Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Radiant! (talk | contribs) at 12:23, 11 July 2007 (→Signs: civ / npa). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome...

Hello, Hrafn42, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! dave souza, talk 10:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Advice

Put a warning on his talk page then let me know as soon as he violates it. Rlevse 15:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The best thing is to put a "test4" or "blatantvandal" warning on his talk page. If you keep reverting him, you'll be in an edit war and you both might end up blocked. If you give one of these warnings and he violates it, let me or WP:AIV know and only he will get blocked. If you go AIV, mention the prior block.Rlevse 16:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

Just wanted to let you know I reverted your edits to the creation-evolution controversy page because the edits you changed seemed to be the result of a consensus. Please see the associated discussion. While I do think that having contributors compiling information from the groups who participate in the controversy is bordering on original research by turning[REDACTED] into a secondary source, I do not think the particular metion of ICR pointing to research (not pointing to their own research, but just the vauge term "research"), and the immediate rebuttal of the ICR interpretation by mainstream scientists is undue weight. In fact, it appears to be quite damning to the ICR to have so many scientists dispute their interpretations. ImprobabilityDrive 04:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. Some good points. I think you should put them on the creation-evolution controversy talk page, especially the points about them commissioning research. I was assuming that they were merely pointing to research. My bad if they actually commissioned it. (Actually, who ever wrote it should have chosen his or her words more carefully when s/he wrote "Creationists point to research indicating that" if what they should have written was "Creationists point to their own research indicating that..." or "Creationists point to research they commissioned" indicating that". In this case, I think rather than undue weight, the sentence was just inaccurate or at least misleading. But go ahead and put your points about them commissioning the research on the talk page, and revert me. I'll bow out of the undue weight disucssion for tonight. ImprobabilityDrive 05:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on my talk page, I will try to articulate my view here before I refine it for the creation-evolution talk page. But imagine, rather than the Creation-evolution controversy, an article on something you might be less emotionally attached to. I don't mean this as an insult; I can see you have strong feelings about at least ICR. Anyway, imagine some other controversy, say the abstinence-birth control controversy, this would be a sociopolitical article. It is different than an article on birth control, and it is different than an article on abstinence. It is an article about the controversy.

In such an article, we might try to find neutral commentators and observers of the controversy as sources. These would be the ideal secondary sources. But perhaps that is not possible on many important aspects of the controversy, where important is evidenced by both sides of the controversy repeatedly contesting some aspect or other. In such cases, we might have to rely on the points and counter points of the forbearance fundementalists, and points and counter points of sex education professionals. I believe that the[REDACTED] policy states that while we can use these primary sources, we cannot take sides (in the article on the controversy). We also have to be careful to identify the sources, not conduct original research, and so on and so forth.

An article on abstinence, on the other hand, is different. In this case, if the forbearance fundementalists "facts" are disputed by the more-highly-educated experts in sex education, undue weight arguments would prevent you from treating forbearance fundementalists assertions as facts.

But in the controversy article, the intent of the article is to describe the controversy, not resolve it.

Does this make sense? Again, please read On using primary sources

The controversy article is a socio-political article. In such an article, there is a controversy. It should be treated objectively. Even if the mainstream concensus among educated professionals is that the forbearance fundementalists are dead wrong on almost every one of their contentions, the contentions of the forbearance fundementalists need to be described along side the contentions of the education professionals, without taking sides. When primary sources are cited, what makes them primary is they are particpants in the controversy. Consequently, the conflict of interest vis-a-vis the controversy should be disclosed in the prose. This goes for forbearance fundementalists and education professional assertions alike.

I think this is what the goal of[REDACTED] founders would be on an artical about a socio-political controversy. ImprobabilityDrive 06:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I contend that by taking the side of the scientists in a socio-political article regarding a controversy involving scientists, it is POV--while taking the side of the scientists on a pseudo-scientific article is NPOV. Again, please read On using primary sources ImprobabilityDrive 07:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Just in case you missed it, I undid your changes earlier, but after you justified them, I basically communicated to you to feel free to revert them. I don't want to do it because while I assume you know what your talking about regarding the ICR research, I do not. ImprobabilityDrive 17:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight and POV allegations

Hrafn42,

Regarding this deleting and your comments that "Original was GROSSLY POV & in violation of WP:Undue Weight, in that it ONLY voiced the pro-pseudoscience side. Have replaced it with the Intro to the main article", please be patient. Also, I do plan to go to the other article and fix some errors there. I am not sure if you have read the sources, but I would encourage you to do so before you decide that the presentation is unbalance. Also, you should not just delete my contributions and replace them with another article's contents which may or may not be POV in the other direction. This section needs work, but for you to simply replace it so soon with content from another page seems a bit much. Please work with me to find a NPOV presentation. I am reading the sources, and I hope you do too. By the way, it is not POV to quote Sternberg. He is a reliable source, too. If others disagree with assertion, simply include it. I tried to merge your additions with mine. AGF ImprobabilityDrive 04:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I got your message. I also responded to the talk page of the article in question. ImprobabilityDrive 04:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you show me where you have posted an opinion of something other than the evolution side? Please provide some diffs. I'd like to emulate you on this. Also, I am going through the sources. I am characterizing them as I find them. I don't have to read all sources before I contribute. You seem to be only posting pro-smithsonian side. But I'm not complaining, it is bringing balance. Please AGF, and let's work together. ImprobabilityDrive 09:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I added this: "However, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel had no jurisidction because Richard Sternberg's salary was not paid by the Smithsonian, and the investigation was concluded without a fuller response from the Smithsonian." Is that not pro-smithsonian? Let's just keep finding sources and present the information as we find it. ImprobabilityDrive 09:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Patience please

Hrafn42, I responded to your concerns 05:20, 28 April 2007, but afterwards, you already removed the disputed sentences 05:24, 28 April 2007. Four minutes is hardly enough time to address your concerns. Please be patient and work with me. Again, this is a work in progress, and you really should not be removing cited sentences so quickly, IMHO. ImprobabilityDrive 05:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, how close are we from removing the POV tag? Do you think we're close yet? ImprobabilityDrive 08:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I am trying to work with you. I am presenting information that is verifiable. The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. I have tried to address many of your concerns, and also worked to make the contributions match the verifiable sources. I understand that you have specialist knowledge that I do not have, but I am trying to characterize sources accurately. Also, that you think this is pro-Sternberg is interesting, I will continue to work to balance it. Other independant wikipedians have already said the article was biased, in a different direction, so I guess you can't please everybody. But hopefully you and I can work toward a section that meets wikipedia's objectives. ImprobabilityDrive 08:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Your behavior at Creation-evolution controversy has become disruptive and is totally unacceptable. Per discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Hostile_editor_at_Creation-evolution_controversy I am warning you that it needs to cease immediately. Should you fail to head this warning may be blocked from editing without further warning. I suggest you find a less controversial topic to contribute to for a while to let things cool down and focus on contributing in a more productive and less confrontational manner. FeloniousMonk 05:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing the preceding warning. Looking deeper into the issue at that article I'm becoming less convinced that this isn't a simple content dispute, not a behavioral issue. FeloniousMonk 06:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I also have to bring up issues of WP:CIVIL. You need to tone down your language and assume good faith. I find your personally targeted behavior causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. Some statements of concern , , , . Continued statements like the ones presented will result in editor review. Morphh 20:08, 01 July 2007 (UTC)

My so-called flawed logic was a matter of opinion, of which I of course disagree. As far as rtc, he does not fit the definition of a troll. He has been around for quite a while and while he may be persistent in debating his thoughts and can sometimes be uncivil himself, he was not deliberate and intentional in attempts to disrupt the usability of Misplaced Pages. He is working in good faith to make the article better. Your better off not saying anything if he doesn't present anything worth debating. You make direct personal attacks in bold with language that does not help the debate. "Incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress." Your personally directed attacks create greater conflict and stress. I don't mind the article disputes and tough debate but it really starts to change when editors seem to personally attack other editors in disrespectful ways. But perhaps this is more "intellectual masturbation" and you'll tell me where to stick my warning. Anyway... I'm just trying to help out and make a suggestion. It makes little difference to me if you get blocked, in fact, it may make my efforts easier.. so have at it. Morphh 12:43, 02 July 2007 (UTC)

To your point on logic, I never expanded on an argument for the significant minority as I thought the entire point was irrelevant as all the primary proponents of ID are associated with DI and it would be a completely one sided article if DI was dismissed as POV not worth presenting. Since the article is devoted in many respects to those views of DI. This makes DI one of the more significant viewpoints to be present in this article. But back to the significant minority... Certain polls put the figure at 10% of adults in the United States view human beings as "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them". Other polls show higher values. This excludes the percentage of those that believe in some form of creation, which could increase these figures. This, IMO, is a viewpoint held by a significant enough minority and it is easy to name prominent adherents to ID. Maybe my logic is flawed but in my view you weren't just being blunt. Being right or wrong has little to do with regard to my comments. I didn't mean to create a dispute - I only meant to be helpful since you're new to Misplaced Pages. I rarely interact with editors with such "bluntness" as you put it, so I felt I should comment. Perhaps I was wrong to do so... ID is such a controversial article and disputes can sometimes become heated. No hard feelings I hope. Morphh 22:04, 02 July 2007 (UTC)

AGF

Hi, it seems that you're finding your way around WP:A and WP:NPOV, but it would help greatly if you could assume good faith and work with other editors to get the points you consider important properly cited and shown in the articles in a balanced way. It's best to discuss content on the article talk page so that others can see both sides of the discussion and join in, rather than keeping the whole thing on user talk pages. Also, using bold or CAPITALS in discussions gives the impression of being a bit over-excited, and you'll find that communication works best if such emphasis is avoided as much as possible . Hope you find this helpful, .. dave souza, talk 11:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back to me on this, as you'll appreciate the "objective facts" we need for articles must be cited from reliable attributable sources, using secondary sources to avoid any unintentional original research when synthesising information from primary sources. While your concerns about bias are appreciated, be assured that these pages are well watched by many who will take care to ensure that the NPOV policy is fully complied with. .. dave souza, talk 11:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

RfC

I have opened an RfC. Please leave your comments at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/ImprobabilityDrive. Arbustoo 05:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Review: Intelligent design

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --FOo 09:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Signs

Please realize that deletion debates are not decided by vote count, but by strength of argument and underlying policies/guidelines (e.g. WP:OCAT). Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. >Radiant< 14:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Er, no, they weren't rebutted. The document is arguably defined by who signs it, but the people who signed it are not defined by said document. Surely you don't think it's a valid argument to say that policies that have not explicitly been referred to don't apply? >Radiant< 08:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not Kbdank. If Kbdank says something you disagree with, take it up with him. >Radiant< 11:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Please familiarize yourself with our policies on civility and against personal attacks, and do not come to my talk page to wildly accuse other users that disagree with you of incompetence. >Radiant< 12:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

CFD review

I'd hold off on filing a review until FM responds to my request to restore the category based on it being a bogus deletion. Odd nature 17:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Maybe you should check this out Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Raspor (2nd). Orangemarlin 19:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)