User talk:ConfuciusOrnis/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →

Contents

Hovind page

Hi ConfuciusOrnis. You are close to a 3RR problem in this page, as part of your dealings with driveby pro-Hovind user Nevinkoshy. I am becoming a bit frustrated myself at this sort of thing. Be that as it may; if we take up his activities as a 3RR issue, it will simply existing conventions if you don't have a 3RR yourself. Just letting you know I can see the problem, and am giving Nevinkoshy a 3RR warning as well so he can be blocked if he continues. Good luck. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I am aware of 3RR and wasn't planning to revert him again if he persisted. Actually I'd already issued a couple of delete warnings but I see he's blanked his talk page. ornis (t) 22:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Good; you seem to have it under control then. I'll do a revert if I see it again. Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Superb, thanks for your help. ornis (t) 22:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove requests for references

Please do not remove at will the requests for references and citations in the article Psychic Surgery, it is not polite and it doesn't show will to make the article compliant JennyLen 11:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Please refrain from not making any sense whatsoever. ornis (t) 11:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Extinction events graphical timeline

Hi, thanks for letting me know about your problems with this template: I've hopefully addressed them, and would be grateful if you could check the template, for example here, and make sure that it's displaying closer to how its expected. Please reply on the template talk page. Thanks! Verisimilus T 11:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That looks fine now, before it was nearly doubling the width of the page. ornis (t) 11:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy draft

Please take another look at the draft and tell me if you think anything else should be changed. I think it's about done. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ack!

Technically speaking this is 4RR, so try to be careful! I agree that it's a form of medical fraud, and should be indicated as such in the strongest possible terms, but we have to keep it per WP:FIVE. Just relax and discuss, perhaps go to the next level of dispute resolution and everything will work out according to policy. Edit warring doesn't lead to victory, consensus and policy do. Dreadstar † 00:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Was it? The dispute was over the lead, I thought it would be alright to reintroduce some of the other uncontested edits that had been lost. ornis (t) 00:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, WP:3RR can be pretty broadly applied and could cover such an edit. Personally, I agree with ya about the nature of the edit...but others might not...it's better to be safe, IMHO...;) Nobody disputed it, and it was definitely an edit in good faith, but caution and patience are the watchwords when in the midst of a dispute..... Dreadstar † 00:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, that's probably wise. Thanks for the heads up. ornis (t) 00:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop

Please stop the personal attacks. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

grow up. ornis (t) 04:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

tag vandalism

Generally no I agree, but in this users case, it is. He's just tag bombing and stripping the article bare in order to get it merged. It's trolling and vandalism, and the less he's fed the better. ornis (t) 04:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I try to assume good faith whenever I can! If rises to the level of harassment or vandalism, there are ways to deal with it. I notice the other article was protected with all tags intact... So far, I think both sides of this are working in good faith...I'm trying to hang onto my illusions just a tad bit longer...;) Dreadstar † 05:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't really help to make accusations of trolling and vandalism, unless you have a very clear case; and then it should go through the appropriate channels to be handled. Always best to take the high road. Dreadstar † 06:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Highroad? Wouldn't know it if it bit me on the arse ;) ornis (t) 06:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
We're beginning to understand this about you. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 12:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


It’s inappropriate to make rude comments about or to another editor in the edit summaries, e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
Read through WP:CIV and WP:NPA Dreadstar † 17:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

PSurgery

Please check out the latest version for approval. Dreadstar † 19:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

SELFPUB + PZ

Please see Talk:PZ Myers. There is already a discussion about teh inclusion of miscellaneous quotes that "characterise" PZ's "writing style". By SELFPUB, wikipedia can't use primary resources to illustrate a point, that would be syntehsising the data. If such a quote is notorised by a non-primry resource, we can source it back to the original.

While the quote included may be an accurate portrayal of PZ's writing style (I'd agree it is). Stating so without a reference is WP:OR.

I think its best to allow the present discussion about quote inclusion regarding [{WP:SYNTH]] and WP:SELFPUB to finish before startinga revert war over a single quote.

Three other quotes were previously removed by another editor, I'm just following his lead. I do not see why they should be removed while that one stands (WP:NPOV)--ZayZayEM 01:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

I actually have to take issue with you on the welfare notion. Saying that it "stymies" evolution, assumes that selection occurs on an exclusively individual level, which is patently not true. If anything welfare is a trait that has been selected for by evolution, as it increases the fitness of whole populations. ornis (t) 07:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe most evolutionary theorists think selection does occur on a strictly individual level, actually many think it occurs on a strictly GENE level see Gene-centered view of evolution. I think the problem with saying it "stymies evolution", implies that evolution has a purpose to be stymied doesn't it? It certainly changes the selective pressures, but so do a lot of things--like say murder laws, anti-civilian violence laws and government in general (without say, murder laws, people who weren't good at protecting themselves physically would be at a sever disadvantage). Brentt 06:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah no, evolution is the change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. ornis (t) 07:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Yea, hence evolution occurs within a population, but selection occurs on genes, as opposed to populations (leaving the question of whether it happens on individuals aside, thats a bit more involved).
The problem is that If you see anything that could be considered selection happening on populations, then there is no meta-population (poplulations of populations) for evolution to occur within. Or if there is a meta-population, its too small (say p<10) for the process to create any sort of functionality. Basically when you start getting into group selection your just looking at the population as an individual, and expecting that natural selection can create some functionality working with only a very small group of individuals (the "very small group" being the meta-population)--which is why group selectionist theories are frowned upon these days. Brentt 08:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Medical Fraud

In order to ensure that Wikipedia maintains credibility it is important that each entry is correctly structured. This necessitates that entries have a basic academic structure in which a topic is introduced and its etymology is explained prior to criticism and advocacy being introduced. In order to be best informed the reader must understand the origins of the topic before they are introduced to the controversy of the topic, else they risk developing prior prejudices.

Undue weight applies only to content not structure. For example, the order of Pro and con arguments cannot be determined as undue weight. However, the insertion of criticism sections prior to history sections can be determined to be POV pushing as it creates a prior prejudice in the minds of readers.

perfectblue 10:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

And how did YOU come to such an important determination? And who are YOU? This sounds like complete nonsense, frankly. --Filll 12:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. Having visited your user page, it all becomes clear.--Filll 12:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No shit... and just for the record, he did rather a lot more, than "properly structure" the article. ornis (t) 12:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Perfectblue is quite correct. Please refrain from further personal attacks against Perfectblue. ornis, I've already reported your personal attacks once, and if you continue to hand them out, I'll go further. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this is where to put this

It seems to me that you are involved in the "edit war" as well. It is absolutely inaccurrate to say that they REJECT those disciplines. If you knew anything about the subject, you would recognize that many of the folks associated with ICR actually have degrees in those disciplines and have worked or do work in those fields in other non-creationist endeavors.

I have no problem with saying that they come to different conclusions than what is considered to be the mainstream conclusions in the areas of physics, chemistry, and geology in regards to their views of the age of the earth. But to say that they reject the disciplines is not only not a "neutral point of view", but is also inaccurrate.

--- fcsans1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcsans1 (talk • contribs) 05:09, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

PZ Myers

OWN away! Jinxmchue 03:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

laugh. out. loud. ornis (t) 03:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
What's truly "laugh. out. loud." is that you people would never apply the same standards to the Ann Coulter article and discussion page. Jinxmchue 03:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Did I hurt your feelings? ornis (t) 03:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
No. You just confirmed what I knew was happening to the PZ Myers article (and by extension, to the entirety of Wikipedia). Would you apply the same standards to the Ann Coulter article? Would you go in and delete comments from the discussion page and hand out warnings? Of course not. And if I did it, I'd be yelled at, warned about it and very likely banned from Wikipedia. Jinxmchue 04:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You should wipe that spittle off the screen, it's bad for the anti-glare coating. ornis (t) 04:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've long since passed the stage of getting angry over bias and hypocrisy. I've seen so much of it from liberals, atheists and the like that the emotion I feel is complete and utter non-surprise. Your bias is obvious and your edits are unjustified. Continue to remove my comments from the talk page and I will take action against you. Jinxmchue 06:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Grow up. ornis (t) 06:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What?

What's your deal man? What reason will I be blocked, and by who, you? Is that a threat and are you not assumming good faith? I didn't blank anything, I edited it to be more NPOV and consistent. The template is belief systems, and as I pointed out the template was heavily weighted with atheism and agnostism links. Demography of atheism, list of atheists, criticism of atheism, ect, with no links to for instance demography of animism or list of pantheists, not that I think there should be, it's my opinion that there should just be links to the basic articles about each system and then one can go from there. That's what I believe the template should look like, I edited it accordingly, as I have every right to do. Roy Brumback 05:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you're a little hard of understanding, so I'll say it again... all those religions have their own nav templates. Now revert back please. ornis (t) 06:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Then simply restart the general atheism template and problem solved. I noticed it was merged without any real discussion. Roy Brumback 20:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi CO, this edit summary appears to be an automagically filled in summary by your editing tool - please confirm or correct me - and identifies edits as "vandalism". While I appreciate the ease of using a tool, please use that rollback only for cases of clear vandalism, and not for other edits. Thanks! KillerChihuahua?!? 12:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

And as I see no one has yet given you a courtesy link, I make you aware of this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:ConfuciusOrnis. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I've replied at the AN/I. Yeah, that was me getting a little overzealous with twinkle, I just installed it yesterday... new toys and all that ;) ornis (t) 13:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I've posted on the Twinkle improvements page, or request page, or whatever it is called, to have that particular edit summary toned down, or a choice of "vandalism" vs a simple "Undo" type summary, or best yet, a "Fill in your own" choice, but so far it seems that has not gotten much attention. Thanks for your prompt response to this. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, an option to set your own summary would be nice, but I suspect the developers may be less than enthused about implementing such a feature. ornis (t) 14:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Its on the to-do list on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Twinkle as "Add new config item offerReasonOnCSDTag to allow a custom edit summary to be entered" and is confirmed, so its on its way, although no idea when he'll get the time to do it. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Well then... consider me corrected :) ornis (t) 14:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, don't you just love it when the thing you're wrong about is something you're happy to be wrong about? :-D KillerChihuahua?!? 14:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Love it? Well it's about only time I'm prepared to admit to being wrong. ;) ornis (t) 14:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Ack, my comment was supposed to be light banter, I hope I didn't step on a toe (?) KillerChihuahua?!? 15:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

lol, No, it was joke.. see.. smiley--> :) ornis (t) 15:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
My turn to be happy to be wrong! KillerChihuahua?!? 15:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Lol. It is a good feeling. One day I hope to be wrong about them never adding general maintenance tags and template. ornis (t) 16:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy rewrite

Hello ConfuciusOrnis, I plan to implement the homeopathy rough draft( link) by September 1st, 5 days from now. Unless of course more proposals are made to change it, in which case I will postpone the implementation until it is ready and agreed upon. Some things concerning the rough draft are still in discussions, which can easily continue once it goes live. An example is the inclusion of mentions of Jacques Benveniste. Other things can easily be fixed after a week or so of copy editors from the general public going over it and removing redundancy and rewording sentences to be more brief and precise, which will cut down size of the article including the lead without removing relevant info. So If by September 1st I receive no more suggestions on improving the rough draft then I will replace the Homeopathy article with it. If you see problems with the draft, please make suggestions on improving it. Even if the suggestions might have already been made, just make a new post with the suggestions so that we can discuss them. Here is the link to the rough draft again: Link to rough draft. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry?

Hi ConfuciusOrnis. I came across the report you made on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PEAR. The last thing I want to do is accuse the wrong person, but you might want to add Hornet35 to your report. The "revert of vandalism" edit summary is quite damning.[7]. And not the mention the fact that Hornet35 started an Afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why I Am Not a Christian) of articles that, how shall I put it, may not be "favorable" to his idealogy. Spellcast 15:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd noticed hornet35 as well, but withheld so far from adding it in order to avoid sub-conscious fishing. However if you also look at the timing it's pretty convenient, (s)he appeared ten or twenty minutes after I tagged totesboats as a suspected sock, and started editing more or less the same articles in the same manner. ornis (t) 15:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Have you considered WP:RFCU, or doesn't it fit the criteria? --Rrburke(talk) 20:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm still finding my feet here. I've never dealt with something like this before, and intially I chose a standard report because I figured the PEAR IP would be too stale for any meaningful result, though considering these new accounts of his that keep popping up, that might be wise, I'll look into it. ornis (t) 06:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR?

I have not violated it in eugenics. MoritzB 15:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess you didn't bother to read the warning then. ornis (t) 15:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Creationism and Vandalism

Sorry, I misread the diff! I was about to revert but you nailed me.Spryde 13:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright then, no harm done ;) ornis (t) 13:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

ConfuciusOrnis,

I saw that your reverted a change to the Piltdown article. you removed the italicized phrase at the end of the following line:

The hoax is now a popular target for creationists, who criticize science for falling for the hoax, and suggest that other finds backing up evolution may also be hoaxes.

I don't really object to your taking it out. But I'd like to know why you labeled this "vandalism". Why do you consider this change vandalism?

Thanks,

-coastside —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coastside (talk • contribs) 14:31, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Hey, short answer: I hit the wrong button. A longer answer can be found here. ornis (t) 14:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Random Smile!

WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-WarthogDemon 04:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The VandalBot

Thanks so much for bringing the Vandal bot IP to administrator attention. I have blocked it and reverted the most recent edits. You can leave me a message if you see another one like that soon. Academic Challenger 05:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I was beginning to wonder at the inhuman speed with which it was able to add gibberish to articles. ornis (t) 05:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Jim62sch

May I ask why you reverted my edits to this page without any sort of explanation or message on my talk page? As a guideline, WP:UP#NOT has a strong consensus among editors. And my personal beliefs have nothing to do with this removal (you'll see I explained why I did it, contrary to your revert). -- lucasbfr talk 17:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just trying to save you the embarrassment that will come when inevitably you realise what a dickish thing it was to do in the first place. ornis (t) 04:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam

Ok, I am green to wiki, but why did you cut all my stuff out? The medical light association is not a for profit site the video clips are credible doctors and scientists from around the world. The MLA links I posted are not a promotion for a product or service, it is free information like the wiki, so what is going on? Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdebow (talk • contribs) 08:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well you should start by reading, WP:COI and WP:SPAM. I know you've been given those links before, as you've been warned about this matter before. Generally, if you own or operate a website, and you think it should be included in an article, then you will need to discuss that on the talk page of the article, rather than adding it yourself. ornis (t) 09:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

Introduction to Evolution A much better layout. Would you please monitor the page and make adjustments as needed?! We might substitute a few soon; the mice and perhaps the dogs to something less fringe to the topic. Thanks again--Random Replicator 16:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

But I love the dogs and the mice! Well...if consensus is to remove them...I guess...--Filll 16:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I like them too. I know I suggested removing some pics, but to be truthful, I couldn't actually point to any I think should go. ornis (t) 16:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

CFD Category:Anti-creationism

You have either edited Category:Anti-creationism or contributed to the previous discussion[8] about its encyclopedic value.

This a courtesy notice that it has again be nominated for a deletion discussion[9].--ZayZayEM 02:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Good day

Hello Confucius,

Your accusation of sock-puppetry against me has been proven false and closed.

I certainly hope you will be more careful about accusing other Wikipedians of being sock-puppets in the future.

--RucasHost 22:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol... feeling pretty smug aintcha... actually all that was proven, was that I didn't present the evidence against you terribly well. ornis (t) 03:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Brian Sapient

Hi. I'm contacting some people who have worked on the Rational Response Squad article because someone changed my redirect of "Brian Sapient" (which I made to redirect surfers to the RRS article) into an article on Brian Sapient himself. I'm not sure one is merited, particularly given what that editor started off with the article, and have begun a discussion on that new article's Talk Page. Your input would be appreciated. Nightscream 01:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

BLP and 3R

As stated in my edit summaries. WP:3R does not apply in WP:BLP violations.--ZayZayEM 09:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Your hystrionics aside, there was no blp violation. So you clearly broke 3rr. You're just lucky the page was protected. ornis (t) 09:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • OR is BLP-violating. Please allow the RFC to take place to allow wider community commentary. I will abide by consensus.--ZayZayEM 09:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Possibly BLP-violating, is the same as BLP-violating as far as I can tell - and that is an [WP:3R#Exceptions|Exception]] to 3RR. Please allow a discussion to take place and reach a consensus. So far all we have had is a sparring match consisting of around 5-6 people which has reached a practical stalemate. I am requesting protection, and a RFC so we can develop consensus. --ZayZayEM 09:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
See below. ornis (t) 09:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection

I have unprotected the article, now. If there is no BLP violation, are you requesting the article be left unprotected, or that it be re-protected? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

God I don't don't know. Have a look through the discussion if you can stand it. Essentially what's been happening is a handful of creationists have been disrupting any attempt to improve the article with completely specious allegation and tendentious editwarring. Basically, she IS a creationist.[10] she DID sign the petition, it IS anti-evolution and her field ISN'T related to biology or evolution in any meaningful way. Now there are sources for all of these, there's no harm being done to the subject, and there is no OR or SYNTH... frankly at this stage if you or someone else where to just speedy delete the damn thing I wouldn't shed a tear. ornis (t) 09:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Images in Intelligent design

Please do not add the book cover images back into the article. If something comes of the Fair Use Review, they may be added back in then. Thanks Nv8200p talk 22:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Because an admin told you so CO.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah funny isn't it I keep thinking they're just regular editors with no more authority than you or I. I keep forgetting that they're in fact our social and intellectual superiors, granted godlike powers by the mighty one, and whose farts smell like strawberries, and whose every word is a honeyed drop of profundity, given unto us the unworthy hoi polloi.... colour me unimpressed. ornis (t) 11:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Templating established users

It is generally considered poor manners to use warning templates on established users, such as here. These templates are more appropriate to use on new users who are vandalizing Wikipedia, and may not know any better. For content disputes with established editors, it is better to work out the issue in discussion, or failing that, taking it up on an appropriate administrator noticeboard. - Crockspot 21:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)