User talk:DannyMuse/Archive01

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

JW Discussion Posts Here

Welcome! Please post any comments you may have related to current development of the JW page or related issues. --DannyMuse 07:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Watchtower

I'd like to invite you to have another look at the Watchtower page. Your help was much appreciated some months ago cairoi 04:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Central's immediate deletion of my comment (which I felt was as objective as possible without pretending that he/she wasn't completely out of line), along with his/her refusal to directly argue on the real points of order lead me to believe that he/she should just throw in the towel! I think that someone will eventually see his/her real motives, as usually happens, and dismiss him/her, supporting fair editing. - CobaltBlueTony July 8, 2005 13:12 (UTC)

Hi. I'm from the Willamette congregation Eugene, OR. Sorry don't know any McGhee's in California. I like your "Opposition" idea. Cheers, Matt M. :) Duffer 03:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcome on my user page and for what seems to be a rather calm approach to following the article's development! I came here after getting somewhat unsatisfied with the discussion on the German JW article concerning whether and if so, how, to mention the issue of JW being considered a "sect". That discussion, if it took place here, does not seem to be current, and in the German article, it is not very productive. --Bhuck 15:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses: Disfellowshipping

• Note: I moved the previous discussion to the Talk:Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses page as it seemed more appropriate. See Issues revisited. --DannyMuse 17:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

User:DannyMuse, can you point me to a current reference that says that you will not be disfellowshipped for associated with a disassociated or disfellowshipped person? My brother was disfellowshipped recently, and the elders warned my mother and sister from associating with them for that very reason. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 04:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Konrad, I see you've checked the talk page. While Tommstein wrote a lot on the point, if you read it carefully you'll see that it doesn't say anything any different that what the article states or what I've written on the subject previously. I'm sorry to hear about your brother. I take it he doesn't live at home with your parents. --DannyMuse 15:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

No, my brother is married. So it's total cut off. Anyway, I don't understand what you mean about it not saying "anything any different that what the article states or what I've written on the subject previously." Tommstein's post makes it pretty clear you can be disfellowshipped for it; I thought you were stating the opposite. Is that right? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 03:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Cults & Sects

• Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 13: Purported cult
• Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 9 - see 5.2.1 Cults and Sects

Interesting Stuff

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Critical Information on Jehovah's Witnesses2

• User:Sjakkalle/Eyesopen

Advocacy

 Danny, you may use, reference and link this comment to your talk page as my submission of advocacy to your specific cause relating to Central's argumentative retorts regarding shortened book descriptions. I understand there is a distinction between the 'books' and 'links to resources' critical of the group, and I hope I quote directly from the appropriate section. If I do not, however, one can still utilize the tone and inference from his quotes as indicative of his general malaise towards Jehovah's Witnesses in general. I find his argumentative tone to be strikingly similar to that used by Russian and Eastern Orthodox maligners, the kind that elicit repeated inquiries by the European Court of Human Rights:

• "you repeatedly restored Duffer1's slanderous material and reinstated it" - I do not understand how LESS information about books is slanderous

• "using bogus false reason saying that all these were not "your opinions" but those of "experts"! Your memory is highly selective, but I understand, as many cult victims take a long time to get their reasoning faculties back" - I have good reason to suspect that the "experts" are in fact the Governing Body, as they would have expressed it in publication or in selective press release, but needless to say it is rather common knowledge among average Jehovah's Witnesses familiar with the organizational history, and to my knowledge has never been corrected by the GB as erroneous. I remember vividly the accounts of the bitterness that existed between the siblings, and how that extended into Raymond's disdain for the organization as a whole. Even so, it is necessary to use the NPOV in the desciptions of the texts, no matter their views; as I recall, the descritions were objected to because they were worded in a manner so as to be purporting facts, and the the views of someone disaffected. - [unsigned]

• Danny, you stated is succinctly and accurately when you said, "it is irrelevant because the discussion on what was appropriate for this section was regarding the content of the book descriptions, not the content of the books". In every other instance in my experience, when a book blurb promotes the opinion of the author, it is considered to be more of a sales pitch. This is why society in general utilizes independent and objective reviewers to provide summary information about publications. I don't know if Central quite grasps this. Saying, for instance, that Pope Benedict XVI discussed his views on what it means to be tolerant within the Catholic faith in his 2003 book, 'Truth And Tolerance: Christian Belief And World Religions' is a summary; stating that Benedict XVI 'embodies the true faith by his meaningful defense of truth while still being tolerant' is not a NEUTRAL point of view. Central does not seem to grasp the validity of anything beyond his own viewpoint. He does not respond directly to factual arguemnts; instead he slings the insults and degradations around as if this were somehow a logical response (ergo my Eastern Orthodox opposers comparison). While he's quite free to hold whatever views he chooses, he does not appear to be a competant editor of material with which he does not agree, and in fact towards which he seems quite vehement.

• User:Duffer1 wrote on 3 July 2005:

  The Sign of the Last Days - When? - I changed: "..accompanied by historical facts demonstrating how surprisingly little.." to read: "accompanied by a presentation that purports to show how surprisingly".. Whoever wrote this description of the book obviously is not interested in truth, just "truth" according to Carl O. Jonsson. I changed the wording to an NPOV perspective, first and foremost.

  Central's response was, "LOL. You never learn do you Duffer? I seriously suggest you actually READ the books mentioned before you claim to know what's in them! You're hilarious, read Proverbs 18:13 it might help if you get information and facts before you answer anymore. Posted Central 3 July 2005". Here again, he is trying to argue the points of the publication and not addressing an NPOV description of the book. He is demonstrating his desire to argue the theological points and not the issue of diligent editing of a reference material.

I hope this is a sufficient demonstration of my advocacy. While I may be a fellow believer with you in "the faith," I don't think this by necessity precludes me from being impartial (which, in fact, imitates our God). Please, Danny or User:Sam_Spade, feel free to correspond with me as you feel the need.

CobaltBlueTony 20:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Danny, please let me know what/if any response you have received regarding my volunteering as your advocate. - CobaltBlueTony 16:39, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Citing Sources

Danny, has any effort been made to verify whether the reproductions/quotations are accurate, or doctored? - CobaltBlueTony 19:56, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

RE www.jwfacts.com

Danny,

Not sure if this is the correct way to contact you. It appears you keep removing the link to my site www.jwfacts.com . Can you please stop doing this. The guidelines state "An extreme political or religious website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group." My site fits these guidelines as a site that discusses the opinions of that organization. You can contact me at info@jwfacts.com to discuss if you like. I am willing to listen to suggestions for improvements. I have had numerous messages of thanks for the information contained there. Conversely one inactive JW was motivated by the information to start going back to meetings after reading the information, strange but true. --12:18, 13 August 2005 User:220.237.18.12 (Unsigned)

NOTE: This website fails to meet the academic standards appropriate to a encyclopdia. See Use Using online sources: "personal websites ... are not acceptable as sources."--DannyMuse 14:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Danny,

"Using online sources" states that personal websites are unacceptable as reliable sources for the content of Wikipedia, it does not state that they are not be linked to. Some of the other sites in the list that are linked to are also personal websites. You may notice from my site that there is no personal gain to myself, apart from the satisfaction that some Witnesses may save time in researching the history of the religion. - (Unsigned)

User:220.237.18.12 - Perhaps other personal websites should also be held into question as to their accuracy by default. I'm certainly not opposed to that. - CobaltBlueTony 14:18, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

To anonymous user(s) 220.237.18.12/61.29.58.114: First of all, it is proper Wikiquette to sign and date your posts to talk pages. This is an essential aspect of communication here. It helps other users understand the progress and evolution of a dialog. Failure to do so is confusing. For example, 61.29.58.114 added to the unsigned post by 220.237.18.12. Are you the same user at a different IP or are you both just showing bad form? I have no clue! It's confusing.

To CobaltBlueTony: I obviously totally agree with your statement that "perhaps other personal websites should also be held into question". We need to be very stringent in applying WP's standards regarding reliable sources. As the WP standard advises, “Wikipedia articles should use reliable sources. Edits for which no credible references are provided may be deleted by any editor." (Emphasis added). Otherwise any crackpot with an agenda will post their personal diatribes, like that ridiculous dannyhazard site that used to be in the Resources Critical of the Group section. Which other sites do you think fail to meet the academic standards of WP? --DannyMuse 17:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Danny, the real problem here is that this information really shouldn't be here. Let's try to think about it from the other side of it. Let's say a person genuinely feels mistreated in some way by a Catholic priest, deacon, nun, etc., etc. Everything in their experience has soured them to the religion, but others disagree with the factuality of their experiences. Statements like, 'that couldn't have possibly happened,' or, 'Catholics don't do/believe that' might be thrown in as an arguement, further alienating the individual. Effectiveness of the faith's methodology aside, can we academically condemn the religion based on this disagreement? No. So the question should be, how do we address those who claim a different experience than the 'official word' on a particular topic? You and I know that spiritually something is just not right, that someone somewhere erred intentionally or through common human imperfection. We can answer someone and say, 'that is not what we believe, and here are the facts to support that, so if you experienced something else, let's address that through the proper channels.' But how do we address someone who thinks that their experiences, which may resemble those of others, are the reality? Especially since we likely have had no direct personal contact with them and therefore cannot speak as an authority on the issue?

How about this: an article called Divergent experiences involoving Jehovah's Witneses' beliefs and practices? Since you don't go into a print encyclopedia and read all about Catholic excommunicated, disillusioned, or otherwise discontent experiences that may or may not have basis in facts under the Catholicism heading, why have it under the JW article heading? If it deserves encyclopedia mention at all, it needs to be within its own space, reflecting its comarative uniqueness.

My head hurts right now, so I need to stop typing. I'll dicuss more later. - CobaltBlueTony 16:44, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Source and Resource

• SOURCE

1. One that causes, creates, or initiates; a maker.
2. One, such as a person or document, that supplies information: "A reporter is only as reliable as his or her sources."
3. The place where something begins, where it springs into being
4. A publication (or a passage from a publication) that is referred to

• RESOURCE

1. A source of aid or support that may be drawn upon when needed; "the local library is a valuable resource"
2. An available supply that can be drawn on when needed. Often used in the plural.

Sources: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company

CONCLUSION: If something is not acceptable as a source then it follows that it would also not be acceptable as a resource!

Other Messages

Danny, please contact me via Yahoo or AIM using cobaltbluetony. I am invisible, so you cannot see me. by my email address, cobaltbluetony | at | yahoo-dot-com. - CobaltBlueTony 19:31, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) (edit CobaltBlueTony 16:36, August 2, 2005 (UTC))

Danny, I think you've done a very good job at presenting facts without sounding biased. Keep up the good work, brother :).--CB

Re:

Please see User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive/Juli 2005 3#Requesting_an_advocate. Cheers, ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Tom is a really great person, but he has very good reasons for taking an indefinate break. Frankly I largely share his reasons, and may do the same before too long. In any case, let me know if you need help w the RfC. It is only one step of Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, but it is an important one, providing evidence and community support for further steps, if they are needed. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 14:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Vote for JW structure

Please vote for or against the adoption of the proposed structure for WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses on the talk page and sign your name with ~~~~. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

————

Really do need to talk to you. No, really. Yahoo: cobaltbluetony, AIM: cobaltbluetony, Skype: cobaltbluetony, SkypeIn phone number: 856-393-1655 CobaltBlueTony 22:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

NC?

Is this you???

http://wcuvax1.wcu.edu/~ulrich/danny.htm

-)

- CobaltBlueTony 20:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Nope! But I am a musician!!! --DannyMuse 17:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Yahoo discussion group

Danny, I would invite you to join the Yahoo discussion group and invite other wiki JWs RE: pending structure change. Please contact me via my talk page and sign your comment. Thanks!- CobaltBlueTony 20:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

DM and TH

Hi, my friend DM. Many thanks for the kind welcome back. I am not here very heavily, but I am here. And it is good to feel of your spirit again. Tom Haws 03:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:David Berlinski

Hrafn, please give me something to work with. And, please do NOT delete my talk page entries. This is the place for dialogue on points of contention.

With appropriate respect, I think you may be confusing the subject when you make claims of WP:UNDUE. This article is about David Berlinski, not about ID or evolution. That being said, you seem to be taking exception to my edit:

"While pakicetids are not necessarily a direct ancestor of the whales we know today ... " Please review my source for this information at this link: Whale Evolution, WGBH Educational Foundation. You will find the relevant statement in the second paragraph from the bottom. By the way. I found this link on Larry Moran's page. He had it there as "proof" that whales evolved from pakicetids.

You may also wish to review the information under Criticism and praise in the WP article, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. After you've reviewed these points, let's discuss. Thanks. DannyMuse (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Throwing wild accusations while accidentally reverting the replies to your comments is hardly the way to foster a dialogue. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comments on Hrafn's talk page

Danny, please remember:

"As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people."

I can't see how your comments on Hrafn's personal motivations are helpful to the project. They come off as baiting to me. Please reconsider them...thank you. Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Aunt Entropy,

Please clarify.

1. What is "the project" to which you refer?
2. How does my personal question to Hrafn concern you?
3. Have you recently, if ever, reminded Hrafn of the merits of "polite and effective discourse"?

Thanks for your anticipated reply! -DannyMuse (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

"The project" is the writing of an encyclopedia, and I am concerned with baiting of others on their talkpages, especially by those who accuse others of not behaving civilly. I don't recall if I've reminded Hrafn of anything recently, but if I saw him go to someone's talk page just to question their psychological makeup after he had just lectured said person on civility, I certainly would say something. Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. CIreland (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

CIreland, can you please explain why I would be blocked from adding properly cited material when others revert with out sanction?

Dave Souza said it wasn't properly cited. My response was that I copied the cite from the Richard Dawkins page. He did NOT object to the content. I changed the citation to the appropriate ISBN citation and he and OrangeMarlin continued to revert. They continued to "claim" synthesis and OR yet I was only citing what Richard Dawkins said in his book and in the corresponding tv documentary. Did you also block Dave Souza? He reverted me three times BEFORE I reverted him. Or is there some favoritism going on here? DannyMuse (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You were not blocked for any of the things you mention above. You were blocked for breaking the three-revert-rule. The three-revert-rule sets a limit on the number of reverts on one article by single editor in a 24 hour period of three. i.e. We block under the three-revert-rule for four or more reverts. You reverted six times. CIreland (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for a reply. However, you did not answer all my questions. Did you revert Dave Souza? He also reverted me three times.

You also failed to address the real issue: Please explain why I would be blocked from adding properly cited material when others revert with out sanction?

Dave Souza said it wasn't properly cited. My response was that I copied the cite from the Richard Dawkins page. He did NOT object to the content. I changed the citation to the appropriate ISBN citation and he and OrangeMarlin continued to revert. It seems that Dave got Orangemarlin, Odd nature, Ramdrake together to take turns reverting my edits. All cited the same lame reason, but NONE of them would discuss CONTENT. That looks an awful lot like they were Gaming the system.

They continued to "claim" synthesis and OR yet I was only citing what Richard Dawkins said in his book and in the corresponding tv documentary. By definition, that can NOT be either synthesis or Original Research. It would appear that they just don't like what I added. Did you read the Talk Page? There is some very telling dialogue there acknowledging Dawkins use of the terms "Darwinism" and "evolution" in essentially interchangeable/synonymous ways. Are you familiar with this?

Did you also block Dave Souza? He reverted me three times BEFORE I reverted him. Or is there some favoritism going on here? Please reassure me that you're not in on this Gaming the system. DannyMuse (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I will address your concerns point by point:

However, you did not answer all my questions. Did you revert Dave Souza? He also reverted me three times.

• I have not performed any edits to the article.

You also failed to address the real issue: Please explain why I would be blocked from adding properly cited material when others revert with out sanction?

• You were not blocked for this reason. You were blocked for reverting six times in 24 hours.

Dave Souza said it wasn't properly cited. My response was that I copied the cite from the Richard Dawkins page. He did NOT object to the content. I changed the citation to the appropriate ISBS citation and he and OrangeMarlin continued to revert. It seems that Dave got Orangemarlin, Odd nature, Ramdrake together to take turns reverting my edits. All cited the same lame reason, but NONE of them would discuss CONTENT.

• I have no opinion on this. The quality of your citations had no bearing on your block.

They continued to "claim" synthesis and OR yet I was only citing what Richard Dawkins said in his book and in the corresponding tv documentary. By definition, that can NOT be either synthesis or Original Research. It would appear that they just don't like what I added. Did you read the Talk Page? There is some very telling dialogue there acknowledging Dawkins use of the terms "Darwinism" and "evolution" in essentially interchangeable/synonymous ways. Are you familiar with this?

• You were not blocked for adding original research. I offer no opinion on whether what you were adding constituted original research. Whether it was or was not original research was not part of the reason that I blocked you.

Did you also block Dave Souza? He reverted me three times BEFORE I reverted him. Or is there some favoritism going on here?

• The three-revert-rule prohibits four or more reverts. Moreover, the behaviour of Dave Souza had no bearing on the reason you were blocked.

CIreland (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. You've been duped. In case you're not convinced of what Dave and OrangeMarlin were up to just go peruse the OrangeFish's comment timestamped: 22:52, 30 July 2008 on Dave souza's Talk Page under the sub heading: You are invited.... Scroll to the bottom of the page, you might find it enlightening! - DannyMuse (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If you believe that is so then you may appeal to have another adminstrator review the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. CIreland (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

CI, thanks for you offer to make sure that I have formatted by appeal correctly. Would you please confirm that you have reviewed this request and made any necessary format changes? Also, can you please advise as to when I can expect a response. Thanks. DannyMuse (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I previously fixed the formatting for you and have now properly linked the users you refer to. For future reference links like [[Widget]] are for articles whereas links to users should be [[User:Widget]]. As far as how long it will take is concerned, it is hard to judge - typically it takes anywhere from a few minutes to a couple of hours. CIreland (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. DannyMuse (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DannyMuse (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I believe the block place on my account is inappropriate for the reasons stated both above in my dialogue with CIreland and as recounted with appropriate details below. I made a legitimate edit to the A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism page. This was almost immediately reverted by User:Dave souza. I have repeatedly appealed him and to the other users involved with this current series of edits to engage in Good Faith dialogue regarding the content of my edits, but to no avail, (details below). Because the blocking policy states that "administrators must not block users ... [because of] ... a content dispute", I request to be unblocked. Please review the Edit History Summary: Another user, User:Dave souza, reverted my recent edit stating he objected to the citation. Instead of correcting the cite, he simply reverted the page. I reverted back showing him that my citation came from reference listed on a WP on the author of the quote. Another editor, User:Orangemarlin, then reverted claiming my edit was "POV". At that time I updated the citation to the correct ISBN reference stating in my Edit Summary: "Used publisher citation". At that point, Dave Souza reverted me for the third time saying, "that's your original research, and the book is over 20 years old so it's hardly current". Obviously if what I cited was from a book, even if it's 20 year old, it's NOT original research. At this point, a third user, User:Odd nature, reverted me claiming, "Reverting: synth and or". Again I corrected this by stating that my edits were "neither synthesis or original research" but were backed up by the book and the tv documentary.

In the meantime, OrangeMarlin posted these comments timestamped: 22:52, 30 July 2008 on Dave souza's Talk Page under the sub heading: You are invited.... At no point would any of these three editors engage in a meaningful discussion of CONTENT. Rather, it would appear that they are Gaming the system. CIreland has acted advised me to contact another admin to review this as CI is unwilling or unable to do anything relative to content of the matter. DannyMuse (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your edit made an observation about someone, which in Wikipedia is termed original research. Content should have been published previously in reliable sources. In this instance, the observation about using the terms interchangeably should have been made by someone else in a reliable source. Even then, it would have to be relevant to the article, and strictly in accordance with the requirements of biographies of living persons policy, which requires the content to be relevant to the person's notability. Finally, you have misunderstood the neutral point of view policy - articles should present the information in a neutral manner, but that is different from suggesting that articles should imply every theory is equally plausible. — PhilKnight (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Edit warring

Please do not war on Wikipedia articles, such as Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. Doing so violates Wikipedia's policies including consensus and possibly the neutral point of view policy and may lead to blocking for violation of 3RR. Thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, Please go here to read my detailed request for discussion. I am very frustrated by the seemingly coordinated reverts by Hrafn, Shoemaker's Holiday and OrangeMarlin. I would welcome discussion rather than their wholesale, blind reverts as a first resort in response to Good Faith edits which others find disagreeable.

Additionally, I feel the need to point out that, although I made numerous edits to the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism page last night, only one was a direct revert. That revert was of an automated revert by Shoemaker's Holiday using WP:TW. A number of my edits were also reverted by Orangemarlin also using a WP:TW. Please note who began this "edit war" and that in both those cases they used the Twinkie, not me!!! Finally, I was reverted a third time by Hrafn. There was no violation of 3RR on my part, rather I believe I am editing in the spirit of WP:BRD. I maintain that their content reverts are intentional reversals of the changes made in good faith by myself. Rather than improving upon the edit or working with me to resolve the dispute, such actions only escalate it. This should not be taken lightly. Are you aware that of the last 11 "edits" OrangeMarlin has made to this article, 10 were reverts using Twinkie, (5 were of my edits, 5 were by other editors).

While we're at it, could you explain to me why I am being "chastised" for allegedly edit warring and threatened with being blocked while there is not a corresponding notice given to the others in this matter? Have you given the same counsel to Hrafn, Shoemaker's Holiday and Orangemarlin? I looked on their talk pages and didn't see it. And what is up with the use of Twinkies for automated reverts? How is that supposed to encourage any efforts at discussion and consensus? On the contrary, their methods seem to be attempts to win content disputes through brute force, which undermine the consensus-building process that underlies the ideal wiki collaborative spirit. - DannyMuse (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Dannymuse, I've protected the article for a week, however KC is entirely correct. Also, I've replied on my talk page to your comments. PhilKnight (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Phil, I saw your response. Thanks. I have requested some clarification there as well. BTW, although I made numerous edits to the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism page last night, only one was a revert, which was of an automated revert by Shoemaker's Holiday using WP:TW. A number of my edits were also reverted by OrangeMarlin also using a WP:TW. Please note who began this "edit war" and that in both those cases they used the Twinkie, not me!!! Finally, I was reverted a third time by Hrafn. There was no violation of 3RR on my part. - DannyMuse (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

DannyMuse, usual practice is to protect a page or block a user, there is rarely cause for protecting and blocking. In this context, I'm certainly not planning on taking any further action. Hopefully, in the next week you'll be able to develop a consensus on how the article can be improved. PhilKnight (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

PhilKnight, thanks for the explanation. It is my hope as well that a consensus can be reached. Time will tell. In the meantime, I have another question, can you explain to me what's up with the use of Twinkies? Although I've edited on WP for four years, I have never come across their use before. They way they've been applied recently seems counter to WP:BRD and consensus building efforts. Thanks, -- DannyMuse (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

←If you are going to make continued personal attacks such as "clearly coordinated reverts", then please add some links or facts that support that contention. That there are several editors who watch the same articles and all seem to think you are placing a POV into the article, but that does not qualify as coordinated. I have no clue what the other editors are doing, and though I have interacted with the other editors in the past, please find one single link that indicates a conspiracy with this article. Short of that link, I'd expect you to redact your statement. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I have modified that statement to reflect the facts. Since I made that change in response to your request, perhaps you could explain your use of a Twinkie to revert my edits. How do you think that is supposed to build consensus? -- DannyMuse (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No, prove it or remove it. Seemingly is merely a passive aggressive wording that leaves the full thrust of your accusation up there for all to see. Once again, please prove how this was coordinated. Furthermore, use of Twinkle to revert is perfectly appropriate as long as it is within all of the guidelines of WP. In fact, there are no specific rules as to the use of Twinkle. You yourself can get Twinkle rights, and in it, there are four button choices. One is a good faith reversion. I occasionally use it, but you can use it for only one editor. There is a neutral button, that allows you to place a message on a user pages. Then there is a vandal button, which states clearly I'm reverting vandalism, and allows me to place a warning on the user's page. Finally, the button I use the most, is a simple revert button. It is no different that the undo button that all users have rights to. The use of Twinkle is not, by itself, anything more than an editing tool. Twinkle is by far one of the easiest ways to do fast editing on Wikipedia. And yes, it sometimes leads to laziness, especially if there are 5 separate edits from an editor, and one of them actually is useful. I usually go back and re add the useful edit, but I have to do cut and pasting to make that work. You should refrain of making any type of inference that the use of Twinkle is any way an attack on anyone. If I think there's vandalism, i state it clear and simple. If I'm reverting edit-warring, I state that without any accusation of vandalism. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your informative discussion of the use of Twinkies. I was particularly interested in your admission that, "yes, it sometimes leads to laziness." I guess my edits last night fell into your category of "especially if there are 5 separate edits from an editor." However, I noticed that you did NOT "go back and re add the [IYHO] useful edit[s]". If you are too lazy to actually read, analyze and address multiple edits individually, then you should not be reverting them. How inconsiderate and rude!!! And how dare you label as "POV" edits you haven't even read. Have you considered how this makes other editors feel? "Frustrated", would be an understatement. If you have made any acknowledgment of that, I have missed it. Of the last 11 "edits" you made to this article, 10 were reverts using Twinkie. -- DannyMuse (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I do a comparison of all edits, not individual ones. The thrust of your edits were to add a POV that no one, other than you supports. Whether you corrected grammar or not wasn't relevant. Yes, I watch the article rather than write this one. However, a quick inspection of my overall edits would tell you that I built this encyclopedia rather than spend time arguing about an archaic point. In fact, my edits to this article don't even show up on my top 100 list of articles that I have edited. So, that I spend any time at all here, is because I believe you are trying to insert a POV that isn't acceptable. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

←OM, I can understand your feeling "territorial" about an article that you've worked hard on. But are you implying that because of your previous contributions to this article you are somehow exempt from currently displaying ordinary Etiquette. Because I don't see any exemptions from that on the WP:EQ page. Are you saying your only current interest in this page is to keep myself and others from changing it? Or are you saying that the article is "done" and no more changes can be made to it unless you approve? Frankly, I find your continued accusations that I am "trying to insert a POV that isn't acceptable" to be exasperating. What is your basis for this prejudicial accusation? Who is the final arbiter of what is and isn't acceptable? Not you or me or any single person. Perhaps you could demonstrate some good faith by working toward acceptable wordings on even some of my proposed changes rather than just a knee-jerk revert via a Twinkie to all of them. Could you do that? Something to think about. I look forward to seeing how you respond. DannyMuse (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

DM, you just can't leave false accusations and get away with it. Territorial? I just explained that the article is not very important to me. It doesn't make the top 100 list of articles that I have edited here, the point of which is that I don't really care emotionally about any article, and if I did, there are probably 100 more articles that would garner my attention. And where have I shown you a lack of etiquette? In fact, your constant accusations of corroboration on reverting you, that I am territorial about an article, and that I have shown you poor etiquette is getting problematic on your part. The only things I have done are reverted POV edits (but I wasn't alone in this), and to file a 3RR report regarding you, but only after you reached 5RR. You were blocked for that, because it is expressly prohibited around here. And please, lecturing me is hardly civil on your part. So, I would suggest you strike your numerous uncivil comments on this page, and then apologize. At that point, the air will be clear, and you might gain credibility with a group of equals to hammer out a good compromise. Right now, all I see is that you are placing your own POV on the whole Darwinism issue without getting consensus. This is a highly contentious article, and consensus will do you well. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

OM, well I guess we're at an impasse. Your frustrated, I'm frustrated. You want an apology, I want an apology. You think my edits are POV and I think there is a problem with you reverting them without being willing to engage in dialogue on points to reach agreement. Again, I ask you to demonstrate some good faith by working toward acceptable wordings on even some of my proposed edits. Are you willing to do that? In the meantime, allow me to reiterate that I already made a change in my comments to KillerChihuahua in response to your initial posting here, but which still reflects how the facts seem to me. If I am wrong, then I am wrong. But that is how it seems from my perspective. I will archive this section after KillerChihuahua has responded. -- DannyMuse (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Taiko and guitar

Hi. I ran across your edit on the Darwinism page, came to your page, and saw Taiko and guitar. My mom was best friends with guitarist Richie Blackmore, and Robert Fripp stayed at my house when I was a kid. But I am also a Butoh dancer, under Koichi Tamano, the guy who dances on top of the giant San Francisco Taiko Dojo drum, and who is best friends with Seiichi Tanaka. I personally studied Indian tabla in the 90's, and have recently been studying Korean drumming and will be helping produce a drumming performance in LA with PAVA. Regarding Darwinism, I recommend reading Jonathan Weiner's "Beak of the Finch", or "Time, Love, Memory", a fascinating account of the history of discoveries in molecular biology proving Darwinism. EricDiesel (talk) 07:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like I should meet your mom, maybe she could introduce me to Ritchie Blackmore and Mr. Fripp. I got into taiko in college when I was getting my teaching credential. Regarding Darwinism, I recommend you read Cornelius G. Hunter's book, "Darwin's Proof: The Triumph of Religion over Science." It establishes the religious nature of Darwin's idea. DannyMuse (talk) 04:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my mom just died last May 14, the day after her birthday, of the most horribly and painful bone/blood cancer. I work with a group, PAVA, that promotes Korean drumming and classes in the US, and we want to have a 300 person Korean Drumming marching band for the Rose Parade in 2010. Last year, PAVA had a Duo Dong drum festival at the Kodak Theater (where the Acadamy Awards are held), and it had Korean, African, and Brazillian drumming and dancing on the same stage, ending with a jam session with about 50 drummers on stage! I studied Indian tabla in teh 1990's, but i am not so good. Check out Zakir Hussein, 'the greatest drummer alive; his hands "disappear". Bill Bruford (Fripp's drummer) used to play the pots and pans in my mom's kitchen when I was a kid growing up, so I am not exxagerrating about Zakir Hussein. I saw Hussein get in a live drum war with SF Taiko Dojo's Tanaka, ending with Tanaka finally just standing there and watching, in a beautiful sign of respect. I worked with a band that had twenty drummers, {Extra Action Marching Band]], who played at the Hollywood Bowl in 2005, but play more strange venues normally. If you are in LA, I can hook you up with a Korean drumming class; it is an interesting alternative to Japanese Taiko. The 40th anniversary International Taiko Festival in Berkeley, put on by San Francisco Taiko Dojo, is worth flying to Berkely for, no matter what it costs you. My former Butoh teacher, Tamano, usually dances on top of their seven foot tall Taiko Drum. I am flying there to see it. EricDiesel (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Here is a link for the childrens PAVA Jr. Korean drumming segment at Kodak. The adult drumming portions were even bigger. There were also drummers from South Korea. We are working on trying to get acrobats from North Korea for the next event, but that is not so easy to do! EricDiesel (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Re creationism evolution - :Just kidding around to lighten the mood, since everyone seems to take this stuff too personally. EricDiesel (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Labelling

You may not have thought of this, but labelling editors as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views is a personal attack, and assertions about "cabals" were specifically discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kelly, memes, and cabals. It will help your interactions with others if you avoid such labelling in future. You may find it helpful or at least amusing to read WP:TIAC or WP:OWB (item 17). Hope that helps, dave souza, talk 20:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Dave, you're in no position to be talking to me about personal attacks. DannyMuse (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Odd Nature

This comment is incivil and a baseless attack on editors in good standing that have been subject to a string of similar attacks. Are you planning to join in and continue this? If so, just let us know now and we can cut to the chase. Odd nature (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you really had to dig to find that, didn't you? Did you find that on your own or did you have help? No matter. Either way, you also know that comment was removed by Dave Souza and that I chose to leave it alone after that. As for my comments being "incivil" I could argue that point, but choose not too. As to being "baseless", I submit that your comments here and the fact that you are working so hard to included Myer's and Moran's blog comments in--what I believe is--clear contradiction of Wikipolicy only proves my point. That can and should be discussed on the DB Talk Page, not here. Nevertheless, please confine your comments to content rather than personalities or behavior. Thank you.

BTW, just so I am clear, who is the "us" and what is the "chase" to which you refer? Thank you in advance for your anticipated response. - DannyMuse (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

... three years later and still no response ... or maybe that IS your response! --DannyMuse (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hawstom

Nice to hear from you. I sometimes wonder how the inner workings of Wikipedia are doing these days. Tom Haws (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, Danny Muse. Have a nice day. Tom Haws (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses project

I have started a discussion regarding the content wikipedia has regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses#Comments regarding template and project. Seeing that you are listed as a member of that project, I would appreciate any responses to the material there you would like to make. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Signature

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on Talk:Augmented seventh chord, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Hyacinth (talk) 11:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)