User talk:FeloniousMonk/Archive 2

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There have been no substantial comments as a result of the article RFC. I am talking about a Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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 [1]. 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 [2][3] [4][5][6][7][8], ignoring consensus [9], and disrupting the article [10][11][12] [13].

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration page to make your statement under the heading Ben. --Ben 21:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Benapgar FeloniousMonk 21:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

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

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

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[reply]

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

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Please take a look at recent censorship attempts of Savage Love by an anonymous user and the removal of the article on Subrah Iyar by your colleague. Larvatus 17:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]

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):

unguided ("Darwinian"), versus
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you

The content and verifiablity of sourcing has been researched for several months; and User:Cberlet was asked here [14], 20 September 2005, eight weeks ago, to substantiate his response to Mr. Wilcox, which he has not done. nobs 06:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go see the Talk:Chip Berlet page, or better yet read Laird Wilcox, The Watchdogs, p. 114-131 , and pick and choose what you think is "notable, characteristic, and less inflamitory" to achieve NPOV from the blatant solicitation for sale of publications, as described by PRA's site as a "source of income", that the Chip Berlet article now is. nobs 06:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Puppy posts

Ok, you did mouse over the wikilinks in my last post (devastated... nonsense...etc) didn't you? KillerChihuahua 15:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You asked that I would "make the case for the specific deletions and additions on Talk"

I'm 151.118.5.103, the editor who produced the changes recorded at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&diff=28464774&oldid=28463662.

To be honest, I was shocked that you (or anyone) would show such direct "ownership"/control of an article.

A little background: I do academic writing and editing for a living. I came across the Intelligent Design article and saw a few pretty obvious stylistic errors (for an American English article), plus a few rather un-academic, un-scholarly, un-encyclopedic remarks and thought I could help the article along a bit.

So . . .

The use of the word "mainstream" is prejudicial and unnecessary to the point under discussion.

The comma at the end of the clause "This stands in opposition to mainstream explanations of systems," plays no legitimate grammatical role. It doesn't belong there. So I elided it.

I thought the additional paragraph break made the article more readable. It certainly did not change the meaning in any discernible way. If you prefer long paragraphs, and you are going to maintain "control"--go for it.

The statement about R. Reid George is not only poorly written, it makes the author who put it in look foolish. It is completely "off-subject" and, in my not-so-humble opinion, is wholly unworthy of an encyclopedic article.

I replaced the words "Intelligent Design" with "it" because the referent for the pronoun is obvious in context and there is no need to repeat the full noun.

In American English, commas and periods are supposed to go inside quotation marks, not outside.

Hope this explains my reasons.

Thanks.

--John H

Hi John-- It's not that disagree with your punctuation edits, which I recognize as being a genuine improvement. It's that much of this content has been under heated discussion on the talk page and significant deletions of content should first be discussed. Your punctuation edits can be rolled back in. FeloniousMonk 05:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ant/Wade objections

I understand your rationale for archiving redundant objections; but even as an involved party I can't remember the substance of the objection(s), and do not remember/see the answer you provided. These should be linked from the archives for easy referral; otherwise it would appear you are being unfair and/or it will just pop up again. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archive 20 links is sufficient for me, but I would take it a step further and link originals as well; above the latest archives to give a sense of the period of time spent on these issues, not just the latest round. So a line above the Archive links, something like:

Original objection and response.

Helps put archive20 in context, and clarify it was dealt with at such and such a date. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Try This

FM, let's stop the edit war. I am attempting to remove inaccurate information from the Metanexus Institute page. Metanexus IS (or, more accurately was) the Philadelphia Center for Religion and Science. Additionally, please let me know where you are getting this notion that Metanexus is funded by Counterbalance. Counterbalance doesn't give out funding. And certainly they don't give Metanexus funding. Moreover, why do you indicate that Counterbalance's address is a po box on the Metanexus talk page? Doesn't that belong on a Counterbalance page? And there is more still: why delete links to the research projects and whatnot?

Perhaps this isn't belligerence on your part but misunderstanding. Metanexus has nothing to hide. I have re-established your Funding section, modified it to make it more accurate, but I still don't see why this belongs in a Metanexus article. It would make sense (maybe) if you were attempting to link Metanexus to something not clear on its website or research project pages, but this isn't the case. More to the point, why would use assume otherwise. It seems clear that Metanexus articles and research that Metanexus is not an advocate of Intelligent Design. Other than indicating this, what is your point with all this?

animal rights

re: this complete deletion: the introduction must at least mention the other major points of view around the topic or it fails NPOV. there is a major POV that opposes "animal rights" and it goes by the name "animal welfare". First SlimVirgin deleted the paragraph I added because she said it was "too long". Then she deleted it saying "don't just list quotes". So I did a complete rewrite, and now you delete it because it is "redundant"? Nice. The intro contains a short sample of the animal welfare POV. It is not redundant with the main text because the main text contains the full background of that POV. Quotes are given more context, etc. Any major point made in the intro should be covered again in the body of the article, or it wasn't worth introducing. It isn't "redundant", it's good editing: introduce the topic in the intro, then go into full detail in the body of the article. FuelWagon 16:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of religion as a heritable variation

Wondered if you'd come across this story? Just thought it might interest you...dave souza 11:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

Wondered if you'd come across Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Candidate statements? Just thought it might interest you...why not add your own?

Fork off!

Mind if I start with a joke? No offense intended, and I've come back from 4 days of vacation in a jolly mood. :-)

Please read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_forking#Article_spinouts_-_.22Summary_style.22_articles

...and then comment. It's a project page about what I've been calling a "sidebar article", and I value your opinion on the idea. Uncle Ed 17:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid personal attacks

This is not a "warning". I can't shift gears so quickly from friendly collaboration to adverse action.

But what you said here is out of line. It's tantamount of accusing me - ME, of all people! -- of pushing a POV.

I think you realize that I'm only trying to clarify the differences between ideas which seem similar at first glance. You've even fed me web links to help me do this, so I don't understand what you're about with the Killer Chihuahua remark. Uncle Ed 00:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid bullying, and you'll have nothing to worry about, Ed. By continuing to mischaracterize legitimate questions raised about whether your actions constitute bullying as "personal attacks" that demand "Warnings", you merely confirm the suspicions of those who raise them, Ed. Stop and think about it for a moment. FeloniousMonk 00:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Show me a legitimate question, and I'll respond to it. Accuse me vaguely of "bullying", and there's no response possible other than to wonder why. Uncle Ed 01:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your implied threat above taken with your comment about your handling of Joshuaschroeder today ("Joshua is not the first user whom I've chased away for thwarting the values of the Wikipedia community." [15]) tell me all I need to know about your actions here and whether or not they constitute bullying. FeloniousMonk 02:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey FM, you're not alone... Tom e r^TALK 07:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

equal weight

[16] "Giving the opposing viewpoint equal weight in the intro is misleading" Oh, man, are you funny. Don't give me this jive talk about "equal weight". The truth of the matter is that PeTA advocates like SlimVirgin refuse to allow any criticism in the introduction, regardless of "weight". I've tried to put the criticism into a single paragraph and that got reverted as well. [17] Weight doesn't matter. She reverts any criticism. And that is a violation of NPOV. There is significant criticism of animal rights, and it all gets deleted. The intro is nothing but a pro-animal-rights cheerleading section with numerous emotional pleading terms and numerous implied accusations of guilt against anything short of full-personhood being granted to all animals. If that isn't an advocacy piece, I don't know what is. Policy has been thrown out the window here. Completely. FuelWagon 01:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How widely is unguided evolution accepted?

FM, here you copied text which includes the idea that the wider scientific community ... challenges the notion that evolution is anything but widely accepted.

Considering that only 15% of Americans accept evolution (in the sense you and Dunc insist is "unplanned & unguided", aren't these mainstreamers a bit out of touch with the facts? (Or did you mean that some elements of the scientific community wish that more people supported them? Or what?) Uncle Ed 23:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution as it is defined by the scientific community is generally understood to be unguided by necessity. The same scientific community widely accepts evolution as valid scientific theory. What is or isn't considered valid science is not determined by its popularity with the general populace, but by its acceptance within the scientific community. Nearly every major scientific professional organization has issued policy statements that evolution is accepted as valid science and that creationism in its various forms is not. Over 60 of them, at last count. FeloniousMonk 23:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]