Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tisthammerw (talk | contribs) at 05:47, 14 November 2005 (→Nuetrality of this site a joke.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

• Archive July - October 2005

Intelligent Design

Would you participate in an RFC if a file one against you? I would like to know, because otherwise I will file an RFA.--Ben 22:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you meant mediation, RFM, not RFC. You've already filed an RFC, the results of which haven't supported your allegations. FeloniousMonk 00:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

There have been no substantial comments as a result of the article RFC. I am talking about a Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct. This should be obvious as one does not file an article RFC against a user.

Would you participate in a user conduct RFC? Yes or no. If you do not understand what I mean, click the link I provided above and read about what a user conduct RFC is. --Ben 01:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You failed to gain consensus for your proposals at Talk:Intelligent design. An RFC will not change that. You should accept that your proposals were not accepted by the community graciously and move on to the next issue or article. Look at the discussion at Talk:Intelligent design. There is literally no support for what you've proposed. That what you proposed has been rejected by the community as inaccurate and POV has been explained to you that by at least six editors and admins, SlimVirgin being the latest . Yet you still refuse to accept consensus. Filing a user-conduct RFC against me will not change any of this and likely back-fire on you because of your history of personal attacks against admins , ignoring consensus , and disrupting the article .

So, no, I'm not interested in "participating" with you in an RFC. My position is you're not the person to be bringing such an RFC, but that you're an excellent candidate to be the subject of one.

You've already been cautioned by at least three admins about being disruptive, abusive and pushing POV content and ignoring consensus. I can't be any more clear than this to you: Stop being abusive, stop being disruptive, and abide by consensus. FeloniousMonk 02:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

FM, just a note to say if you have any issues or possible grievances about my asking for your "keeping your cool" on the RFC talk page, please let me know on my talk page - I am hoping if we can stick to one issue at a time we might actually get something resolved. I personally have been off topic at least twice and I am trying very hard to keep to the issue at hand, it is very difficult I know, apparently for most of us. KillerChihuahua 23:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't know how to send messages so...

In regards to your message:

Wade-- Please stop inserting your POV in the form of Disputed template in the article. It is only disputed by ID advocates which is already noted in the article. If you continue to disrupt the article, who can be prevented from editing. FeloniousMonk 22:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The factual accuracy regarding those claims is disputed, and not just by ID adherents. Del Ratzsch, author of Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate also criticizes some of those claims (e.g. tentativeness and falsifiability). You can read the discussion section where I go into more detail here. Factual correction is not POV. -- Wade A. Tisthammer (11/3/2005)

Request for Arbitration

You have been summoned to appear as defendant at a Request for Abritation. Please vist the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration page to make your statement under the heading Ben. --Ben 21:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

You're confused. You've not made any prior effort to resolve, so your RFAr will not be accepted. But please see your user conduct RFC at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Benapgar FeloniousMonk 21:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Your Responses to Vandalism

Thanks for repairing damage caused by vandals in my edits of the entries for Einstürzende Neubauten, Erin Zhu, Min Zhu, New Enterprise Associates, and Larvatus. You may be similarly interested in the anonymous vandalism being visited upon my edits of the entry for Mike Godwin. Larvatus 05:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus

Thank you for repairing further damage caused by deceptive impersonation. I hereby confirm the conclusion of our email exchange, that the party registered as Misplaced Pages User:MichaelZeleny has nothing to do with me, Michael Zeleny. Larvatus 07:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus

My pleasure. FeloniousMonk 07:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I can only hope that you are gratified by your considerable contributions to the cause of information wanting to be free, half as much as I enjoy my modest submissions. Larvatus 14:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus

Could you give a summery of what went on?Geni 13:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Two Usenet personalities, namely Mike Godwin and Michael Zeleny, a.k.a. larvatus, are disputing the way their public interaction should be described in the articles dedicated to their online characters. Please see the article and discussion page for Mike Godwin and decide for yourself whether my currently elided contribution should be reinstated. Larvatus 14:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus

Larvatus' summary is accurate. After dealing with a parade of anon vandals, I noticed a vandal with an account under Larvatus' real name. After confirming it wasn't Larvatus, I blocked the account for impersonation. FeloniousMonk 15:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

My 3RR complaint? I didn't make it (it appears to have been made by User:Grouse). The problem I'm haveing is that there is a legit content disspute and it did not involve dealing with vandalism as defined by Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. Reverting edits by banned users is accepted practice. Reverting edits by blocked users is a grey area.Geni 15:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem.Geni 15:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for being gracious about my mistake Geni. Dumb Mistakes on my part occur often enough without it being early and there being too much blood in my caffeine system. FeloniousMonk 16:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Sorry: I'm not trying to create a ForestFire by launching *sigh* yet another thread. Consider this just a pit stop to find out how you are using words. Hopefully, this will just take a moment, and we can go back to the article talk pages.

You wrote:

we already do have article about "unguided evolution", it's called "evolution." The one on guided evolution is called "Intelligent Design." I'm surprised you don't know this ...

When you read or write the word evolution, do you think of it purely in the sense of "unguided evolution"? If so, do you think that statements by the Roman Catholic Church (and other monotheistic religious bodies) which use the word evolution ALWAYS use the word in the sense of "unguided evolution" as well?

Because it seems to me that some religious believers make a distinction between two senses of the word "evolution" (as they use it):

1. unguided ("Darwinian"), versus
2. guided by an intelligent or divine power

Now, these religious folks might be wrong in many ways. Wrong to think that scientists care what religious people think; wrong to think that encyclopedias should cover the ramblings of non-scientific people about scientific topics; wrong to believe that miracles are relevant to science; and most of all, wrong to assert that "evolution" can't occur without God making it happen.

But a lot of them do think this way. And they seem to use the word evolution in 2 different senses. If scientists use the word in only one sense, how can their be dialogue? More to the point, how can our readers understand that dialogue? (Or if it's religious nuts shouting at real scientists, how can we understand these religious rants?)

Please help me to understand how scientists use the term evolution, and please help me also to expres how religious people have been using the same term (even if they are using it wrongly). Uncle Ed 16:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Seems like we're always at loggerheads, doesn't it? Still, it's always a pleasure having you around, even when we're pushing each other's buttons. Yes, when I read or write the word evolution, do you think of it purely in the sense of "unguided evolution, and most in the field of science do as well. I'll consider your other points while I get to the office and respond then. FeloniousMonk 16:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, see you then. I'll be offline most of Saturday since I'm the technical coordinator for the 3rd annual Gospel Explosion in Harlem. Look forward to further dialogue. Uncle Ed 17:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for supporting my RfA, I greatly appreciate it! Ramallite 04:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Nuetrality of this site a joke.

My NPOV stamps are not unwarranted, if they are needed because somebody thinks this is a commentary section of a newspaper. - 68.57.33.91

Indeed it is not, and that's why your use of templates was a misuse. Please take the time to become familiar with WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience, WP:NPOV#Undue Weight, and WP:CON. FeloniousMonk 07:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what article was 68.57.33.91 referring to? Is it the same article that I claim is in violation of the NPOV pseudoscience policy? Wade A. Tisthammer 22:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

User:68.57.33.91 was refering to Misplaced Pages's ID article. If that is the same article you're refering to, I think you'll find there's consensus there that your interpretation of WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience and WP:NPOV#Undue Weight are flawed. FeloniousMonk 22:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Really? And I suppose it's Misplaced Pages policy to distort the minority view? As opposed to, say, representing the "the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view"? I think perhaps you need to read the WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience section again. BTW yes, I was referring to the ID page. And I suspect user 68.57.33.91 was correct. The neutrality of this article is a joke, and I'm not laughing. Wade A. Tisthammer 05:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks much

I apologise for not thanking you earlier for telling me who had made that one edit - I was suffering from lag and browser crash that day and really hated the idea of trying to browse back through the edit history. Your prompt help was above and beyond, and again, I thank you. KillerChihuahua 23:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)