User talk:Hrafn

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

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, or (if I'm feeling lazy, crabby, or for any other arbitrary reason) 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.

Possible deletion?

Hi Hrarn. I'm considering nominating Hak Ja Han for deletion. Would you like to discuss the issue on the article's talk page? Redddogg (talk) 15:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hak Ja Han Redddogg (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input

You're right. The school paper wasn't an easily verifiable source. We'll focus on verifiable sources from now on! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.149.18 (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misfiled & malformed

User Hrafn, I have reported your continuing removals of the edits, sources, and citations which I add to the Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio article. I am notifying you in accordance with Wikipedia rules. I have tried to satisfy your challenges but it is clear the material I present means nothing to you and arbitration must be found elsewhere. Hopefully a truly unbiased reader will settle the matter. Dale Leppard —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaleLeppard (talk • contribs) 06:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A new topic requires a new section
This warning is malformed in that you didn't tell me where you reported me.
You forgot to sign it.
Your report on WP:ANEW is likewise malformed, in that it did not supply difs.

0/4 -- pretty much par for the course. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn, I'll be happy to stop removing templates if you stop putting up nonsensical ones. You are clearly biased against people connected with this organization if not the organization itself and your own words confirm it. I am confident that administrative findings will support me. I am aware of your aggressive approach with other discussions but I will not be intimidated by your efforts and I stand behind my work. Officer or not, my COI is no more than yours as one who has issues with the structure of the organization itself. Where I have been open in my affiliation and name you have been secretive. At the end of the day I would rather be in my shoes. I will at least thank you for the one legitimate complaint that you raised regarding the newspaper, and for whatever your motive I thank you for ceasing the reversions until we have the results. DaleLeppard (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the outcome of the WP:ANEW report is that you are both banned from editing the article for a week,[1] it's in the hands of others now. Hopefully DL will start finding other interests and learn to assume good faith as required by policy. Improved civility from DL is needed, with an acceptance that policies are there for good reason. Hrafn, while your statements appear fully correct as far as I've seen, please try to be kind to this newbie when helping to explain the essentials of policies, if the need arises again. . . dave souza, talk 21:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave: the need will 'arise' in one week. DL is completely unrepentant about his WP:COI editing. He is also denying the contents of some of his edits (in spite of difs clearly demonstrating that he made them) and defending others (in spite of the fact that they have been corrected by other, uninvolved, editors). DL is not a 'newbie', having been an editor since December 2007 -- he's just completely disinterested in learning policy (except to quote it out of context) or accepting other opinions (not just mine, but Guettarda's among others). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn, I assume good faith and fully trust that DL will learn. The hard way if need be ;) . . dave souza, talk 21:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that people are capable of learning from their mistakes is rather different from assuming good faith. Particularly when one has seen no glimmer of such a capacity to date. The Devil's Dictionary defines cynic as "A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 02:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Cirt dislikes having a tag in the title"

[2] - no need to refer to indidual users in edit summaries like that. It is simply inappropriate to have a tag directly inside of a subsection header like that. Directly below the subsection header, sure, but not inside of it. Cirt (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were the "individual" whose objection to the tag I was responding to, so I see no reason why you shouldn't be named in the edit summary. Information contained in section titles needs to be accurate, just as any other content. A tag "directly below" it would be ambiguous. I prefer not to have to tag them -- but sometimes am given little choice by the actions of other editors. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"as Cirt insists on belabouring this obvious point"

[3] - Please stop referring to individual editors like this in edit summaries. It is not conducive to a constructive and collaborative atmosphere. Please comment on content, not on contributors. That is the second time you have done this, after, I brought this up, above. Please stop. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 11:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were insisting on belabouring the obvious point of whether FFWP and the UC were the one and the same -- and failing to allow time for an explanation on talk & thus forcing me to insert a perfectly superfluous reference (how many times is a reference required for mere alternate names?). I was annoyed at your behaviour, so I criticised it in my edit summary. I was commenting on your actions, so used your name to identify it. It was not a "personal attack" as defined by WP:NPA. As far as I know, Wikipedia convention does not interpret merely using an editor's nick in an edit summary (or anywhere else) as a "personal attack", so your demand that I not use yours would appear to be baseless. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets just try to stick to describing what we are doing in our edit summaries, rather then engaging a in meta dialog about others. Prodego ^talk 12:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hugh

I'm starting a page for us to debate Creation - Evolution, so if you have a problem with something, I'll take it there. Refreshments (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#FORUM. My comments on your page were merely an attempt to point out difficulties you might experience, should you attempt to make an article out of material you have at User:Refreshments/Draft: Scientific Evidence for Creationism‎. Oh, and the name's not "Hugh". :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A simple request

Wow, that was quick. I was about to change the wiki evolution to modern evolutionary theory (since the term 'evolution' is so broad) and *poof!* there goes my change of "creationism" to "ID" from 30 seconds ago. I guess there isn't room for any editorial changes when it comes to this topic, seeing how closely watched it obviously is; I won't try it again and waste my time. However, I wanted to comment on this, not because I'm some Discovery Institute supporter (hello, I'm not even a Republican!), but because I found some of the language on the page to be veering away from the language of a dictionary. I was coming at this from an editorial perspective; I have absolutely zero desire to get into the messy debate that goes on about these topics.

Anyway, since it seems that you are the gatekeeper, I'll just ask you to consider allowing two changes: 1) the 'evolution' bit of 'anti-evolution' to 'modern evolutionary theory.' Evolution is too broad of a term--not very specific. Modern evolutionary theory is what is being taught in public schools, which is the context of the sentence and topic. Using the term 'anti-evolution' is technically incorrect, considering that the definition of the term 'evolution' is not really what this group opposes (since any scientist supporting ID would also say that of course 'evolution' is occurring every day). Also, using language like 'anti' usually comes off as biased and doesn't help anyone. (For example, consider an entry defining NARAL as "anti-life" and watched over by pro-life wikipedia members--this would be unfair due to not using the term that the group would use for themselves ("pro-choice" or "pro-abortion rights"). We would not allow that as it's biased language.) It's totally unnecessary to use this defensive language when the entire article cuts their ideas down anyway. My main point is just that it would be more accurate to say "challenges modern evolutionary theory." That's quite clear and does not take sides as it merely describes what the group was advocating--it's not supporting it in any way.

2) May we change "creationism" to "ID" "theories" ('theories' being a separate wiki)? First--to comment on the word "theories"--look at the wikipedia definition. I already understand that ID is denounced as not being a 'scientific theory' for different reasons and that that term is emotional (kind of bizarre how emotional, actually). I'm not using that term. Rather, a 'theory' is simply a theory--nice and generic, and in no way does it imply that it's a bona fide Scientific Theory as everyone so emotionally rails against. Also, I thought 'theories' was more accurate (and would even more clearly remove it from the former assumption) since the kind of ideas the group was advocating to be taught were a loose group of theories they believe contribute to the broader overarching theory of ID. Finally, there is a big difference between creationism and ID. Clearly, however, that delineation is not acceptable on wikipedia (considering the entry on ID that basically states that all scientists interested in or supportive of ID theory are really just creationists, which is just not correct--I have heard plenty of people speak on the topic who were clear about being non-religious/agnostic/atheist). So why the need to define what they call ID as creationism, since that accusation is already in place on the entry defining ID? It's unnecessary; let's just state in a matter-of-fact way what they were advocating.

Maybe I'm just wasting time...notice I didn't attempt to change anything else, since I assumed that the wording was all volatile material. I just wanted to bring these little words up, because if the gatekeepers of these pages want entries in their favor, would it not benefit *everyone* to encourage more accurate terms and less language that could be accused of being biased? Thanks for hearing me out. Efrafra (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ID is not a (scientific) theory, therefore calling it such violates WP:WTA#Theories and hypotheses
ID is not even a "theory" in the colloquial sense, as it is really just a set of arguments-why-evolution-can't-happen (e.g. Irreducible complexity, Specified complexity). It offers no positive theory (as ID advocates themselves admit on occasion).
The DI's disagreement with evolution is not confined to the modern evolutionary synthesis -- it quite frequently wanders into palaeontology & who knows what else.
"Finally, there is a big difference between creationism and ID." Baloney! ID is Neo-Creationism. It retreads the same old creationist anti-evolution arguments, with the same relgious motivation, it just dresses it up in sciencier language and does its (imperfect) best to hide the fact that by 'Designer' they really mean God (but repeatedly let the cat out of the bag when they don't think anybody on the other side is looking). (The reason that this gets a bald "Baloney!" is that I've heard the 'ID isn't Creationism' assertion dozens of times -- always with no, or spurious, substantiation.)
Finally, your edit was not a 'minor' edit and the edit summary was misleading.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guess you've been watching TFN and the exciting news that ID creationism can once again be tried out in public school science classroom teaching, and tested in court. Looks like classes could get very detailed, with children being asked to “analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning any data on sudden appearance and stasis and the sequential groups in the fossil record" and "Analyze and evaluate the evidence regarding formation of simple organic molecules and their organization into long complex molecules having information such as the DNA molecule for self-replicating life.” So, they'll be pulling out all the stops again to pretend that ID = science. . dave souza, talk 09:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuated equilibrium & abiogenesis as high school science topics? How to confuse the kids in two easy lessons. :/ Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad faith

Hi. You made a request for comments. The stuff needs to stay, so people know what they are commenting on. As far as "disputed section" goes, let's not bias the discussion. At the end you can see what the consensus is.Likebox (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If at the end of the day, people think that hypnosis, ball lightning, etc, is OR, then delete them. I am sure that they won't, if they bother to read the sources.Likebox (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The accuracy of this list has been disputed by a number of editors: dave souza, Kenosis, & myself. You appear to be the sole editor supporting the current list. Removal of the tag stating that it is "disputed" is thus "in bad faith". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I have seen portions of the discussion page that I have written get deleted. Not archived, but deleted. Have you threatened removal for those people? I am all for keeping the sanctity of your page, but not at the cost of misinformation. An amicable solution would be preferrable for both of us as I am sure I can use any number of IP addresses.

I ask to allow me to respond to why I believe I am not violating the rules, then you archive if you have a consensus. You left messages for me already, leave a message with a consensus of the contributors and I will have no problem with your archival, after being allowed a day to respond to why I am being archive. Further, stop deleting my discussion.

Is this a fair resolution? Thanks Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.190.1 (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your interminable WP:SOAPboxng on Talk:Objections to evolution is not "relevant to improving the article" so may be deleted at any editor's discretion. Either give your discussions a basis in sources (without WP:SYNTH) or policy, or expect your comments to be archived, userfied and/or deleted. You appear to have exhausted the patience of all the editors on that talkpage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what degrees do you hold now? Had to delete that question didn't you? To quote Star Wars, "Your lack of faith disturbs me." I'm talking about your faith in science. You've proven your case, if your case is that loudest argument wins out. I've made my case I won't touch your precious error-ridden article nor your discussion board any more. You have a good day and continue to be as bliss as ignorance is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.190.1 (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on the getting me blocked. It seems to have worked well for you. I guess I'll have to wait to post at THAT IP address. As I have stated, though, I have nothing more to place onto your precious article. Clearly, Quietmark was right that wiki articles are not reliable. Good luck to you.