Misplaced Pages

User talk:Imbrella: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:56, 22 October 2007 editGuettarda (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators63,420 editsm Reverted edits by Guettarda (talk) to last version by MastCell← Previous edit Revision as of 16:57, 22 October 2007 edit undoMastCell (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators43,155 edits →Blocked: WP:AN/INext edit →
Line 156: Line 156:


<div class="user-block"> ] You have been '''indefinitely blocked''' from editing in accordance with ] for {{{{{subst|}}}#if:ongoing and refractory ] and ]|'''ongoing and refractory ] and ]'''|repeated ]}}. If you believe this block is unjustified you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)|''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)|}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block3}} -->{{{category|]}}} <div class="user-block"> ] You have been '''indefinitely blocked''' from editing in accordance with ] for {{{{{subst|}}}#if:ongoing and refractory ] and ]|'''ongoing and refractory ] and ]'''|repeated ]}}. If you believe this block is unjustified you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)|''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)|}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block3}} -->{{{category|]}}}

I will submit this block for review at ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:57, 22 October 2007

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Imbrella, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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 name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

By the way, is this your only registered account, or have you edited Misplaced Pages before using other accounts? Just curious. MastCell 17:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved comments

I moved the discussion of the text from the Level of support for evolution to that article's associated talk page. That seemed the best thing to do, so that the people who quoted the sources you are talking about can address your concerns. Tim Vickers 13:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you read how FILLL talked to me? Do you know think he was uncivil. The links did not work and he said I was lacking in computer skills. Is this the way things work around here? Drive off people who have different opinions? Imbrella 14:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

cite

{cite}

A better tag is {{fact}}. Also, this page is for communication, most people use their user page for stuff they find useful. Yours would be User:Imbrella. WLU 19:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion from T:Losfe

This discussion is taken from Talk:Level of support for evolution. That page is for discussion of improving that particular page and the discussion was adding considerable length without attempting to improve the page. WLU 19:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at the article TalkOrigins Archive and it is pretty obvious. Any article in there I have seen is full of peer-reviewed references as well. So it looks pretty reliable to me.--Filll 22:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Trying to understand your reasoning: If an article has peer reviewed references then it is considered a reliable source? Imbrella 13:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This page may provide some understanding of why TalkOrigins Archive is widely accepted as a WP:RS. HrafnStalk 13:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk origins also demonstrates the scientific consensus regards evolution very ably and is a convenient way of rebutting standard creationist arguments. The citation of it as a secondary source allows reference to the primary sources. If peer-reviewed sources are used on a secondary source (particularly blogs and whatnot) to argue for a fringe theory, I would say they aren't suitable. However, talk origins is very stable, cites peer reviewed sources, and reflects the scientific consensus. WLU 16:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems like circular logic to me: sources that argue for a 'fringe' theory are not suitable. But how is it determined that a theory is 'fringe' Is panspermia a fringe theory? Is the theory that the universe was created by and Intelligent entity a 'fringe' theory? Do not a lot of scientists believe that the unverse was created by G_d? Is punctuated equilibrium a 'fringe' theory? Who makes that decision? Imbrella 18:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

These things are always decided by consensus, in the scientific literature, sometimes over years of discussion. This is fought out in scientific conferences, and in peer-reviewed literature. The degree of the consensus can be measured by things like the declarations of scientific organizations, polls and petitions, as described in this article. Panspermia at the moment is somewhat of a fringe theory; there is minimal evidence for it and few people who championn it. This might change if there is evidence that appears, but right now, it is a fringe theory at best. The idea of intelligent design is also a fringe theory, held by a teeny tiny minority of the scientists in the relevant fields. Again the reason for this is that there is no evidence for it. If evidence emerges, then this will change, but right now, it is a fringe theory. Evolution has a huge amount of evidence that supports it, and because of this, an overwhelming majority of the scientists in the relevant fields subscribe to it. The consensus is that evolution is a valuable and powerful and accepted scientific theory for the data that exist. Evolution is not even close to a fringe theory. In the future, if there is evidence that evolution does not explain well, then the theory of evolution will be altered or discarded. --Filll 18:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Panspermia is documented in reliable sources like peer-reviewed journals; fringe that it may be, it's at least discussed by scientists based on theory and evidence. And technically, creationism is a non-emperical epistemological standpoint on the veracity of the Bible, not a theory. Scientists may or may not agree that the universe was created by God, but 99.99999999% believe, through a review of evidence and discussion in reliable sources, that were the universe created by God, life was shaped by natural selection, common descent and random mutations, not a daily, miraculous intervention. The problem with Creationism is a complete lack of evidence, fallacious argument style, and a political agenda. Punctuated equilibrium is a debate occurring within mainstream scientific journals - it's a refinement on the extremely robust theory of evolution, not a fringe. Scientists make the decisions by debating ideas in open fora, based on the evidence available. Something creationists ignore. If you have a problem with Misplaced Pages's policy on fringe theories and reliable sources, you are free to attempt to change consensus using those talk pages. WLU 18:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You are saying that only a 'teeny tiny minority ' of scientists believe in G_d? But there is so little evidence for Darwinism. I really do not see how it can be proven. Of course evolution happens but the theories in Darwinism cannot. For instance how can you prove that small adaptive changes accumulated in causing say a fish to become a mammal. And you keep saying evolution is a theory. But 'evolution' is not a theory any more than 'gravity' is a theory. There of course is the 'theory of gravity' which explains gravity. It seems like the terms are being used incorrectly in these articles. How can you believe in G_d and not believe in intelligent design. "Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." How can a person believe in G_d and then believe he did not create the universe? That does not make sense. Imbrella 18:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


This talk page is not for debating. But just this time, I will answer. However, this cannot continue and you are directed to go somewhere else for debating like talk origins.
However, I was talking about intelligent design as a fringe theory. I was not talking about a teeny tiny minority of scientists believing in God. We no longer use the word Darwinism since it is inaccurate and has negative connotations associated with it because it used as a negative label by creationists. There is an immense amount of evidence for the theory of evolution.
Evolution is of course a theory. Evolution is also a fact. Just as gravity is a theory. And gravity is a fact. See evolution as theory and fact.
You seemed to be badly confused about terminology. I would direct you to theistic evolution and many other articles here on WP. --Filll 19:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I feel you are badly confused. GRAVITY: the force of attraction between all masses in the universe; especially the attraction of the earth's mass for bodies near its surface. then there is the theory of gravity which applies math to make predictions. And also there have been many 'evolutionary theories'. But evolution is a process not a theory. In psychology there is 'learning' and many 'theories of learning' And there is 'sound' and theories of sound. I can believe 'evolution' happens without accepting Darwin's explanations or LaMarc's or Lysenkos or Gould's etc. I can believe in 'Cancer' but there are many 'theories' of why Cancer happens and I can accept any of those theories or none of them. Imbrella 00:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. Your 'little evidence for Darwinism' is a red herring. There's lots, see talk:origins.
  2. I didn't say a minority of scientists believed in God. I'm saying that of the scientists who believe in God, only an incredibly minute portion also believe that evolution is not how He creates species. Note that the use of the term 'creates' is in the sense of gradual or rapid (in geological timescales) differentiation between living things with common anscestors, not in the instantaneous sense used by creationists.
  3. Evolution can't be proven any more than any other theory, but to date it has not been disproven, making it an excellent theory. See here for more information on this. This argument is also a red herring. It is creationists who mis-use and mis-understand the term theory within a scientific and research context, not scientists.
  4. The problems are with the literal interpretations of the Bible. Believe it is an allegory, and historically grounded document, and the scientific objections disappear. However, attempt to prove it is correct, literally, and you are (pardon the language) up shit creek because proof does not exist; in fact, proof contradicts the Bible. Few scientists will assert, professionally, that God does not exist (Dawkins being an exception). Personally they may, or may not, but professionally I doubt any would. Proving or disproving God is virtually impossible. Also, once God's existence is proven, faith is nothing.
  5. You'll find that most of your objections are dealt with at . Have a read before posting on wikipedia, it'll save us both time. WLU 19:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What I am trying to do is get some terminology in these articles corrected. Again evolution is not a theory it is a process. Gravity is not a theory it is a force. We have gravitational theories and the theory of evolution.

I never supported literal interpretation of the bible. Why are you bringing that up. I think the thing that should be mention in these articles is that we cannot disprove that small accumulation can add up and make new species throught natural selection. I have read much of talkorigins. And have found the reasoning there to be biased. And I really do not believe that scientists who believe in G_d do not believe that it is impossible for G_d to intervene with the developments of species and espciecially the species homo sapien. I think if you read a more varied list of articles and not be a devotee to talkorigins you will see things differently.

I think the most ingenuous point in the articles is saying that since we can see microevolution that proves macroevolution. That has never been proven and there are no sources that say that. Yes there is a lot of evidence that microevolution occurs but there is no evidence that macroevolution happens caused by natural selection. There are no experiments that show this. The truth is we do not know. And to imply that we do is wrong and deceptive. Imbrella 00:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


See the link provided by Filll. Evolution is a theory and a fact, as is gravity. A failure to disprove a theory is the highest form of proof. See Karl Popper. Also, wikipedia does not 'say' anything, it cites what others have said. To do otherwise is original research. Have you read the sources for talkorigins? That's the real source of information; plus, wikipedia contains verifiability, not truth. WLU 00:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry evolution is a process. And it is a 'fact' that the process is observable. Gravity is a force not a theory. And it is a fact that it exists. However various theories of gravitation and evolution have been proven (or not falsified) to varying degrees. Talkorigins is a very bad source. I think you should read others to get a better perspective. This misuse of terms here is very bad for young kids just learning to read and is doing many a disservice. And that so many can use these terms in these imprecise ways shows how our educational system is failing. from wiki: evolution: (biology) The change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations. We should learn to use the right terms. Evolution does not = evolutionary theory. Anyone that thinks that evolution does not happen is crazy. However one can accept that evolution happens without accepted Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. So sure probably 99.9999999999 % of scientists believe evolution is obervable but that does not meant necessarily they accept neo-darwinism. Equating these terms is wrong and should be change in these articles. Imbrella 00:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
There's ten sources at Evolution as theory and fact that make your assertion regarding process false.

Science says you're wrong. If you have a problem with talkorigins, you can bring it up at talk:reliable sources, and if you further disagree, you can try WP:3O, WP:RFC, WP:RFM, WP:ARB, and ultimately, Jimbo Wales. They'll all back me up. The assertion that evolution is harmful for children is discussed at talk origins I believe. It's hardly harmful for children to learn what science says about truth. 'For the children' is not an excuse to ignore evidence and deny reality. I'm pretty much done talking to you. Find reliable sources and make your discussions on the appropriate talk page. Your page is now off my watchlist. WLU 00:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I never said 'evolution is harmful for children' This is an example of taking things out of context which much of these articles do. And kids should not be taught deceptions. And kids should be taught not to ignore evidence. Please point out one source that says that evolution is not a process. These articles really need to be redone for accuracy. Imbrella 13:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


Talkorigins is in fact, a great website, and isn't biased. You have brought up nothing in support of your assertion it is biased and "full of false information. You haven't supported it teaches deceptions, and you haven't supported it ignores evidence. Talkorigins has been reviewed and contributed to by professionals in the field, who have verified how good it is, and that it's a reliable, accurate source. Your ignorance of evolution's validity and confirming evidence does not mean you can slander people without support for your misleading assertions. This always ends up the problem when discussing evolution and creation. The science side has all the evidence, and supports it's points with specific examples, while the creation side simply calls all the sources unreliable, while going to places like AIG for info which have a statement of faith and admit to not publishing anything that contradicts their worldview. 18:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.225.122.253 (talk) Where did I say "full of false information"? And when did I say that evolution does not happen? Slander people? I think you are not thinking or reading straight here. Why do you think I go to AIG? You are making an enormous amount of assumptions. Please show me the evidence that small adaptive changes will cause one species to become another through natural selection. Please show me that experiment. The people that feel that this is not true are not Baptist preachers but well known mainstream scientists. I think you have been reading talkorigins too much. Try other sources and expand your knowledge base. I think these articles need to be changed. Imbrella 18:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Main space edits

You have no mainspace edits. None. Nothing but spurious objections to evolution-only articles. You want to engage in the wikipedia process? Start editing real pages and you may realize why other editors are so frustrated with you. Also, it makes you look less like a troll trying to disrupt wikipedia to make a point. WLU 23:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

What is a mainspace edit? Imbrella 23:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Not a talk page, an actual wikipedia page. Something without Talk: in front of it. Please read WP:TALK, your talk page contributions are irritatingly hard to read because you do not follow a standard formatting. WLU 23:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Level of support for evolution. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. WLU 23:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


Where did I attack someone? Imbrella 23:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not use talk pages for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you. MastCell 00:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I said I wanted erroneous claims taken out of some articles and I believe the cites are unreliable. And I showed that the website itself said it was not reliable. 00:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


diff. WLU 00:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

point? Imbrella 00:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Level_of_support_for_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=165942490

No specific complaint, therefore has no place on Talk:Level of support for evolution

Who would like to correct many of these articles so statements are backed up by reliable sources? Not implications or conjectures unless stated as so. Imbrella 16:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a specific complaint here?

Imbrella:

  1. You have not defined "these articles". In any case, this talkpage is for the discussion of this article. anything posted here that is not relevant to this article will be deleted.
  2. The statements contained in this article are backed by reliable sources. If you believe otherwise, then point specific instances where this is incorrect. Any posts making vague accusations will be deleted.

To be blunt, you give every indication that you are simply grandstanding -- hence my previous deletion of your post as WP:SOAP. HrafnStalk 16:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hrafn. I have yet to see a single example of an incorrect statement or an unreliable source. I have witnessed only vague confusing ungrammatical and poorly spelled complaints from this editor. This talk page is for the improvement of this article, not as a platform for you to broadcast nonsense. This is not a debating society.--Filll 16:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think Imbrella may be projecting -- the accusations she makes about "these articles" would be a spot-on indictment of her postings to date. HrafnStalk 17:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The sources in general are websites. I do not think those are good sources. And things are taken out of context. And I think Hrafn accuses people of projection she should take a good like at herself and Filll should take a good look at herself also. I will try to show you concrete examples. But I am finding that much of these articles is based on slipshod websites. I will try to find some concrete examples. Imbrella 22:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Some websites are reliable sources. Some are not. If you want to change WP policy in this matter, these article talk pages are not the place to do it. You might want to get yourself integrated into the WP community and start getting involved with policy setting.--Filll 23:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I see cites to website where it looked like it was a personal website where someone wrote their thoughts on evolution or whatever. Is this not the place to look over the sources here to make sure they are valid? And what is to stop cherry picking? I think this is useless and simply a numbers game. Who ever has the most in the gang can insist that a bogus site is ok because what can one person does against a gang? It is might makes right here I see. I see a newspaper article as a resource. A journalist. Imbrella 23:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Newspapers and magazines can be WP:RS sources. So can websites. You better do some studying so you know what you are talking about.--Filll 23:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I find it amusing that you still have not given a specific example. Websites are allowed, there is a specific template. Blogs are generally not allowed, depending on whose blog it is. How about you start small - find a single website that you object to. Bring it up on the talk page. Discuss your objections and reasoning, citing policy. If you can't manage this, perhaps wikipedia is not the venue for you. Really, this should not be difficult, unless your motivation is to criticize a valid science with spurious objections which have been dealt with decades ago. Honestly, some of the creationist objections extant were dealt with by Darwin. Freakin' DARWIN. I mean, he died like, well over 100 years ago, and he's still smacking down creationist arguments from beyond the grave! Darwin rules! W00T!
Honestly, I think that improved the page. But seriously, try following one of my many sets of suggestions if you want to avoid getting blocked. WLU 01:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The only specific website that Imbrella has mentioned is TO. There is one reference to TO in this article (as far as I can see) and that's to Isaak's index of creationist claims...which has been published as a book (The Counter-Creationism Handbook). So regardless of the reliability of the rest of TO, the Index is just a slightly more up-tp-date version of the book. Guettarda 12:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Shunning you

Hi Imbrella,

To let you know, I plan on shunning you, a variation of not feeding a troll. To give a bit more clarity, I will always read your posts on pages I have watchlisted. Every single word. If I think you have a valid point that could be used to improve the page, I will let you know, and suggest any changes which might improve the edit you propose. However, any null-evidence suggestions you make which are dealt with in sources you have already been referred to (i.e. talkorigins), I will be ignoring. So consider no news to be a tactic disendorsement of what you suggest and a response to be a willingness to support your contribution. It'll save both of us time. If you are curious if I'm online or out of contact for a moderate period of time, and that is why I'm not responding to a comment, check my contributions for the time of my last edit. If I have contributed since you posted your comment, assume that I've read it and think it's spurious.

Thanks,

WLU 14:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I will also add that I intend to start enforcing the guidance given in the advice box at the top of the "level of support for evolution" page: "This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Misplaced Pages article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time." I have already begun to summarily delete posts that consist of "trolling", such as your attempt to claim that TalkOrigins is as unreliable as AiG (this has been discussed with you before, so there's no excuse for you to ever raise this subject again). --Robert Stevens 14:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


Wait a minute. If AIG is unreliable then why is it being cited? And I suggested a change in wording. Why was it erased. And why do you not erase the personal attacks against me? Imbrella 16:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

AiG is obviously reliable for some things. AiG is a reliable source for what AiG promotes. AiG is not a reliable source for science at all.--Filll 16:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Level of support for evolution

Ok you anti-science hacks. Go for it. You own it but you know it is so obviously biased it is really helping the creationist side. First you say AIG is no good then you use it as a source. Get into the comedy business. Good bye and good riddance. How I unlist to this silly endeavor or could someone please BAN me? Thank you. This is a waste of time.Imbrella 16:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for ongoing and refractory abuse of talk pages and use of Misplaced Pages as a soapbox. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. MastCell 16:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I will submit this block for review at the admin's noticeboard. MastCell 16:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Category: