User talk:Baegis/Archive 2

Agree with me!

I love it when people agree with me. Warms my heart from the bottom of the cockles right to the top. Have a tiny barnstar - * WLU 00:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Relax

I appreciate the support on a few things. But I don't like to see people like you blocked--I like watching the POV-warriors for Creationism and other Pseudosciences blocked for bad behavior. Just be careful, we need you. BTW, is Science Apologist a female? Little did I know. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure on SA's gender. I think Davkal wanted to get a dig in on SA by using references to a girl. And yes, I know I need to take a deep breath but I get so tired of seeing these POV-warriors even tolerated, especially when it is quite clear they are single purpose editors. Baegis 05:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Methinks you should re-read your user page :P

I know it's hard, I know it's frustrating to deal with trolls day after day, but cranking up the rhetoric and failing to give at least the appearance of good faith can result in YOU being blocked; just being patient and clam usually results in the other party being blocked. Wikipedia's not going away! Remember User:Imbrella - give a genuine troll enough rope and they will hang themselves. Time is our ally, patience our armour. As I wax poetic, I depart to Duane Gish to sort out the mess. Though I can't fault your enthusiasm! WLU 17:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Soooooo not worth getting in an edit war over. Remember the 3rr. WLU 23:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

AN/I on Davkal

Please comment. ScienceApologist 21:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Word Baegis 22:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox header

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. You may make test edits in the sandbox, but for the convenience of others, please leave the sandbox heading alone. P51Mustang 00:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but you blanked the whole page. [1] Try reverting to a version with the header next time. P51Mustang 00:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! P51Mustang 21:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Duane Gish

There is nothing particularly noteworthy about working as a "research assistant". What is noteworthy, in terms of Gish, is that he worked in biochemical and biomedical research, given that he has since devoted himself to challenging evolutionary science, including contradicting evidence in biochemical "origin of life" experiments. It is so noteworthy, in fact, that his background as a biochemist is given note in source after source-Numbers, Larson, Montagu, Witham, McKown, Holton et al in Science and Its Public: The Changing Relationship, need I go on? Talk origins also notes this fact as well. If this is an unfair assessment, then you have my apology, but you appear to be using various objections over "style" as an excuse to leave out "content", information which perhaps you feel lends him credibility he doesn't deserve? Whether he deserves any cred or not, his background is significant to the role he has played as spokesperson in the creation movement. Do you know what sources have identified the positions he held at Berkeley, etc? Because it was unsourced until I put the source there, and that source does not say what positions he held. It does say all the content I put there, which you have removed twice. So if anything should be challenged, it would be the unsourced claim, not that he worked for how ever many years in biochemical and biomedical research. If editors have strong feelings about Gish or any other controversial topic, then those feelings have to be put to the side while editing so that the sources alone determine what content is important.Professor marginalia 00:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I also see merit in leaving the info, and the reason for removing it escapes me. Irrespective of how he has squandered the credibility given by his professional accreditation and actual research, his history includes time spent doing biochem and bio research. WLU 00:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I will cede to the prevailing opinion. I hold no strong feelings about Gish; I just want the article to read as well as possible. Baegis 01:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As you will see on Talk:DG, I'd made a comment that somewhat disparaged your post above, since redacted. I'd assumed (making an ass out of just me) that your post would have been a bit less conciliatory without reading it. Obviously this was unwarranted and a grossly incorrect assumption. I'm very sorry about it and have withdrawn it. Feel free to remove the struck out version and the following comment if you'd like. Your post went beyond reasonable, into the realm of polite. Good stuff, and again my apologies. WLU 14:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove my comments

From the talk page of OM? Is protesting the accusation of "troll" unacceptable to you? Turtlescrubber 04:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No, his warning is not valid. He is reverting my pov tag and calling me a troll. I stopped the edit war on the page by adding the pov tag and using the talk page. I have received nothing for my efforts but incivility. Turtlescrubber 04:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

MrOctober1973

FYI, MrOctober1973 (talk · contribs) has been correct with his edits so far so please be careful reverting. We need people who are willing to comb through for mistakes like that. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I misread the stats from the ref. My bad. Baegis 20:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

NFL drafts Chapel Hill

Thank you for your kind comments, I do know people who refer to UNC as Chapel Hill might I also add that your lack of ref's in your comments make it hard to verify your concerns. Let me also point out there is no naming convention on the subject matter and after months of cleaning up the draft pages I assure you there remains worse situations to resolve, of these 3 alleged edits I have no interest nor concern. Furthermore I've not changed anything to reflect differently than other articles in the series. In other words there are more out there to fix on your naming convention quest, Happy Hunting. Slysplace | ^talk 22:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverted

Was there a personal attack written in the text of the talk page? Please point that out to me. Was there something inappropriate in the text I reverted? If so, I apologize; please point it out. Otherwise your removing the text is vandalism. If not not then the text should remain. --Anthon01 19:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I was saying that it sounded like an atheist's claim to me. I was not personally attacking Baegis or Atheists. I was trying to make the encyclopedia nuetral, where the truth was told, no matter what anyone believed. RJRocket53 20:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Still, I wouldn't revert a contribution of this sort on a talk page...Hgilbert 21:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would because personal attacks are not allowed. And I did. And reverted the nonsense that was in no way contributing to discussion about improving the article. Baegis 22:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocking people

Blocking people is just like being a sockpuppet. Being a sockpuppet helps your opinion by giving your self more votes. Blocking people is getting rid of the people who don't agree with you. Deleting my opinions, like you did on the pseudo-science topic, is just like being a sockpuppet, or having sockpuppets. I am not saying you are a sockpuppet. I am not trying to offend you. I am just trying to point out what you were doing. I did not mean any offence with the post I made that you deleted. I was just trying to show what I thought it sounded like. If it didn't sound like that to you, I am sorry.

Delete this if you want. It's your page. But, don't delete people's opinions in the encyclopedia. That is rude. I am sorry if I sounded rude to you. I didn't mean to be rude. The pseudo-scientific list was rude to me. I was just trying to make the encyclopedia better by showing unbiased material, no matter what everyone believes, including me. I simply think that those articles were based on ignorance, not knowledge. If you disagree, next time don't delete my post, say you disagree. I am entitled to my opinion as much as you are.

By my definition, constructive critisism is constructive. Some constructive critisism will make the page better, not worse. Please, do not play God and decide who gets to say something. Please, strive to make the encyclopedia better. I believe everyone should get their say, and if what they say isn't true, then say so.

Please RJRocket53 20:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That's just it. It is your opinion that it is not pseudoscientific. And frankly, your opinion is invalid because it is wrong. Look at the refs for the inclusion. If you want to debate them, fine. But it will be a losing battle. And I reserve the right to delete your "opinions" because they are not contributing to the growth of the article and are nothing more than pointless trolling. Constructive criticism is useful. Impugning dozens of editors by calling them atheists is not. If you want to argue the merits of Creationism, do so on the articles devoted to it. Good luck with that. Baegis 20:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe your opinion is wrong. That's just it. I have debated on this before, but I do not want to be in a debate.

And I reserve the right to delete your "opinions" because they are not contributing to the growth of the article and are nothing more than pointless trolling.

Is pointing out errors in the encyclopedia trolling? The people looking at this encyclopedia should get the whole story, not just the part you want to be included, or anyone else for that matter.

Like I said,if Copernicus hadn't pointed out errors, then we would still believe that the sun and planets orbited around us. I will post sources if I need to. Sorry if I offended anyone by calling them atheists. That was not my intention. RJRocket53 02:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, please, please follow the formatting on my talk page when and if you post again. And follow them on all pages on which you post. It greatly helps other editors in reading your comments. As they are currently written, they are quite difficult to decipher. Getting to the subject matter, you did not point out any errors with either of your posts. You said that creationism has serious doctoral work going into it. I will counter with the fact that the people doing anything that could be called research into creationism have PhD's that are either in fields completely unrelated to science and/or degrees from institutions with...questionable credentials. Comparing yourself to Copernicus is laughable at best. Do you honestly believe that there exists some sort of a conspiracy to keep creationism down? Think about this: if evolution is not true, its ramifications will not only be felt in evolutionary biology, but in nearly every other scientific field. Geology is out the window. Cosmology is deeply flawed. Chemistry and physics have to be rethought. And this continues down the line. And more importantly, the article in question is not the place to even argue as to creationism's status as pseudoscientific. The creationism article or the creation science article would be the place to address your concerns. But I must warn you that you may not last long there as every comment or "source" you provide has been addressed ad nauseam. And it is a positive step that you decided to apologize, however, in making that original comment, every subsequent comment will be taken with a grain of salt. Baegis 03:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm not following the format of this page, I don't know exactly how it's supposed to go. You can edit it (or tell me how), to make it fit.

I will counter with the fact that the people doing anything that could be called research into creationism have PhD's that are either in fields completely unrelated to science and/or degrees from institutions with...questionable credentials.

What about Dr. Hugh Ross? He earned his Ph.D. in astronomy from the University of Toronto and researched galaxies and quasars at the California Institute of Technology. He's a creationist. What about Robin Collins? He has a degree in physics, mathematics, and philosophy. What about Viggo Olsen. A surgeon, he graduated with honors from medical school. He is on the American Board of Surgeons. His titles include: M.S., M.D., Litt. D., D.H., F.A.C.S., F.I.C.S., & D.T.M.&H. He's a creationist. He used to be a skeptic. He and his wife both believed in evolutionary theory. They decided one day that they would get a Bible, and point out all the scientific inconsistencies. He labeled a paper "Scientific Inconsistencies in the Bible," and expected to fill it all. They found many things to put there, but after looking further, they realized that they weren't inconsistent with science, and now is a Christian.

Do you honestly believe that there exists some sort of a conspiracy to keep creationism down? Think about this: if evolution is not true, its ramifications will not only be felt in evolutionary biology, but in nearly every other scientific field. Geology is out the window. Cosmology is deeply flawed. Chemistry and physics have to be rethought. And this continues down the line. And more importantly, the article in question is not the place to even argue as to creationism's status as pseudoscientific.

Not really, young-earth, yes, but old earth, no, nothing would need to be changed except evolutionary biology.

I might argue it's inclusion in that article, thanks. RJRocket53 (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User 66.99.103.163

The anonymous user 66.99.103.163 vandalized the Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco page just now. --Marianian (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)