User talk:Yqbd: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:36, 10 August 2007 editYqbd (talk \| contribs)370 edits →9 August ← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:06, 12 August 2007 edit undoFeloniousMonk (talk \| contribs)18,409 edits Disruptive editingNext edit →
Line 145:		Line 145:

	:::::::Asserting "the facts quite simply don't back you up" doesn't do much without "the facts". --] 05:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)		:::::::Asserting "the facts quite simply don't back you up" doesn't do much without "the facts". --] 05:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

			== Disruptive editing ==

			You've clearly reached the limit of the community's patience at intelligent design and its talk page with your endless and baseless objections which misrepresent and ignore both sources and facts and your edit warring there. Despite warnings and a previous block your disruption of the intelligent design article shows no sign of abating. Earlier this week I proposed, and found wide support for, following the steps at ] and seeking at a minimum a topic ban for you. Consider this your last warning about making any further bogus objections and edit warring before the community takes steps to stop the disruption of this article.

			In the meantime we will userfy any and all sections you create with tendentious objections to your user page in order to free up talk intelligent design for fruitful discussion. ] 05:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:06, 12 August 2007

Welcome to the Misplaced Pages

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. Misplaced Pages:About, Misplaced Pages:Help desk, and Misplaced Pages:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 20:34, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent design

I've blocked you for 12 hours for going over the three revert rule on Intelligent design . JoshuaZ 17:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I could use a break. --Yqbd 18:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours

I have blocked you for 24 hours for your recent edits to the intelligent design talk page, this edit in particular. Raul654 18:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

3 aug 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on talk: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. ornis (t) 04:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You have now made seven reverts to Talk:Intelligent design, accusing multiple editors of vandalism. This is a serious accusation and a violation of WP:AGF. Please curb your behaviour or you may be banned or blocked from editing. Sheffield Steel_stalkers 05:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Eight by my count. ornis (t) 05:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Nine. ornis (t) 05:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess you don't think it's obvious. I'd like to know your opinion on the actions of ornis, Filll, and Kenosis removing discussions while you're at it and what you plan on doing about it. --Yqbd 05:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Yqbd has implemented at least eight reverts by my count, all on exactly the same ussue: here. here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. All of these directly involved a very substantial mass of presently irrelevant argument about the notion of "peer review" of intelligent design in the scientific community, already extensively consensused and extensively discussed in the article. Offhand, I'd say this is more than beyond the WP:3RR limit. Enough already, please. No need to go through administrative channels, I sincerely hope. Take care. ... Kenosis 05:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for your opinions. I'll have to disagree with you and we're back to square 1. --Yqbd 05:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Every editor you have accused of vandalism, plus myself and I think JoshuaZ, seems to think that the style, size and content of that particular section of yours is not appropriate for the Talk page and would be better removed to a subpage. Now, if you were engaged in a dispute with just one other editor, you would have a very good case for saying that they were acting inappropriately, and arguably vandalising the Talk page, by moving (not removing, note) material to a subpage. I known you know this, since you yourself were recently blocked for modifying comments by other editors that were critical of this very section. But when one editor insists that their debate must be carried on in their own way, and repeatedly reverts edits made by multiple other editors - when no other editor supports your actions or your accusations of vandalism, then you need to take a long hard look and ask yourself if it isn't you who is being disruptive to the proper functioning of wikipedia. Sheffield Steel_stalkers 05:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

IMO, I question their assertions in a efficient, organized, and easy way. They are free to respond to questions however they want they want. --Yqbd 05:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

But every other editor disagrees with your opinion. Where does that leave us, given that[REDACTED] works by consensus? Or don't you care what other editors think? Sheffield Steel_stalkers 05:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I already asked them questions of what they think and I'm waiting for their response. Looks like they're the ones not responding or caring what other editors think. It's up to the authorities of this place in the end or the majority with the most time. --Yqbd 06:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Olive branch

This is just a little note to say that I hope you can find a way to discuss subjects such as Intelligent Design constructively with other editors. I know that most of the editors on that page can come across as having very little patience. This is in part because of their past experiences with particularly uncompromising and zealous editors. I'm afraid that the style in which you attempted to discuss your proposed changes was interpreted as disruptive by some of the regular editors - I think simply because of the amount of space it took up.

A Misplaced Pages Talk page isn't a courtroom or a soapbox. It's a place where, to be truly successful and productive, you need to make your arguments as concise, polite, and constructive as possible. It is also invaluable to read, and attempt to take on-board, the core[REDACTED] principles, in particular those covering neutral point of view and verifiability.

I hope this helps. Misplaced Pages benefits from every editor who volunteers to help in good faith. Sheffield Steel_stalkers 04:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Talk:Intelligent Design. 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. Spartaz 07:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the third block in as many days - I seriously considered making this an indefinite block. Stop disrupting this article right now or you will lose your editing privileges permanently. Spartaz 07:00, 3 August 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

What disruption are you talking about? Did you notice ConfuciusOrnis, Filll, and Kenosis modifying or deleting my comments and their reverts?

Decline reason:

This is your third block in three days: you're obviously disrupting the encyclopedia. This is simply one example of it (why is it an example? See WP:AN3). No, it's best for the encyclopedia if you remain under wraps, for the good of Misplaced Pages and its articles ~ Anthøny 08:47, 3 August 2007 (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.

I'm gathering some information on your block; please give me a minute ~ Anthøny 08:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So, did you notice ConfuciusOrnis, Filll, and Kenosis modifying or deleting my comments and their reverts without discussing the reverts? I don't think they were even discussing much of anything else on the talk page. --Yqbd 20:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I am especially curious about your thoughts on D. A. Axe's articles since he says his peer-reviewed research in the Journal of Molecular Biology "adds to the case for intelligent design" and also Ø. A. Voie's article since it's from 2006 which is after Behe's statement from 2005. --Yqbd 06:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

From talk origins

“

Axe (2000) finds that changing 20 percent of the external amino acids in a couple proteins causes them to lose their original function, even though individual amino acid changes did not. There was no investigation of change of function. Axe's paper is not even a challenge to Darwinian evolution, much less support for intelligent design. Axe himself has said that he has not attempted to make an argument for design in any of his publications (Forrest and Gross 2004, 42).

”

You might find the rest of the article enlightening. ornis (t) 07:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

From CreationWiki

“

This only serves to prove the claim. It is interesting how at no point does Talk Origins actually refute the fact that intelligent design had been published in peer-reviewed journals.

”

And you may find the response enlightening. --Yqbd 07:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the timestamp of that talkorigin article is "created 2004-3-19, modified 2005-12-22" and older than the 2007 post about Axe's quote. --Yqbd 07:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So an obscure journal published and then disavowed a literature review because the outgoing editor circumvented the peer review process. This is your example of peer reviewed research? Or is it the paper that carefully makes no claims whatsoever about ID, but which the Discovery Institute says the author says provides some support for ID because it decreases the likelihood of certain complex protein sequences arising purely by chance? Sheffield Steel_stalkers 03:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying you don't trust that Doug Axe wrote back the following, which the New Scientist declined to quote? --Yqbd 04:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have in fact confirmed that these papers add to the evidence for ID. I concluded in the 2000 JMB paper that enzymatic catalysis entails "severe sequence constraints". The more severe these constraints are, the less likely it is that they can be met by chance. So, yes, that finding is very relevant to the question of the adequacy of chance, which is very relevant to the case for design. In the 2004 paper I reported experimental data used to put a number on the rarity of sequences expected to form working enzymes. The reported figure is less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Again, yes, this finding does seem to call into question the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design.

Don't forget to read this. --Yqbd 04:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but I have no interest in reading anything further from the discovery institute today. To the best of my knowledge they are not considered a reliable source on questions of fact, only of their own opinions. Therefore I fail to see what they could possibly say that would be relevant to this issue. Sheffield Steel_stalkers 04:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

How convenient. --Yqbd 05:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

8 August

Please stop. If you continue to violate Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Intelligent Design, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. ornis (t) 03:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

So pro. --Yqbd 04:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I am asking you nicely. Please change your current editing behavior. If you do not, I can promise you that you will lose your editing priveleges, at least for articles having to do with evolution, intelligent design and the creation-evolution controversy. You might lose more than that. You might get your login blocked completely, or your IP address banned. So please, please please change your approach. Try editing other articles for a change. Because if this does not stop, there will be consequences. Ok?--Filll 18:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

9 August

Please do not revert other users' edits while there is an ongoing discussion about those edits, as you did here. Misplaced Pages works by consensus and an important part of that is discussing changes to articles, not simply reverting to one's own preferred version against the stated opinions of other editors. Sheffield Steel_stalkers 04:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

And consensus works by editing and Amarkov said Amarkov's revert was a mistake. "The basic process works like this: someone makes an edit to a page, and then everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it." --Yqbd 04:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful." --Yqbd 04:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring works by editing. Consensus requires either that no editor reverts a unilateral change to an article, or that after a revert there is discussion, leading to a new consensus. Discussion necessarily involves reading and responding to, not misrepresenting others posts, as you just did. Amarkov also said that there might still be a good reason to exclude the information your revert added. To me, that seems like a very good reason to discuss reasons, not ignore them. Sheffield Steel_stalkers 13:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you should read consensus and WP:DISRUPT . "The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined." --Yqbd 17:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines are pretty clear. Consensus is not fixed. It can change... but in this case, it has not, although one editor does not accept that, and is being disruptive and engaging in an edit war. Sheffield Steel_stalkers 18:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"Consensus is not fixed", but it has not changed because it is fixed? What? --Yqbd 18:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason that consensus has not changed is that you have failed to persuade any other editor of your viewpoint. Sheffield Steel_stalkers 18:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

And the reason the consensus has not changed is that you haven't provided any new evidence from reliable sources. Hrafn42 04:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What was the point of asserting that here? --Yqbd 05:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You say disruptive, I say bold. --Yqbd 18:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You can say "I am Napoleon" for all I care, the facts quite simply don't back you up. Hrafn42 04:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Asserting "the facts quite simply don't back you up" doesn't do much without "the facts". --Yqbd 05:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

You've clearly reached the limit of the community's patience at intelligent design and its talk page with your endless and baseless objections which misrepresent and ignore both sources and facts and your edit warring there. Despite warnings and a previous block your disruption of the intelligent design article shows no sign of abating. Earlier this week I proposed, and found wide support for, following the steps at WP:DE and seeking at a minimum a topic ban for you. Consider this your last warning about making any further bogus objections and edit warring before the community takes steps to stop the disruption of this article.

In the meantime we will userfy any and all sections you create with tendentious objections to your user page in order to free up talk intelligent design for fruitful discussion. FeloniousMonk 05:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)