User talk:Standonbible

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Standonbible is currently sick in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

• This was added by an IP, but if you're really sick, I sure hope you get well soon! I've heard great things about chicken soup, but I'm not sure my mother is considered a reliable source in the encyclopedic sense : ) Doc Tropics 20:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah - the IP was me. I've got the flu. Bleh. Thanks for the kind words (and the advice - I've been drinking homemade chicken soup like nobody's business....) standonbible^Talk! 23:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Archives

---

• Archive 1
• Archive 2

[edit] Thanks!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I'm not sure that it's mentioned often enough that your polite, rational efforts on controversial pages like Evolution and so on are appreciated, even by people who disagree with some of your opinions. So, thank you! Adam Cuerden talk 05:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for the barnstar, Adam! I appreciate it! I must say I never thought I'd get a barnstar from the other side! (What is the proper response to a barnstar, anyway? I've searched but I can't figure it out. Am I supposed to put it on my main user page?) standonbible^Talk! 13:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that's what's generally done. And, well, let's face it: you have shown notable politeness even when people, inured by those on your side who had been rather rude and declamatory, presumed you were the same. That alone deserves some sort of thanks. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, gee then - thanks! standonbible^Talk! 15:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are one of the best users on this biased website, and I, a creationist, highly appreciate your calm efforts to change controversial pages. I myself know it's very hard to stay calm in arguments with users like Roland Deschain, but you take it in stride. Ratso 18:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually Roland is generally very nice once he understands where you are coming from. I can think of some other more petulant editors but I don't want to name names.... :) standonbible^Talk! 04:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time to introduce ourselves

Hi, we've encountered each other a couple of times and I wanted to "shake hands". I am sometimes rather terse in my comments, and hope I haven't offended you personally. While we clearly disagree on a number of topics, I admire and respect your work as an editor. You might have noticed that I Watch both science and religion articles, and I "defend" both from POV editing. Simply put, I think that religion doesn't belong in science articles, and science (or atheistic opinions) don't belong in religous articles. And blatant vandalism, of course, doesn't belong anywhere. If any of the pages you work on are vandal-targets, feel free to let me know and I'll Watch them too. I would enjoy an opportunity to assist you or work with you constructively; I think we share similar goals as far is the project is concerned. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Shakes the good Doctor's hand. Nice to meet you - thanks for introducing yourself over here! I've noticed your comments on a few of the issues I've been involved with and I must say that you have been very fair throughout the whole process. I also try to protect both religious and scientific articles from POV editing although my view of exactly what constitutes POV may be slightly different from yours. As far as science in religious articles and vice versa is concerned: science is the process of taking data (facts) and interpreting them (theories) according to bias (presuppositions). If mainstream science has a presupposition that is related to religion, then it probably needs to be mentioned, but it doesn't need to overpower the main point. Personally, I don't have a problem with scientific inquiry in a religious article as long as it is relevant and NPOV (just stating the majority scientific viewpoint doesn't automatically mean NPOV).

I think that a lot of editors here have seen too many upset creationists that want to push POV and as a result they are quick to scream "creationist pov pushing" whenever a creationist proposes any change to anything relating to evolution. See the current quandry at Talk:Answers in Genesis for a glaring example of that. I think that we do share the common goals of making WP more informative and less confusing for all our readers - I look forward to working with you whenever the occasion arises.

Feel free to ask for assistance whenever you encounter a new creationist editor who doesn't know when to quit. Sometimes a gentle "I agree with you but you need to do X, Y, and Z" can go a long way. I'll ask for your help if I get attacked when I'm trying to make a legitimate edit. It's nice to meet you and I look forward to a lot of good wikiediting! standonbible^Talk! 13:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you made that offer. I wanted to ask you about handling those situations, but wasn't sure it would be proper. Your efforts along those lines are greatly appreciated. I agree with your assesment of the general situation, and I look forward to working with you in the future. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Just leave me a message on this page and I will be happy to give my input whenever new editors or angry editors think they are being discriminated against because they are creationists (it is an easy impression to get even though it's WP:NPOV and generally not discrimination). I'd love to get your input on the discussion on this page! standonbible^Talk! 04:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I will create a subpage - User talk:Standonbible/Discussion of evolution for the ongoing evolution discussion on this page. standonbible^Talk! 04:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Talk:Evolution tonight

Please take a breather and calm down on the Talk:Evolution page. Everyone's pushing hard, and it's over the line into personal attacks. Take the night off and come back in the morning. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 07:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry; I am not getting upset or anything. I'd rather not get involved in a big fight or anything but I don't intend to blithely sit there and let someone call me a liar and stick to it. Thanks for your advice! standonbible^Talk! 07:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw what was happening, tried to ask for some calm but got edit conflicts, so I posted here at ANI. I don't want to see anyone get blocked, and things seemed to be escalating. I'll keep watching and try another "cool down" request as well. BTW - I meant what I said about you...I'd offer you a gallant salute, but my keyboard chokes on it when I try :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 07:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey man - I appreciate the 21-key salute! It's nice to know that you can disagree with someone and still respect them. I can promise you I won't get overly anxious or start spouting personal attacks - being called a liar tends to get under my skin but I can live with it; I've been called a lot worse when there was less evidence! standonbible^Talk! 07:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean, "liar" would actually be the most polite four letter word I've ever been called. I've requested a cease-fire on the relevant talkpages, hopefully it's over. If Samsara should happen to make another inflammatory comment, please just let it go...anyone who reads that page now will see what happened pretty clearly. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 07:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL, we were posting to each other's pages at the same time. I'm glad you're ok with archiving, and I agree we should wait (I intended to). Sometime tomorrow we can just quietly put that to bed. Yer a good sport :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 07:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I am still pretty confused as to what happened. I apologize; I was sleeping I guess when the worst conflicts erupted. I suspect that there might have been some alcohol involved, given the fact that this was a holiday evening. It seems pretty nonsensical to me. I do not want to see anyone banned either, over what seems like a ridiculous dispute.--Filll 15:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahah! So that explains it. I was slightly peeved but I couldn't figure out why he was getting upset - I suppose that a fifth would do it to ya (not that I would know - ;) ). Well, it's all over now and he archived it so hopefully it will be forgotten. standonbible^Talk! 15:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If anyone wishes to inquire about my alcohol consumption, they may do so directly at my talk page. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I definitely don't wish to inquire about anyone's alcohol consumption. standonbible^Talk! 16:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope I did not offend anyone with that speculation. I just was wondering what could account for this unexplained conflict.--Filll 16:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ==Psst...Shh...==

I'm sorry that happened to you. I'm reminded of the book "The Four Agreements". One of the agreements in this book goes something like don't take anything personally, even if it appears to be directed at you.

I believe in evolution, but I'm also fair and open-minded. If you've edited the way I just saw you comport yourself in your "situation", then you have a bright future as an editor indeed.

Furthermore, you appear to be a thoughtful and couragous young man. In these times, that's something to congratulate.

Sincerely, NinaEliza 07:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I am a paralegal in a criminal law firm in real life so I understand how important it is to keep from getting too upset in confrontational situations. Hopefully Samsara will cool off - I suppose he just got upset about something and overdid it. standonbible^Talk! 07:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I stand by everything I said. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That's too bad. Refusal to admit when you have been wrong reflects poorly on you. standonbible^Talk! 16:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Please guys. Let's not start this again. Let's move on, whatever the problem was that started this. Surely it is not so important.--Filll 16:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Let bygones be bygones. standonbible^Talk! 16:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Do hope this gets sorted. Seems like a misunderstanding, if ye ask me, as it is possible to revert without it showing if someone else reverts in the interim. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I think I've been gypped out of 100 edits over the past week, just because other editors beat me to the punch on reverts : ) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that wasn't the issue. I said that I had reverted "I don't know how many" vandalisms to the Evolution page in the past few days. He said I had only done one revert and that was to overwrite him. Actually, I had done 4 or 5 direct reverts to the Evolution page and I had left {{test}} tags on a bunch of vandals. Anyhow, when I tried to explain he accused me of lying/bad faith and I asked why he was violating WP:AGF and it just escalated from there. I don't appreciate being called a liar but I'm going to let it alone because it really isn't worth fighting over. standonbible^Talk! 15:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Guys, is it or isn't it done now? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's done. No hard feelings. :-) standonbible^Talk! 16:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor request

Regarding this edit - when warning users, please sign the comments. That allows later people to tell at a glance when the last time the IP was warned. JoshuaZ 02:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry - I didn't mean to. Thanks! standonbible^Talk! 02:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creation-evolution controversy

Hi! I want this article to fairly represent the facts, however, at the moment, it does an awful job at explaining them, has parts unbalanced, and so on. I (and others) am probably going to be making major changes to it over the next few days/weeks, and, well, I'd like your assistance to make sure we still stay fair to the creationist side, for instance, that, in an effort to point out a common bad behaviour, we don't end up accidentally saying that every creationist engages in it, or, well, I suspect you'll find lots of things as we go. Basically, the state at the moment is that it has some frankly bizarre omissions - for instace, before I statrted editing, it listed every creationist claim, no matter how odd or bizarre in detail, then literally just gave some variation on "Critics, however, disagree, claiming this misrepresents the facts" in a one-line pseudo-dismissal.

Unfortunately, I haven't yet managed to correct this fairly, and am worried I may slip into overstating my position. An, well, if you an help, please do so. Thanks! Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll give it my best shot! standonbible^Talk! 15:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent contributions to the talkpage. I've only skimmed through them, not studied in-depth yet, but your insightful comments are always welcome. Doc Tropics 21:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! standonbible^Talk! 23:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You earned this

The Sandwich of Exceptional Excellence (Potato Salad of Congeniality cluster, 1st. class) In Panis, Veritas.
Awarded to standonbible for your exceptional contribution creating a new table to use at talk:Evolution. Thanks! Doc Tropics 21:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually ordered this sandwich days ago, but the delivery guy was running late. I hope it's still fresh : ) Doc Tropics 21:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes a sandwich is better when it's been left out for a while. You know, all the juice seeps through and makes it exceptional - THANKS! standonbible^Talk! 23:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Man, if I wasn't on the Specific Carbohydrate Diet I would devour that sandwich. Hey Standonbible, I've seen your attempts to change the evolution page; I, as well as many other creationists, appreciate the effort, and you seemed to be coming a lot closer than I did. I admire you for staying calm and refraining from losing it at the evolutionists here. It's extremely difficult, and I'm sorry to say that I have lost it many times (consequently, I've been blocked several times). I just want to say, thanks for remaining so reserved and calm and for giving us a good image ( a lot better than I've been giving). Keep it up! Scorpionman 16:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Get well soon!

Hi, Standonbible! Sorry to see you're unwell: I was wondering why you hadn't been about of late. I hope you recover quickly. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree. Say, I wonder if some user named Pro Bug Catcher poisoned his water with anthrax so he wouldn't be able to edit? (Ha ha, joke, just kidding, not serious, no need for block) Ratso 03:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I have no problem with Standonbible. Get well soon. (Ratso be respectful please). 24.202.212.244 19:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC). Pro bug catcher 19:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)