User talk:Comder

Come on, talk to the Comder!
Comder (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Comder, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

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 on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! . . dave souza, talk 20:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know:

New page creations are monitored real time, which means that there doesn't have to be a link to the page in question. Also, you seem to be using a custom signature, which does not link to your userpage (Which it must do par Wikipedia:Signatures#Internal_links). It would be a good idea to change that not only because its a rule, but to make it easier to contact you as well :). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. So i guess I just uncheck the box that says " Sign my name exactly as shown. If unchecked, the contents of the box above will be treated as your nickname and link automatically to your user page. If checked, the above markup will be used for your name when you sign with......." COMDER (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Civility, content policies, and edit warring

Hi, I notice that in your comments at Talk:Intelligent design you attack the honesty of contributors who you characterise as "evolutionists". First of all, no personal attacks is policy, you must assume good faith of other editors – see our Wikipedia:Civility policy. Now, it's likely that you've just picked the term up somewhere, but "evolutionist" is a term commonly used by creationists to attack scientists generally, and biologists in particular. Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy has specific requirements for non-scientific views such as creationism, see WP:WEIGHT, WP:PSCI, WP:MNA and WP:GEVAL for example. The ID article carefully follows all policies, including of course WP:V and WP:NOR as well as the forementioned. Similarly, your edits introducing unexplained assertions about "randomness" to the evolution article have to follow policies, including giving a source: such WP:BOLD edits are welcome but when changed back to the consensus version by other editors have to be discussed and justified on the article talk page in accordance with WP:TALK. Simply changing back to your preferred version is edit warring and in particular, you must note the WP:3RR rule which means that you're liable to be blocked if you keep revertingl.
Ok, that's a lot of policies you'll want to look at over time, but in brief, don't keep reverting, don't edit war and take care to be civil, making no personal attacks. Links as above. Hope that helps! . . dave souza, talk 20:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add that there exist a wonderful resource in the form of the archived Talk pages of these articles. For example searching the talk page archives in Talk:Evolution for "randomness" produces no less than 30 instances where the term appears. Many of those discuss precisely why evolution is not a random process. --LexCorp (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Hi. What happens if an editor is refusing to settle an edit war, but apparently, this person is being unreasonable. How do we climb up the ladder for help from the administrators? I've read this page already, but it doesn't handle the case of un-settlement. [1] Thanks COMDER (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the content dispute on the Evolution topic? First and foremost i would tend to agree that evolution is not completely random: Evolution depends upon a survival of the fittest mechanic and therefor consistently produces the same results when experimented on in bacteria (I wish i knew where that research document was that described the mutation of a non sugar tolerant bacteria to a sugar tolerant one in around 40.000 generations.) On a small scale evolution is more or less random, but on a larger scale there is a clear pattern.

One of the reasons why you meet such resistance in the above page is because the article is a Featured Article. Article's must meet exceptionally strong criteria to be promoted to that status, which means they are generally very readily defended against undiscussed alterations. With Features article's its always best to discuss a change on a talk page before changing anything. For one, i once thought it was cleaver to move the Oracle page without discussion so a disambig page pointing to Oracle Corporation and Oracle could take its place. I tell you, bad idea.

Now, as how to solve this issue (What you really asked): First and foremost there seems to have been virtually no discussion on this topic so far - generally formal dispute resolution is only started if there is a dispute that exhausted informal editor discussions. Seeing you only recently contacted Narayanese give her some time to respond. Similary, you can add a proposal on the evolution talk page stating your position, including references which support your stance. Seeing your issue is related to randomness you could indicate that you think this aspect has to little coverage in the article, and thus should be improved. This leaves more option open for discussion rather then saying that a specific edit is preferable.

Now, if the vast majority of the aditors is against the proposal you should disengage from pursuing the discussion topic because it has no support from the majority of the editors. In case the discussion deadlocks with no clear majority (Or in case only 1 or two editors participate) you should look at dispute resolution. Earlier is often a bad idea as it can become a rather formal process when played out, which can harm two editors relationship. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, seeing your comment on Intelligent Design my (perhaps completely incorrect) conclusion would be that you are a supporter of intelligent design. If this is the case you should keep in mind that you may have an inherent COI towards evolution due to it being the antithesis for that particular viewpoint. As the CoI guideline states it is best to keep away from an article yyou have a CoI with, due to the risk of expressing a personal opinion rather then a neutral point of view. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just to say that one or two reverts at the start of discussion are fine, but no more and it's essential to discuss proposed changes with sources and references, as described in WP:TALK guidance. Regarding research on evolution of bacteria, Richard Lenski's response is very informative. (perhaps best to skip PZ's intro at first) The saga gets a brief mention in The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution and it's worth reading the online sources. . . dave souza, talk 21:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

For more explanation, see E. coli long-term evolution experiment. . . dave souza, talk 21:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Hey thanks. I'm always glad to see others here that are unbiased and factual. I've pretty much given up on trying to change anything on the intelligent design page; the bias POV is absurd, and anything I do is immediately reverted. I find it hilarious that a group of militant atheists with an agenda to destroy the truth make it their lifelong goal to shield what is true from the population, when in the end all of their efforts will result in nothing, and they will realize that they were wrong. Anyways, I'm very glad to see others that share my point of view. :) --ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a RFC would do anything. I've never really done that or anything like it before. All I know is that a small band of editors vehemently guard that page and are on a steadfast and relentless pursuit to maintain its bias. Any factual and NEUTRAL edits made to the page are quickly rebuked. --ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Evolutionists and IDists should get their own page to edit

Excirial. We both know how bias can ruin people's judgement.

And you said: "Also, seeing your comment on Intelligent Design my (perhaps completely incorrect) conclusion would be that you are a supporter of intelligent design. If this is the case you should keep in mind that you may have an inherent COI towards evolution due to it being the antithesis for that particular viewpoint. As the CoI guideline states it is best to keep away from an article you have a CoI with, due to the risk of expressing a personal opinion rather then a neutral point of view " But we all know that the many people don't care about this policy, as the Intelligent Design page is infiltrated with those who disagree with it. So why don't the evolutionists get their own page to edit, and the IDists get their own, and the only times both sides can edit each other's page is at the criticism sections? There must be a special system to only allow IDists to edit their page, and vice versa. The whole point of wikipedia is to teach people about things, not to allow dissenters to edit a page and make it look bad, like with the ID page. COMDER (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You cannot get a pole upright if you only push from one side. Bias goes both ways - man can be positively or negatively biased towards a certain point of view, and both biases can unbalance an article point of view. Technically you are a biased editor as well, as you clearly state that you believe in intelligent design. Being biased isn't a bad thing on its own though - man must just make sure that this bias doesn't show in his or her edits. After all, a broad spectrum of opinions means that man will debate and establish a neutral central ground upon which the article can be based.

Assigning a separate page to each group is something that should never be done. Besides the fact that this would go against wikipedia's core policy that everyone can edit, we would end up with article's that lean towards a certain Point of View. A neutral point of view means that all parties viewpoints should be weighted and balanced throughout the entire article, and not just in the criticism sections. The key however, is debate and tolerance for other people's viewpoints, even if they are conflicting with your own. Wikipedia is indeed here to teach people, but offering partial information would be propaganda, and not knowledge. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

"we would end up with article's that lean towards a certain Point of View". <<< That's exactly what we got... the ID page destroying ID, a viewpoint in favor of evolution. How would you feel if the evolution page was severely biased against evolution?

"A neutral point of view means that all parties viewpoints should be weighted and balanced throughout the entire article, and not just in the criticism sections.

<<< But ID and evolution are naturally biased topics! How could you have a balanced viewpoint on a page about ID or evolution!!!??? That's an oxymoron. You can only have a balanced viewpoint when dealing with facts when it comes to this. COMDER (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more specific which part of the article has a clear bias? Currently the article contains over 80.000 words, and i doubt you refer to all of them as being biased. A superficial scan of the article shows nothing that really concerns me - in fact, the article is exceptionally well sourced - which is most likely a result of it being a controversial topic where every statement is likely to be challenged by other editors. As for the evolution page bias - i frankly don't mind what the title or the subject of a page is when it comes to bias. If an article is not adhering to a neutral point of view it should be changed, regardless of my personal opinions on a certain subject. The only influence my bias towards a certain viewpoint should have is that i am careful when editing an article, and in case i don't believe i cannot be truly neutral i won't edit the article directly at all - instead i would discuss it on a talk page.

Second i would argue that evolution and intelligent design aren't biased topics by nature. The article's are prone to pov pushing and controversy, but bias lies with the editors writing the article, and not with the subject. But i think that i understand what you mean; i think you are referencing to the fact that some statements in the ID article seem to be opinions? NPOV doesn't mean that there should be no opinions in the article - instead, NPOV states that "articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and therefor everything is based upon content created by others, who incidentally might have a certain viewpoint. However, Most of the content should be based upon verifiable facts, while forming an opinion should be left to the user. Yet i cannot stress enough that opinions may be used as long as they are reliable, verifiable and representative for a group of people. Finally i would note that a bit more detail in the form of some specific sentences or sections might help to give a more in-depth response, rather then the general response i just wrote; However, keep in mind that this particular article has been discussed to death already, and that it is a featured article. Both are indications that this article is of high quality, and unlikely to change substantially unless (very) good arguments which haven't been used over and over are presented. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia based on reliable sources, given our criteria for these at WP:RS, particularly the mention of academic and mainstream sources, our articles should reflect the mainstream viewpoint while giving attention to alternative significant points of view. Basically you are objecting to some of our core policies and I doubt that you will be happy unless they were changed substantially, which is extremely unlikely. You may misunderstand them - 'balance' as in equal weight on both sides is actually against our WP:NPOV policy in most cases - the exceptions would be where reliable sources were balanced. Dougweller (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Before I continue with this discussion, let me examine if it's worth it to continue. Let me ask this: are you two administrators? Can you two change Wikipedia policies if there is a problem? (even a little bit?). Please tell me what do I get out of this discussion if I continue and try to prove my point?

If I faithfully spend hours reading the policies but still disagree with the policies, would you two be able to change them or not? Or if I read them, and notice an error in how you two enforce the policies, would you change the ways you enforce them or not?

This should be a fair question to ask. Thank you. COMDER (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a fair question, definitely. We are both administrators, but that gives us absolutely no power over policy or guidelines. Those can only be changed by consensus. That takes place through a variety of means, from discussions on policy/guideline talk pages to much more formal discussions. Here we are talking about fundamental policies that are very unlikely to be changed in any significant way. If you disagree with the way we are 'enforcing' (a bit of a strong word, I don't think we are doing that, just communicating them) or interpreting polices, we can discuss them here, on article talk pages, or depending on the issue I will point you to the appropriate noticeboard.

Your other question was how I would know if you replied on your user page. Although it's on my watchlist, I could easily miss it as I have almost 4000 pages on my watchlist. The best way is probably by leaving a 'talkback' template on my talk page, or a message. See Template:Talkback. Dougweller (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)