User talk:Coviepresb1647/archive1

August 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your test on Confederate States of America worked, and has been removed. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 23:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Help / Mentoring from experienced administrator-editors

Though I started dialogue with another adminstrator-editor, I am open and desirous of help / mentoring from one or two additional administrator-editors. My sole criterion is that the admin-editor desiring to help/mentor me is a Reformed Christian adhereing to the Three Forms of Unity, the original (1647) Westminster Standards, the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, and/or any other equivalently Reformed Statement/Confession/Testimony. I mainly need help on starting articles, revising articles, what to include or not include, and editing issues (NPOV, Vandalism, Citation, Difficult editors, etc.)

I may grant additional exceptions to the criterion on a case-by-case basis.

If a desirous mentor-admin-editor is not a Reformed Christian or does not meet a granted exception, I appreciate his/her willingness to help but decline the offer.

If you are interested in mentoring / helping me, please e-mail me.

"A multitude of counselors make victory sure." (from the Proverbs)

On "true Christianity"...

I noticed in your edits on the CSA article that you mentioned in the talk page the difference between "true" and "false" Christianity. Unfortunately, as one can understand, Wikipedia does not get involved in saying what is "True" or not. Its generally why we try to let religious groups speak for themselves in articles relating to them by sourcing specific statements to leaders or authorities in the respective religious body, or well respected scholars on a given religion. If there is conflict in the religious group, than we also mention the division. If you take a look at, for instance, articles on traditionalist Catholic groups like the Society of St. Pius X we mention why they believe their correct, and why the official Catholic Church believes their wrong. In that way we let the reader decide which group is "Correct", SiberioS (talk) 06:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have noted your comment and will reserve comment.--Coviepresb1647 (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"Evolution" in the Moon, Solar System, and Evolution of the Solar System articles

Hello... please stop removing the term "evolution" from science articles. There is no reason for the change, and at the very least it should be discussed first. Thank you. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, "evolution" is not NPOV; hence, the change and my starting the discussion. So, according to you, POV articles are not in need of change. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You'll need to discuss this and reach a consensus first, as it affects a large group of science articles. Simply going through and unilaterally changing established scientific terminology is not the best approach. (As well, I'd ask that you please don't presume to speak for me; I've never said that. We disagree on this being a POV problem.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the whole picture, I am not simply going through and unilaterally changing things as I have already intiated a discussion and am waiting for that consensus. I mostly disagree with you thus far. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you began by making the changes... the discussion was not initiated until after I reverted you. Let's see where the discussion goes. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't deny that I made the changes. Indeed, if someone reverts me a first (or occasionally, a second consecutive) time, I quickly initate a discussion, which is the natural course of events. It is not reasonable to expect a discussion until after a reversion's made. I stand by what I said in this response and above this response. Regarding life and the universe within, it is my intention to endorse NPOV and neither an evolutionary POV nor creationist POV. Yes, let's see where the discussion goes. I stand by what I said in this response and above this response and believe your are being paranoid. Regardless if I agree or disagree with the results of the discussion, I'll agree to abide readily by the consensus. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I put it on the discussion page that they have my agreement to close discussion if they don't have anything further to add. I stop participating in discussions where prejudicial statements and uncivility occur.--Coviepresb1647 (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

How, exactly, is saying someone is "paranoid" civil?!? --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I do apologize since I nonsensically wrote it in anger. I have retracted it.--Coviepresb1647 (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting "paranoid", I am again sorry for writing that since it is sinful, angry overreaction on my part to your initial revert of my changes in the article and your related initial comment here. Please forgive me.

I do understand that the articles are protected since there is a high occurrence of vandalism. However, it gives no license or basis to administrators to automatically or prejudicially assume that the particular change, that the editor intends to be constructive and not vandalistic, is unwarranted without talk or discussion. In other words, I strongly agree with the principle of article protection but strongly disagree with your application of that principle.

Your initial revert and related initial comment here came across to me as flippantly and prematurely dismissive of editors' changes regardless of how valid the editor's change may actually be. That is mostly why ever since that revert and the comment, I have believed that you are being overprotective. Hence, I have been less willing to listen, less diplomatic, and have stood my ground. Recognising that any misunderstanding (on your part or my part) is not good and that disorder is not always good between people, I am putting that on the table in an honest attempt to explain what my understanding and resultant actions have been and to reach a mutually beneficial and peaceable order between us.--Coviepresb1647 (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Coviepresb. I have something to add to the Solar System discussion on the talkpage. I've written a message to you there. Bishonen | talk 12:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC).:

I've responded. I agree with your request and am grateful for your willingness to help. My cessation of NPOV tags and related revisions in science articles is indefinite. My agreement to your request should not be construed as my conceding or additionally agreeing to your prejudicial application of Undue Weight to this case. Correct principle, wrong application of the principle. My sole reason for agreeing to the request is to have time to talk with the other admin-editor. I am not interested in talking at this point. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I offended you; I have no interest in a debate I take exceptionally seriously being sidetracked by shouting matches. I have attempted to make my point as clearly and as civilly as possible in response to your arguments. Serendi^podous 14:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I do accept your apology. I'll retract some of my comments I just posted (when I posted just before I had a chance to read this). --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was only referring to my calling creationists morons. That was uncalled for. What I said below I meant, and I don't see it as particularly inflammatory. You say that I cannot prove that creationism is myth, but I never said I could. In fact I said the opposite; that creationism cannot be disproven. Science is based on falsifiability, and God cannot be falsified. This isn't an accusation. It's just a fact. There is no way that anyone can show that God did not do something, because God can do anything. That God is not falsifiable doesn't mean that God is false; I am not about to claim whether God exists or not (that's outside my purview, at least until such time as I meet him), but it does mean that God lies outside the boundaries of scientific inquiry and so cannot be considered in tandem with a scientific hypothesis. You seem to be under the misapprehension that science requires proof. That is incorrect. Science requires evidence. Nothing in science is ever conclusively proven. Science observes evidence, constructs a theory to explain the evidence, and if enough evidence from enough experiments appears to coincide with the theory, science accepts it as the best available for explaining the universe. If, on the other hand, new evidence comes to light that disproves the current theory, then that theory is thrown out and a new theory must be drafted to replace it. Newton's laws are still scientifically valid today, but they do not account for all the available evidence, and so scientists do not use them in their current theories, instead using those of Einstein, which account for far more (though not all) of the observed evidence than Newton's laws. If (when) enough evidence comes to light that Einstein's theories cannot explain, then a new theory will have to be drafted that accounts for the new evidence, and Einstein's theories will be thrown out. At no point would any model, Newton's, Einstein's or whatever eventually replaces it, be considered "proved beyond a reasonable doubt." That's not how science works. Serendi^podous 15:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, when I accepted your apology, I did so with the understanding that you called Creationists morons. The rest of your comments there were NOT uncivil or offensive to me. Thanks for clarifying. Though I have retracted those comments which are to be disregarded, I will recognise and consider your reply. I admit that I have used stronger language and have been less diplomatic. That stems from the initial comment here and initial revert there by the article's Protecting Adminstrator. Hence, I should not have let that negative influence into my part of the discussion in the Discussion Page. I do apologize for being arrogant (a form of sinful pride) towards you by readily dismissing what you said and using stronger replies in an biblically unwarranted manner. I will return and duly consider what you said there and here. I will be happy to dialogue with you, sir.--Coviepresb1647 (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Temporary cessation on my part

I am immediately backing off from this talk. I need a breather to think about the talk and discussion and to learn more about wiki.I will reply to any responses when I return to this talk to either maintain what I said or to admit mistakes where I indeed made them. (Serendipodous: during this temporary cessation, I am still willing to correspond with you about the fundamentals of science and perhaps other related interests as you seem to have keen mind on certain things. Please feel free to send me an e-mail.) --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Help / Mentoring from experienced administrator-editors

I have had 2 notable negative instances of wiki challenges since I joined wiki. I think some of it is due to my ignorance as a relatively new editor and trying to go it alone. I would like to make very beneficial contributions to wiki, but from the discussions in those 2 challenges, I can certainly grow and become a much better wiki editor. Though I started dialogue with another adminstrator-editor, I am open and desirous of help / mentoring from one or two additional administrator-editors. My sole criterion is that the admin-editor desiring to help/mentor me is a Reformed Christian adhereing to the Three Forms of Unity, the original (1647) Westminster Standards, the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, and/or any other equivalently Reformed Statement/Confession/Testimony. I mainly need help on starting articles, revising articles, what to include or not include, and editing issues (NPOV, Vandalism, Citation, Difficult editors, etc.)

I may grant additional exceptions to the criterion on a case-by-case basis.

If a desirous mentor-admin-editor is not a Reformed Christian or does not meet a granted exception, I appreciate his/her willingness to help but decline the offer.

If you are interested in mentoring / helping me, please e-mail me.

"A multitude of counselors make victory sure." (from the Proverbs) --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Constantine II as pretender

Is your objection to the word Pretender, or is it something more substantive? I'm just asking, as I have no objection to your edit either way. I believe that we use the term 'Pretender' far too easily. In our article on the concept, we say: "The term pretender is applied to those persons on whose behalf a claim to a throne is advanced, regardless of whether that person himself actually makes an active claim." While that may be a valid use of the term in a specialist work devoted to royalty, I think that it is misleading in a general work.

But perhaps you are objecting in some other way? I am just curious.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

My posting "citation needed", pertaining to the article "Constantine of Greece" and not to the article "Pretender", is not an objection but rather a suggestion of a citation to perhaps support the claim that Constantine II is a pretender as it is, as you say, used "far too easily". Coviepresb1647 (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine Art Edit-a-Thon & DC Meetup 26!

(Advertisement removed by coviepresb1647 as it is unsolicited advertisement / spam sent by SarahStierchtalk.)

Sarah Stierch: As I posted on your talk page, I received this spam on my talk page on this Fine Art Edit-A-Thon thing from you, and I do not appreciate spam or any unsolicited advertisment on my wall. Please do not do that again; otherwise, if you continue, I will consider it harassment. Thanks.

Harrassment Conflict

Fine Art Edit-a-Thon & DC Meetup 26!

(Advertisement removed by coviepresb1647 as it is unsolicited advertisement / spam sent by SarahStierchtalk.)

Sarah Stierch: As I posted on your talk page, I received this spam on my talk page on this Fine Art Edit-A-Thon thing from you, and I do not appreciate spam or any unsolicited advertisment on my wall. Please do not do that again; otherwise, if you continue, I will consider it harassment. Thanks.

Smithsonian Institution Archives Edit-a-Thon and Meetup!

(Advertisement removed by coviepresb1647 as it is unsolicited advertisement / spam sent by SarahStierchtalk.)

Sarah, you posted an unsolicited Smithsonian announcement on my talk page. This is the second time that I am saying that I am not interested in any messages on meet-ups from you and am asking that you cease posting meet-up annoucements on my page. Though I warned you on my talk page and your talk page when you posted the first unsolicited meetup announcement (Fine Art Edit-a-thon), I am considering this 2nd time a simple mistake; please do not make the same mistake again for a third repeated time lest I really will consider times after this as harassment. Please do not send me meetup announcements as, though meetups are a great idea, I am currently not interested in meetups. (Legal threat retracted AND recanted) Coviepresb1647 (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

(Nobody Ent's comment removed as it did not address the issue at all.)

Legal threat

Hello. I noticed you left a message on User:SarahStierch's talk page threatening legal action if she did not cease her harassment against you. I do not believe this rises to the level of harassment by Wikipedia standards, WP:HARASS, and besides Wikipedia has a strong and very strict policy intolerant of legal threats of this nature called WP:NLT. Legal threats create a chilled environment that is counter to collaborative editing. While we cannot prevent you from pursuing legal action, a threat of legal action will earn an indefinite block. I strongly urge you to retract the threat from User_talk:SarahStierch#Smithsonian_message_.28harassment.29 and consider a more polite approach such as "No thank you" next time someone leaves you a message on your talk page. You'll find that sugar is more effective than salt.--v/r - TP 15:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It is in my archive where I first said and clearly implied that I was not interested and for her to stop sending me messages. I left it in my original talk page for a few weeks before I archived it. Today, I transferred it from my archive to my talk page since it seems that is now an on-going occurrence. So, to say that I never said that until today, I was not interested is a false accusation. Whilst I do not agree that it is overreaction to the non-simple mistake on my part, I have considered the wisdom of TP's message to me and have retracted and recanted my legal threat. Indeed, sugar is more effective than salt and/or vinegard. I do apologize for my deficient charity/love on my part in this conflict. Further, I would NEVER consider reconciliation (apology and/or dialogue to the effect reconciliation of a conflict) as harassment.Coviepresb1647 (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

On my part, some of this stems from overreaction due to deficient charity and some of it stems from simple, innocent ignorance wikipedia's editing atmosphere and its position on litigation and how it negatively effects collaboration and editing. I have already apologized to Sarah for wrongs on my part in this conflict. I do feel bad and sorry for subjecting her to an unwarranted legal threat (and the negative emotions related to that subjection). As for my ignorance, I do appreciate TP's being patient and sharing with me more about wikipedia's positions and policies. I will certainly double-check myself in the future.Coviepresb1647 (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

We're good then. I think this closes the matter. I think the ANI thread might continue to discuss Tom Morris' idea, but this particular matter is no longer a concern. Thanks for being open and understanding.--v/r - TP 16:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Legal_threat. Thank you. v/r - TP 15:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Apology to SarahStierchtalk

"Wrongs lie on both my part and your part, and I am apologizing here for my wrongs in the conflict. I apologize for my deficient charity/love on my part in this conflict. I apologize additionally for overreacting and the resulting legal threat. I also apologize for subjecting you to an unwarranted legal threat (and the negative emotions related to that subjection). I do feel bad and sorry for these wrongs that I did to you. I will certainly double-check myself in the future on how I related to you and to others. I do not, never have, and will never consider reconciliation (dialogue and/or any related apologies) to be harassment toward me. Hence, per ANI's thread |Legal_threat where you expressed to the admins that you desire to apologize to me, I will welcome an apology for the wrongs on your part. Coviepresb1647 (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)" Coviepresb1647 (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Admin Closure on cited ANI Page

"Sincere appearing apology issued. If there are changes to be made to how user boxes for location are handled, there are better places than AN/I to plan such. And beyond that, I do not really see any further need for admin action on this issue. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)"

CSA flag

Please contribute your comment and/or sources at >> Talk:Confederate States of America#RFC Infobox flag choice << to select the flag representing an historic nation-state 1861-1865 from three alternatives, a flag sourced as _____ .

a) flown "everywhere" in the Confederacy, 1861-1864,

b) "not satisfactory" at the time 1863-1865, or

c) "never" seen by the participants 1865. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

A little more care?

Hey, Covieprsb1647, I saw that you undid Miszabot's archiving edit to Sarah's talk page. I'd imagine you meant to only preserve your thread, but by reverting Miszabot wholesale, you also restored a bunch of other threads that were supposed to have been archived. I've gone back and re-archived the other threads, keeping yours on her talk page until she responds/decides what to do with it. Just a suggestion: it's generally frowned upon to mess with other people's posts on other people's talk pages. I know it wasn't your intention to do so, but perhaps you should be a little more cautious when editing other people's talk pages? Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I only meant to preserve my post. Though I did not mess with other people's posts, I will be more cautious next time. Thanks for the suggestion and thank you for preserving my post during your re-archiving. Coviepresb1647 (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Globalise tag

The use of the term railfest and linking it to one rail event in the uk was the article as i found it - I do think that there are too many examples like that where no one goes back to re-edit or has it on their watch - a globalise tag is a bit redundant imho - I tried a few refs to start that if you read the diffs from what it was - the term is used in the uk, australia and usa - in the end tags can be a blight as much as a suggestion - cheers SatuSuro 14:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say here about the Railfest article. Please clarify. Coviepresb1647 (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Webinar / edit-a-thon at the National Library of Medicine (NLM)

Join us at the NLM next week, either in person or online, to learn about NLM resources, hear some great speakers, and do some editing!

organized by Wiki Project Med

On Tuesday, 28 May there will be a community Wikipedia meeting at the United States National Library of Medicine in Bethesda, Maryland - with a second on Thursday, 30 May for those who can't make it on Tuesday. You can participate either in-person, or via an online webinar. If you attend in person, USB sticks (but not external drives) are ok to use.

Please go to the event page to get more information, including a detailed program schedule.

If you are interested in participating, please register by sending an email to pmhmeet@gmail.com. Please indicate if you are coming in person or if you will be joining us via the webinar. After registering, you will receive additional information about how to get to our campus (if coming in-person) and details about how to join the webinar. Klortho (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Virginia Tech Project Invite

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Virginia Tech, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Virginia Tech. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Go Hokies (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

May 2016

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:EgyptAir Flight 804#EgyptAir corporate press release. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Firebrace (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Not attacking at all on that talk page. Just pointing out that You attacked me on your talk page by telling me to "Fuck Off" instead of wanting to resolve the issue peacefully. This will be archived within a week. Coviepresb1647 (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't see you attack him at all on that article's talk page. After all, he started it with Edit Warring and the "Fuck Off" idiocy. Keep up the good work! 2601:144:102:4810:194C:DA81:AEC3:3CB6 (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)