| Revision as of 02:01, 5 January 2009 editAmerican Eagle (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers9,511 edits →Note: call it what you want, I wasn't editing in bad faith← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:20, 5 January 2009 edit undoHrafn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users40,179 edits →Note: More bad faithNext edit → | ||
| Line 170: | Line 170: | ||
| :::"Ludicrous" = ] = bad faith. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 01:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | :::"Ludicrous" = ] = bad faith. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 01:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::Again, it was not in bad faith, even though you call it "tendentious" and "ludicrous." To me (and perhaps I go against policy on this), notability can be established without sources, as long as it is verifiable. That is, articles may be notable if there is sources online or offline, even if there are few or no current sources. If it is not sourceable, then sure, it is probably a hoax as well. My thought was that you had copied ] and left "notable" in, perhaps by accident. The article is not only verifiable, but is in almost anyone's book notable. My edit was not "tendentious", "ludicrous," or in bad faith. '''] ] (])''' 02:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | ::Again, it was not in bad faith, even though you call it "tendentious" and "ludicrous." To me (and perhaps I go against policy on this), notability can be established without sources, as long as it is verifiable. That is, articles may be notable if there is sources online or offline, even if there are few or no current sources. If it is not sourceable, then sure, it is probably a hoax as well. My thought was that you had copied ] and left "notable" in, perhaps by accident. The article is not only verifiable, but is in almost anyone's book notable. My edit was not "tendentious", "ludicrous," or in bad faith. '''] ] (])''' 02:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
| #Please read the notability guidelines. Please find one that states a form of notability that does not rely upon information from reliable third party sources. | |||
| #Information without sources '''is not verifiable!''' It is the ] of the editor asserting notability to provide sources, not to simply waffle vaguely that there's a possibility that such sources ''may be out there somewhere''. This article lacks sources for the vast majority of its content so '''it is not verifiable''' -- whatever ''ludicrous'', '''tendentious''', '''BAD FAITH''' hand-waving you may make to the contrary. | |||
| #Likewise your hypothesis that "had copied ] and left "notable" in, perhaps by accident" is ludicrous (etc). I omitted the tags either side of 'notable' ('newsrelease', 'onesource'), so there is no reason any ''reasonable'' editor would take this view. | |||
| This is simply the last in a long line of '''bad faith''' posts, here and elsewhere. You have ''zero credibility'' with me. Therefore any further posts you make here may (and most probably will) be reverted or deleted without comment (and most probably without being read). <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 02:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:20, 5 January 2009
SEMI-RETIRED This user is no longer very active on Misplaced Pages as of December 2008.
 Archives |
Proposed deletion of List of people and organisations in the Christian right
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of people and organisations in the Christian right, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. —Danorton (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
About Firefly322 (talk · contribs) and other topics
Hrafn, we need you back. Firefly's attitude and personal attacks were addressed recently, and he was blocked for an extended period of time. I assume any further signs of bad faith or personal attacks or uncivil behavior will result in a very long time-out. I have been watching new articles, and if I see ones from him, I review them for NPOV and writing. Not to get off on a tangent, but his writing skills are not at the level that I would expect. Other members who have supported him have also been warned and/or blocked.
We can deal with the POV warriors. We can deal with bad writing. But you watched over the arcane articles that need watching. Last night I dealt with a series of sockpuppets in a situation where you would have been helpful. You need to come back so that information people read here is sufficiently balanced to make this a world class operation. Yes, there are problems. I deal with it in my own manner, mostly writing great articles, and taking the time to make sure all civil and uncivil POV warriors are blocked. People are tiring of their behavior.
It's time to come back. Sorry that I removed your redirect, and you can, of course, put it back, but this is the place to leave you a message. OrangeMarlin 17:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- OM: Firefly was always the least of my headaches -- far more abrasive to my ability to edit harmoniously and effectively were Catherineyronwode, Madman2001 & other like-minded anti-WP:V editors who, from the comments on the former's talkpage since my departure, are entirely unrepentant in their efforts to edit-war and abuse other editors in their efforts to retain un-/poorly-substantiated material. I'm not completely ruling out coming back at some stage -- but at this stage I cannot see doing so as anything other than counter-productive (and opening myself up for another shitload of unnecessary stress). HrafnStalk 17:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Good to see you about, albeit briefly, Hrafn. While any work you care to do will be greatly appreciated, you're right to put personal well-being ahead of the stress and nonsense that comes too easily with arguments here. If you do feel like popping in at some stage, keep in touch and I'll be glad to try to make thinks work out more smoothly. Just my clumsy thoughts. All the best, anyway. . . dave souza, talk 22:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hrafn, my point wasn't that Firefly was blocked, it was that his type of behavior can be handled swiftly and easily. I wish you were back. OrangeMarlin 23:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Good to see you about, albeit briefly, Hrafn. While any work you care to do will be greatly appreciated, you're right to put personal well-being ahead of the stress and nonsense that comes too easily with arguments here. If you do feel like popping in at some stage, keep in touch and I'll be glad to try to make thinks work out more smoothly. Just my clumsy thoughts. All the best, anyway. . . dave souza, talk 22:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- OM: Firefly was always the most volatile of that pack, so both the one most likely to get themself blocked (and I in fact predicted, on my way out the door, that his/her hysterics would result in such an eventuality), and the one easiest to shrug off. The others, to a varying degree, at least attempt to assume a superficial semblance of reasonableness and avoid being such a WP:GIANTDICK, making them harder to corral. HrafnStalk 10:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Semi-retired
As of December 2008, I'm altering my status to "Semi-retired" in order to:
- Write an article on "Strengths and weaknesses of evolution";
- Discuss the appropriate treatment of chronically unveriable information and/or articles on wikipedia; and
- Evaluate whether it is worth returning on permanent basis
HrafnStalk 10:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back :)
Good to see you again Hrafn! And since you are back, I was wondering if you could answer a question of mine regarding YEC/flood geology. Do the YECers believe that all prehistoric animals died in the flood? I'm wondering specifically about those carboniferous mega-insects like the Meganeura which couldn't survive in the comparatively lower oxygen atmosphere in which more modern forms of life evolved. I'm wondering how they can possibly explain that. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- AE: my suspicion would be that most do, but that a fringe have even more batty explanations (the devil put the fossils in the ground to cause doubts in the Bible, etc), and that at least some of the non-fringe will probably be sufficiently vague, equivocal (or simply not have gotten around to announcing an official position) that you can't pin them down. If ICR, CRS & AiG all say "all", you could probably state that "all major YEC organisations say all", but that's the best that you're likely to get. HrafnStalk 01:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- From all your loyal meatpuppets, stalkers, and ne'er-do-wells, what AE said!!!! OrangeMarlin 18:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes welcome back indeed. Teapotgeorge 21:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Season's Greetings and Welcome Back! Nice article on Strengths and weaknesses of evolution, now this "law of abiogenesis" is annoying me and the only decent source I've found is Talk.Origins Archive Claim CB000, which attributes it to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. These cdesign proponentsists are really up to date! Unfortunately Talk.Origins Archive seems to be offline today so I've been looking at the google cache. Will try again, good to see your work again :) . dave souza, talk 21:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- I noticed. I had intended using their Creationist Claims list to cover weaknesses not already covered in[REDACTED] articles, but I likewise can't access it. HrafnStalk 01:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- This article gives a useful link to the Index to Creationist Claims and says "Note that the TO URL is a temporary stopgap while a problem with the main TO server is being worked on." The articles about an Op-Ed piece in the San Antonio Express-News by a representative of the San Antonio Bible Based Sciences Association, don't know if you used that reference but it appears relevant. There's a good article by Wilkins on Spontaneous Generation and the Origin of Life, this google cache link should get you there. That covers the abiogenesis issue well, and could be cited for significant improvements in the abiogenesis article as well as on this page. I've got my hands full with trying to sort out Darwin's early contacts with Malthusianism, will try to help out with these articles as needed. Thanks, . dave souza, talk 10:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Dave. I've now cited the two outstanding rebuttals to this alternate domain. Yes, I've already included the SABBSA article. I am including the Wilkins article in 'Further reading' HrafnStalk 11:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- This article gives a useful link to the Index to Creationist Claims and says "Note that the TO URL is a temporary stopgap while a problem with the main TO server is being worked on." The articles about an Op-Ed piece in the San Antonio Express-News by a representative of the San Antonio Bible Based Sciences Association, don't know if you used that reference but it appears relevant. There's a good article by Wilkins on Spontaneous Generation and the Origin of Life, this google cache link should get you there. That covers the abiogenesis issue well, and could be cited for significant improvements in the abiogenesis article as well as on this page. I've got my hands full with trying to sort out Darwin's early contacts with Malthusianism, will try to help out with these articles as needed. Thanks, . dave souza, talk 10:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- I noticed. I had intended using their Creationist Claims list to cover weaknesses not already covered in[REDACTED] articles, but I likewise can't access it. HrafnStalk 01:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Good to see you back :) Verbal chat 08:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Agree wiht above, welcome back!.--Patton123 16:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Good to see you back :) Verbal chat 08:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
West Point Class Ring - Right vs Left Hand
Good Morning
You deleted my brief discussion of the distinctions between the Amy Vanderbilt and West Point conventions for wearing class rings as "unsourced". I would suggest that a source is not needed as it is a simple, demonstrable explaination how when worn in the old way on the left hand, the two conventions were identical, but when worn on the right hand the two conventions are opposite. I would like to restore the section as there was questions about the differences at the 2008 West Point Ring Weekend.
Thoughts please
ed
Ecragg (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Your explanation is neither simple nor demonstrable. In fact both sourced conventions are flowery nonsenses, making a rational "distinction" impossible. On an "outstretched arm" the plane of the ring will be perpendicular to the arm -- so the insignia can neither face to nor away from the wearer. Which crest is "closest to the heart" is entirely arbitrary based on the position of the hand at any given time. It is likewise unclear how left vs right affects this nonsense (and would appear to be WP:SYNTHESIS besides having an impenetrable relationship to the sourced conventions). Insignia can be worn either on the knuckle side, the palm side (or conceivable part way between) -- they can no more be worn pointing to the heart/wearer-outstretched/outward-outstretched than they can be worn in such a way that they (always) face Mecca. HrafnStalk 13:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Why in the world?
Did you revert me? Please read through Help:Reverting#Explain reverts before doing this again in the future, it was very uncivil to do without explaining it to myself. Regarding the article, it failed its AfD. So instead of tearing it to the ground and doing nothing but adding tags to it (there were three {{primarysources}} templates), and removing content, please consider contributing useful content to the article, that is what an encyclopedia is for! Okay? Thank you. -- ✼ American Eagle (talk) 04:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Read the bloody edit summary! It clearly states my reason: "AfD was 'no consensus' on notability" (which means there's no consensus to remove the notability tag). There is no "useful content" to add to this piece-of-crap article. There are no reliable third party sources that say anything substantial about the subject, and even the closely-associated sources that you dumped in fail to verify most of the material cited to them (which was why I first tagged, and then deleted them). If you had checked the revision history you would have noticed that I did not add the primarysource templates to the sections -- that was Rtphokie. I will, and am required to, remove any content that fails to meet WP:V. I will also remove ludicrous WP:FANCRUFT, like the "freakishly tall" nickname. HrafnStalk 05:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Evolution rollback
Greetings Hrafn,
If you need help understanding my additions to the "Evolution as a theory" page, please post a message in my "talk" section so we can discuss it. I would be happy to educate you on the subject. This would be preferable than having to continually restore the contribution I have made after you roll it back (twice now).
Dan8080 (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Your additions were reverted because they contain false material -- see Talk:Evolution as theory and fact#Introduction of fallacious material into the article for details. HrafnStalk 07:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Problems
| Thread closed as editor is making arguments in bad faith |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hrafn, I do not understand why you do the things you do. I have seen you do nearly nothing but bring articles to the ground, remove good (and truthful) content from them because you don't have a source for them (and not everything needs sources, per se), and propose pages for deletion. Please, if you have good content to add to the article, do it. But otherwise, let articles grow as the person becomes more well-known and does more, is in more news reports (with more sources), etc., and the facts can be further proven. In the meantime, yelling at other users and attacking them "until American Eagle can learn to tell the difference between radio and TV" is highly unacceptable. Please do not do it to me again. ✼ American Eagle (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC) American Eagle:
Todd Friel is NOT notable (as evidenced by your total reliance on promotional blurbs for sources), and so I see no point in spending time on this pointless article, beyond ensuring that it meets the bare requirements of WP:V. HrafnStalk 05:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
|
Special creation
Sure-I'd be happy to look and see what I might have to help. Good to have you back! Professor marginalia (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hrafn, I'm finding quite a bit of good stuff and this can probably be developed into an interesting article. But I won't be able to do too much for the next few weeks. In the meantime I'll try to assemble some notes in my spare moments. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
James N. Gardner listed at RfD
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect James N. Gardner. Since you had some involvement with the James N. Gardner redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Six (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Bah Humbug!
All the best from dave souza, talk 18:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Fan Cruft/Trivia
Merry Christmas!
Hey, this is getting tiring. I'd like to put Friel out of my mind. I don't want anyone to think bad about me, and we've been arguing over him for a while now. So, lets wait until after Christmas and spend it not fighting. This is for you. Have a very Merry Christmas, Hrafn! ✼ American Eagle (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
✼ American Eagle (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Biased
You are obviously biased and against this subject (seeing the darwin references), and I am obviously for this subject. This aside--- apparently because you are a moderator, you get to squelch a discussion and slam a "wp:de" on it. A DISCUSSION, not an editing. I was told by KillerChihuahua that I could discuss things in the discussion "section" if I'm having a problem with what's in the actual article. When will free speech mean more than "policy"? So, either let me discuss it, or I will report you to whoever is over your head. This is discriminatory and I will not stand for it. Petrafan007 (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
You most certainly may "discuss things", but in order to avoid the discussion becoming a mammoth waste of time, you need to:
- discuss specific issues concerning improvements to the article (as discussion of vague generalities to not get us anywhere);
- cite specific facts from WP:RSes and specific policies supporting your views; and
- not allow the discussion to go round and round in circles.
A bit of leeway is allowed on the above points, but massive and repeated digression from them quickly leads to people's patience evaporating. HrafnStalk 22:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- I understand this, but I notice a trend that you seem to give a bit more leeway to folks that make small points or off the beaten path comments on discussions towards the darwin/evolutionist views than the id/creationist views. Just sayin'. Petrafan007 (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, because they don't tend to (repeatedly) abuse my tolerance like you do. The more of my time you waste, the less rope I'll give you thereafter. HrafnStalk 23:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
New Thought
Right now it is a good faith edit it will be ref. JGG59 (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- What part of "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth" do you fail to understand? HrafnStalk 14:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
These artricles need some work...
Spontaneous worship Prophetic worship and Song of the Lord regards Teapotgeorge 22:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Creationism
Sorry about that confusion over the reversion. Seems I must have ECd with you. TheresaWilson (talk) 05:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've long suspected that the software's handling of edit conflicts is a tad buggy -- every now and then it does a 'burp' like this. HrafnStalk 05:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- For some reason it pasted the last edit I'd made on another WIKI! However, all's well that ends well. TheresaWilson (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's just repeated my edit comment here as well. I'll log off & on again (I've just upgraded UBUNTU & there's one or two strange things happening) 05:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- For some reason it pasted the last edit I'd made on another WIKI! However, all's well that ends well. TheresaWilson (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Note
Note: This wasn't in bad faith, at all (as you said). Thanks. ✼ American Eagle (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Given how ludicrously undersourced this article was (and still is), claiming that its notability is not in question is equally ludicrous. HrafnStalk 01:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Ludicrous" does not equal "BAD FAITH." ✼ American Eagle (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Ludicrous" = tendentious = bad faith. HrafnStalk 01:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Again, it was not in bad faith, even though you call it "tendentious" and "ludicrous." To me (and perhaps I go against policy on this), notability can be established without sources, as long as it is verifiable. That is, articles may be notable if there is sources online or offline, even if there are few or no current sources. If it is not sourceable, then sure, it is probably a hoax as well. My thought was that you had copied this and left "notable" in, perhaps by accident. The article is not only verifiable, but is in almost anyone's book notable. My edit was not "tendentious", "ludicrous," or in bad faith. ✼ American Eagle (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please read the notability guidelines. Please find one that states a form of notability that does not rely upon information from reliable third party sources.
- Information without sources is not verifiable! It is the WP:BURDEN of the editor asserting notability to provide sources, not to simply waffle vaguely that there's a possibility that such sources may be out there somewhere. This article lacks sources for the vast majority of its content so it is not verifiable -- whatever ludicrous, tendentious, BAD FAITH hand-waving you may make to the contrary.
- Likewise your hypothesis that "had copied this and left "notable" in, perhaps by accident" is ludicrous (etc). I omitted the tags either side of 'notable' ('newsrelease', 'onesource'), so there is no reason any reasonable editor would take this view.
This is simply the last in a long line of bad faith posts, here and elsewhere. You have zero credibility with me. Therefore any further posts you make here may (and most probably will) be reverted or deleted without comment (and most probably without being read). HrafnStalk 02:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)