User talk:Hrafn: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 06:26, 15 May 2012 editDrPhen (talk \| contribs)475 edits →thank you for your productive insights on the Ashton article: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 06:27, 15 May 2012 edit undoDrPhen (talk \| contribs)475 edits →thank you for your productive insights on the Ashton article Next edit →
Line 102:		Line 102:
	::Thank you for bringing this to my attention! My initial comments were based on the revision of the article in which the entire creationist section was taken up almost 60 - 70% by a long quote criticizing only the contributors to Ashton's book. My problem with this focus isn't so much that GROVE chose to pay attention to them in his review, but that his review takes up such a huge part of Ashton's article section in the of even though the quote used does not reference him by name even once. If what you say is true about Ashton, then it almost seems to me that it would be preferable if the creationist section was shrunk down. After all, if he is not notable for it on his own then it doesn't deserve it's own section, does he?		::Thank you for bringing this to my attention! My initial comments were based on the revision of the article in which the entire creationist section was taken up almost 60 - 70% by a long quote criticizing only the contributors to Ashton's book. My problem with this focus isn't so much that GROVE chose to pay attention to them in his review, but that his review takes up such a huge part of Ashton's article section in the of even though the quote used does not reference him by name even once. If what you say is true about Ashton, then it almost seems to me that it would be preferable if the creationist section was shrunk down. After all, if he is not notable for it on his own then it doesn't deserve it's own section, does he?

	I mean, I see it this way. ] is a basketball fan, but that is not why he is notable and he does not have a section of his article that basically composed of criticisms of the teams that happened to show up on his March Madness roster card thingy, right? Such a list of criticisms would be relevant to those teams but not relevant to Barack Obama, and if the only thing we knew about Barack Obama and basketball were that the teams that he likes are not very good (but nothing about him personally!) then the best bet would be not to create a whole section to it because he is not notable to the field of basketball.		I mean, I see it this way, using an example -->. ] is a basketball fan, but that is not why he is notable and he does not have a section of his article that basically composed of criticisms of the teams that happened to show up on his March Madness roster card thingy, right? Such a list of criticisms would be relevant to those teams but not relevant to Barack Obama, and if the only thing we knew about Barack Obama and basketball were that the teams that he likes are not very good (but nothing about him personally!) then the best bet would be not to create a whole section to it because he is not notable to the field of basketball.

	Same with Dr. Ashton. If his the ONLY verifiable, notable, reliably-sourced info regarding his creationism comes from a review of a book that he wrote about other people that focuses on those other people and not him in any respect, then he is not a notable creationist and his views should not receive their own independent segment.		Same with Dr. Ashton. If his the ONLY verifiable, notable, reliably-sourced info regarding his creationism comes from a review of a book that he wrote about other people that focuses on those other people and not him in any respect, then he is not a notable creationist and his views should not receive their own independent segment.] (]) 06:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:27, 15 May 2012

READ THIS FIRST! (If you don't then there's a very good chance you're wasting your and/or my time in posting here.)

New threads belong at the bottom of talk pages (pressing the 'new section' link at the top, or here, will do this automatically for you). I reserve the right to summarily remove (without responding, and possibly even without reading) any new threads placed here at the top of this talk page.
Discussion directly pertaining to a specific article belongs on that article's talkpage. Where such discussion is erroneously posted here, I may move it to article talk (if I'm feeling particularly kind-hearted, or am busting for a good argument), but most likely will simply delete or revert it -- so best to post it where it belongs in the first place.
I likewise reserve the right to curtail (by reversion, deletion, archiving or otherwise) any thread on this talkpage that I (on my sole discretion) feel has become, or is is likely to be, unproductive. If you object to such curtailment, then by all means don't post here.
This user defines a "regular", perhaps somewhat idiosyncratically, as somebody who can be trusted to observe policy with sufficient regularity that it is not necessary to "template" (or "tag") them on their user talk. This user therefore regards exhortations to WP:Don't template the regulars as an oxymoron (and as such unproductive).
Please do not WP:REFACTOR your comments unnecessarily. Doing so may result in an WP:EDITCONFLICT whilst attempting to respond.
Talkback:

This user has their preferences set to automatically watchlist all articles they edit, and all pages they comment upon. It is therefore completely unnecessary for you to {{talkback}} this user to tell them that you have replied to a comment.
Further, there is nothing in that template's description suggests it should be used for XfDs or article talk -- so using it for such pages is inappropriate.
I would (fürther fürther) note that I am under no obligation to respond to each and every comment you make (and there will be times that purposefully avoiding responding would appear to be the most politic course of action).
Finally (fürther fürther fürther), if you keep doing it, I'll probably eventually have to find some more coercive way of convincing you to follow good WP:Wikiquette and stop.

Ω. (Don't trip over the møøse on the way out.)

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Constance Cumbey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unitarian church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

John C. Whitcomb (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Wheaton College, Stratification and B.D.

Sternberg peer review controversy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Michael Powell

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not even remotely 'productive'

Do you even check to see whether a statement might be true before you summarily delete it? You twice removed all mention of the Conservative Grace Brethren from the John C. Whitcomb page, when two very simple mouse clicks (e.g., here and here) would have immediately told you that Whitcomb was instrumental in foundation that denomination. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The original cited source made NO MENTION of Conservative Grace Brethren -- and even your new source makes NO MENTION of him being an elder of it. Again, what part of "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" do you fail to comprehend? YOU restored the material, therefore the burden of evidence is on YOU! Hrafn_Stalk(P) 17:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sun Myung Moon talk page

Looks like an off-topic post, i.e., unrelated to improving the article. Would it be okay to {{hide}} it or delete it? --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Evolution as fact and theory

Hi-- I've added a few comments to the talkpage for this article, and invite you to take a look. Thanks. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Calvary Chapel

Hi, I just wanted to say I looked over some of the material you wrote about Calvary Chapel, some of which I thought was insightful. I kind of gave up on the group think gang last year. From the talk page, it doesn't appear much has changed. Sliceofmiami (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Hrafn. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang 11:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Wait...

You haven't left us, have you?--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Proforma

You were mentioned in an ANI thread. I apologize that you were not contacted about it before close, as I thought you had seen it via the AFD discussion and had no input. JJB 14:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

thank you for your productive insights on the Ashton article

Thank you for bringing this to my attention! My initial comments were based on the revision of the article in which the entire creationist section was taken up almost 60 - 70% by a long quote criticizing only the contributors to Ashton's book. My problem with this focus isn't so much that GROVE chose to pay attention to them in his review, but that his review takes up such a huge part of Ashton's article section in the of even though the quote used does not reference him by name even once. If what you say is true about Ashton, then it almost seems to me that it would be preferable if the creationist section was shrunk down. After all, if he is not notable for it on his own then it doesn't deserve it's own section, does he?

I mean, I see it this way, using an example -->. Barack Obama is a basketball fan, but that is not why he is notable and he does not have a section of his article that basically composed of criticisms of the teams that happened to show up on his March Madness roster card thingy, right? Such a list of criticisms would be relevant to those teams but not relevant to Barack Obama, and if the only thing we knew about Barack Obama and basketball were that the teams that he likes are not very good (but nothing about him personally!) then the best bet would be not to create a whole section to it because he is not notable to the field of basketball.

Same with Dr. Ashton. If his the ONLY verifiable, notable, reliably-sourced info regarding his creationism comes from a review of a book that he wrote about other people that focuses on those other people and not him in any respect, then he is not a notable creationist and his views should not receive their own independent segment.DrPhen (talk) 06:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)