User talk:ConfuciusOrnis/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Please stop posting about this on my user talk page

You have already brought up the "attacks" on other users in the Transitional Fossil talk page about three times now. It is in the past now, I have been punished already, and I would appreciate it if you stopped warning me about this on the talk page. Thank you. --ChaosSorcerer91 21:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess you didn't read the timestamps then. ornis (t) 21:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		User:TenPoundHammer and his romp of Wikipedia-editing otters thank you for participating in Hammer's failed request for adminship, and for the helpful tips given to Hammer for his and his otters' next run at gaining the key. Also, Hammer has talked to the otters, and from now on they promise not to leave fish guts and clamshells on the Articles for Deletion pages anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Where is "[t]his is already covered in much greater depth

(cur) (last) 03:32, 1 August 2007 ConfuciusOrnis (Talk | contribs) (102,062 bytes) (I suggest you actually read the article before editing. This is already covered in much greater depth.) (undo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yqbd (talk • contribs)

In the paragraph you tried to append your DI cruft to, and in the main article it links to. ornis (t) 03:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly? --Yqbd 03:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"A very small percentage of all mutations actually have a positive effect." Is straight out of the mutation article. Do you also have a problem with the mutation article? --Yqbd 03:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

In the first paragraph and in the article linked to... yes mutation... jeez reading comprehension isn't a strong point of yours is it? ornis (t) 03:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly? Please, give a quote. --Yqbd 04:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to join us?

Would you care to join us in discussing Talk:Intelligent design and Talk:Evolution? --Yqbd 04:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

3 August 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Intelligent Design. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --Xiahou 03:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins award

The Richard Dawkins award is hardly notable, cited no referces, and not deserving of it's own article. I have reverted your changes so that it is part of the main article on Richard Dawkins.

--PEAR (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Immediatley archiving my message and removing Richard Dawkins from the Anti-Christianity category?

I'm a bit confused as to why you did either of these things, you archived my message without replying in a matter of seconds. Meanwhile there are messages that are months old and still on your talk page.

Futhermore, I think it's rather obvious that Richard Dawkins belongs in the Anti-Christianity category.

--PEAR (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a troll

Since you haven't provided any reason for removing Richard Dawkins from Category:Anti-Christianity, I will be reverting your edit.

It's seem that you are the troll since you have exhbited typical troll behaviour:

• Making non-sensical reverts without comment
• Refusing to dialogue with other editors
• Accusing those who confront you of being trolls

--PEAR (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The category has nothing to do with POV and I am not a troll

The fact that you keep accusing me of trolling is laughable considering that you act in such a trollish manner by refusing to discuss articles and immediatley deleting messages.

--PEAR (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverting my edits

I know you enjoy reverting my edits without bothering to see what they are,[1] but this is vandalism.

In the future it would be good if you'd actually check the talk page [2] & think before you revert.

I've been pretty tolerant with you, but if you keep stalking me like this I will have to report you to an admin.

--PEAR (talk) 06:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

overlooked

Hello! I have a question for you. I would appreciate if you took a minute or two to answer it. Thanks. --Lynxmb 06:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

critics assert

What don't you like about "critics assert"? Would you rather have "critics insist"? --Yqbd 03:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Psychic surgery. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Dreadstar † 00:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_atheists_who_support_evolutionary_theory

I see you steamrolled Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_atheists_who_support_evolutionary_theory without the curtesy of notifying me. Could you please explain why you did not notify me? Thanks. Spa toss 17:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't steamroll anything, I suggest you take it up with the closing admin. Also, WP:AFD doesn't require me to notify the articles creator when I nominate it for deletion, merely suggests that it's courteous to notify good faith contributors, and since you haven't made a single good faith contribution, this obviously doesn't apply to you. ornis (t) 06:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a forum

Please consider WP:NOT#FORUM regarding Talk:Intelligent design. The section regarding Expelled had nothing to do with improving the article and was just another excuse to bash creationists. As much as they ask for it, I'd like to keep discussion on Intelligent design focused on the article. It's bad enough dealing with creationist trolls without otherwise good contributors clogging the page up with fluff.--ZayZayEM 10:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This will amuse you

See this comment from an editor who's complaining that her POV edits to the Herpes zoster article is being reverted because they are unsourced BS. Orangemarlin 03:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh don't act like you're surprised... hey on a related topic have you seen this abomination? ornis 04:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of abominations. Just pull up an article on a random herb or spice. Many of them have paragraphs on how they cure everything. I just went to Coriander. I might have been harsh in eliminating the section, but see if you agree. I can't believe what has filtered into this project. Orangemarlin 01:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Need your assistance at Homeopathy. Thanks. Orangemarlin 08:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, alright I had a look at the US an Uk sections, and tried to condense them a bit. The article is way too long. On the coriander thing, yeah I agree with you cutting it out, but I reckon as far as historical use goes it's reasonable to note medicinal uses through the ages. ornis 00:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think some people are trying to make Homepathy something it shouldn't be. Orangemarlin 06:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

(ri) Yeah, I'm not sure what to make of it. I'm waiting to see what Fill has in mind for a final form first. ornis 07:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking that his mind was taken over by aliens. •Jim62sch• 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably. I tried to strike a balance, but I really got burned out on that mess. It wouldnt be so bad if the writing were not so horrible. Oh well. Let the next guy have a go at it.--Filll 23:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well considering the kind of sloppy, obscurantist thinking responsible for the homeopathy, it's not terribly surprising an article substantially contributed to by homeopaths would reflect that. ornis (t) 23:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Even trying to get a confirmation of how exactly the dilution system of D, X, C, L, M etc works just ended up nowhere and I was given the run around, and told how easy it was and we didn't need to explain it. I am sorry, but I have a doctorate in mathematical physics, and I am sure it is simple, but if it is not transparent to me, then I think lots of others will find it confusing. I can try to guess as to what they mean, and spend hours looking up horribly written documents, but should I have to? I have spotted some stuff that looks inconsistent, but...ugh...what a mess. Surely the first rule should be to write clear English for English wikipedia. The second rule should be to explain technical terms, and make calculations clear. But somehow, that all seems a bit too much to ask...--Filll 23:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but plain english I suspect is anathema to pseudoscience. It's easy to hang all kinds of wild, unsupported claims and hand-wavery, off of ill defined terms like "miasma", "chi", "energy" or "quantum", without ever having to provide a concrete definition of those terms. So long as your audience doesn't ask, or you can give them the impression that you know of things they aren't capable of understanding, you can sell them tap water as a cure for any disease they happen to suffer from. ornis (t) 23:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Very well put. Homeopaths seek to prey on those who are intellectually deficient and fear those who are not, hence plain English (or any other language for that matter) dooms them either way. I'd still like to see a mathematical proof for "water memory". •Jim62sch• 17:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

List of medicinal herbs

Oh, you've got to help here.Orangemarlin 06:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of religion.

I'll look at it tomorrow morn. I've been less active lately, but I should be able to cast a discerning eye on the article. Kudos, anyway, for requesting the other side's opinion.--C.Logan 08:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Creation Museum

I just wanted to clarify my edit that you reverted on the Creation Museum page. I was not pushing POV in fact I was partially reverting someone else's attempted to push it and attempting to create a sort of compromise version. Check the history to be clear. No big deal I just didn't want you to think that I was trying to slant the Creation Museum page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel J. Leivick (talk • contribs) 03:12, 17 July 2007

Sorry, I did see the history, it was a bit of knee-jerk on my part I have to admit. When you spend a lot of time editing creationist articles, that 99% number is one that always gets attacked. ornis 03:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of edits in Noah's Ark article

Is there a reason why you removed without explanation the edits I made to the Noah's Ark article today? --Taiwan boi 09:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

They're a copyright violation. See the note I left on the talk page. ornis (t) 09:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

They are not a copyright violation in any way, as I have cited the source and have permission to use the material in the form in which it was included in the article. I have added details on the talk page. --Taiwan boi 09:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of user page

It's your user page he's vandalizing, which is a serious matter, and he has long since passed 3rr a couple places. This is serious harassment. Report him and get him blocked immediately. -- Fyslee/talk 21:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do know what he was vandalising... that was a slip of terminology on my part ;)... to be honest I'm not big on reporting people, since he seems to be using the talk pages of the articles in question now. PS I got your mail, cheers for that, but I am trying to be more careful now. Once bitten twice shy and all that. ornis (t)

Let's hope he learns or the next block will be a longer one. -- Fyslee/talk 22:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I saw, thanks for that. ornis (t) 22:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ornis, I swear you're like flypaper for freaks.  ;) •Jim62sch• 22:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I know, what's up with that, do you think perhaps the anti-war poem or strong-atheist userbox has something to do with it ;) ornis (t) 22:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably both. But you really do attract the weirdos. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to look at this...

Hey ConfuciusOrnis, you may also want to look at Foxsux's talk page now, as he is trying to accuse you of wikistalking. Perhaps it's best to just leave him serve his block and perhaps cool off, but I thought that you might want to know. Thanks for helping to at least get him onto the talk page.... I assumed he was new, but I am not so sure now. Edhubbard 22:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I did see that, and no I think you're right it's best to let him cool off. I still reckon he's newbie, though this comment made me wonder for a moment or two. ornis (t) 23:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, when I first read that, I thought he was saying read WP:Civil, but then I re-read it and realized he wasn't referring to policy. Anyway, I've tried to talk to him a little on his page, to let him know about policy, and what we are all trying to do here, despite (and through) our conflicting points of view. I hope it helps, but if not, I'm sure that he'll buy himself a permanent block quickly. Either way, I'll step up my checks on these pages for a while. I'm off to bed; it's 1:20 in the morning here in Paris. Edhubbard 23:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch

Thanks, that is an more descriptive summary that provides a decent rationale for the change.--Isotope23 ^talk 01:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries. ornis (t) 01:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

A lot of effort goes into finding good academic sources llike this. The entire article lends a context to Ramsey's statement. Your help in providing helpful edits & suggestions to improve their usage would be appreciated if you don't like the current proposed verbiage with the source. The statement in its fundamental aspects is not biased, critical or POV. Understand QW means business when it goes after its quarries - as expressed joyfully or in complimentary fashion by various fellow travellers in QW authors' publications, in approving tones about their actions and targets. Thank you.--I'clast 08:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Harvard and Huxley

You've been helping out with putting citations in templates at Thomas Huxley, which is grand but there's a lot of repetition of sources, and User:Macdonald-ross seems to have had in mind Harvard referencing. The Wikipedia:Harvard referencing page is a bit out of date as new systems come in, but my experience of being introduced to a Harvard system (and helped to implement it) at Charles Darwin makes me think that the current version of this would suit the Huxley article very well. Unfortunately the "Cite book" templates lack a function to link from the "Harvnb" cites in a notes section to the reference itself, but they are supposed to be ok for use with Harvard referencing, so the templates could be moved to a new "References" section and Template:Harvard citation no brackets used inline to provide a reference in the notes section complete with the page number. In the longer term the reference info could be moved to use Template:Citation for a link to the "References" – see also Wikipedia:Citation templates. Sorry this is a bit of a guddle, but the results do work well in my opinion. Your comments will be appreciated, .. dave souza, talk 21:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

To be honest with you, I find the variety citation methods a bit confusing sometimes, but I had a look at Charles Darwin, and I agree with you, it would suit Thomas Huxley very well indeed. I'm more than happy to fix the referencing in the agreed upon manner when User:Macdonald-ross is finished adding material. ornis (t) 23:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've pretty much done what I wanted to, and as agreed before I've come back to you to ask you to help out with the organisation of the refs. As mentioned before, I prefer the old name, date refs (which Wiki charmingly calls the 'Harvard system'!) especially as some of the refs come up a dozen times or more. I'm grateful to you, Dave Souza, Rusty Cashman, and especially Fred.e, for your interest and support over the long weeks. Fred.e says I've progressed quickly, but it seems a long, long time since I started. I've tried to make the page enjoyable and interesting as well as representing Hux fairly. I'm pushing for Hux to be recognised as of High Importance rather than Mid-Importance, based on his overall effect on British (+American and German) life, thinking and science. Not such a great scientist as Darwin (who is?) but a great man all the same, and hugely influential. Regards, Macdonald-ross 13:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit late here, but I'll have a look tomorrow and we can see what needs to be done. I'll definitely support your push to upgrade to high importance. ornis (t) 14:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Have put some suggestions on the article talk page, let me know if you want some ideas or if you'd like me to try out some as sample. In a way the first thing is to sort out the section naming. The "importance" thing comes from wikiprojects which I've never really had time or inclination to get involved in, you could always change it and make the argument, or it would probably be more polite to raise the question on the project page first. .. dave souza, talk 16:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy rough draft

I have finished a draft of the Homeopathy article. It obviously has some flaws in it's format and wording right now but they will be kinked out within the next couple of days. Right now what I want is for you, if you're interested in helping to improve the article, to come to the articles talk page. There we will all discuss the article and how it could be improved before we replace the current homeopathy article with it. In order for this to work we need to follow a few rules. The first rule, the most important rule, is that no one but me can edit the rough draft. Do not edit the rough draft. This precaution is used to prevent edit warring and loss or addition of information that might not be up to consensus. Don't worry, It's just a draft and you'll have all the time you want to make changes after we've replaced it with the current article. The second rule is that all proposed changes in the rough draft must be made on the talk page of the rough draft and must be clear and concise. At that point anyone involved will discuss the proposed changes and if agreed by consensus they will be implemented. We will do that until there is no disputes or disagreements. After all disputes are hammered out, we will replace the homeopathy article with the rough draft. At that point there shouldn't be anyone needing to make huge edits, and if you do see an edit that you want to make, be sure to add a note on the talk page PRIOR to making the edit so that consensus can be reached and then you should make the edit. If you have any questions you can leave me a message on my talk page. Here is the link to the rough draft Link to rough draft. I hope to see you there! Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have oppositions to my current rough draft. I would appreciate if you could outline some of your oppositions to it so that I can take a look at them and we can discuss them. Anything that is problematic can easily be changed. If you believe the draft is POV right now in support of Homeopathy, please tell me how you would suggest improving it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Marking minor

oh, my mistake, thanks for letting me know! Wiki wiki1 23:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries. ornis (t) 23:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

would you mind a discussion on the various points i addressed on the herbalism page rather than a revert war?Wiki wiki1 23:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I would like you to read my edits and point out anywhere you think that I was anything put fair with either side, I'm trying to keep a balance while pointing out both the flaws and benefits of both western medicine and herbalism. I made a lot of good edits where some 'blatant' POV pushing, as well as leading statements, by the pharmaceutical side.

I did read you edits, and I suggest since it's you that wants to make such sweeping changes that you are the one that needs to justify them rather than edit warring over the matter. Any way I've replied on the talk page. ornis (t) 23:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

list of plants

The lists need to be merge when the structure is worked out. Some will have entries under both columns with some studies confirming and others disconfirming. IMO this will be valuable to researchers. For example I just looked at 3 studies on cinnamon and Type II diabetes. One confirming at 3g, 1 disconfirming at 1g, and one confirming at both doses But the latter was done in Pakistan where people weigh less so the dose/kg may have been higher. Science need to ask these types of question.Cayte 00:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Cayte

Hux reply

Bibby 1959; i bought 1972 later when I realised it was a different book! Macdonald-ross 13:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually just replied on your talk page as you were writing this... funny.ornis (t) 13:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hux thank-you!

Just to say I'm grateful for the time you've spent on the refs, despite my own preference for the old way. That's just because I'm old!

I was interested to read the current Encyc Brit entry for Hux by Adrian Desmond, new to me. I'm glad I didn't see it before I started, it would have influenced me too much. I see a couple of new refs have crept into the intro section; they seem appropriate, but might have been better placed under Vertebrate Palaeo. There's a tendency for intros to get so gummed up with links, refs, bold type &c. that they end up rather unreadable. But I guess I have to live with the open-ended nature of WP — after all, that's what drew me in! Macdonald-ross 18:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That's alright. I added those cites to the lead, another editor tagged the phrase as being unreferenced, though personally I don't think it really needed them, it's often easier to just provide a ref than argue over it. Oh, and you should check out this tool when you're editing other articles. It generates inline citations automatically given an ISBN, URL, PubMedID etc.. I use it quite a lot. ornis (t) 11:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

In your message to me: you said "If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Relationship between religion and science" I might have a COI. I have no close connection. I am a professional historian of science. Now, kindly put my link back. James Hannam 14:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)