User talk:Hrafn - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hrafn (talk | contribs) at 14:59, 9 February 2013 (It is a silly place.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:59, 9 February 2013 by Hrafn (talk | contribs) (It is a silly place.)(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.)

Misplaced Pages has been blocked indefinitely from being edited by this account.
"On second thought, let's not go to . It is a silly place. "

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)

I think the new closing admin did a better job (than the original admin or myself) of sorting through all the debris (particularly a large amount of argument by assertion) to work out which side had more !votes and better arguments. One more reason why I don't want to become an admin -- the job requires far to much attention to stuff I tend to 'bin' as WP:TLDNR. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 05:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I have again had my nose rubbed in just how unhealthy the frustration that Misplaced Pages editing causes me is. I am therefore taking another wikibreak, quite possibly a permanent (or at the very least semi-permanent) one. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 07:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I am adding this post-dated comment so that the bot does not archive this -- ensuring that it stays to remind me. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 07:39, 24 May 3012 (UTC)

Hi Hrafn, feel free to remove this comment. I have been tracking recent edits and dialogue of yours and have, once again, noted the value you bring to an article's development. I am also concerned about your health, as you have reported it. Anyway, your edits have been (will be) appreciated. Thanks for your counsel. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your large number of productive contributions. I hope your wikibreak is not too long! IRWolfie- (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Haeckel, Darwin, and use of the word 'recent' to describe Darwin's understanding of the African origin of modern humans

i don't understand your insistence upon using this word 'recent'. Darwin would never have used it to describe his notion, and it implies a level of detailed understanding about the course of human outmigration which Darwin had no access to.

'recent', in this connection, ordinarily serves to distinguish between the earlier Homo Erectus and Archaic HS outmigrations which occurred much prior to the last major one, of modern Homo Sapiens (HSS), occurring in the last 100k years or so. none of these refinements of understanding would have been available to Darwin, and so attributing the use of that word to his understanding is, to my understanding, misleading, imprecise, and incorrect.

Could you perhaps explain why you objected to my inserting the more generic african origins, which had a nice link, etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jriley555 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I've suggested merging Divine Principle to Unification Church. Check out my reasoning on Talk:Divine Principle and see what you think. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Holiday cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.