User talk:Ikester7579

License tagging for Image:Baugh fish.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Baugh fish.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

YEC page

Thanks for the censorship of YEC on the YEC page. I see that this wiki takes a bias view by deleting everything that I wrote. I will be making a note of this on my website and leaving a link to that page. It will be included in my evolutionist hate section of my website. As I know it was a evolutionists that deleted it.

As far as a discussion goes. You guys already made up your mind on this. no one discussed it with me. Just delete away. That page just proves the claim about censorship that YEC says exists. So thanks for another example of evolution hate. I will also be including the user names of the people who kept deleting everything I type.

Also, can I just delete stuff I don't like on the evolution page as well? Or would I get banned for doing it? Don't worry I don't stoop that low. And the person who runs this can delete my account. There is no purpose in taking the time to write things that just get deleted.

I was going to write a whole page on oil, which is the field I work in. Thanks for the heads up on deleting stuff at will. I won't waste my time writting anymore stuff.

The issue in particular in this case was WP:N and the need for reliable sources. If you have any reliable sources that discuss "Eternal time creation" then we can include it, otherwise we are helpless. JoshuaZ 06:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not include bible sources because I figured you did not want them. Being a leteral believing creationist that in itself should have been enough. But I know you won't except that because this Wiki promotes evolution. And is the very reason the evolution page gets a glowing write up, and the creation page gets written by someone who hates it. Instead of making this response long. I will leave you with the webpage I just did about my experience here. http://www.yecheadquarters.org/shame_part2.15.html

Your excuse for what was done is a cop out. Not all people major in eglish to write just how you would like it. I was sincere in what I wrote, and you were sincere in making sure no one saw it. I will be doing a complete line by line response to that bias page. Showing just how Wikis get it wrong, and sometimes do it on purpose. And I will be looking into the other pages on creation because I am sure they are written in the same bias negative light. And just like that page, are not even protected from random edits.

You and your readers will not get the truth about creation as long as you filter out a creationist from writting it. But that would be the point of allowing a evolutionist to write it, correct? It would be a sure thing that the history of it would be twisted. Things left out. Certain words used to make sure all creationists look like ignorant morons.

I also noticed that one of the guys who edits it (deleted my writting) is a big time Kent Hovind hater. Which ensures creation will never be seen in a positive light on this Wiki. Use what ever excuse you like about why this was done. But when I do a line by line response, the truth about why it was done will come out. Because I will also be doing a comparison on how the evolution page differs in it's over all positive view about it, and that it is protected from edit while the creation page is not.

And I also just saw this:

New weasel? Anon editor 131.172.4.43 has recently made a number of edits to the article. While one or two are helpful, most are (to my mind) weasely in nature, and serve to soften up long-established text. An obvious example is the replacing of "no" with "very little" in the context of YEC impact on science. This is clearly untrue (where are the scientific papers conceding ground to the YECs?) but some of the other edits are more equivocal. Anyway, before I revert wholesale (actually, I'd be inclined to retain one or two changes), would anyone else like to comment? Anon editor 131.172.4.43 for instance? Cheers, --Plumbago 08:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

So we are weasels if we try to make creation in a positive light?

Don't forget to add the word "fundies" to the names you would like to call us. Plus add the "flat earthers" to the menu to try and discredit creation even more.

Again

The relevant issue to most of your edits was whether they can be traced to reliable sources. Wikipedia cares about verifiability, not truth. We can't have original research. If a reliable source discusses "eternal time creation" or any of your other ideas then it can be included, not before then. As to some of your other edits, I suggest you Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy especially the part about "undue weight". JoshuaZ 16:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again

Was everything I posted to do with eternal time creation? But yet it was deleted, correct? But no problem. Things happen for a reason. And maybe mine was to find out what is not welcome here, and post that on my site. Also, can you explain why the evolution pages are protected from edit, why the creation pages are not?

O I get it, talk origins monitors this page. You (joshua) write pages for them on this Wiki. You edit the page on YEC, so it is in compliance with Talk Origins views. My My, the truth reveals itself about the bias here. Talk Origins creationist haters edit creation page. A fair turn would be to allow YecHeadquarters edit the evolution page as well. But we all know that want happen now will it? Because fair use of edit is not what this Wiki is about. Allowing a talk origins editor edit the creation page is like allowing the KKK to do a page on racism.

Nice try, but the truth is out now.

No need to answer the question about why the evolution page is protected from edit, and the creation page is not. You being associated with Talk Origins answers all my questions. It also reveals why you have the thing at the top of the YEC page speaking of cleaning up that page. that is a bait for creationists to try and write so you can have the pleasure of the delete. Problem is, you messed with the wrong person on this one. I'm an expert at putting things together to come to a conclusion as I have done here.Ikester7579 05:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, a variety of issues. First, please sign your comments with four tildes, it will put your username and time of edit at the end. It will make it much easier for other users to follow conversations. Now, I don't know why all your other edits were deleted since I didn't look at all of them, but of those I have seen, there were serious issues over lack of reliable sourcing and issues of neutrality. Again please see the undue weight clause of NPOV which ties our hands a fair bit for a variety of topics. In particular, it should help explain why Wikipedia policy does not allow for most forms of creationism to be treated the same way as evolution. The evolution page is protected simply because when it is unlocked it is subject to a very high level of vandalism. Similar problems do not occur at the creationism or YEC page. However, the page is only semi-protected- this means that after an account has been around for four days, it is able to edit the article. As to your comment I don't know what you mean by stating that I write pages for "them" being Talk Origins. I presumse that you mean the Talk Origins Archive. There is no "them" as far as I am aware that monitors Wikipedia articles, and I am one of a large number of editors who have helped write the articles on YECism. Again, I strongly urge to actually lead the relevant Wikipedia policies and not simply assume there are conspiracies flying around. Finally, I suggest you look at Wikipedia's policies on civility and personal attacks. In general, making comparisons of people to the KKK will rarely be considered civil, although I will note that if a member of the KKK or even David Duke himself wished to edit the article on racism and he complied with Wikipedia policies in his edits, we would let him do so. Similarly, you are welcome to make edits on these topics which comply with Wikipedia policies, especially the undue weight clause of of the neutrality policy as well as the policy verifiabilty. I hope this clarifies matters. JoshuaZ 05:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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! HagermanBot 05:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Ikester7579 05:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a some research about the bias here

I have to put this on my site because here everything gets deleted. And the only reason I used a pic of a profile to make my point, it has been my dealings with evolutionist that they will change what is written and say it is not so. And say it never said that and call me a liar in the process, etc... So here's my new webpage about the bias here: http://yecheadquarters.org/shame_part2.16.html

Shall I go further into it, or is it going to be admitted? For I can do at least ten more pages on bias here by showing word for word comparison between how creation is presented vs evolution. And if I go to that much trouble to change things here, I won't be taking it down anytime soon. To bad I can't do it here in dicussion. From this point forward I will be making copies of everything said concerning this issue, just in case someone deletes what I say here, or adds to it to try and make me look like I said what I did not say. I already have had someone accuse me of threatening people. What is my goal? If you going to push neutral view on the users, better hold up to it on your end as well.Ikester7579 09:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

want to settle this issue with me?

1) Wikipedia is to allow creation to be shown in the same positive light as evolution. No hateful over tones in the writting as I read on the young earth creation page. 2) Wikipedia is to put the criticism section on the evolution pages to allow creationist sites and articles to criticize it on a equal bases. If not, remove the criticize sections from the creation pages so they can be equal and balanced with evolution. 3) Wikipedia is to allow creationist users to consult with on issues of changing information on creation pages. Just like I'm sure you have evolutionists to consult with. 4) Wikipedia is also to apply this to every page to make the whole wiki fair and balanced on every issue. 5) And if you are going to allow mockery pages of God and creation. Plus sites that promote it as well (like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster). Then I suggest to be fair and balanced that Wikipedia also allow sites on here that mock evolution in the same manner. Along with mockery pages just like you have with creation and God. If not, my next ten pages on my site will consist of all the mockery pages you allow about creation, and religion conpared to no mocking of evolution or science. Fair and equal is what I'm after.

Is that fair? Am I asking to much? I'm not asking for something that puts creation over the top of evolution. Or would this hurt evolution for creation to be presented on equal terms?Ikester7579 09:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to respond once more to your comments and I suspect this will be our last interaction. If I may give you a piece of advice, making largscale demands of Wikipedia is not a productive or likely to be succesful endeavor. Now as to points 1 and 2, NPOV has a clause on undue weight. This clause states among other things "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." Furthermore, "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them... But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." The viewpoint of the vast majority of scientists is clear and so undue weight applies. This is the same policy as applied to astrology, or homeopathy or many other subjects. Wikipedia policy does not care which is true, but what the verifiable majority says. This explains why your demans 1 and 2 would not conform to Wikipedia policy. Your third demand is simply irrelevant- Wikipedia does not "consult" with any specific group or viewpoint. One is of course, welcome on the talk page to suggest the inclusion of content which is well sourced. As to point 4, again NPOV is not about "balance" and in any event, Wikipedia is not going to make vast changes based on the demands of a single new editor. Please have a realistic outlook. As to your 5th matter- the Flying Spaghetti Monster is mentioned for one reason, it is a verifiable , well-sourced parody. If there are reliably sourced notable parodies of evolution or science, then there is no reason not to have articles about them.

Incidentally, your constant comparison between "creation" and "religion" on the one hand with "evolution" and "science" on the other is unhealthy and unproductive. Many people accept both evolution and creation, such as the Catholic Church which accepts theistic evolution. Jimmy Carter, former President of the United States, a self-identifying evangelical Protestant, and someone with a decent science background, also believes in theistic evolution.

Now, as to your page that you link to. First a word of caution: Wikipedia has policies about keeping civil and not engaging in personal attacks. While I will not react too negatively such attacks, many other admins will block on sight for making attacks. I glanced over your page briefly and there are a number of issues that may require clarification. First, talk.origins and the Talk Origins Archive are different. talk.origins is a usenet group to which anyone can post, whereas Talk Origins Archive is a website devoted to presenting the views of mainstream science. I'm not from "Talk Origins" nor is it clear to me what you mean by that. Yes, I wrote the article on the Archive. As you can also see, I also wrote the articles on a 19th century governor of Rhode Island among other things. Writing an article does not imply some sort of magical agreement or endorsement of the subject. (To use an extreme example, we have an article on Nazism. I don't think that the person who started that article was a Nazi). Continuing in that regard, Talk.Origins is not criticized- guess what? Its a discussion group. It would be a bit hard to criticize, and in any event, it has no notable criticism. In fact, the website Talk Origins Archive does have a criticism section. The remaining points are mainly issues which I have already addressed although I will note that it appears that you didn't read the FSTDT article otherwise you would have noticed that it in fact has a large criticism section.

I spent a small amount of time poking around your website and will take this opportunity to briefly point out another issue: On your page about Hovind, you claim that "evolutionists think Hovind's ministry is dead because Hovind is in jail. So they have gone as far as to break the law to get back at Hovind. They have recorded his phone calls from jail, and posted this on the Internet." You then claim that they broke the law somehow. You may want to be aware that the calls from prison are routinely recorded. These calls were introduced in the trial by the prosecution. That's how they became part of the public record. "evolutionists" had nothing to do with that. JoshuaZ 22:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started your User Page

hoping that you would tell us a little more about yourself and what you expect to accomplish here at Wikipedia. RiverBissonnette 01:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

....I looked up your user name, you are not an admin here. Do you speak for this Wiki? And currently, not to be rude to you, I have decided to go ahead with the other webpages. It has been made clear that a bias towards what this Wiki already considers wrong (a preconceived bias Judgement made by them), and a deception full of lies (example of the bias) has to be mocked and made fun of. Will not change. My only goal at this point is to expose this. You can't claim to be non-bias in presenting evidence and opinions when you already claim a special clause for one group for an advantage over another. Because each Creation page has it's criticism from what? Evolution. Which is claimed to be what? A non-religion. But yet on every creation page it is in opposition of it. As it it is a competing religion.

And the fair shake in all this is to allow creation to be the opposition on the evolution pages. Or, remove the evolution opposition from the creation pages so it does not look like a religion that so many claim that it's not. A neutral position on every thing means no preconceived ideas between right and wrong. and that the reader gets to make the decision in that area. And if this Wiki wants to promote science only. No religion, no creation, etc... Maybe all those pages that contradict it should be just removed.Ikester7579 02:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right Issac, I am not an Admin here. I started your user page by putting down your website as ANYONE could have done, it does not take an admin. I did this hoping that you would tell us a little about yourself, your background, and what you would like to accomplish as an editor of Wikipedia.

As for your comments above, I do not understand most of them as you gave no examples. What do you mean by “deception full of lies” that “has to be mocked and made fun of”? I’m also confused by the second part of the first paragraph above. Do you think that Evolution is a religion that is competing with Creationism and if so where do you see this competition in the Wikipedia articles and why do you think that the scientific concept of Evolutionary Biology is a religion?

In the second paragraph above you focus again on the bias you perceive against creationism by Evolutionary Biology. I agree that Wikipedia should not make Evolutionary Biology look like a religion by including as an answer to clearly religious ideas in creationism, but I do think that when a concept advocated in creationist writings is making claims about and is in opposition to the scientific evidence (such as the age of the Earth) than those claims have to be answered with science. When we are talking about the age of the Earth example these are not claims that Evolutionary Biology can answer nor are they attacks by creationists against Evolutionary Biology, instead creationists are attacking other fields of science such as physics, geology and/or chemistry. If creationists claim that the Earth is young because of the orbit of the Moon around the Earth, then the science they are attacking is Physics and the scientific community must answer with evidence from that same field. If creationists are claiming that the Earth is young because of erosion of the Grand Canyon, then the science they are attacking is Geology and the same field of science must be used to answer the claims.

As for Wikipedia promoting science only you should check out the section on religions, Christianity, and Protestant Christianity. Religions, all religions, are part of Wikipedia and these articles are written to be no-biased. I do hope that you will be able to contribute to Wikipedia and to point out the inaccuracies you perceive in any article. I would suggest that instead of becoming frustrated and lashing out at individuals after your first attempt that you start by introducing your concerns into the “Discussion/Talk” parts of articles asking if other members observe that same things you do and then you can address ways of changing the article. RiverBissonnette 15:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind

I am not repeating what I have already made clear. If you can't understand, or want to play the dumb game, that's fine. You can read about it on my webpage. By the way, I'm no longer interested in being a censored editor for your Wiki. To what point would I go to the trouble so you guys can delete it? It's a game of fun to delete what a creationist post, correct?

For more proof of the bias here. Who would you say got their writtings left on the page about young earth creation? Was it an evolutionist that hates creation, or was it a creationist? Also, are there any true blue creationist here as admins, or are all creationist considered to stupid to hold such a position here? For I see no creationist here coming to my defense. Could it be that you guys ran them all off? I will be researching this here as well.

If anyone wants to continue this you can e-mail me here: issac@yecheadquarters.org Ikester7579 04:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]