User talk:Hrafn - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DrPhen (talk | contribs) at 05:03, 24 May 2012 (→John F. Ashton). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:03, 24 May 2012 by DrPhen (talk | contribs) (→John F. Ashton)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

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)

This goes back to an argument raised on the AfD, that if he is only known as an editor of a book of testimonies of more-famous creationists, is he really notable as a creationist? But if creationism drops out, then we're really only left with the chocolate book as a source of notability. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 06:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I saw that debate but I wasn't sure what that was going on because it was closed a few hours before I saw it. I really do not longer think that Dr. Ashton is notable as a creationist, if his only notability derives from the fact that 49 other people were criticized because of his description of them and inclusion of their words in a book. To me, it's the same as creating a whole section in the Obama article about his March Madness bracket or putting a long section of criticism of Abraham Lincoln's presidency in the Doris Kearns Goodwin article. In fact, I think that that last one is an even superier example -- Goodwin is famous for her book about Abraham Lincoln but it would be wrong to essentially make her Misplaced Pages article solely about Lincoln rather than her historiography about him. I'm not sure if it's strictly against policy to do that but it really is a stretch because the book review wasn't really about Ashton specifically but focused on the people he wrote about. DrPhen (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Unscintillating, but I do not make a habit of addressing stale accusations (you trawl all the way back to 2008) based upon hearsay, contextomy, and/or the wild accusations of long-banned WP:SOCKPUPPETs. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 10:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

John F. Ashton

Hey! Do you know what happened to the John F. Ashton article? I see that it's been deleted, but you said that there was no consensus on the articles for deletion. Did someone renominate it or something? I can't say that I think it was the wrong decision -- I get the impression that Ashton isn't really all that notable for anything, and that most of his apparent notability is mostly due to really imaginative and generous interpretation of the reliability/notability of sources, but I didn't know you could do a second articles for deletion so quickly after the old one and end it in less than a day! Anyway, I just wanted to check in and say that I really appreciated all the work you put into making this article as good as it could have been. DrPhen (talk) 03:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

10:53, 24 May 2012 SilkTork (talk contribs) deleted page John F. Ashton (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John F. Ashton)

Hrafn_Stalk(P) 03:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I saw that, but I didn't really understand how there can be consensus now if there wasn't consensus before, and there didn't seem to be any other changes besides that. I guess it's probably some arcane Misplaced Pages policy thing that I haven't seen before. Anyway, happy editing! DrPhen (talk) 05:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)