User talk:FeloniousMonk/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for un-blanking my user talk page. Despite our disagreements re: NPOV policy, you have always been a gentleman in all other respects. ^_^ --Uncle Ed 15:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Wikipedia:Assume good faith

Felonious, hi. I noticed you just reverted a paragraph in the AGF policy. Seeing as that edit was made amid talk page discussion with several editors, could you please address your disagreement to the talk page? I think the changes were good, and I'm prepared to defend them in a discussion. Can we talk about it? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need your input on sentence in ID article

Hello. If you're following changes in Intelligent Design, you might recognize me as the newcomer with the lousy browser. Jim62 and I have discussed the second sentence in the passage below.

"Intelligent design professes to offer an answer that does not need to be defined or explained, the intelligent agent, designer. By asserting a conclusion that cannot be accounted for scientifically, the designer, intelligent design cannot be sustained by any further explanation, and objections raised to those who accept intelligent design make little headway. Thus intelligent design is not a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. Once it is claimed that a conclusion that need not be accounted for has been established, there is simply no possibility of future correction. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data."

The sentence has undergone a few revisions and may no longer convey the meaning it was intended to. In its current form, it has a grammatical flaw that can't be fixed without knowing what that meaning was. Jim62 thinks you wrote the sentence originally. He suggested that I consult you about it.

Successive pieces of the discussion so far are on his and my talk pages. Cognita 01:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted: duplicate post. It looks like I have TWO lousy browsers. Cognita 01:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence is a bit odd as well. •Jim62sch• 10:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gehockteh leber

Actually, the original block was based on a false assumption. Do you seriously think "Gehockteh leber" is a sockpuppet? If not, you should remove your block. CJCurrie 22:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, "Gehockteh leber" is Homey. Don't start playing his game too here. FeloniousMonk 23:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Gehockteh leber is acknowledged as a new account, not a sockpuppet. Don't you think this is inappropriate? CJCurrie 00:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dawkins

Hi Felonious. I note that you improved the lead para in the Criticism section of Dawkins, but two of the regular reverters have removed it. I put it back once but I don't want to "mindlessly revert". IMHO it sets the tone (as you have it) rather well, and would lead into 3 sub-sections on +ve, -ve and equivocal reviews. I'd suggest you might want to restore your wording, and would certainly support you, but you are a much more experienced Wikipedian. 22:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why did you protect "Harvard referencing"?

Greetings,

Could you tell me why you put protection on the "Harvard referencing" page?

In particular, why did you say there was "vandalism" when you wrote this? --

13:37, November 10, 2006 FeloniousMonk (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Harvard referencing: vandalism, redirects [edit=sysop:move=sysop])

Thanks.

TH 00:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Because of the repeated page moves over objections, not to mention the incessant reverting to a version that did not enjoy any form of consensus. FeloniousMonk 01:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your reasons for blocking changes to the page.

Please tell me what brought this issue to your attention. Your Contribs list shows that you usually pay no attention to Harvard referencing and similar pages (style, citations, footnotes). It seems unlikely that you just stumbled across the problem. I would guess that someone asked you to block changes to the page. Is that correct?

Thanks.

TH 19:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello FeloniousMonk. I have added a suggestion to the Talk:Harvard_referencing page. Obviously I would not suggest you take this suggestion yourself since this would only invite more harassment - I just wanted to inform you about it. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 21:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uh but

You said "other three" and then only listed two... I know it's early in the morning. Wjhonson 16:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of policies

That change SV made is disputed; please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:List of policies. Yours, (Radiant) 17:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cites and the Evolution article

I think we should let the fellow add cite needed tags wherever he wants: We can, after all, cite them, and it'll make it *very* hard for an FAR to get anywhere if we can show everything's referenced. Adam Cuerden talk 16:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a sensible limit. Take a look at the references section of intelligent design to see an example of how accomodating every single partisan call for cites can go wrong. Furthermore, Standonbible's constant objections are 1) monoplizing the talk page, preventing any other discussion, 2) causing long-term contributors to a science article to spend their time shagging down cites for a fringe viewpoint, creationist objections to evolution, instead of contributing to the subject at hand. As I said, there's a limit. FeloniousMonk 16:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
In short, he's disruptive. Should we take this to AN/I and get an uninvolved admin to do what they can with him? Or what? He's astonishingly contentious and disruptive everywhere I've seen him. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought people were supposed to AGF around here. Seriously, though, since I don't have the same viewpoint as you guys I tend to notice statements that need citing. Also, before you start labelling me as a POV-pusher, please note that I have been entirely open to hearing what about my statements is POV.
The foregoing notwithstanding, please note that I have given the Talk:Evolution page a breather and don't plan on taking it up again for a while due to the overwhelming (though incomplete) consensus against my viewpoint that certain statements are inadequately cited. standonbibleTalk!
No, I see you just decided to have a go at the Natural selection article instead. That's hardly dropping the issue. FeloniousMonk 04:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
What outright disregard for AGF. There was nothing POV about my edit to the natural selection article - another editor agreed with me although he wanted to use different grammar. Your bias is so obvious. standonbibleTalk! 04:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Just as at other evolution-related articles your edits at the Natural selection added weasel words and made a clear statement ambiguous. Though WP:AGF enjoins me to assume your good faith, it also says I am not required to in the presence of evidence to the contrary. A range of editors have raised objections over an apparent bias in your contributions at evolution-related articles, something I've confirmed myself. And in so doing I've now seen enough "evidence to the contrary" to agree that you are indeed promoting a particular viewpoint at the expense of properly balanced and neutral articles. To avoid having others draw the same conclusions I suggest you rethink your approach at these articles. FeloniousMonk 04:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
My edit to the Natural selection article didn't use any weasel words at all; those were added by other editors. I simply wanted to add information content regarding mutations working in conjunction with natural selection because this is an important part of evolutionary theory. Don't attribute weasel words from other people to me.
I've stated before that I have a different viewpoint on certain topics, which allows me to see statements that need better sourcing in order to avoid ambiguity. I have always been open to hearing what it is about my statements that are so POV. My "approach" is to note unsourced or badly stated statements in any article - I don't go around the evolution-related articles looking for places to slide in a creationist POV. standonbibleTalk! 05:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand your desire to have others believe that you possess a unique viewpoint on evolution and science topics which allows you to identify which statements "need better sourcing in order to avoid ambiguity." But I do not acknowledge that this is indeed so. You see, all these topics just happen to run counter to your ideology, while all of statements you feel need cites just happen to favor that ideology over the topic. FeloniousMonk 05:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Not true. If you look over my edit history you will notice that I have added {{fact}} tags to many articles and have edited many articles that have nothing to do with my personal beliefs. I keep an eye out for unsourced statements on all the articles I read. It's just that because of my viewpoint, people rarely concede the need for a change on articles regarding evolution and so it becomes a talk page conflict - which is usually resolved relatively quickly despite several zillion comments being made. standonbibleTalk! 05:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

(red ind) I need hip-waders for that one. You've not got one edit on a page that does not involve your belief system. This edit summary is pretty much indicative of your POV: 21:13, 24 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Oort cloud (Added a mainstream defense to appease all the lefty evolutionist editors :-)) Have a blessèd evening. •Jim62sch• 00:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course I have a POV! Everyone has a POV whether they like it or not. The question is whether an editor's edits reflect that point of view are so influenced by that POV that they are no longer neutral. Even in the example you gave (which is quite a while ago before I was aware of WP policies) I had introduced information favorable to a viewpoint other than my own. Oh, by the way: a smiley face generally indicates humor....
Just this month I have made unchallenged and unobtrusive changes to Creation-Evolution controversy, First Council of Nicaea, Christianity, Gene Duplication, Evolution, Frank E. Peretti, Mutation, Bursitis, Grammar, and God, to name a few. Try to avoid personal attacks, Jim. standonbibleTalk! 01:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please discuss before deleting section

On the peer review article you deleted a section I had written with the comment "rm unsourced pov". The section was neither unsourced nor POV in any way and I even suggested in the edit comment that the ultimate sources in that section be located so that it would not link to an AiG article (I know how much AiG articles get under y'all's skin so I didn't want it to be there too long). This section is relevant to the article and that particular part of the article. It ned not contain any references to creationism or ID in a positive light (in fact it paints both in a very negative light as-is). Please refrain from deleting sections and dropping in the "unsourced pov" comment until you have discussed the change on the discussion page. Thank you. standonbible 18:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's already been removed again by another editor, and if he had not removed it I would have. It's an editorialised treatment of a minor event of no provable significance in an article discussing the concept of peer review. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] spade

Your input and edits would be appreciated on my recent essay, WP:SPADE, regardless of your agreement or disagreement with such. JBKramer 19:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

PS:It's not about Sam. :)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 21:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that you're considered a party to the case at this point, with your block of the Fishers under discussion. Although you already know this, I'm officially notifying you that I have listed you as a party in the proceedings. Dotting the i's etc. Thatcher131 04:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Re:Cowman; perhaps, but Fred is not considering any proposals directed against him, and he is against you, so I thought you should be listed. I'm not saying it is or isn't justified, just that you're actions are specifically being considered. Thatcher131 12:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but Fred will be shortly, so you may as well add him. FeloniousMonk 17:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I meant to drop you a note thanking you for the refs that you added to Evolution recently. I'm intending to do some formatting, but for some reason, I keep getting distracted...

And now I can thank you for your support on the talkpage as well. I feel like I've gone out on a limb by taking some unilateral actions with insta-archiving, so it's nice to get some positive feedback from "the regulars". --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 19:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creation-evolution controversy

Hi! I'm afraid that after taking a closer look at the article, I kept finding problems. Would you mind lending a hand with getting it up to an appropriate level of quality? Adam Cuerden talk 10:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, looking forward to that. FeloniousMonk 20:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arb comments re RFCU

Based on your checkuser request, it looks like you are alleging DrL is editing disruptively in tandem with Asmodeus. Generally, just being Joe Smith and writing about Joe Smith is not enough to get you in trouble, but editing disruptively is bad no matter who you are or what you are writing about. If you would like the arbitrators to consider disruptive editing by DrL, you should add evidence to the evidence page. I have listed her as a party to the case and notified her on her talk page. Thatcher131 18:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hillman/dig

User:Hillman/Dig and subpages linked from there in the deleted history. JBKramer 23:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haldane Fisher

Unless I'm missing something, you yourself said that user:Haldane Fisher is a role account with the sole purpose to harass Asmodeus and claim he is this Langan fellow. I'm not sure if you're aware, but if you look at his contributions, you'll see that he harasses this user in his edit summaries in articles which appear to have absolutely nothing to do with WP:AUTO violations, therefore I'm asking for clarification as to why you unblocked the role account. Thank you. Cowman109Talk 20:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm also confused by the history page of Crank (person), in which Haldane Fisher reverts an account other than Asmodeus, user:Henning Makholm, accusing him of vandalism and being Langan, as well. I mean no offense, but I honestly see no way how this is not harassment and wild incivil accusations of vandalism by other users. Thanks again. Cowman109Talk 20:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please be more careful

You blocked my account, User:2005, because I reverted a weird spam entry? I could have let someone else do it, but that is incredibly silly. Please remove the block and the comment on my talk page.

Judging by the block comment, you were blocked because you reverted too many times. Unless something is very clearly vandalism, then yes, you should let someone else do it. I also see that you have a habit of deleting good faith critical comments without addressing them[1]? Please don't do that. Whether or not you believe the comment is justified, the correct behaviour is to explain your position, and to try to understand why the comment was made. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I've unblocked 2005, because the last rv was indeed rvv [2]. At least in my opinion. However, I now realise there was no good reason for not saying this here and giving FM the option, so my apologies to FM. OTOH 2005 didn't mark the edit as rvv, and given the history on that page "rv strange addition" is easy to misinterpret William M. Connolley 10:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] American Legislative Exchange Council

An anonymous user has been engaging in large-scale deletions on this article. I've reverted a couple of times, but don't want to breach 3RR. As you've edited it recently, I thought you might want to take a look.JQ 01:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

For the Arbitration committee. Thatcher131 02:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent revision

Dear FeloniousMonk,

thank you for your interest in the article on the theory of everything. However, please do not revert it any more. It is not random oddness. Please take a closer look and you will begin to understand. THanks -Archetype —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.138.20.139 (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Dear FeloniousMonk,

did you ever read the article carefully? Since you have not replied I'm assuming you didn't and thus I'm restoring the article, which removes several inaccuracies. sincerely, Archetype

[edit] William A. Dembski

Is there a less harsh wording than you made here. I doubt that he would think he was explaining "manipulations" or "evasion" tactics. Maybe, "Dembski has stated he employs various strategies to counter criticism of his work:"? The reason I post here is in the hope of limiting conflict. Rkevins82 06:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Asmodeus is indefinitely banned from editing Christopher Michael Langan and all related articles including but not limited to: Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, Crank (person), and Academic elitism. He may make suggestions on talk pages if he is not disruptive. Asmodeus is also placed on probation indefinitely and is cautioned to be courteous to other users. He may be banned from any article, talk page, or subject area which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing or incivility. All remedies which apply to Asmodeus also apply to DrL and, after warning accompanied by a link to this matter, to any other user with a similar editing pattern. Haldane Fisher and Hal Fisher are banned indefinitely. FeloniousMonk is counseled to consult with other administrators with respect to disruptive users and to cooperate with them in a collegial way. ScienceApologist is counseled to be more patient and diplomatic with users who may edit their own article or advance original research. Bans imposed by this decision may be enforced by appropriate blocks. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 17:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Tom tomorrow language virus.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tom tomorrow language virus.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 20:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Schaefer's page

I'm letting you know that I've left you a note on the talk page there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mathchem271828 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Re your last edit - no problem, but I doubt AAAS supports ID. Do you think it does? --Bduke 06:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Most followers of the ID debate think of the American Association for the Advancement of Science when seeing the acronym AAAS, not American Academy of Arts and Sciences; that's the reason why I changed it. FeloniousMonk 06:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. I misunderstood your edit summary. It is best spelt out anyway. --Bduke 07:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sarfati

That IP looks like it may be in the range covered by the arbitration. JoshuaZ 08:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it is. FeloniousMonk 08:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked for 24 hours and am sending you an email related to the matter. JoshuaZ 08:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Automobiles Notification

Hi FeloniousMonk, you were on the list of members at WikiProject Automobiles and we are introducing a new way of listing members, as the old list was becoming too long. Our new method involves having all of our members in a category.

To add yourself to the category just add the userbox to your user page by putting {{Wiki Auto Project}} where you want the userbox. Alternatively if you don't like the userbox you can add [[Category:WikiProject Automobiles members|FeloniousMonk]] to your userpage.

If you no longer wish to be a member of the project, simply don't add the userbox or category, there's no pressure. Thanks for your time, James086Talk | Contribs 05:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IC RfC

If you look at the discussion you can see that it was primarily between me and Adam Cuerden. I posted a suggestion for the RfC and he agreed. I reproduced the same text in the actual RfC. --Denoir 19:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wolf effect

  • Could you please show me examples of my "repeated reversions at Wolf Effect"?
  • While you're at it, can you provide editing diffs of your earlier claims that I am a "well-known pseudoscience POV pusher"[3] [4] [5], which you have not had the courtesy to do after several requests,[6][7] --Iantresman 19:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
So badgering sounds like a good idea to you after your recent sanctions for incivility? The article's history tells me all I need to know, [8], and as for how this relates to your current situation, your appeal has not been granted, meaning Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Findings_of_Fact and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Remedies are still in effect and will be enforced. FeloniousMonk 20:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I asked you politely to show me examples of my "repeated reversions at Wolf Effect". You showed me the article history, which is not the same thing.
  • I've also asked you for additional information, which seems quite reasonable. It was you that made the claims, not me. --Iantresman 21:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WorldNetDaily Edits

Hi. I reverted your WND edits - perhaps you didn't see the discussion on the talk page. I don't think that section is a good contribution to the article, and neither does the only other person yet to comment on the matter. Check the WND talk page for more details, and my reasoning. Kc8ukw 20:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Denialism Page

Hi. I've just seen your post about Denialism on the DI talk page. I'm going away from Wikipedia for about a week starting the day after tomorrow, but I'll look into it when I get back. I've only had a brief glance at the article so far so let me know what you think needs changing/improving for now, and I'll start working in that direction. --Davril2020 19:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kitzmiller v Dover

Do you have any idea if the trial article will be mentioned in the "On this day" of the main Wiki splash page tomorrow? Mr Christopher 17:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] s:Image:Wedge Document.pdf

Hello FeloniousMonk/Archive 6. Please note that s:Image:Wedge Document.pdf has been proposed as for deletion as it may be in violation of Wikisource's copyright policy; I invite you to participate in the discussion taking place on Possible copyright violations. The text will be deleted in a week if there is no dispute that this work is copyrighted. Thank you for your interest in our project. --Benn Newman 17:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi, thanks for your imput on the situation

Bearly541 16:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ICR

Hi FeloniousMonk. Just so we can gauge how the consensus is emerging, would you mind detailing your reasoning at Talk:Institute for Creation Research#Penn and Teller? Thanks, — coelacan talk — 03:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] WND Edits

Please argue on the WND talk page for keeping those deleted sections, making comment on all four of my points. Any one of them would be a reason to get rid of or seriously rewrite those sections. Don't just revert my well-thought edits without comment, yo. Kc8ukw 05:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What exactly distinguishes "well-thought edits" from run-of-the-mill deletions derived from personal notions that have minimal support? The content you deleted has stood for quite some time and has enjoyed wide consensus, so it is the one seeking to remove it who should making a case and building consensus on the talk page, not the person who restores long-standing content, yo. FeloniousMonk 05:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
So I've made my case on the talk page. Presuming no one comments on it, how long should I wait until I make the change? I invite you to comment on it immediately. Personally, I think the reason it stood so long was because the WND page was neglected, not because lots of people saw the edits and approved of them. (For example, the Valerie Plame section does not even use proper English, yet no one has changed that yet. It has stood for a long time. I've been going through the article doing little grammar rewrites, which is why I noticed.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kc8ukw (talk • contribs) 05:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC).
You don't have to answer the time question, I'll just play it by ear - unless there really is an official policy. Kc8ukw 05:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP

With respect to the Benny Hinn page, please read WP:BLP. Nowhere in there will you find that a pair of bloggers ranting is either notable, objective or acceptable. --Steven Fisher 06:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WND POV Tag Removal

Did you remove the tag because you agree that the section is not written with a neutral point of view, and therefore there is no dispute, or because you think it is written with a NPOV, in which case you should have left the tag? "That an article is in an NPOV dispute does not necessarily mean it is biased, only that someone feels that it is." This is from the Wikipedia policy page, and that someone would be me. Besides, I'm trying to call attention to the discussion on the talk page - if no one comments of my 4 causes for removal, then I'm eventually just going to remove the sections again. If you want them to remain, it is even in your own self interest to leave that tag there. I'll add the tag back in about 40s. Kc8ukw 17:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the formatting of the blockquotes, by the way. (Although you did lose a period and some ellipses, which I shall now correct, but whatever.) Kc8ukw 17:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leadership University (online university)

In case you hadn't noticed, Leadership University (online university) has been proposed for deletion. NickelShoe (Talk) 20:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy New Year

FM, may the new year bring you peace, happiness, love, and hope for all things you wish for. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

shortie fingers..
shortie fingers..

Hi FM, Happy New Year! Have some some shortbread. Many thanks for all your work over the years, not least dealing with an unending string of rule-playing trolls :) ..dave souza, talk 18:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New WND Edits

Hello. Did you actually read my reasoning on the WND talk page? Your response was exactly what I was trying to avoid. You say yourself and others have refuted my points, but as I said it point 1, where? We haven't been talking about these sections. Point me, very explicitly, to what I need to read, if it exists. You say the sections are verifiable, but I have given a very explicit reason as to why they do not meet Wikipedia's verifiability requirements - you said nothing in response. This is the biggest problem the section has. You say the section is neutral, yet 3 of my points contained reasons why it was not - you refuted none of them. You have dismissed, not refuted my claims. You know you would never accept that if our positions were reversed. If I am really in the wrong, prove it to me! I want this article to reach Good Article status. To that end, as to my "method of contributing here" - most of my edits to this article have been uncontroversial, many of them even dealing with citations. I'm trying to fix the last big problem the article has. Kc8ukw 02:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ID

I'm not sure what policy allows but I want to start moving every new header/section raspor creates on the talk page to the sub area you created for him. Do I need anything special to start doing that? Mr Christopher 18:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV warning

I just put up a new article at Support for evolution summarizing the scientific, religious etc support for evolution. I realized that although there are many creationist articles, evolution mainly has science articles, or an article or two about the history of various parts of the dispute. I am told that summarizing the support that exists on one side is nonneutral (although I do include a section describing support for the creationist side). How is it nonneutral to give the objective information? I am not saying who is right. But it is a bit hard to deny that support exists. See below: --Filll 03:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

While I am in support of evolution, I do find that this article is difficult to put into the light of a neutral point of view. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 03:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I would dispute this. The topic is that support exists. Whether that support is justified or not is another issue. I have copious references from both sides and it is a bit hard to deny that support exists in the scientific, religious and other communities. How is that being biased to summarize the support that exists?--Filll 03:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Why is this an "NPOV warning"? I don't think I've ever edited the article. FeloniousMonk 18:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution award

The Evolution Award
The purple plush Tiktaalik is hereby awarded to FeloniousMonk for efforts to dispel the yapping terriers of ignorance. Many thanks for your enormous effort over the years, dave souza, talk 22:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And for today's question, is there such a thing as intelligent trolling? Or is it completely unintentional? .. dave souza, talk 21:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Troll

I just reached the same conclusion. I was hoping he could be more productive like some other creationists and ID supporters, but now after about 5 attempts, I start to see him as more in the troll category. Sure he came up with one or two positive contributions. But they do not outweigh the incredible amount of trolling and irrationality.--Filll 18:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

These were simply unacceptable: [9], [10], [11], and [12] With a history of contributions like that, he's better suited to contributing at a blog or messageboard, not writing an encyclopedia. FeloniousMonk 18:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
What does it take to get this guy banned from any ID related articles? Mr Christopher 21:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
A community ban of some sort. Guettarda 21:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I was out of order or inaccurate in giving praise. The outcome is clear: he reacts disruptively to any response, whether praise or criticism. Not useful on a community project. .. dave souza, talk 22:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creation Science

"[T]here's zero effort on their part to actually *use* the scientific method to conduct actual science, but there has been to coopt it, turn it to another purpose" - FeloniousMonk

Perhaps you haven't quite calibrated as precisely as you think. See e.g.:[13][14][15][16][17][18][19] Dan Watts 22:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

None of which is accepted by the scientific community as actual science: "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science." Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences FeloniousMonk 02:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me for taking up your time and space. I should have realised that scientific research done by creationists is unacceptable/impossible/oxymoronic/wrong/nonexistant! Mea Culpa! How foolish of me! The NAS has spoken! No need to look at anything else. Dan Watts 03:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, what good are facts to someone with an ideological axe to grind? [20] FeloniousMonk 04:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Q.E.D. [21]Dan Watts 04:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, the creation science crowd didn't do so hot in Edwards v. Aguillard, so I would get your hopes up too much here. FeloniousMonk 04:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I hear the creationist didn't do to well in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District either. Mr Christopher 01:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Geo.plrd's advice to "Go to FreeRepublic and tell them"

Hello, FeloniousMonk. I was following some of the discussion at Raspor's talk page, and noted that User:Geo.plrd advised Raspor to take his dispute to an uninvolved community with political motivations (viz. Free Republic), which you disapproved of. I agree with you entirely that involving another community in POV debates or even Wikipedia debates in the larger sense is a poor idea. Advising someone to recruit offsite users who are probably disposed toward one way of thinking about a divisive issue like this appears to be a tremendously bad move, especially for someone who hopes to one day be granted administrator status on the project. I cannot help but think, though, that Raspor might do so anyway, given how easily he takes slight at any attempt to discuss anything from another POV with him. Is there anything beyond what you've already said that you would recommend in this case? Telling someone to go rally meatpuppets seems not only untactful but against the rules, in my opinion, meriting more serious attention than a gentle verbal warning. Just let me know, here or on my talk page. Thank you. --HassourZain 18:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I'm not sure what else to do since he's continuing along the same line even during his block. A permanent ban at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Raspor. I'm at the point where I think he's a hopeless case and what it left now is to stop the disruption. FeloniousMonk 19:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I've been doing everything I can to try to help the users understand what Wikipedia is for/about, but a lot of the time it feels like trying to bail water out of a ship using a dixie cup. I hope that the course of action can be set right before much more disruption is allowed to occur. If there's anything you think I could do to help, let me know; I'd be more than happy to do so. --HassourZain 19:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Your expertise about victim bullies is impressive. Tell me, doctor, why do I get this recurring feeling that I'm talking to an autistic child or an uncommonly brilliant troll? Should I cut down on eating cheese? .. dave souza, talk 22:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
As much as I try to assume good faith, his refusal to correct his wayward ways does leave me with a nagging suspicion that it might be someone trying to get under other editor's skin, and the fact that User:Philip J. Rayment is encouraging him on his talk page doesn't help either way. :( --HassourZain 15:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William A. Dembski

I'm not sure that I agree with your removal of the "video library" link from the EL section. All of the videos appear to be viewable for free. I am inclined to restore the link, unless you can convince me otherwise. - Crockspot 21:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be a commercial site; links were spammed to a dozen or so articles. It's iffy as an external link - looks like someone using Wikipedia to make money. Guettarda 21:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I added these "Video Library" links as I found this site to be the best free online video resource on intelligent design. Its free and non-commercial. I don't see any reason for their deletion. I have included them again and excpect that we respect each other's contribution. --Falcon007 00:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Moreover, I don't see any video or media resource links on main wikipedia intelligent design sites which would organize these resources for both sides. Being an economist I occasionaly add media links to different sites and have never seen any problem. --Falcon007 01:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helping?

On User talk:Raspor, you wrote:

Philip, I've known you since I first came to WP ...

Actually, to be pedantic, your first edit was four months before mine.

.. and I'll put it to you simply: You're not helping matters. Rants like your's only fan the flames.

As opposed to Mr Christopher calling him a vandal? Or you denying that he had made a valid point when he had?

If you can't contribute constructively in regards to Raspor, at please do not make the situation worse by encouraging him.

I believe that I was contributing constructively. I have several times given him advice, including telling him to not misuse your username. I know I wasn't the first to do that, but I thought that he might take more notice of me, being someone who was defending him. Wasn't that constructive?

I hesitated considerably before coming to his defence, because I'm not one to defend someone simply because they and I share some views (I can provide evidence of that), and because I don't want to look a fool for defending the indefensible. But with consideration, I decided that despite his flaws, the criticism he was getting appeared to me to be partly motivated by opposing ideology, and was not all valid. To put it in your words, you (that's a plural 'you') were not helping matters.

I stand by my so-called rant. You will note there that I acknowledge that you lot have good intentions, but it is also true that you are pushing an agenda, trying to impose what is in fact a POV on such articles, with a passion and zeal that would do any Christian proud. That is no less, and perhaps more, than Raspor was trying to do, although he is not so skilled at doing it.

You might also have noticed that even though I did it in a backhanded way, I actually tried to dissuade him from attempting to contribute to those articles.

Philip J. Rayment 05:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

On a minor technicality, surely Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam is public domain rather than fair use? ... dave souza, talk 23:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Hi. I just did a revert on some serious vandalism:

[[22]]

I'm not sure how to proceed with a slap on the hands for the user, so I know you're an Admin, so I thought maybe you could help us out. This kid seems to really need to be kicked out of Wikipedia, but maybe you can't. Orangemarlin 07:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This is stuff I'm still learning, but I've taken the liberty of putting suggestions on User talk:Orangemarlin#Vandalism. I've also commented here on what's shaping up to be a dangerous nuisance, in my opinion. Hope I'm wrong. .. dave souza, talk 10:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Whenever a vandal is persistent you should list it here: WP:AIV. I'll have a look at our friend. FeloniousMonk 16:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

I have replied on my talk page. Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 10:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:PA

Thanks for your message. I think my post [23] raised a substantive issue, and a very serious one at that. I've responded to your complaint here.[24] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by G-Dett (talk • contribs) 21:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] AMA question

Thanks for your recent question. However Steve is out of the office at this time. For a quicker response please leave Wikiwoohoo a message. Regards; Geo. 16:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Phyllis Schlafly

The category you restored, American Conservatives, is a subcategory of Conservatives. Thus, it is unnecessary. Rkevins82 04:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Rkevins82 19:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Center for Science and Culture

I noticed that you've added a couple of subject-edited-this-article tags to the top of the Center for Science and Culture's talk page. Is there a checkuser confirmation or other proof that backs up those tags — or a line of reasoning you could link me to? What little I could find on both the talk page itself and User talk:Truthologist was sparse, so I'm thinking that there must be some sort of discussion elsewhere. Thanks. Tijuana Brass 07:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Truthologist. As for User:216.163.84.151, that IP resolves to the Discovery Institute itself, [25], so checkuser was not necessary. FeloniousMonk 17:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. Thanks for sending it my way. As if the DI needed to do even more to set them at odds with the greater academic community. Tijuana Brass 20:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New message

Hi. I have responded to your post on my talk page: Rfwoolf.

You may delete this message once you have read it to save space or whatever the admins like to do. Rfwoolf 02:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] :-)

Hi! Thank you for working with me and reaching concensus here. I was planning to leave Wikipedia after that case. That changed my mind. If I left I would have missed out on much goodness in my life. Thank you for helping me learn the true spirit of Wikipedia. Have a Great Day :-) Take care, FloNight 18:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That we found a way to collaborate speaks far more about you than it does me. I learned more coming out of that than anyone, I think. And thanks for not taking my terse demeanor seriously; you see, I have no personality to speak of, and if haven't apologized for it yet, I am now. It's the people here like you, Guy, Jay, Ian, Sarah, Fred, Mark, Tracy, Josh, Jim, Scott and dozens of others that make all the frustration worthwhile. Thanks for being a good sport when it counted. FeloniousMonk 05:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Aww...my friend, what a sweet guy you are to say such things. :-) It's been a delight to get to know you and the folks you listed above. Looking forward to editing many more articles with you all. FloNight 00:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hi, FeloniousMonk. I dropped you an email asking for some advice this morning. I'm not sure how often you check the email associated with your WP account, but I just figured you should know. --HassourZain 17:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Everwill

Where did Everwill admit to being Raspor, please? Philip J. Rayment 03:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"I won't be surprised if I get blocked again or even if I get a lifetime ban again..." [26] FeloniousMonk 05:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I really don't see how that proves this is Raspor. For one, this user is far more intelligible than Raspor ever was. It does seem that this user may be evading a block, but I don't see that it's Raspor. I could, of course, be mistaken. -- Merope 07:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Everwill doesn't write like Raspor, and admitting to being a blocked user is not the same as admitting to being Raspor. That is an assumption which has been incorrectly presented as fact. Everwill admits to being User:70.108.89.17 who was blocked, but I can't find any discussion on why User:70.108.89.17 was blocked, beyond the block record saying that User:70.108.89.17 is Raspor. Is there any foundation for this earlier accusation? That Everwill typed "or even if I get a lifetime ban again" may have been a mistype and so is very weak evidence on which to base the conclusion that Everwill is Raspor. Philip J. Rayment 08:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
He might not be Raspor, but avoiding a ban means he should be banned. Can't this be easily resolved by checking the IP addresses of the various participants. I thought that was something that Wiki administrators were capable of doing? Would that not either confirm or deny one being a sockpuppet of the other?Orangemarlin 15:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
He should be banned for avoiding a ban that prevented him from disputing the ban and putting his case? Philip J. Rayment 04:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
"I won't be surprised if I get blocked again or even if I get a lifetime ban again..." [27] I'd like to know which lifetime ban he's refering to then, if not Raspor's. Seems a highly unlikely typo as well since he refers specifically to both a block and a ban and yet there's no evidence of either in this account's history. Very suspicious statement that has not been adequately explained. FeloniousMonk 17:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Everwill admitted to being user:70.177.180.111 who was banned, so that explains the first reference. Also, there is no indication that the ban on user:70.177.180.111 is temporary, so perhaps he was referring to that?
If he intended to write "I won't be surprised if I get blocked again or even if I get a lifetime ban instead" or even ""I won't be surprised if I get blocked again or even if I get a lifetime ban", it is not at all an unlikely typo to accidentally repeat the word "again" from the first phrase.
But the point is that this debacle has all the hallmarks of somebody being tried and convicted on the flimsiest of evidence. I see that SlimVirgin has now unblocked his account, presumably having concluded that he is not Raspor. He deserves apologies from all who falsely accused him.
Philip J. Rayment 04:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Um, User:70.177.180.111's block was for only 24 hrs: [28] And User:70.108.89.17's and User:71.166.165.104's blocks were each for a week: [29][30] So that shoots down your attempt to explain away that he was referring his own previous lifetime ban as an anon when he said "...or even if I get a lifetime ban again..." [31] Meaning we still do not have an answer to which lifetime ban he's refering to, and this needs to be explained before all suspicion is lifted. That he was wrongly accused is yet to proved. FeloniousMonk 05:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
When I said that "there is no indication that the ban on user:70.177.180.111 is temporary", I meant one that I could see, or that was obvious. If he couldn't clearly see that it was temporary, then he might have assumed that it was permanent. (However, I made a mistake above; I should have referred to the block on user:70.108.89.17.)
So not only is that explanation not shot down, and that was one of two explanations.
Perhaps that he was wrongly accused is yet to be proved, but that he was correctly accused also is yet to be proved, and the onus surely lies with his accusers to prove guilt, not with him or others to prove innocence.
Philip J. Rayment 09:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Philip, I haven't concluded anything about Everwill, except that I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. I suggest you leave it at that too. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I should just leave it at a person being accused of being Raspor, accused of being a troll, having their discussions on the ID talk page deleted, because some people here have reversed the onus of proof? Where's the justice in that? FeloniousMonk claimed that Everwill admitted to being Raspor, but that was false. Everwill doesn't write like Raspor and has provided credentials as to who is is, unlike Raspor. He reformatted one of his posts to make it readable, unlike Raspor. But he's accused of being Raspor on the basis of saying that he's had a lifetime ban before, which statement has other possible explanations, as I've pointed out. And the best that Wikipedia can do is "give him the benefit of the doubt"?? Philip J. Rayment 09:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Philip, I'm the admin who was dealing with it, and I have dealt with it. There was a reasonable suspicion that Everwill was a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Raspor. The issue was never resolved entirely, but Everwill has said he is not, and I decided to take him at his word. Nothing is gained by continuing to discuss it. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I reject that the suspicions were reasonable.
So you are prepared to take his word that he is not Raspor, and therefore that his accusers were wrong, but his discussion remains deleted and his accusers have not been chastised for making false accusations, or even accusations on insufficient evidence, let alone being asked to apologise.
But I expect that you are right about nothing being gained by continuing to discuss it. Minds are made up and no amount of logical argument or evidence will change that. The status quo is maintained, with yet another editor not toeing the line, chased off.
Philip J. Rayment 10:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Philip, you're writing as though Everwill behaved like a perfect angel, but he didn't, which is why he came to people's attention. He turned up out of the blue posting about the "juveniles who pretend to be editors on this article," which in itself is almost enough to get a new account blocked. There was therefore a completely reasonable suspicion that he was trying to cause trouble. But he and I talked, and it's dealt with and over, so please move on. I'm getting the impression that you're using it as a stick to beat FM with, and there's no point — I was the blocking admin, so you should confine your criticism to me, if you have to criticize anyone. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Philip, it appears that Everwill came into this conflict fully aware of the particulars, with both fists swinging. Based on his actions and statements it's rather absurd to claim that suspicions were not reasonable; his behavior was simply not normal for new editors. While, in the end, the evidence does not really support the view that he is Raspor, it was entirely reasonable to at least initially suspect that he was, or to suspect some sort of meatpuppetry. The block has now been lifted, and I believe the blocking admin has even apologized for the inconvenience; yet your near-harassment of FeloniousMonk for his entirely reasonable suspicions smacks of an entirely different agenda than the pursuit of "justice" on behalf of Everwill. Jayjg (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I had no intention of posting again, here, but as new accusations have been posted, I feel that I should.

Philip, you're writing as though Everwill behaved like a perfect angel, but he didn't, which is why he came to people's attention. He turned up out of the blue posting about the "juveniles who pretend to be editors on this article," ...

From my observation here, very few have behaved like perfect angels. Where did he post about "juveniles who pretend to be editors on this article,", because I've looked at what I believe are his first three posts in the ID talk page[32][33][34], and that comment is not there. I'm not disputing that he might have done it later, after being provoked, but to suggest that he started off like that is incorrect, unless there's earlier posts that I haven't found.

I'm getting the impression that you're using it as a stick to beat FM with, and there's no point — I was the blocking admin, so you should confine your criticism to me, if you have to criticize anyone.

I'm not trying to pick on any individual, but I have mentioned that his discussions on the ID talk page (some of them at least) remain deleted. The were deleted by FeloniousMonk with the comments, "All comments from Everwill have been removed since he has admitted to being a sockpuppet of permanently banned editor Raspor. " This has been shown to be false in that he did not admit to being Raspor, and the grounds for his comments being censored are therefore invalid.

I disagree with Jayig's comments regarding Everwill's initial behaviour. Yes, he came straight in with some strong criticism of the article, but beyond that there was nothing to be suspicious of. As for my agenda, it is to rein in the strong anti-ID (and anti-creationist) POV that pervades the ID/creationism articles. Everwill's initial comments on this (see the first reference in this post) are entirely valid, in my opinion, and I see that as the root of the problem. Not only can I see the problem, Everwill as a newcomer and not an ID proponent could see the problem, Raspor, for all his faults could see the problem, and others have seen the problem. But dare to argue such and you will be met with a wall of resistance with an anti-ID agenda, and denigration and put-downs to the point where most victims lash out, and are consequently blocked. I think it was Raspor who claimed that all pro-ID editors had been "chased off", and Filll tried to refute that by naming one who hadn't been. The problem was that the editor Filll mentioned had been there about a week, and had not posted for longer than that! So much for that refutation! I believe that I could actually name a couple of better candidates, but I think the fact remains that most editors who are not toeing the anti-ID line are shouted down, denigrated, "chased off", banned, or otherwise find that it is just not worth the effort. That is the concern behind my "agenda".

Philip J. Rayment 02:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I was reading through this section and felt that I should speak up. It is worth noting that Everwill piped up almost immediately after Raspor's first account was blocked, that he admitted to having been previously given a "lifetime block", went on to bandy accusations at other editors (e.g. calling them a group of adolescents), and went on to suggest that he would use further sockpuppets to evade the block already imposed. The last three, as was mentioned above, would be strong grounds for blocking. Additionally, Raspor, in various moments, appeared to be capable of typing clearly and on that account may very well have been here to troll, when taken into account with his absolute refusal to listen to advice from those trying to look out for him.
All that aside, though, it bears saying that I don't believe people whose personal beliefs happen to be in favor of ID are being shouted down. The problem is that many of them are inexperienced editors who are unfamiliar with process and ways of corresponding with other editors, particularly concerning ID's popular or academic support. These factors compound to make them a group that naturally causes some trouble when introduced into a group of articles surrounding a controversial subject like this. Further, Raspor (at least in my view) exploited other editors' willingness to try to help him understand what the purpose of Wikipedia is, how to get along, and some of the fundamental rules of editing. Playing to their (and my) desire to see him flourish as an editor, he managed to string several editors along until a group of editors saw him either as unwilling to understand, unable to change, or willfully disrupting discussion. This case of blocking is not symptomatic of a group of editors being repressed, but rather one user attempting to spread that very image, and it is in that context that this blocking must be viewed. --HassourZain 15:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Looking over admin SlimVirgin's recent unblocking of EverWill, it appears that he must have been able to present some compelling evidence that the two users are not the same. I still have some concern over how close to Raspor's blocking Everwill registered, and while I still feel taken advantage of by Raspor, I no longer believe that the two are the same user. I wouldn't be opposed to a Checkuser being used to confirm this, but I hope no further problems arise surrounding Everwill. --HassourZain 20:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I can understand that a new editor arriving just after one was blocked can make one suspicious, but suspicion is insufficient to pass judgement, and a closer look should have shown that the suspicion had little basis.
Some of the editors are inexperienced, but that doesn't account for all of them. It was not just Raspor "attempting to spread that very image"; I've had similar comments about the bias at least on my user page for a couple of years, and others have made similar comments. I don't believe that there is a conspiracy to drive off such editors, so I would not expect each non-anti-ID editor to be treated the same, but any new editors (new to ID or similar topics) will see the bias, lament it, and be met with a barrage of comments about how ID is wrong, they don't understand NPOV, OR, etc., all of which completely misses the point that the articles are biased! The new editor, faced with this barrage of protection of a biased article and accusations that he doesn't know what he is talking about or understand Wikipedia policy (which is clearly false in some cases), will simply give up and leave, or argue back, sometimes with incivility (especially if he experienced incivility from the protectors) or at least firm language, etc. In some cases they will end up being blocked or banned. Being blocked or banned is probably the exception, and giving up against the anti-ID brigade is probably the norm, but driven off they are. Or perhaps you can provide a list of editors of ID and creation-related articles who are arguing that the articles are too biased against the topic they are supposed to be explaining, and who have been around these articles for, say, a few months, and are still actively involved. I wonder how long that list of names would be. As I mentioned above, the one name that Filll put forward didn't amount to anything.
I can appreciate that editors who have worked on such articles for some time and have debated with opposing views over and over don't like having to repeat the same arguments over and over. So their reaction is, to some extent, understandable. But at the same time, the number of people who comment that the articles are biased, plus that virtually all the regular editors clearly have an anti-ID view, strongly suggests that something is wrong.
Philip J. Rayment 02:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there is some cause for concern regarding POV in articles surrounding subjects that are considered pseudoscience by the scientific mainstream. Additionally, in this case distinguishing between bias in the articles and examples in which editors come to an article with an intent to set a different "point of neutrality" (from both sides of the fence) can be very difficult. In my personal opinion, in observing the page, I see that many editors are inclined to put the point of view of the academic world closer to what they consider "neutral" than some others. However, I do think that at the same time, some editors who assert that there is a bias against Intelligent Design or Creationism in the articlespace have often arrived at the articles either with a fundamental misunderstanding about what the project is about, or an agenda apart from improving the encyclopedia. The unfortunate part about the entire affair is that information is being itself made into a place to fight (a malady common to modern society). In this respect, though, I think editors who have come to you to talk about that subject may offer you a statistically biased sample of what the wider evaluation of the articles' tone is. I don't know how valuable any of these ideas are, but it seemed appropriate to offer some food for thought. --HassourZain 18:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately I'm having trouble understanding everything you are saying there. You are probably right about some editors not understanding what the article is about or having other agendas, but I don't believe that you can dismiss all disagreement that way. And what is the article about anyway? About Intelligent Design, or about opposition to Intelligent Design? That's the issue that a number of editors have complained about, with the amount of space given to the opposition. I would love to see an objective comparison of a large-enough sample of articles. I'm convinced that such a comparison would show the bias, as a few ad hoc comparisons have already shown. I wish I had the time myself. Philip J. Rayment 22:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for not stating what I was saying more clearly. The points I was trying to make were (1) that articles about a subject of major contention should portray the subject both fairly and reflect the contention (particularly when the subject itself is a contention to thought nearly universally accepted in the academic world), (2) that reflection of this style should not be confused with article bias, (3) that aberrant incidents involving users that do not have improving the Wikipedia in mind should not be mistaken for widespread objection to the current consideration of neutrality. I'm certainly not trying to dismiss any arguments about neutrality in the article. One thing that I would be curious about is your objective comparison of articles- there are few topics in the academic and political world that are so uproarious as this one, particularly in the contemporary setting. As such I can think of few useful comparisons to make, which would be a concern with that sort of comparison. --HassourZain 16:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User: Everwill and Raspor

Felonious, what, precisely, makes you believe that this user Raspor? I looked at the evidence of this user's supposed confession, but I can't see what exactly indicates this user is Raspor. I received an e-mail from the user asking about his block and, from the limited evidence available, I can't see anything that conclusively proves this is the same user. Diffs would be helpful. Cheers, -- Merope 07:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Merope, I'm currently in e-mail contact with Everwill to see whether he can clarify what he was doing on the ID talk page. As things stand, the Everwill account appears to be either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Raspor. I'd particularly like to know which previous "lifetime" ban Everwill was talking about. I'm also concerned that he said he had been editing Wikipedia for months but has so far been unable to produce any evidence to that effect. However, I'm continuing to talk to him in case that changes. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commentary on my talk page

"Edit summaries like these and the partisan behavior that's come with them are unacceptable. Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE, and Help:Edit summary, and reconsider your method of interacting with others here. FeloniousMonk 16:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)" Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Getaway"

I'm not changing the way that I do anything.--Getaway 17:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. Wikipedians are enjoined to resolve conflicts, not create or inflame them. You'll likely find your stance causing you problems moving forward and your ignoring of a warning compounding the issue. FeloniousMonk 17:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
That comment sounds like a threat and there is a clear rule that in Wikipedia there should not be any threats. I hope you aren't threatening me, even though it clearly sounds that way to me.--Getaway 17:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
FM is an administrator, who's just doing his job. You aren't. He's not threatening. You're, well, I don't want to violate any Wiki-code. Yeah, I'm a liberal. Orangemarlin 18:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion Orangemarlin, but it clearly is a threat. And your comment, where you interjecting your opinion in a discussion between me and FM seems to be designed to, as FM states, "create or inflame" a conflict. This whole discussion has been enlightening.--Getaway 18:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Why would I create a conflict with you? I've been the target of FM's policing of articles, and I learned by it. I hope that I am a better editor because he spent a few minutes showing me some key points, such as NPOV. FM is rather blunt, probably because the articles he polices attract trolls. As for you, you seem to not care about the culture around here. And by the way, there are many of us who believe that Wikipedia has a Christian/fundamentalist agenda. Interesting, isn't it? Orangemarlin 18:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I was appealing to your sense of self-interest since it is clear you lack any concern over how your edit summaries affect your fellow contributors or align with WP:CIVIL. I thought this approach would have more powerful appeal to you since appealing your sense of decency appeared out of the question and you seem likely to end up in WP:DR considering your willingness to insult others, flout the policies and ignore warnings. Please, prove to me I was wrong. FeloniousMonk 18:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Now, do you feel morally superior to me now that you have given me another lecture?--Getaway 21:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] help

Would you bee kind to add this to your watch list : [35] to guard against rece3nt vandalaims ? Tnx. Zeq 06:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)