percentage of scientists who believe in ID is small. Whether it is too tiny a minority to mention depends on the article and on what the sources say. A view held by 0.2 percent of those holding views on a given topic is a tiny-minority opinion and need not be mentioned, except in an article dedicated to those views. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I took it back although his constant badgering, wikistalking and false accusations strain my attempts to regard him with the assumption of good faith. --Uncle Ed 18:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I wish to support part of ed's views here, without wikilawyering too much, the undue weight clause is mostly about articles where the view in question would be considered tangential to the subject by authorities on the subject,(in this case, evolution would be a good example). Obviously there is an implication that nothing untrue should be said about the subject, but that is a policy that is adequately covered by most wikipolicy. (but don't call anyone a liar, ok?)i kan reed 18:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That's an oversimplification; you and Ed are leaving out some important points about both the topic and the policy, and in writing the article the whole policy is applied, not just one clause. The scientific community, in its wide acceptance of evolution, considers ID's claims tangential, not testable, and ID itself not science but pseudoscience. About pseudoscience NPOV policy says: "How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention? If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience It goes on to say; "I find the optimism about science vs. pseudo-science to be baseless. History has shown that pseudo-science can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudo-science use lies, slander, innuendo and numerical majorities of followers to force their views on anyone they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occurred, the result is that it will (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can be termed evil. Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory..." WP:NPOVFAQ#Giving "equal validity"

There's no shortage of evidence at the article that vast majority of the scientific community rejects ID, which means members of the scientific community who believe in ID constitute a small minority. A vague, unsupported statement in the article implying there may be a significant minority of scientists who embrace ID as asked for by ArrrghBob (talk · contribs) and defended by Ed here and at the article clearly has WP:NPOV and WP:V issues, not least of which remains undue weight. FeloniousMonk 18:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[ec]The underlying issue here is the issue of whether a few dozen "dissenters from darwinism" are significant enough for mention in the statement that "almost all scientists dismiss ID". Adding that a trivial proportion of scientists disagree with this idea would either make for horrible writing (the sort of terribly nuanced and unreadable language you find in a journal article) or would be horribly unbalanced. So FM's comment about undue weight is accurate. Guettarda 18:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually "Dissent from Darwinism" is around 610 signers now. It's gathered these signatures over the course of 3-4 years. Contrast that to "A Scientific Support For Darwinism And For Public Schools Not To Teach Intelligent Design As Science" that gathered 7733 signers in four days. The 610 or so signers of Dissent from Darwinism represent an insignificant minority compared to the 120,000 member AAAS and the 55,000 member National Science Teachers Association who have all rejected or condemned ID as valid science through policy statements and the more than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators signing the "Intelligent design is not science" statement. Also, in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District the judge considered evidence from both sides and stated that ID has been rejected by the majority science practicioners in his ruling that ID is not valid science. All of this highlights the issue of undue weight by implying that Dissent from Darwinism signers represent a significant minority as Ed and ArrrghBob insist. FeloniousMonk 19:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall asking for a statement that a significant minority of scientists who embrace ID. I'm aware that ID is a view held by only a few dozen (published) advocates, making ID supporters a tiny minority compared with biologists who support the Theory of Evolution (at least 10,000 at a guess).

Actually, what I was referring to was this:

• views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views

I'm only saying that in the ID-related articles, the views of ID supporters should be given more space than they have been given; they certainly should not be excluded from articles which are devoted to ID, such as:

• Intelligent Design
• Intelligent designer
• Intelligent Design movement

I've indented these remarks, because you missed the part about "I don't recall asking for a statement that a significant minority of scientists who embrace ID." --Uncle Ed 13:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed, remember to sign. What I suppose you're telling us then is that a person cannot get a good handle on what ID, the movement and the IDer are by reading those articles, yes? Well, I hate to break it to you, but I performed a little test and sent the ID article (sans comment) out to a few people. All of them understood the concept even though they'd never heard of it before. This would lead me to believe that the articles sufficiently cover what ID and the rest of it is. Thank you for your concern. •Jim62sch• 21:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say the article should be deleted, rather that it should be expanded. There are several points about ID that its advocates make, which need to go into the article. Saying that you performed an informal (and private) survey is irrelevant. Articles can always be improved, that's why they're on a wiki. --Uncle Ed 13:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

As you already know the way Wikipedia works for major changes at controversial topics is generally you make specific suggestions at an article's talk page along with a justification as to why it's important and relevant, it gets discussed, and, if there's consensus, it goes into the article. Suggestions are weighed on entire range of the subject; the point's status among proponents, its significance, and the response of the various relevant viewpoints to it. From my experience the regular contributors to intelligent design are very well read on the topic and the article already covers all the major points thoroughly, but if something was missed, it needs to be brought up. FeloniousMonk 15:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but what's signifigant? In my mind, it's only explicitly Wrong when there's consensus against the particular change or if it signifigantly damages the content. In other cases it's mostly just inconsiderate. It's not a policy I know of that changes must be discussed beforehand, even on contraversial pages. I may be wrong, and I'd love to be proven wrong, but "change-first" is perfectly ok according to WP:BOLD. i kan reed 15:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You need to reread WP:BOLD. In the "…but don't be reckless!" section it says "If you expect or see a disagreement with your version of the article, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to list your objections one by one in the talk page, reasonably quoting the disputed phrases, explaining your reasoning and providing solid references. Then, wait for responses for at least a day: people edit Wikipedia in their spare time and may not respond immediately. If no one objects, proceed..." Ed could obviously expected to see a disagreement with his version of the article, since he sought to change the very definition of the topic and other significant, controversial changes. Ed's predicament now and much of his difficulties elsewhere could have been avoided had he followed WP:BOLD#…but don't be reckless! instead of just Be Bold. Your support of his methods, lack of knowledge of his past significant problems on the project and your incomplete understanding of policy and guideline have not really helped him or the community in my opinion. So it's not policy that changes be discussed beforehand at controversial topics, but it is part of a number of guidelines. It's also the convention here at Wikipedia. Editors believing they don't have to justify their controversial changes to controversial, heavily watched articles is a constant cause of disruption and are in for a tough time. Ed's been around long enough to know this. BTW, there's a lot of ways a suggested change can be wrong and rejected by fellow contributors... factually wrong, NPOV issues, fails to cite sources, sources fail to meet WP:RS, and so on. FeloniousMonk 15:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

it's a gray area, and I do confess it lends itself to being sort of against ed. On the other hand, what's substantial seems to be determined unfairly here. Your complaint holds some merit, and it'd probably be wikilawyering to note any of the further objections I noted rereading because they were minor points. I'll try to summarize the spirit of my issue here: there are other ways to correct POV besides reverting, and unless the signal to noise ratio of the edits is really bad, they may be getting an unfair treatment. i kan reed 15:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, he's being Bold again: [16] His figleaf, a pretense at earnest discussion: [17] FeloniousMonk 16:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the usual type of thing I see. I see his point, but he overdoes it. A lot of that was contextually unhelpful, but removing the definition was a bit extreme, So what I see is overextremness, but not bad edits. i kan reed 16:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Erroneous revert at Naomi Oreskes

Here you seem to explain your subsequent reversion of Sln3412 [18] on the grounds that his edit advances a POV. As you know, this is an inappropriate reason:

• It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view.

Please be more careful in the future. --Uncle Ed 20:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[19] is a simple copyedit. Well, do you have any evidence that anyone other than global warming skeptics have challenged Oreskes' conclusions? [20] Give it a rest with the bogus warnings Ed, that's two today already, both of which were DOA. FeloniousMonk 20:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you make so many reverts I assumed this was one. I guess I better slow down. --Uncle Ed 21:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Formatting tip

Thanks for correcting the horizontal alignment of the {{pov}} template. I should have done a preview first. You're the best! :-) --Uncle Ed 19:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Authorized Revision of Dominionism Entry

You had written "rv unsupported pov to last version by JoshuaZ." I don't understand because if you go to User_talk:JoshuaZ#Schaeffer_and_Dominionism you will see that the sentence I put in the Dominion entry is the one he suggested. I only added the word "however" so that the sentence would make sense within the context of the sentence before it. I've put the sentence back in because I feel I went through the proper procedure to add it in the first place. I've also added an entry to the discussion page for the Dominionism entry itself. Please see Talk:Dominionism#Roots_and_Branches -- Awinger48 12:53, 18 August 2006. (UTC)

Constitution Party reversion - what's up with that?

Felonious, I don't always agree with your views, but that's OK. But when you do a wholescale revert of a page for no seeming reason and without properly noting it ("fix link"?), I get a bit irritated. Please be a little more careful. —ChristTrekker 16:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

My fault, I had two windows open for editing (C&Ping from one) and saved the wrong one. FeloniousMonk 17:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying. I thought it seemed odd for you. —ChristTrekker 18:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Calling a truce

Felonious, let's call a truce here. I've been doing some thinking, and I can be a real hothead sometimes. So I will back down and let things cool down for awhile. I hope we can discuss things peacefully instead of having a standoff on issues we both have opposing personal interests in. <wiki>Pravknightt--146.145.70.200 17:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)</nowiki>

Pravknightt, after a bit, please contact me on my user talk page with two specfic actionable content concerns. I'll go over the concern with you based on Wikipedia's policy and guidelines. Very helpful if you can provide verifiable reliable sources to back up your content concerns.

I have no desire to discuss the behavior of other editors. If you are ready to focus on content alone I will help. Talk to you later. FloNight ^talk 17:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

WT:NOR "archiving"

I find your "archiving" of Wikipedia talk:No original research quite rude. Furthermore, you didn't do it properly. A simultaneous but unrelated discussion was taking place about the role of expert editors, which you also moved to Wikipedia talk:No original research/Primary v. secondary sources discussion even though it has nothing to do with that discussion. Please fix this, as I'm in no mood to clean up the mess you created. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not archived; it's moved to a sub page where it can continue. Moving disruptive and fruitless discussions to sub pages to free up main talk pages is supported by guideline and convention. FeloniousMonk 07:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, FM. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand it's not archived, that's why I'm using quotes. I repeat "A simultaneous but unrelated discussion was taking place about the role of expert editors, which you also moved to Wikipedia talk:No original research/Primary v. secondary sources discussion even though it has nothing to do with that discussion." I was refering to this discussion: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. The last edit is mine, so perhaps you understand why I'm a bit miffed that that discussion is unceremoniously dumped with the primary/secondary mess. As I said before, I'd appreciate it if you could move the parts of Wikipedia talk:No original research/Primary v. secondary sources discussion that have actually nothing to do with the primary vs secondary sources discussion back to the main page. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to move any genuinely unrelated discussion back to the main page, or I'll do it there in a bit. It's not a big deal to move it or continue discussion there either way. FeloniousMonk 07:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. By the way, even though I still think that your moving the primary vs secondary discussion to the subpage was quite rude, I now think that it was a good idea. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Page moves

Standards As you can see, there is already a standard for this - my moves are non-controversial, as they simply bring articles in line with the MOS and naming conventions. If you'd like more of my rationale, see the discussion between Duncan and myself on my talk page. Also, look at my recent contributions. -Justin (koavf)•T•C•M 15:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Good Edits! Keep up the good work on NPOV with reason and science.

Parlor game

Hi FM, I'm going to tweak the wording of the Paul Weyrich article. Want to make it a parlor game, where you guess the changes I'm going to suggest? You should be able to say them if you give it some thought. ;-)

IMO, Theocracy Watch is a solid source for this article so no worries there. I'll put the changes on the talk page to discuss. Might not get to it tonight due to Wiki-weirdness that might becoming later tonight. Take care, FloNight 22:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

reverts at Dembski

Thanks. What am I on, revert 2?

Um, 4. FeloniousMonk 20:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No way, I provided new material for the passage, which Jim and Duncharris have reverted without discussion. Quite blatantly in violation of the Code of Conduct.--CJGB (Chris) 20:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, WP:3RR says "an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part" These four edits, [26][27][28][29], definitely show you restoring the same content in various forms four times in 24 hours. Anyways, you were just warned, so let's keep the reversions to a minimum. FeloniousMonk 21:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I see you've continued reverting after the warning and the 4 examples given above, so sadly I've had to list this at WP:AN/3RR. FeloniousMonk 21:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That was my misinterpretation of the rules, sorry. I've been put right by a number of people. However, I would still point out that several reverts of my changes were clearly in violation of the Code of Conduct.--CJGB (Chris) 22:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Pfft

Thanks for not helping... Adraeus 04:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi

Can we move to close the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi? This user has continual removed material. Arbusto 20:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

J4J

Hey Monk--I reverted your last edit to J4J, not because I'm trying to drag you down into the edit war nightmare currently taking place there, but because it seems you reverted it too far back, to a version not supported by consensus. Let me know at my talk if you have questions. Thanks! drseudo (t) 04:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

NOR

Your "NOR" objection to my PZ Myers edit is nonsense and I intend to continue reverting the article. Also, I believe you deserve a warning for 3 page reversions yourself.

Jon Awbrey

Are you aware of the history of User:Jon Awbrey, who started no less than four substantially identical "Wikiprojects" including WP:EEE? In short, he considers himself an expert (which may well be right), but his editing style and debating method (including idiosyncratic reply formatting) pretty much universally piss people off. I first became aware of him after a long series of trolling threads on the mailing list, purporting to be an "exit interview" about how he was leaving the project because his edits kept being reverted just because they were original research. I deleted the other three as WP:POINT violations, but the one you signed up for is still there in case you think it can be salvaged. Guy 21:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Justforasecond

Based on this block, it seems you've got a pretty good read on the whole mishegas concerning Jfas. If he comes back after the block and continues to be disruptive, what do you propose the next WP:DR step should be? I suspect it's going to come down to an RfC at some point, but obviously I would prefer to try something else first. Thanks. drseudo (t) 18:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There should have been a user conduct RFC on his behavior a long time ago in my opinion. If he's again surly upon his return an RFC then would be the required next step prior to arbitration, which is where this will probably end up being settled. That is unless he's so disruptive as to warrant a permablock, which may be the case. So, yes, an RFC would be a natural next step. Mind you RFC's are not terribly effective, but we've got to make an effort to resolve the dispute, and seeing how one is viewed by the community can change the behavior of the more reasonable and rational editors. FeloniousMonk 18:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

All right. I will read up on the RfC process, and perhaps begin drafting some language in my user space. Thanks for your input. drseudo (t) 18:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to add a closure clause to RfCs. See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Closure_of_RfCs Guy 21:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone is posting not to positive things about you

Someone is posting not to positive things about you, and want to bring it to your attention.[30] Arbusto 18:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Feh. Self-admitted sour grapes. FeloniousMonk 18:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen the Arbustoo's / Vivaldi RFAR? WP:RFAR#Vivaldi. Might be worth a visit. Guy 20:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, if for nothing more than entertainment value. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a serious core to this. I don't want to see Arbustoo melt down, it will mean a lot more work for the rest of us. Guy 21:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know, and Vivaldi is a bunch of things I won't mention for fear of offending the gods of NPA, but Arbustoo is going to need to keep his cool, which is not necessarily easy where Vivaldi is concerned. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

FM, you should see this. Arbusto 17:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Justforasecond block

Hi, FeloniousMonk. You have blocked Justforasecond and have stated that he made personal attacks. I can't find any personal attacks made by him. Can you show me where they are? Thanks. Whiskey Rebellion 18:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Free Congress Foundation

I have NOT deleted the section. I just moved it under the criticism section. Reza1 01:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe these can be considered removal of sourced material: [31] and [32] . Please watch those articles. Thanks --Reza1 01:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a personal attack but I have withdrawn the CheckUser request

I do not agree that it is a personal attack. That said, I now understand that this is par for the course for dedicated Wikipedians. I have withdrawn the CheckUser. --Ben Houston 04:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

PZ Myers

I've indicated why pseudo-science is POV and unneccessary on the talk page. Why don't you at least explain yourself. On the Pinkowski matter, the details are clearly not appropriate to Wikipedia, no matter how well sourced. Gabrielthursday 04:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I took anther look at the Pygmies & Dwarfs deletion page, and I'll doubts on the Pinkowski matter, especially if it ends up merged into the Myers page. Gabrielthursday 04:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Reviewed Pravknight's edits and blocked for 24 hours

FM, I reviewed Pravknight's most recent edits and blocked for 24 hours. [33]. Hope this will finally cause him to see the ongoing problems that his editing is causing. Take care, FloNight 05:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Old bird

This chap might interest you. ..dave souza, talk 22:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

NOR again

I am trying to get things moving - step by step - on the primary/secondary sources issue. Since you had been an active participant in this discussion I think you should check in again, here, [34]. I have broken my own proposed edits into four steps. We pretty much achieved consensus on step one and made an edit, the discussion now is centered on step two. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV page

Hi FeloniousMonk, you reverted an edit to the NPOV section. The original passage does have a weakness: "We might not be able to agree that so-and-so is the greatest guitar player in history, but it may be important to describe how some artist or some work has been received by the general public.." and experts etc. Describing how an artist or work has "been received by the general public.." seems to be an invitation for Original Research, POV, etc, because it could be viewed as suggesting that editors should try to "take the pulse" of the public's views regarding an artist...leading to POV/OR-edits like "Def Leppard were the most well-loved hard rock band for much of the US working class in the 1980s" (hypothetical), which is a POV/OR statement because it has no source/reference.Nazamo 13:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, also, regarding your reverting of the edit, this treats the edit no differently than a vandal who wrote "(#@*&(*!(@$(!". Even if you disagree with most of an edit, there may be some merit in some of the edit, which reverting (as opposed to editing the edit) removes.Nazamo 13:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

McCready to be banned for 10-days on Pseudoscience pages

You might want to weigh in your thoughts here, if you haven't already. TheDoctorIsIn 18:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

HBBM and neocreationism

I'm not denying that many of those favouring the HBBM have been at the forefront of important scientific discoveries, but as for the Model as a whole, I have a feeling that the Catholic Church isn't the only one to now officially sanction it the ultimate cosmic act of creation. To pretend that scientific models are divorced from social, political, and economic forces (including but not limited to grant money) is wishful thinking. Perhaps the HBBM is correct, but to me, it appears fairly clear that there has been a not entirely dispassionate and detached attempt to prove that it is. El_C 01:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

So does NPOV mean only those things that agree with your POV? It seems that academia has begun to see through the mythology of NPOV.

"Many Wikipedians defend their claims to truth not by following the NPOV policy or by allowing the system to self-correct but by “squatting” specific topics. Alone or through political alliances with other members, using bureaucratic manipulation and persistence Wikipedians often attempt to make sure that their own perspective of certain issue is preserved. A keen participant-observer describes this process very vividly while recounting the story of a representative dispute on Wikipedia, that surrounding the term “swastika...

The creation of political alliances and of cliques, by which “turf” is appropriated and defended creates not one, but multiple claims to truth, which continuously chase each other. In this context, what some thought to be an expression of pure non-directed “emergence”—rapid reverts of significant editing—can be reinterpreted in a very different way. For example, Viegas et al.’s (2004) observation that massive edits tend to be reverted after 3 minutes, compared to 90 minutes, in median, for regular edits, can be explained by the fact that such reverts are more likely to occur in more heavily “patrolled” articles, where one or more members actively control the content and the editorial process. This assumption seems to be verified by Stvilia et al.’s findings (2005). Comparing a random sample of 834 entries to a subsample of “featured” (heavily edited and patrolled) articles, Stvilia et al. found that the median number of reverts for random articles was 0, compared to 12 for “featured” articles... www.matei.org/ithink/papers/ambiguity-conflict-wikipedia/

NPOV is a myth. You know it, and I know it. Let's admit it. Wikipedia is a left-wing site. The only reason you object to me has nothing to do the with damn rules. WP:IAR It has to do with the fact I threaten your POV. Your comments on the Dominionism page were telling because they revealed that you aren't interested in building a consensus, or including views that differ from yours. ISn't your expressing the opinion that I was undermining your POV that "Dominionism" was a threat POV pushing because NPOV implies looking beyond your own atheist worldview and making the extra effort to be neutral. That's what I've read.

Half of the things you have flagged me on have been trivial or misunderstandings on your part.

You have yet to explain your interpretation of NPOV to me because I have yet to find one shred that supports your cavalier misapplication of the rules. WP:IAR--Pravknight 05:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing

The sourcing you added handles my concerns. JoshuaZ 19:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ann Coulter

Fel, IMHO there's quite a difference between the acknowledgement "I couldn't have written without..." and an assertion that someone "has no formal scientific background." I don't see any citation to demonstrate the latter. Asserting it without a specific citation seems pretty POV/OR to me. The same is true even WITH a specific citation. Writers very often lack specific formal backgrounds in the fields they write about, so what does it matter? Lou Sander 20:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Mccready is issued a 30 day community probation related to Pseudoscience articles

Hello

Based on the comments left on AN/I, I issued a 30 day topic ban to Mccready. (see Community probation log [35]) Discussion on talk pages is encouraged. Admins can enforce the ban if needed. Crosspost from AN:

Based on this discussion on AN/I [36] and the numerous comments on Mccready's talk page, Mccready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is issued a 30 day ban from editing all articles related to the Pseudoscience. Mccready is encouraged to discuss his ideas on the talk pages of these articles. The the suggested sanction for disregarding the article ban is a 24 hour block with the block time adjusted up or down according to Mccready's response. Admins are encouraged to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of this article topic ban and make appropriate adjustments if needed. FloNight 23:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Further discussion about the ban or request for enforcement can be made at AN/I or AN. FloNight 01:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Francis Schaeffer

Would you mind mentioning the issues you have with "pioneer of Dominionism" on Talk:Francis Schaeffer? I'm rather confused as to why this is an issue, but considering that discussion stopped a week ago and several reverts have occurred since then, a bit of explanation might be helpful. Thanks! --Spangineer^es (háblame) 19:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Rick Santorum

Hi. I think your revert of my edit to this article was unjustified. I have re-reverted and invite you to explain your reasoning in more detail in Talk:Rick Santorum#September 23 revert. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 23:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Inksplotch

I've copied these comments I made in resonse to your comments on inksplotch page, I'd be greatful for your consideration.

I feel the need to comment here to Mr Monk and Mr Jim. I'm an editor - I don't know how many mainspace edits I've got because I don't know how to count them - someone told me recently it was 6000+ I've also got 1FA - all my own work and 1FA upon which I collaborated, both of which have been on the front page. I'm also a frequent contributor to the architecture portal and WP:ARCH. There, credentials over, perhaps I have your ear.

Like you I held similar opinions until quite recently, mostly stemming from the abuse of admin power - particularly blocking, by people who didn't seem to be contributing content. It became quite apparent that the quality of person who holds adminship is important - so off I went to RfA and voted against a few candidates with a kind of watered down 1FA criteria and then looking to see if the candidate was a good admin. This seemed to attract some quite vociferous responses - so we talked through the issues, points were made, I rebutted some, some more were made etc.etc. All I was looking for were admins who had contributed content to the encyclopedia - which is a pretty worthy expectation I'm sure you'll both agree.

Alai then made a comment to me along the lines, that he objected to this because a rational basis for selecting someone to do administrative tasks isn't necessarily someone who creates content. This made me think for several days - so much so I did a bit of RC patrolling - have you tried that? Have you seen how much the site is vandalised every second? Have you any idea how mindlessly dull it is? A new experience for me, I was quite appalled. So my position has changed. I still believe that everyone on this project should contribute to content, but I really respect the work that people do to defend it. I personally believe that what's important here is that we don't end up with an administrative body with bad character traits, who can't communicate very well and have some questionable attitudes to blocking established users - because that is seriously damaging to the project. I think this is actually (for now) more important than ensuring admins have written that little article on javascript xyz parsing or whatever. There is plenty of admins out there who are great at the admin tasks and good contributors, there's also admins like Inksplotch here who just do a great job of being an admin.

I haven't met this guy before (and we haven't been introduced - Hi Inksplotch), but I did read some comments he made on Geogres and Kelly Martins pages in the last few days - A more skilfull attempt to broker a peace I haven't read. I sincerely believe this guy has the best intentions, and the future of wikipedia at heart. He is a diplomat and there's space in wikipedia for them too. I've no idea what his contributions are to wikipedia - he might be an really great admin for all I know, and if he is then great, but what he does seem to know about is resolving serious issues and for that I thank him. I have some misgivings about the arbcom request, but I fully respect Inks desire to do something to sort the mess out, maybe we should see how it goes, and in the mean time make sure we're electing good admins on RfA? --Mcginnly | Natter 00:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Editing clarification

An editor has replaced one of my statements in an article with theirs, with the explanation that mine are "inaccurate edits" and theirs "is the accurate version". In the interests of cooperation, would it be reasonable:

• To expect an explanation of why mine is inaccurate?
• Provide a citation backing up their version?

--Iantresman 12:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Ian. You might be talking about me? --ScienceApologist 13:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration involvement

Please note that I have started a Request for Arbitration: Pseudoscience vs Pseudoskepticism in which I have included you as an "Involved party", and may wish to comment. --Iantresman 18:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. Could you provide (a) A couple of examples (eg. diffs) illustrating your point, together with (b) A couple of reliable sources suggesting pseudoscience. --Iantresman 19:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

re: Irreducible complexity

Good evening, Felonious. I've just made a fairly strong point that user:Psychohistorian should give the rest of the community a chance to evaluate his/her claims. I am not yet sure if the proposed changes are right but I do believe that they are being offered in good faith. Could you please drop back to the article's Talk page and post a response - even if it's only to acknowledge that it will take a while to investigate the matter further? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:OR

Is it just me or is this a mass of WP:OR, list-cruft of vague assertations of various interpretations: List of Christian claims of fulfilled Old Testament prophecies. --Arbusto 06:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Inforazer

Continued disruption through edit warring, then personal attacks, now simple vandalism. Community ban? -- Steel 18:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Steel 18:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Complaints against your actions on Wikipedia

I have several complaints against your actions on Wikipedia to which I would like you to respond.

1. Automatic and repeated accusations of POV campaigning against those who disagree with you. Specifically your Wikipedia policy-violating accusations that those who attempt to edit intelligent design-related articles and disagree with you are "pro-ID," ([37], [38]) as well as continued accusations of this well after those you accused have said otherwise. Your further accusations of "tendentious editing" seem to be yet another continuation of this.

2. Deletion of accusations of improper behavior leveled against you.

Specifically, [39] and [40].

According to WP:NPA:

"Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks. Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack — it is a statement regarding the actions of the user, not a statement about the user."

From the same page:

The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly.

I note that your rationale for the removal of the second above-listed example, "trolling," is not covered by Wikipedia policy. It also does not appear to be trolling (it appears to be complaints that are similar to mine). I warn you against also deleting this post as such action will motivate me to immediately escalate to a request for comment.

3. Archiving discussions prior to their completion. Specifically [41]. User User:Bagginator soon after noted the following[42]:

This is a good place to note that in this just archived discussion Bagginator, Psychohistorian, ILovePlankton, AbstractClass, Simões,MattShepherd, i kan reed,Storkk editors indicated a change in one form or another while Kenosis, Jim62sch, ScienceApologist, Guettarda, Davril2020, Nnp, KillerChihuahua, FeloniousMonk editors indicated they either wanted further discussion or were against the change. Looks like deadlocked disagreement to me.Bagginator 00:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, even one user who tended to agree with your positions in the editing dispute disagreed with the archival[43].

4. Possible threats of using administrative tools against those who disagree with you in editing disputes involving you. Given your position as an administrator, that you have been admonished before for precisely this [44], and your repeated personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, your comment here[45] (note this latter contains yet another personal attack; viz. you calling editors with which you disagree "cranks") smacks of a veiled threat.

I look forward to your response. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 18:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"1. Automatic and repeated accusations of POV campaigning against those who disagree with you." When an editor or group of editors repeatedly dismiss all evidence that they are mistaken and continue to argue dogmatically to force the issue as was the case there, POV campaigning is the likely cause. Everyone is expected to assume good faith in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary. Repeatedly dismissing significant evidence in favor of attenuated evidence and long-running tendentious arguments constitute ample evidence to the contrary. It's a recurring problem there, as seen in the 32 pages of archived discussion. There are times when drawing the community's attention to bias and campaigning becomes necessary, but I don't see that I specifically identified any particular editors during that discussion. The ID article has traditionally been a magnet for pro-ID POV-pushers, and those that fall into that category are known by the regulars there. When the same old claim or objection is raised yet one more time dismissing current evidence and without presenting any credible new evidence, neither policy, guideline nor convention require editors to discuss it fruitlessly and endlessly.

"2. Deletion of accusations of improper behavior leveled against you." Both [46] and [47] are transparent personal attacks by known troublemakers with personal grudges against me for impeding their campaigns, Ed Poor and Pravknight, and who've now joined forces as seen on their respective talk pages with the intent of waylaying me and settling personal scores. Do you realize you're aiding them? Both comments I removed clearly fall under Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. The latter was also made in my userspace, where I have final say on whether to delete any comment left there other than warnings from fellow admins. Neither of the removed comments furthered the goals of the project, only adding fuel to the fire, so I removed them in the spirit of Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks#Refactoring instead of banning.

"3. Archiving discussions prior to their completion." There is a long standing convention at Wikipedia that obviously fruitless and/or disruptive discussions should be archived to allow for discussion on other topics. Discussion at Talk:Intelligent design/Archive32#Identifying Leading Proponents of Intelligent_Design was clearly fruitless and becoming disruptive due to the endless tendentious arguments of several there. An alternative is moving the discussion to the userspace of the editor pushing the issue, but since Bagginator was already flogging that dead horse there without any let up archiving the was the logical alternative. And I think you'll find that the majority of the credible, long-term contributors there support my doing so.

"4. Possible threats of using administrative tools against those who disagree with you in editing disputes involving you." So [48] is evidence of me threatening using my administrative tools against those who disagree with me? Please. Now I know you're on a fishing expedition. No, it's evidence of me reminding tendentious editors who were becoming disruptive about the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and Wikipedia:Community probation processes, which, along with WP:DR, I will not hesitate to use when the circumstances call for it. FeloniousMonk 20:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

From what I can see, Simoes is indeed on a fishing trip -- casting about on various users' pages, hoping his fragile hook with snag something besides kelp. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently fancies himself as Ahab, chasing his white whale... But he's only coming up with Charlie the Tuna. FeloniousMonk 23:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

After seeing what you deal with on a daily basis, I am withdrawing my complaints. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 21:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Of interest

see [49] Comments regarding Sadi Carnot:

Ah, so you (User:Sadi Carnot) misused Admin tools, eh? (Yes, the protect tag is only for admins). This shall prove to be interesting, I think. (Name added for clarity)

From WP:PPOL

Administrators have the ability to protect pages so that they cannot be edited, or images so that they cannot be overwritten, except by other administrators. Administrators can also protect pages from moves only. Administrators have the additional ability to protect pages from being edited by unregistered or very new users.

These abilities are only to be used in limited circumstances as protected pages are considered harmful.

Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism.

Clearly an RfC is in order here, if not an RfA. I've contacted several Admins to get their opinion on how best to deal with your behaviour. BTW: KillerChihuahua, the person you reverted, is an admin. As I said, this shall prtove interesting, I think. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I assumed that since I the tag saved on the edit that I had the rights to use it. Whatever the case, being that this page been reverted close to a dozen times, by multiple seasoned editors, someone should have put a lock on the page long ago so that we could discuss issue properly on the talk page. There are so many issues that are awry here, e.g. self-promotion, intelligent-design issues, divine intervention comments and edits, using multiple reference links to the same website over using standard article or textbook references, using months and 100s of kilobytes of talk page space to debate someone’s pet theory, using talk page space to argue that laws of science are false, etc., that this whole situation is making a mockery the Wikipedia science section. --Sadi Carnot 11:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA: Malber

Thank you for your support in my recent nomination for adminship, even though it was not successful. I was very pleased to see positive comments from an administrator I hold in high esteem. Thank you. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on Intelligent Design talk

You wrote

I can't say you didn't have it coming, the way you've been wasting everyone's time here with tendentious objections and baseless proposals. Perhaps you should consider your own method here and it's role in Mr Christopher's reaction to you.

For the record, I find your support of personal attacks unbecoming of an administrator. Personal attacks are never acceptable on Wikipedia. If you or someone else disagrees with my arguments simply respond to them without personal attacks. Endorsing his attack on me by saying that I have it coming is not what I expect of an admin. Disagreements over how the Intelligent Design article is edited should not lead or be reason for personal assaults on a persons character or insinuations about their motivation.Bagginator 00:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I happen to have recently put FM's usertalk on my watchlist, and noticed Bagginator's name here, so I checked in to see what's up. I can attest that I've observed overwhelming evidence to the contrary of Bagginator's assertion here. In my opinion a more truthful statement would be that FeloniousMonk was being extremely restrained in light of Bagginator's extremely tendentious, lengthy, time consuming manipulation of rationality on the issue of who the leading proponents of intelligent design actually are, a group of persons that are extremely well documented and consensused, overwhelmingly so, in accordance with WP:VER, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:CON. ... Kenosis 02:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Legitimate disagreements, perhaps. But like I said, your behavior played a role there. Stop wasting your time and ours. FeloniousMonk 02:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Onion

Hi FeloniousMonk. Regarding the Onion link on the Michael Behe page, I don't really think it should be there. I've already tried to thrash this out with the editor who put it on originally, but it seems a flimsy link at best. The only strong connection is the mention of Lehigh (which I'm sure the Onion intended), but the rest of the Onion piece is more in the mould of "mad scientist" not "deluded creationist". In fact, the piece never touches on creationist pseudoscience at all, favouring "classical pseudoscience" throughout. Anyway, just thought I'd pipe up. Cheers, --Plumbago 07:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, makes sense, I trust your judgement on this. FeloniousMonk 17:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Reminder

You're approaching WP:3RR at Fine-tuned universe. FeloniousMonk 02:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

you are too. Please don't abuse your role as an admin to get an edge on a content dispute. (BTW, i had a role in getting Karmafist desysopped. i know admin abuse when i see it.)

also BTW, "remarkable" is not one of those WP words to avoid. it is precisely the correct word for a concept that identifies what some persons consider to be a remarkable fact of reality. maybe it's not remarkable, but then maybe the universe ain't fine-tuned in the first place. using that word in the context of the concept of the fine-tuned universe is not POV. it is simply describing what people mean by the term. r b-j 02:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, I won't. FeloniousMonk 02:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Damned if Rbj's comment didn't seem like a not-too-cleverly veiled threat. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 11:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Wedge Strategy

• You address me personally there in a section you titled, "How to handle baseless objections and calls for cites". The first thing you write is, "Bagginator has repeatedly objected to the passage..." My first objection was on October 12. You've decided in 16 hours, without talking it out with me on the talk page, that my objections are baseless.

• You then go on to bring up our disagreement on the Intelligent Design talk page and characterize that disagreement thusly, "Considering our recent experience with Bagginator at Talk:ID repeatedly dismissing all evidence while ceaselessly raising tendentious objections" Who is "our" in that sentence? Is tendentious a word specifically used in Wikipedia rules that editors are not supposed to be and therefore you find that accusing me of this without evidence repeatedly will be cause for action at some later date? I certainly hope not because ive tried very hard to obey the rules of Wikipedia and if i'm not obeying them, i'd appreciate some instructions in what the rules are that i'm violating and how it is I could better argue my case without violating them.

• You also write, "Our patience has been worn thin by his behavior at Talk:ID and on dozens of user talk pages over the last few weeks." There is that word "our" again, in whose name are you speaking? and Dozens? Do you have me confused with someone else? How does "our" patience get worn thin by my participation on talk pages? Your's is the first complaint ive heard about using editors talk pages as a tool for communication. If no one tells me to keep away from their talk page, how am I to know that their patience is worn thin by my participation there?

• My final problem with your charges against me made on Wedge Strategy talk page has to do with this sentence, "Arguing just for the sake of arguing when one has no real idea about the subject, dismissing or twisting evidence and campaigning off this page are all unacceptable and fall under the category of tendentious editing, disruption, and need not be tolerated indefinitely." As I pointed out to you above, I only just started on the Wedge strategy page on October 12th. From where does the charge, "compaigning off this page" come from? And tendentious? Wouldn't it be better to address my points only and leave off the personal attacks? If you truely believe that i'm being tendentious I invite you to come and explain it to me on my talk page, hopefully in good faith to help make me a better editor, and not in inappropriate places like talk:wedge strategy.

• In conclusion I suggest that it is best to assume good faith, do not confuse a disagreement with disruptive or tendentious editing (I only edited one time), do not falsely accuse others of having no real idea about the subject (I'm the one who is aware of Lamarckion evolution) and don't assume you need to attack me personally to get your point across. Let's stick to objective editing and leave personalities off of the article talk pages.Bagginator 07:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI

I am not Rbj, but I happen to know him. I write occasionally to Wikipedia and always anonymously for reasons of my own choosing. I use a user name for uploading pictures. I restored my comments to Talk:Fine-Tuned universe. 76.19.168.52 13:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:618 074I.jpg

User:Liftarn put a {.pui.} last August on [.Image:618 074I.jpg.] . I then got the licensing rectified, it just nerves me that the {.pui.} has not been removed (which I could have done as Liftarn is no longer active, but prefere to not to circumvent official proceedure). Thank you for clearing up Osioni 18:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Objection to your reversion of edits on Discovery Institute entry

FM, I have to object to your reversion of edits. I believe Wikipedia's policy of "avoidance of disputes" is in pla y here. Your reverting of neccessary edits is not only frustrating--you give little rationale for doing it, other than protecting the status quo. As it stands now, the entry for DI is terribly innaccurate. My edits are not whitewashing--they are an attempt to remove unsourced POV material, and improve on what's already there. Other users seem to agree, and I simply ask that rather than reverting my edits, you provide constructive criticism, or make your own edits to mine. I welcome your comments on this version of the entry. I look forward to resolving this issue amicably, and continuing on with edits to the DI entry.

Templeton Institute?

Is http://www.templeton.org/topics_in_the_news/Collective_Article.pdf a known thing? If so, known as what? And what about the http://www.templeton.org/topics_in_the_news/ TI and ID? They seem to be going to great lengths to say they are not ID but... Reply here or by email at your convenience William M. Connolley 19:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The discovery institue

There seems to be an anonymous IP, who you're reverting on grounds of WP:AUTO. You assert that they're the discovery institute, and thus, they're breaking that rule. However, from the available information, that isn't an assertion I can verify, and to me it appears you're violating WP:AGF. If you have information supporting your assertion, I won't bother you another second about it. It just bothered me is all. thanks, i kan reed 01:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

CENSORSHIP

What they don't want you to know:

Hugh Ross (creationist) likes to give the impression that he has impressive scientific credentials. However, his entire scientific output consists of three co-authored astronomy papers, a singularly authored paper, all published between 1975 and 1977 plus a 1970 commentary to a paper by M.A. Stull.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by General Nolledge (talk • contribs) .

Non notable link

Hi - why was the link on the Creation/Evolution page flagged as 'non notable' and removed? SparrowsWing 22:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about Dr. Dino??? He's always good for some odd press, but he isn't taken seriously by most creationists, and not by any evolutionists. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I thought he was actually quite respected amongst the creationist community. SparrowsWing 23:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope. He's very notable as a person; he's all kinds of news (especially since he's a creationist who breaks the law a lot.) He's so embarassing that some creationists make a point of distancing themselves from him (" It should be noted that many of his fellow young-earthers consider him to be an embarrasment" [50]) - and Answers in Genesis has a Arguments we think creationists should NOT use article which lists quite a few of Hovind's favorite arguments. The reason AiG says not to use them is because they are so silly, and just plain wrong. Carl Wieland, Ken Ham, and Jonathan Sarfati wrote an article strongly criticising Hovind called Maintaining Creationist Integrity. In short, he's not knowledgeable enough or well-grounded enough to be taken seriously by most creationists, who consider him to be a liability because his arguments are so ignorant and silly, and he is just too irrational to be considered at all except as an object of jokes by most evolutionists. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Henry F. Schaefer, III

What is wrong with the image you deleted here? Henry Rzepa, who I know, claims that Schaefer has given him the rights for it. What does Henry have to do to establish this? --Bduke 03:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The image was not available the several times I checked it today - it was returning "no image." If it is working now or later, feel free to restore it. FeloniousMonk 04:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It is back now. I have added it but now in the scientist infobox. --Bduke 04:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw that; it looks really nice now. I wouldn't have thought of that. Thanks. FeloniousMonk 05:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

. Thanks. I had just seen a mention of the infobox on Wikipedia:WikiProject Academics. It should be used more often. --Bduke 06:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Homey

Contrary to what you believe [51], Homey is not banned. Fred Bauder 23:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

How 'bout that. "10:17, 5 August 2006 Fred Bauder (Talk | contribs) unblocked Homey (contribs) (Blocking produces disruptive autoblock)" Not too sure what the edit summary means, but Homey's been free since August. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The Disco

I used I suppose the old style format for my cite on my last edit to the article. I've been reading about the style that is being used in the article but quite frankly I'm getting ready to go out of town and I may not figure it out until this weekend. Unless someone beats me to it I'll clean up the citation reference then. Just an FYI that I don't plan on leaving slop on the page.  :-) Cheers! Mr Christopher 03:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

ID bias

On Raspor's talk page, you wrote:

You're simply wrong about the ID article being biased, mistaking your own personal bias as some sort of baseline for what constitutes a neutral article on the topic. The ID is widely recognized by neutral sources as being one of the best articles on the topic:

• [52] Salon article directs readers to the ID article.
• [53] Wikipedia, The Review by Robert Eiffert, School Library Journal
• [54] Librarian in the Middle - Resources and News for Middle School Librarians
• [55] Librarian and Information Science News
• [56] Talk of the Nation. 2 November 2005 National Public Radio, with Jimbo Wales as a guest. Refers to the ID as "good, possibly excellent."
• [57] Jurist legal news and research, Univertisty of Pittsburgh. Wikipedia's intelligent design article given as a primer on the topic

So, you see, on one hand we have all the sources above saying the ID article is a good resource, and on the other we have your furious arm waving and trollish behavior and rants.

BTW, knock off the personal attacks against me and others or I'll be compelled to seek to have this page protected from editing. FeloniousMonk 17:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Your "evidence" does not live up to your grand claims. I'll list and respond to your specific claims:

• Raspor (and therefore anybody who agrees with him) is wrong about the article being biased.

That is an unsupported assertion on your part. Others assert the opposite, and I don't see why your opinion carries any more weight that that of others.

• Raspor is using his own bias as a baseline.

This is also an unsupported assertion on your part, and is denied, at least to some extent, by Raspor correctly pointing out faults in the article.

• The article is widely recognised as being the best article on the topic.

The argument that it is "the best article on the topic", even if true, does not prove that there is no bias in it. It might, for example, mean that all other articles are more biased.

• This recognition is by neutral sources.

You have not demonstrated, and it is not self-evident, that the sources are neutral. Like creationism, ID is a topic that almost everyone has an opinion on. So even within organisations that are not specifically pro-ID or anti-ID, the individuals will likely be one or the other. That is sufficient to dismiss your list, but there are problems beyond that.

• The Salon article, as you said, directs readers to the article. It makes no comment about its neutrality, so it does not explicitly endorse your claim.
• The Librarian in the Middle article points out that the Wikipedia article has "clearly labeled descriptions of POV", and indicates that it is more balanced that a lot of other sources; not that it has no bias at all.
• The LISNews reference is to a forum where some poster has offered his own opinion that the article is "fairly neutral" (my emphasis). Of course, just like the authors of the other articles, we don't know his bias, so regardless of his comment, it's not really a reliably neutral source.
• The Jurist News article also makes no comment about its neutrality.

(I didn't check the School Library Journal nor the Talk of the Nation references because one required membership and the other was audio).
Of course, we don't know what versions of the article they were referring to, either.
Your attempt to demonstrate the article's neutrality by listing links to it from sources that may not themselves be neutral, and who are not commenting on neutrality let alone doing any sort of analysis of its neutrality, is now shown to be without substance. Others, on the other hand, have pointed out actual problems with the article.
Philip J. Rayment 02:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what's your point here? You seem to be missing the logic and setting unreasonable expectations while trying to foist your personal opinion as more reliable than that of others who do not share your history. The article in Salon directs readers to WP's ID article; we can safely assume Salon does not intentionally misdirect it's readers to biased sources. Same for the Jurist News article. So your objection that they make no comment about the ID's aritcle neutrality is baseless. The Librarian in the Middle article indicates that it is more balanced that a lot of other sources; expecting the article to state that it has no bias at all simply setting unreasonable goalposts. I've yet to see any article anywhere that is genuinely unbiased. As for the opinion given at Librarian and Information Science News forum, I think it's safe to say that the Librarian and Information Science News forum is not a hotbed of anti-creationist activism. And a 30-day trial membership to School Library Journal is free so you can read the article [58], so I don't know what you are objecting to. And if you chose to ignore Talk of the Nation as a reference because it is audio, that's your choice; don't expect others to share your reservations, clearly Jimbo didn't. Knowing your long history of supporting creationism here and at CreationWiki, forgive me if I find your opinion to be the one that is biased on the matter. FeloniousMonk 03:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what's your point here?

My point was clearly stated in my last paragraph: "Your attempt to demonstrate the article's neutrality by listing links to it from sources that may not themselves be neutral, and who are not commenting on neutrality let alone doing any sort of analysis of its neutrality, is now shown to be without substance."

You seem to be missing the logic ...

Then perhaps you had better explain it more clearly, but I don't believe that I am.

...and setting unreasonable expectations ...

No, just seeing if your evidence supports your claims.

...while trying to foist your personal opinion as more reliable than that of others who do not share your history.

I'm not trying to "foist [my] personal opinion" any more than you are, nor claim it to be more reliable that that of others. But I am trying to make out that it is no less reliable that your personal opinion that you try and foist on the article.

Your defence of the articles does not demonstrate that the authors of those articles were themselves neutral. Putting up a straw-man argument like "not a hotbed of anti-creationist activism" is to answer something that I didn't argue. With problems with every article I did look at, I didn't consider it worth my time to bother with the remaining two, and in the case of audio file, not knowing how long it went for and being at work when I posted my response above, and not wanting to listen to it at work.

Knowing your long history of supporting creationism here and at CreationWiki, forgive me if I find your opinion to be the one that is biased on the matter.

As opposed to your bias? Creationists admit they're biased. Most other people are biased too, but don't admit it. And my support of creaion (and study of the creation/evolution issue) goes back far longer than my involvement in wikis. I have over 30 years of (informal) study in this area, so I do have some idea what I'm talking about, and chances are, that's more experience than you have.

But here's the funny one: You're simply wrong about the ID article being biased vs. I've yet to see any article anywhere that is genuinely unbiased. I don't think I need to respond to that one; you've done a pretty good job yourself!

Philip J. Rayment 12:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Philip, please try to keep it civil. It's tremendously bad form (and against the spirit of the Wikipedia project) to come to another user's talk page and insist that their opinion is worth less than yours because they have not informally studied the subject as long as yourself. In addition, it looks like you're trying to present a false dichotomy of people with regards to opinions on Intelligent Design- that is, the idea that everyone is at one of two extremes when it comes to believing or not believing in it, calling them "pro-" and "anti-" Intelligent design. Many of the arguments that you've presented are mere assertion as far as demonstrating any examples go- the purpose of this project, as I'm sure you know, is not for rhetoric but to document goings-on in the real world. If the project cannot document comments, controversy, and concurrence surrounding a subject in culture at large, then it is unable to do what it is intended to- to provide a reasonably academic encyclopedia documenting important human knowledge. --HassourZain 16:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's alright, HZ, this is pretty typical for Philip. He and I go way back and he's always been like this. The funny part is that Philip has absolutely no idea how long or to what extent I've been studying creationism's relation to mainstream science. FeloniousMonk 17:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I am just always a little careful about statements that could cause problems with other users. I do think that the point that I made about making people out to be "for" or "against" ID is important, though- I do not think that it's any editor's (especially mine) to advocate or detract any idea- to do otherwise would violate neutral tone, obviously- but I think that more important than any of that is the concept of representing what is being said in the world at large, in article space. One point that Philip brought up on my page was the mention of popular disbelief in the academic community of the idea of ID. I just felt it important to say that the fact that it is so widely spoken against in the academic world is a pretty strong reason for it being mentioned as dismissed in the article- for the article to reflect the state of what is in the world outside of Wikipedia. (Leave it to me to overexplain a simple statement) --HassourZain 18:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

HassourZain, perhaps you could point out exactly what was uncivil about what I said. I did not "insist" that my opinion was worth more than FeloniousMonk's. I would suggest that it is bad form to misrepresent what someone said. I merely pointed out that it was likely that I knew more than FeloniousMonk on the subject, who tries to dismiss what I say on the grounds that I am "biased", as though he isn't. I'm not claiming that everyone is either pro- or anti-, but most people with an opinion on the topic generally fall into one of the two categories. I don't believe that my arguments are "mere assertions" any more than the arguments from the other side.

FeloniousMonk, it is true that I don't know how long you've been studying this issue, but that is precisely why I said "chances are", because the simple mathematical odds are that small, due to the fact that most people interested in the topic today had not heard of it or were not interested in it, or were not even born, when I started studying it. You might, of course be in the small percentage that have been studying it for longer than me, but "chances are", you are not, so my statement was correct.

Philip J. Rayment 12:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)