User talk:86.50.9.167

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You placed this at the top of my talkpage & did not sign it - so I'm returning it to sender:

[edit] Subjectivity in editing articles

Your editing process in the article concerning Richard Sternberg, American scientist, is not objective. I wrote to the talk page about why I changed a couple of words in the article and yet you still stubbornly change it back. When I see a clear error, I correct it and continue to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.50.9.167 (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  1. DO NOT PLACE NEW THREADS AT THE TOP OF TALK PAGES -- PLACE THEM AT THE BOTTOM
  2. SIGN YOUR COMMENTS
  3. READ Talk:Richard Sternberg#intelligent design proponent" -- it contains a bunch of evidence that Sternberg is an ID proponent.

HrafnTalkStalk 16:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Read yourself what he thinks: http://www.rsternberg.net/Structuralism.htm

Sternberg has presented at the ID-only 'Research and Progress in Intelligent Design' conference, he is a member of the pro-ID International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, and he gave a presentation supporting ID at the recent 'Wistar Retrospective Symposium'.[1] If all this proves him to be a liar, it won't be the first time. HrafnTalkStalk 17:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Sternberg could be a critical observer in the conference. Despite the fact that he talked at the conference doesn't mean that he is an ID advocate, he may have some good insights at the discussion. Calling him a liar is still unjust. If you still believe that he is "pro-ID" then you should ask him to update his website. One's webpage is more reliable than other sources. Hope you agree with me in this thing. 86.50.9.167 (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. Sternberg presented at RAPID, he was not a mere "observer".
  2. The conference was restricted to ID advocates only. "Critical observers" were not permitted, and at least one individual, who attempted to go to be such a "critical observer" was excluded.
  3. He also presented at the 'Wistar Retrospective Symposium', and his presentation was described as pro-ID.

No, calling him a liar is fully justified, he has lied, misrepresented, equivocated and prevaricated about his slipping Meyer's paper in, his bogus "persecution" and his creationist affiliations. The man has zero credibility, and so I really don't care what he chooses to put on his website. "One's webpage" is most certainly not "more reliable than other sources." Read WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. 17:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrafn (talk • contribs) 2008-03-01T13:41:17

If you have proof from WP:RS that he is lying, it would be vastly preferable to simply cite that proof than to fling down unsubstantiated statements. Carefully done, it shouldn't even be necessary to say he's lying - allow the reader to draw conclusions from presented facts. It's the WP way.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)