User talk:Fritleyfrisp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Fritleyfrisp, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! .. dave souza, talk 00:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] They will hate you for speaking the truth.

Some tips...

Some will attempt to bamboozle you with wiki policies, guidelines, and red herrings (or orange marlins, as the case may be). Remain polite, even when you recognize that the rules you're being clubbed with are routinely violated by those accusing you of violating rules.

Second, contribute to more articles than one. This will avoid "single purpose" account accusations.

Speak the truth, expect hostility, and turn the other cheek. They will hate you for speaking the truth. Good luck. Pernicious Swarm (talk) 04:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No-one's going to "hate you for speaking the truth", just don't expect revealed Truth to be accepted without verification (see WP:V) from reliable sources (WP:RS). The best way forward is often to present proposed improvements complete with sources backing up the point, taking care to avoid going beyond the sources – see WP:NOR. You've already come across the idea of neutral point of view, remember that's aimed at presenting various viewpoints proportionately, avoiding giving undue weight to ideas considered fringe by experts on the field. That may seem hard on pseudoscience, but Wikipedia has to be led by verifiable evidence. All the best, dave souza, talk 09:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys, thanks for your messages. I'm concerned that a one sided view of the debate is being presented. The scientific merits of creationism are not in dispute in the academic community but an article documenting the facts of the controversy is not the appropriate place to express this as it gives undue bias. Oh my, I feel like I've typed this so many times I'm going to go blind. Thanks for the tips and I will try to stay sharpFritleyfrisp (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Dave, a nice guy, plays good cop. But of course reliable sources are dismissed in favour of Panda's Thumb on the article in question. Whatever you say, most of the contributors and admins on that article (and Dave seems to be shifting toward that dark side), will just hear "creationist, creationist, creationist". They are blinded by their mission, which, they think, is to present science as the good guys in an article about a dispute involving scientists. Pernicious Swarm (talk) 12:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
No, actually Dave is just Dave; no one's playing good or bad cop. His comment re "revealed truth" should give you an idea of the hurdles that WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and undue weight present and in fact must present for the inckusion of "facts" into articles.
Fritley, I'm afraid I'm missing your point here, what are you trying to say? "The scientific merits of creationism are not in dispute in the academic community but an article documenting the facts of the controversy is not the appropriate place to express this as it gives undue bias". •Jim62sch• 19:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are missing my point. I am suggesting that the scientific community does not hold any regard for creationism so why, in an article about the controversy, are we defending evolution against creationist beliefs? for example, why do we need to section on transitional fossils to say that the creationist viewpoint is based on a misunderstanding? THAT is bias...THAT is the evolutionist's viewpoint...so the brawn wins it. It is inappropriate in this article. Fritleyfrisp (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You might want to look at undue weight for reasons why the creationist theories/stories/myths etc., are treated as they are.
Why should science hold any regard for creationism? If one is to accord creationism any validity on first has to adopt a belief in a supernatural being: This is outside the realm of science and belongs in the realm of religion. Hence, no true scientist will consider creationism to be of any scientific value -- quite appropriately too. Creationism = religion, religion ≠ science. It's really that simple. •Jim62sch• 23:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

What the hell? Here's a warning.

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Bradford Christian School. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Blatant vandalism, that you admit is vandalism, is very, very blockable and means your contributions will not be taken seriously by other editors. There is no real need to assume good faith when another editor admits to vandalism. WLU (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, as you saw, I was already told about this.Fritleyfrisp (talk) 09:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [1] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)