User talk:Hrafn: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 07:13, 12 July 2008 editDannyMuse (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users2,502 edits →Wild Accusations ← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:20, 12 July 2008 edit undoHrafn (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users40,179 edits →Wild Accusations: get it right the first timeNext edit →
Line 142:		Line 142:
	:"Reverting TalkPage appeals to dialogue is really inappropriate." & "And, please do NOT delete my talk page entries." -- when all I did was move your comments to the ''correct'' place for new threads. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 05:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)		:"Reverting TalkPage appeals to dialogue is really inappropriate." & "And, please do NOT delete my talk page entries." -- when all I did was move your comments to the ''correct'' place for new threads. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 05:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
	::You made the above point several times both on my talk page and on the DB talk page. I apologized for my mistake. Did you notice? The horse is dead so it won't mind you beating it. But, just so you know, I don't respond well to bullying. - ] (]) 07:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)		::You made the above point several times both on my talk page and on the DB talk page. I apologized for my mistake. Did you notice? The horse is dead so it won't mind you beating it. But, just so you know, I don't respond well to bullying. - ] (]) 07:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
			:::If you don't want people repeating things at you, then stop being so clueless as to talkpage guidelines and what other people's edits are actually doing. Your careless, clueless style makes dealing with you a far greater hassle than it needs to be. If you want people to stop 'flogging the dead horse' then '''get it right the first time, not the ''fourth'''''. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 07:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:20, 12 July 2008

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

New threads belong at the bottom of talk pages (pressing the 'new section' link at the top, or here, will do this automatically for you). I reserve the right to summarily remove (without responding, and possibly even without reading) any new threads placed here at the top of this talk page.

Evolution Theology

Please educate me, Hrafn, if you will. I don't want to remain ignorant and I respect your experience using wikipedia. My experience is limited, as I'm sure you know. Why is the Wired article that references Evolution Theology not appropriate as an external link? Is it because I also included it on the talk page for Evolution Theology? I don't understand. MBDowd (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

New threads belong at the bottom of talkpages.
Do not edit articles on which you have a WP:COI.
Read WP:EL. It makes the point that "Misplaced Pages's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic", and then lists criteria, at WP:EL#What should be linked as to what is appropriate.

Hrafn_Stalk 05:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Most helpful. Sorry about putting this at the top of your talkpage. I'm moving it to the bottom. MBDowd (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Apology

Thanks for taking the time to educate me, Hrafn. Sorry I did not even see your note to me at the top before I edited your talk page. I seem to go from one mistake to another. When I read the pages you directed me to, l saw what an ignorant fool I was for creating and editing pages as I did. Thanks, again. MBDowd (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You didn't see it because it previously wasn't there. After a spat of editors doing the same thing, I decided to put a notice up. Also, as I archived all the older threads shortly after you posted, it is now legitimately at the top (seemed to make more sense than to move it, when I was meaning to archive the older stuff anyway). Cheers. Hrafn_Stalk 18:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope the idiot-proofing worked

There is no need to be smug. The article Angel should discuss the concept of the Fallen Angel in Christian mythology. The editing history of the former article is filled with a bunch of entries being undone at your hand. Also, I asked YOU specifically if you felt you were the magic guardian of the article, that's why I responded on your user talk page. 98.221.133.96 (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

...also, to simply label someone an idiot and ignore them flat out for challenging your actions isn't admirable. In fact, it's downright "unwikipedian." 98.221.133.96 (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

My response to you is the same as my response to anybody else wanting to introduce new material into any article: find a WP:RS. And the appropriate place to discuss this sort of thing is Talk:Angel, not my user talk. Wrong place on wrong page, to talk about something to which the solution is in your hands -- yes, I simply deleted your comment the first time around. Life's too short. Hrafn_Stalk 15:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I hope there's no hostility or ill feelings. I went to your specific discussion page to discuss your undoing of my entry. I understand the need for verifiable sources and research. Nonetheless, Misplaced Pages itself has an article on fallen angels. Perhaps a paragraph was a bit much, but a simple statement that would mention the concept and link to the said article from the article on angels is, in my opinion, valid. Unless of course the article Fallen Angel is itself not valid, in which case it should be deleted. Again, not to add original research or unresearched claims, I think that since an article on the said topic does indeed exist, it wouldn't be inappropriate to address the concept briefly and add a link to the page which does follow Misplaced Pages guidelines. I'll add this to the discussion page on angels as well.

The Fallen angel article is very badly sourced -- just two general references to two different versions of the Catholic Encyclopaedia. Anything contained in it would therefore need sourcing from scratch before being added to another article. At some stage, some editor is going to have to go through Fallen angel and work out what isn't sourcable to those encyclopaedias -- but that's a fairly large and thankless task. Hrafn_Stalk 04:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, and this is a serious question not meant to be provocative, in your opinion, what is "appropriate" conversation matter for a user's discussion page? 98.221.133.96 (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Anything unrelated to specific changes to a single article. Hrafn_Stalk 04:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Unification Church articles

I've just nominated several Unification Church related articles for deletion: Michael Jenkins (Unification Church), Andrew Wilson (theologian)‎, Robert Parry, Tyler Hendricks‎, and True Children.Northwestgnome (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette

Just a friendly notice as wikiquette procedure requests. I've posted a request to get third party perspective on our Relationship between science and relgion article interactions at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Firefly322: Given that you have:

Made material misinterpretations ("Not at all a minority viewpoint") of edits that you have made ("A few yet significant number of scholars");
Made accusations of "POV", "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" & "WP:TRUTH" being the basis for my editing;
Repeatedly removed legitimate maintenance tags; and
Repeatedly accused me of being a "WP:TROLL" ...

...I have no hesitation but to tell you to stick this GROSSLY BAD-FAITH AND WP:POT "friendly notice" where the sun doesn't shine.

I would suggest any editor looking for the basis of this conflict look at articles that Firefly322 has created:

Religious Experience (book)‎ (which another editor has placed ] on)
Science and Religion in American Thought
Science & Religion: A Symposium‎

These articles are not merely WP:IMPERFECT (a policy that Firefly322 continually invokes to cover a wide range of gross deficiencies), but simply template:cleanup-laundry-lists of template:quotefarms of reviews -- and I would so template them, if not for the fact that this editor would simply remove those templates too. Hrafn_Stalk 04:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hállo

Ertu frá Íslendingur? .:DavuMaya:. 07:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, merely appreciative of the common, Germanic, roots of many words -- including "raven" :) Hrafn_Stalk 07:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

God luck on intelligent design. Not even the voice of uninvolved reason, muah, has made much progress in organizing the debate to WP standards. If I were to choose a word that might best fit the scenario presented it would be megalomania. I'm refraining from it. It's too divisive and virulent, you'll need at least two administrators to arbitrate Consensus. .:davumaya:. 20:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A small request

Hi Hrafn, our paths have never crossed, so please excuse this intrusion. Would you reconsider the use of the word "stalk" in your signature line? There are some editors here who have had real-life experience with being stalked as a result of their work here at Misplaced Pages, and some of them find it offensive to see that word used in a casual or humorous manner. It's just a suggestion, made after I asked another editor a similar favour and he did some research to see how many other talk/stalk signature lines were in use on Misplaced Pages. Feel free to contact me if you are concerned about this request. Thanks, Risker (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"in response to" "avoid" "completely"

I have made a substantial alteration to section 33: first paragraph -- "avoid" to become ID "completely reformulated"..."in response to"

It is intended to reflect your input as well as that of others -- your continuing attention would be appreciated

--Championdante (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

ID conversations

Gnixon, I responded to your initial comment & really have nothing more to say to you on the subject -- if you want to get into a slanging match with other ID regulars (a singularly foolish endeavour IMHO), kindly do so somewhere else
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hrafn, I'd appreciate if you would resist the temptation to engage in rhetorical flourishes like "WP:CRAZY" and "Wonder of wonders." I'm sure you know that I wasn't suggesting "if it's not crazy to do so, do it anyway," and your latter comment could have made its point just as well without "wonder of wonders." Even if we disagree, I think we should try hard to keep the thermostat turned down, as PM has put it. Gnixon (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC) And I'd appreciate it if you did not give spurious arguments that make such "rhetorical flourishes" necessary. You were the one who brought up "not crazy to do so". And if you didn't dodge actually applying any definition of "theory" like it was a hail of bullets, I wouldn't get to the level of exasperation that leads to prefixing "wonder of wonders" onto a comment. Hrafn_Stalk 18:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC) A better response to "spurious arguments" is a levelheaded debunking of them, rather than rhetoric. "Not crazy to do so" was an attempt by me to find some common ground with you. If you would try to reciprocate, we might be able to make some progress. As you're well aware, there was no "dodging"---I pointed out at least 4 definitions of "theory" that applied. Regardless of whatever level of exasperation you've taken me to, I've tried very hard to avoid venting it on the talk page. I wish you would extend me the same courtesy. Gnixon (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Others attempted to find common ground by finding a less ambiguous term than the word "theory". You've decided to ignore that and are continuing to push "theory" after it has been explained repeatedly why it is unacceptable. It would be helpful if you extended some courtesy to those actually working for a compromise instead of ignoring the attempt. Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC) AE, that's not even close to an accurate description of the history. I agree with PM's 16:40 summary of the previous discussion, which was not reopened by me. I'm anxious to find a solution that is acceptable to everyone, which is why, for example, I agreed with Hrafn that the quote in the first sentence doesn't define "intelligent design theory," arguing that we should rephrase the sentence entirely rather than attempt to salvage a non-definition. Gnixon (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Please don't accuse me of falsely portraying the talkpage without evidence. Others are working to find a solution. The word "theory" has been rejected as an acceptable compromise. You continued to promote the word despite that. How is this a misrepresentation? Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC) I was accusing you of wrongly portraying the talkpage, which you're still doing. The straw man "scientific theory" has been rejected, but I and others maintained throughout the discussion that "theory" might be acceptable since it was commonly used by most sources. Anyway, I certainly wasn't "promoting" the word, since I said it might not be best to use it; rather others were promoting the banning of the word as fundamentally inaccurate, even after, as PM summarized, that would run counter to the sources. You've misrepresented that I reopened the discussion about "theory," you've misrepresented that I'm "pushing" for its use, and you've misrepresented that I'm not working for a compromise. Gnixon (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC) No, I wasn't referring to the straw man "scientific theory." The word "theory" itself is not acceptable to the majority of users. This has been determined. I was referring to an ambiguous term "theory", not a false term "scientific theory." And if you weren't arguing for the use of the word "theory" here and here? what was the point? You maintained the word "might" be acceptable to three users; problem is, it was not at all acceptable to more than twice that number, shown in a big chart for all to see. (BTW, there is either using a word, or not using it. No sense referring to "banning" except in order to make the other side look extreme) It was obvious the word was not a compromise word. So why won't you focus on one that would be? There are several to choose from. Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC) I really don't appreciate these repeated attempts to pronounce discussions closed based on the fact that a "majority" feels one way or another. That's not how we do things here. There is an ongoing discussion about whether "theory" should be used, including a long thread started by the owner of this page. None of the several alternatives to "theory" seems to be a good substitution for "X" in the proposed formula; nor does "theory." This is why I'm becoming more convinced that a complete reworking of that first sentence is needed. It would be much more productive to continue such discussions as reasonable people, rather than attempting to short-circuit them by declaring some consensus that doesn't exist. Gnixon (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC) But that is how things are done at Misplaced Pages, particularly on controversial topics. I suggest you get used to and stop badgering and tying up the talk page with never ending objections and proposals that fail to meet the basic minimum required by the content policys. Whether ID is a "theory" is one such discussion. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC) As an administrator, you should be aware of the fact that "things" are supposed to be done by discussion and consensus. If you would have paid attention to the theory discussion, you would have seen that it established, apparently for the first time, that reliable sources have no problem referring to ID with the word "theory," although they certainly object to the implication that it is a scientific theory. Ensuing discussions, notably one begun by Hrafn, have drawn attention to the fact that the first sentence of the article doesn't constitute a very good definition of ID. I would have thought you were up to speed on the recent "theory" discussion since you recently archived it. Gnixon (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC) By the way, you've just prompted me to look back at the "theory" discussion, which you never participated in, and I'm surprised you've decided that I was badgering anyone. Rather, I and several others were having a rather productive conversation. The only exception, and the user you should be shaking your finger at, was User:Odd nature, who provided no citations, made no effort to advance the discussion, and was rude to the point of name-calling ("slippery"). Why don't you go call him to task, or at least invite him to join this discussion? Gnixon (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC) No offense, but this starts to look like an example of WP:BAIT.--Filll (talk \| wpc) 14:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Gnixon, I responded to your initial comment & really have nothing more to say to you on the subject -- if you want to get into a slanging match with other ID regulars (a singularly foolish endeavour IMHO), kindly do so somewhere else

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hrafn, I'd appreciate if you would resist the temptation to engage in rhetorical flourishes like "WP:CRAZY" and "Wonder of wonders." I'm sure you know that I wasn't suggesting "if it's not crazy to do so, do it anyway," and your latter comment could have made its point just as well without "wonder of wonders." Even if we disagree, I think we should try hard to keep the thermostat turned down, as PM has put it. Gnixon (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And I'd appreciate it if you did not give spurious arguments that make such "rhetorical flourishes" necessary. You were the one who brought up "not crazy to do so". And if you didn't dodge actually applying any definition of "theory" like it was a hail of bullets, I wouldn't get to the level of exasperation that leads to prefixing "wonder of wonders" onto a comment. Hrafn_Stalk 18:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A better response to "spurious arguments" is a levelheaded debunking of them, rather than rhetoric. "Not crazy to do so" was an attempt by me to find some common ground with you. If you would try to reciprocate, we might be able to make some progress. As you're well aware, there was no "dodging"---I pointed out at least 4 definitions of "theory" that applied. Regardless of whatever level of exasperation you've taken me to, I've tried very hard to avoid venting it on the talk page. I wish you would extend me the same courtesy. Gnixon (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Others attempted to find common ground by finding a less ambiguous term than the word "theory". You've decided to ignore that and are continuing to push "theory" after it has been explained repeatedly why it is unacceptable. It would be helpful if you extended some courtesy to those actually working for a compromise instead of ignoring the attempt. Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

AE, that's not even close to an accurate description of the history. I agree with PM's 16:40 summary of the previous discussion, which was not reopened by me. I'm anxious to find a solution that is acceptable to everyone, which is why, for example, I agreed with Hrafn that the quote in the first sentence doesn't define "intelligent design theory," arguing that we should rephrase the sentence entirely rather than attempt to salvage a non-definition. Gnixon (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of falsely portraying the talkpage without evidence. Others are working to find a solution. The word "theory" has been rejected as an acceptable compromise. You continued to promote the word despite that. How is this a misrepresentation? Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I was accusing you of wrongly portraying the talkpage, which you're still doing. The straw man "scientific theory" has been rejected, but I and others maintained throughout the discussion that "theory" might be acceptable since it was commonly used by most sources. Anyway, I certainly wasn't "promoting" the word, since I said it might not be best to use it; rather others were promoting the banning of the word as fundamentally inaccurate, even after, as PM summarized, that would run counter to the sources. You've misrepresented that I reopened the discussion about "theory," you've misrepresented that I'm "pushing" for its use, and you've misrepresented that I'm not working for a compromise. Gnixon (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I wasn't referring to the straw man "scientific theory." The word "theory" itself is not acceptable to the majority of users. This has been determined. I was referring to an ambiguous term "theory", not a false term "scientific theory." And if you weren't arguing for the use of the word "theory" here and here? what was the point? You maintained the word "might" be acceptable to three users; problem is, it was not at all acceptable to more than twice that number, shown in a big chart for all to see. (BTW, there is either using a word, or not using it. No sense referring to "banning" except in order to make the other side look extreme) It was obvious the word was not a compromise word. So why won't you focus on one that would be? There are several to choose from. Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I really don't appreciate these repeated attempts to pronounce discussions closed based on the fact that a "majority" feels one way or another. That's not how we do things here. There is an ongoing discussion about whether "theory" should be used, including a long thread started by the owner of this page. None of the several alternatives to "theory" seems to be a good substitution for "X" in the proposed formula; nor does "theory." This is why I'm becoming more convinced that a complete reworking of that first sentence is needed. It would be much more productive to continue such discussions as reasonable people, rather than attempting to short-circuit them by declaring some consensus that doesn't exist. Gnixon (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

But that is how things are done at Misplaced Pages, particularly on controversial topics. I suggest you get used to and stop badgering and tying up the talk page with never ending objections and proposals that fail to meet the basic minimum required by the content policys. Whether ID is a "theory" is one such discussion. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As an administrator, you should be aware of the fact that "things" are supposed to be done by discussion and consensus. If you would have paid attention to the theory discussion, you would have seen that it established, apparently for the first time, that reliable sources have no problem referring to ID with the word "theory," although they certainly object to the implication that it is a scientific theory. Ensuing discussions, notably one begun by Hrafn, have drawn attention to the fact that the first sentence of the article doesn't constitute a very good definition of ID. I would have thought you were up to speed on the recent "theory" discussion since you recently archived it. Gnixon (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you've just prompted me to look back at the "theory" discussion, which you never participated in, and I'm surprised you've decided that I was badgering anyone. Rather, I and several others were having a rather productive conversation. The only exception, and the user you should be shaking your finger at, was User:Odd nature, who provided no citations, made no effort to advance the discussion, and was rude to the point of name-calling ("slippery"). Why don't you go call him to task, or at least invite him to join this discussion? Gnixon (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but this starts to look like an example of WP:BAIT.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Science of Getting Rich audio link

The audio link was provided for those who don't have the time to read the PDF version or to be provided for those who may be sight impaired by others who have access to the internet. The audio at Archive.org is open source and free for all. It was not excessive or redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.2.31.36 (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:EL: "Misplaced Pages's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic." Anybody who is sight-impaired who is using the internet will almost certainly have some sort of text→speech system working in any case. Hrafn_Stalk 16:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

How many?

I think I have my net spread pretty wide, but I still don't think there's a page on my watchlist (~~445~~ 446 pgs) that hasn't your name listed in the history before I ever got there.

So, just curious, if I may ask: how many pages do you have on your list? Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Just shy of 400 (398) -- but a fair number of them are redirects (of previous not-notable/unsourced articles, which I keep an eye on to ensure that they're not turned back into an article without sourcing and establishment of notability). Hrafn_Stalk 05:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Dang, never thought about redirects...heh. Oh well, I have plenty, in fact, going to go cut out some of the "cruft" of my list... :P Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Creation Science

Thanks for the revert. I didn't read the listed references carefully (or perhaps not much beyond the last one). It is better the way it is now. Dan Watts (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Hi Hrafn. I've just nominated Belvedere Estate (New York) for deletion. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Bold removal

Hi, I liked this change. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wild Accusations

Hrafn, could you please explain to me what exactly is the "wild accusations" I threw your way? DannyMuse (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"Reverting TalkPage appeals to dialogue is really inappropriate." & "And, please do NOT delete my talk page entries." -- when all I did was move your comments to the correct place for new threads. Hrafn_Stalk 05:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You made the above point several times both on my talk page and on the DB talk page. I apologized for my mistake. Did you notice? The horse is dead so it won't mind you beating it. But, just so you know, I don't respond well to bullying. - DannyMuse (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want people repeating things at you, then stop being so clueless as to talkpage guidelines and what other people's edits are actually doing. Your careless, clueless style makes dealing with you a far greater hassle than it needs to be. If you want people to stop 'flogging the dead horse' then get it right the first time, not the fourth. Hrafn_Stalk 07:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)