Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kdbuffalo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 cooperation is asked for but is true cooperation asked for? 2 duncharris gripes addressed 2.1 Evidence of disputed behaviour 3 Wikipedians are likely not going to help and I realize I made some mistakes too

[edit] cooperation is asked for but is true cooperation asked for?

from: kdbuffalo, date 9/19/05 I just sent reconciliation letters to both the principle parties in the conflict. Hopefully things improve.

Second, I don't have any problem with the NPOV rule.

I just see censorship over and over.

Wikipedia states the following regarding minority view articles:

"None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth." [1]

Now I have wanted to have cooperation and have good faith efforts on both sides. I have listened to the other side and taken feedback. I made some changes although admittedly not a lot.

However, Cooperation may never happen. Why?

Here is why:

1. Does some person keep changing the theological conservative Christianity internal link in the Biblical scientific foreknowledge article so it goes to the Christian right (Falwell, etc). Would a person who wants to act in good faith do that?

2. Would people who act in good faith send harrassing messages ("fundie" etc).

I think the people calling for cooperation yet saying absolutely nothing publically about the bad behavior of certain anti-BSF parties are not seeking true cooperation. What they are asking for is the minority view be trampled or whittled down in content despite the Wikipedia policy.

ken 15:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

TO: Dunc, once more I ask that you to stop your current behavior and you are being inaccurate

Why you are being inaccurate:

You say I am a Bible literalist. Yet I have clearly said I follow a exegesis method that is not literalist at talk: Biblical scientific foreknowledge. Now if you can show I said I am a literalist then do so. Given that I said I follow a grammatico-historical approach to exegesis I think that is going to be extremely difficult (Please see these sources regarding my exegetical views: [2][3][4][5] ). Please spread your gossip somewhere else than Wikipedia. I think your whole smear campaign here is misguided and not at all accurate including your remarks about my sources which heavily cited medical historians, science/medical journals, etc. Right from the start you spread inaccuracies about me as can be seen by your literalist comment.

Here is an excerpt from a mail duncharris wrote to me:

"Look mate, I can respect you for not losing your rag. Now, I'm fairly clueless about this whole matter, but having dealt with a lot of creationist nonsense, I think the nonsense threshold of fundies is low."

duncharris, please stop your current rude behavior towards me and others:

I have told you to stop writing to me. I now ask you stop behavior such as this. I think you are acting rude and not ready to change yet as can be seen by others comments to your userpage. Until you do (and comments to your userpage show that you are not), I am not interested in receiving your mail nor am I interested in reading what you write. Please stop writing to me.

Here are what some people said to duncharris:

If I may, I would like to second Kappa's request. You have been extremely unfriendly towards me and made unwarranted attacks against me. Please stop. Bahn Mi 19:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't suppose I was referring to your particular cruft, but your contributions fall into the pointless steaming pile of crap category. Dunc|☺ 19:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

This is my third request now. Please stop making personal attacks against me and make a concerted effort to be civil to all other Wikipedians. If you do not believe a school (or all schools) to be important then you are entitled to your own opinion, does not give you the right to harass others. Bahn Mi 16:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Duncharris

You have chosen to be an atheist apparently. So be it if you have. However, this does not give you the right to engage in your current behavior towards me. Please stop.

Thank you,

ken 17:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] duncharris gripes addressed

[edit] Evidence of disputed behaviour

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. Biblical scientific foreknowledge and history
   • talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge and history
2. user talk:kdbuffalo
3. Deleted/reverted a new section (Origins of Biblical scientific foreknowledge) five times in three hours [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. (related "talk" section - [11])

I saw the other wikipedians were ignoring the policy regarding minority view articles. I fought fire with fire.

Here it is again:

"None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth." [12]

1. Cut and paste material to other articles [13], [14], [15]

is this against wikipedia policy? If so, where?

1. Replaced material in Lion with material supporting his religious position. [16]

Are religious articles which cite lion experts about lion behavior forbidden? If so, why?

1. Used Wikipedia article space for personal attacks: Admin duncharris's abusive messages. Wiki's atheist bullyboy (was speedied, look at history or deleted versions)

Duncharris, we both know that you deserved a snoot full of satire given your insulting emails and given the fact you know I was invariably polite despite your repeated offenses.

1. Continued to edit [17] using 128.205.191.50 (talk • contribs), after being blocked for posting personal attacks [18].

Again the satire was earned. Enjoy it.

[edit] Wikipedians are likely not going to help and I realize I made some mistakes too

I know Mark, KMH03, and others know the following:

1. I used a very large amount of excellent sources like medical/science journals, medical historians, etc. Even Mark who does not hold my view admitted this matter.

2. I clearly said I was not a Bible literalist.

3. I wanted to live in peace with each position presenting its views. Yet the anti-BSF people would not allow this to occur. The medical/science journal and other sources were constantly eliminated.

Here is the Wikipedia policy though:

"None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth." [19]

4. I know they realize that Duncharris is not telling the truth about my sources and he is not telling the truth about me being a Bible literalist yet they remain silent. I don't believe this is right.

Now given the article on Wikipedia creationism do I really believe Wikipedia is committed to their policy on minority view articles and thus my minority view article would be treated fairly? No, I do not. If they were committed to the minority view articles, the management would have done something about the creationism article a long time ago.

Now should I have broken the 3R policy the one time I believe I did this? No. Just because the other side breaks Wikipedia rules does not mean I should. The same goes for the "Admin Duncharris the bullyboy atheist" article in which I describe his harrassing messages to me and his harrassment of others.

Lastly, I do think I spent inordinate time trying to reason with the unreasonable. I think that time would have been better spent going though channels (although I don't think it would have worked) or doing other things.

128.205.191.88 14:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Above you say that I used a very large amount of excellent sources like medical/science journals, medical historians, etc. . I have not been following your edits but on duncharris' talk page I saw you wrote the the following:

Next, I went to your userpage to see how fair you were on the creation-evolution issue with people.

Here is what you wrote:

"Again, although there is considerable relgious belief in creationism within the US public, acceptance is virtually zero within the scientific community. Dunc|☺ 20:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)"

I did not see a whole lot of venom there. I will say though that you are mistaken and that 5% of US scientist are creationist. [6] But I think it is the lack of "attitude" you had that was important which is something I saw in your early messages to me which I believe frankly had "attitude".

I looked at the reference you cite above and the very first sentence is as follows.

According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14%

So this 5% figure you quote is a bit disingenuous since it obviously includes many people who call themselves scientists and yet have no formal training in evolutionary science. Surely the only opinons of scientists worth knowing are the ones that are trained in the appropriate fields? It's one thing to quote scientific articles, it's another thing altogether to quote in the correct context. David D. (Talk) 03:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)