User talk:Hrafn/archive3

Faith vs. experiment

As someone who did a personal experiment to confirm the effect of homeopathy, I find it hard to credit your claims that only blind faith justifies belief in homeopathy. —Whig (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As someone with a background in statistics, and some knowledge of the scientific method, I find it hard to credit your claims that your "personal experiment" (i.e. an 'experiment' with a sample size of one, and no scientific protocols) proves anything at all, other than the power of the very "blind faith" you are disclaiming. Thank you for demonstrating my point for me. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

My wife is a statistician, so I'm not uncomfortable with your model. However, empirical methods are just as much science. I do not propose you accept homeopathic potency on the basis of my testimony, but I'm confident that what I did is fully replicable by anyone interested in doing so. —Whig (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Then ask your wife her opinion on any statistical test with a sample size of one -- they are always complete bollocks. "Empirical methods" are necessary but not sufficient for scientific validity, even assuming that your experiment could be considered "empirical" given the very subjective nature of evaluating your own state of health. The problem is not whether it is "replicable" or not, but that what would be replicated lacks any scientific meaning. You clearly have no idea as to what is involved in setting up a genuine scientific experiment, so I would suggest that you stop digging yourself into a deeper hole on this issue. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're confused. Statistics are just one analytical tool. From a physics background, statistics are generally only relevant at the quantum level. I did not perform a statistical test nor purport to have done so. —Whig (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not confused, you are talking through your hat -- statistics is crucial for evaluating the efficacy of medical treatments, and I would be very surprised if you could find any mainstream medical research on the topic that did not make use of statistical testing. Likewise your purported "physics background" is fatally flawed if you are unaware of the relevance of statistics to a wide range of physics fields beyond those dealing with things at the quantum level. Read Statistical physics & Statistical mechanics and leave me alone. You have proved yourself to be completely ignorant on this topic, and I have no wish whatsoever to discuss it further with you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Michele Sinclair

Thanks for adding those citation tags; I didn't know about those. I have absolutely no vested interest in this article, and I'd almost like to see it deleted just so I didn't have to deal with it anymore. The article appears to have been created by the author herself, and two IPs have edited since then. All three of them(?) are/have been adding copyrighted material, and my goal has just been to get the copyvio stuff out so that we don't get in bigger trouble. I wonder if an AfD might be a better way to go. The person/people adding all the copyvio stuff apparently don't know enough to try to remove the prod tag, but I'm afraid if this gets deleted via prod then it might be recreated again right away. Thoughts? Karanacs (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that an AfD will probably be eventually necessary for this article. However based on previous experience, I prefer to let an article settle as much as possible first, to minimise the inevitable the flood of attempts to establish notability, and resultant need to evaluate reliability/relevance of new sources, in the middle of the AfD. So I tag & whittle away the dross as a first step. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Politicization of Science

Dear Hrafn, This entry represents some of my core thinking over the past twenty years as a secondary science educator and a graduate student. Ultimately it has been quite well regarded. Do you understand what I am saying? Can you give me clear examples of extreme POV?

I refuse to be called an evolutionist or a proponent of intelligent design. Instead, I claim to be a voice for stark intellectual honesty.

Do you believe that evolutionary theory, absent a theistic tradition, would be presented so forcefully to young minds or effectively placed beyond falsifiability?

My point is not that ID is valid, but that evolution as we are required to present it in the classroom, amounts to junk science in itself. That dissenting opinions (by experts) and a body of contrary evidence may not be presented, and that this has resulted from a legal ruling, is a great example of the other side of this issue. In both cases, science is politicized--and I really believe that we are all the worse for it.

I will gladly consider incorporating any suggestions you may have for me. I am glad to modify my entry to adhere to the standards of Wikipedia. Sincerely, Scseig (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Scseig: your proposed section is nothing more than a collection of ignorant creationist stereotypes. As such, it has no place in a wikipedia article. One example of its fallacious nature is your absurd claim that "The scientific establishment treats evolution as a sacred and inviolable truth". Read the article on the history of evolutionary thought to see how much this "sacred and inviolable truth" has changed. There are dozens more examples, but a point-by-point rebuttal would be a waste of my time. I pity your poor students being subjected to such an ignorant and blinkered 'educator' as yourself, and can only assume that those by whom you are "well regarded" have had little exposure to genuine science. A "theistic tradition" has no place in public school science classes, per the Establishment clause. By describing the painstaking and robust research of hundreds of thousands of researchers as "junk science" you "bear false witness" and do grave disservice to both science and religion. It is rather your claims that are "junk". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, one last point -- the "dissenting opinions" are neither legitimate "contrary evidence" nor presented by legitimate "experts" -- but rather dishonest distortions and misrepresentations by a bunch of charlatans who rarely have any relevant expertise. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Creation according to Genesis. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Please note that the reverts you have performed in rapid succession are detracting from the quality of the article. The last one, under the guise that a previous edit's summary was misleading, was particularly unfounded. There were two successive edits, the second of which legitimately restored erroneous piping in a link (as suggested by the edit summary), and the first of which restored the term "conservative", which is broader than "fundamentalist" and covers more people who hold the view, correctly restored the term "theory" in association with theories of authorship, and correctly restored the appropriate grammar to a sentence that had gone afoul. Please do not revert again, and take it to the discussion page if you want to introduce these changes back to the article. HokieRNB (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think reverting three repeated poorly explained/unexplained edits (edit summaries: "dab"/no explanation/"Reverted 1 edit by Hrafn; Restoring the most recent least POV version", masked by " fixing error with piping") that lacked any apparent verification or substantiation, to make the same changes, in more than 24 hours counts as "edit warring". Please don't blame me for your own & your compatriots' inability to articulate your rationale. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. The first two edits I made to this article were perfectly legitimate edits. The first one restored the good faith edits that had been made which removed bias by properly referring to the hypothesis as a theory (which needs no verification, as it is a self-evident fact... something labeled "hypothesis" is by nature a theory), and by properly referring to a group of adherents to a view by a less-loaded term. The second one was to fix piping in a wikilink. That's what I put in the edit summary. Please don't rush to conclusions about my intentions, nor about who may or may not be my "compatriots". Thanks. HokieRNB (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please desist in spamming my talkpage with spurious templates. I was not edit warring and expecting a meaningful explanation of potentially controversial edits is not assuming bad faith. Your conduct here borders upon harassment. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You must be kidding. You had reverted three times within 30 hours, and I issued a warning to remind you not to do it again. That's not spurious. Then you accused me of "masking" my edit summaries, which does not assume good faith, so I issued the lowest-level possible warning about that. Again, not spurious. The explanations that I provided on the article in question were meaningful in both cases. In the first one, I made it clear that restoring the previous edits were, in my opinion, a vote in favor of NPOV. In the second one, I made it clear that I was fixing a broken pipe in a link. Please stop accusing me and go back and read what is actually there. HokieRNB (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No I am not "kidding". I reverted three poorly explained/unexplained edits in 30 hours. That is not edit warring. I ceased after you actually bothered to articulate a meaningful explanation. Mentioning the "masking" was not an accusation (if it had been I would have said "deliberately masking"), but simply pointing out that this de-emphasised the (not particularly informative) prior explanation of "Reverted 1 edit by Hrafn; Restoring the most recent least POV version". Now would be so kind as to stop making a mountain out of a molehill!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrafn (talk • contribs) 05:02, 15 February 2008

Thanks, Hrafn, your work in keeping a lid on these changes is greatly appreciated and accusations of edit warring are out of line. Glad to see that the proposals are now being justified and discussed on the talk page, as was appropriate at the outset. .. dave souza, talk 08:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Religious Science

I do believe the article needs to be improved. But to tag it for deletion is extreme. I do believe a tag for references is indicated. Religious Science is an organization of over a thousand churches in the US and many more around the world. I noticed you deleted Divine Science a smaller org.JGG59 (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

JGG59. as discussed on your talk page, reliable secondary sources are needed. .. dave souza, talk 18:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, it's not tagged for deletion, it's tagged for notability, which simply means that "If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for redirection, merge or ultimately deletion, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion." If you want to improve the article then you are welcome to do so. I would suggest you read WP:NOTE & WP:ORG first, so that you can concentrate your improvements in areas that will establish notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I am confused, the article on Unity Church is only sourced with material provided by there websites not third party sources. Can you clear that up for me? Explain please.66.108.4.122 (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just templated them. Being unsourced is generally considered worse, and is more obvious to an editor skimming in passing, than only non-third party sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Can Religious Science, Divine Science and Unity be included in the New Thought movement article since they fall under the umbrella of New Thought? They can be expanded in those section.66.108.4.122 (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

They can (hence the redirect/merge aspect of the template). Or they can have their own articles if "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent" of them can be found. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually Unity is New Thought and is the most influenced by christian teachings of the denominations. New Thought also finds Truth in other belief systems. Jesus is the great example not the exception. So yes it is both New Thought and Christian . 66.108.4.122 (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did you eliminate my edits?

Although I'm a new editor on Wikipedia and am making some mistakes, I am a long-time member of our local Religious Science Center, and am the webmaster of its website. I'm trying to add much needed references and to update the terminology and information on the Religious Science page of Wikipedia. If you disagree with some of the edits, I welcome a discussion. If I don't hear from you soon, I'll go ahead and re-instate my changes. Thanks--Wonbillions (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I reverted because you signed in mainspace -- see the template I left on your talkpage. The two references you gave weren't particularly useful (one of the two was for the mere existence of a book) or reliable -- see WP:RS. If you are "a long-time member of [y]our local Religious Science Center" then you have a conflict of interest. See WP:COI. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be more specific

I really think I have added references (as requested) and made uncontroversial edits. If you don't agree, please specifically tell me how it can be improved...or which sections are unacceptable to you. This is getting very frustrating...there are only a limited number of hours per day to do this. Thanks--Wonbillions (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This piece was completely unsourced:

In 1953 the Church of Religious Science split into two organizations, known today as the United Centers for Spiritual Living, or UCSL (formerly the United Church of Religious Science, or UCRS), and Religious Science International, or RSI. RSI cites the cause of the split as "differences in approach to corporate structure and church administration." UCSL is based in Burbank, California and currently led by Rev. Kathy Hearn. RSI is based in Spokane, Washington and currently led by Dr. Kenn Gordon. On September 11, 2007, the Board of Directors of Religious Science International and the Core Council of the United Centers for Spiritual Living met in Los Angeles, CA, and voted to begin a process of integration into a single organization once again. There is no specific timetable for this to occur, however, there will be ongoing activity to bring various aspects of the two organizations together. Global Religious Science Ministries, or GRSM, was founded by former RSI ministers who envisioned an expanded definition of ministry. GRSM is based in Silver Spring, Maryland and currently led by Rev. Lisa Marks. In addition, there are some smaller branches, as well as independent Religious Science churches. The teachings of the branches are generally similar and the organizations collaborate on events.

The source that you gave, www.scienceofmind.com, did not verify this statement that you attributed to it:

which can be found in most large book stores and includes inspirational articles and daily readings/affirmation by ministers, celebrities, and other metaphysical teachers; as well as a list of member Centers.

The other "reference", "<ref>"The Science of Mind" latest edition 2007, Wilder Publications</ref>", was basically superfluous (and did not give any useful information, like ISBN number).

Further, you have conflict of interest on this article, so should not be editing it AT ALL! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...I'll work on it

Thanks for your constructive critique...and your patience (since I'm a newbie to this). I will make the changes you suggest. May I send them to you first before publishing them? I can copy and paste them into this page.

With regard to your "conflict of interest" concern, please be assured that I am only trying to reflect the latest evolutionary thinking of Religious Scientists. You may consider me an "expert" since I've been devoted to the teaching since the 1970's, have taken many courses on the subject, and have many Religious Science friends who have come from various backgrounds. Our center has belonged to both UCSL (formerly UCRS) and RSI. I promise to try to be totally objective in my future re-write. If I'm not, please let me know.

Sincerely, --Wonbillions (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI means that you should not edit articles on organisations you're involved in (which is clearly the case with yourself and Religious Science). From wikipedia's viewpoint you are not an "expert" but rather a potential partisan. If you want to see material/sources considered for the article, then you should place them on the article talkpage and allow an unconflicted editor to evaluate them for inclusion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This should satisfy requirements

[Have moved this material to Talk:Religious Science Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC) ]

I hear you

I agree with some of what you're saying...It would be nice to have a more esoteric discussion of Religious Science...but I think most people are not students in comparative religions...they just want to know how it would affect their lives. I agree that some of the original text gets a bit long winded (not MINE, of course), but your strike-outs go way too far. When I have time, I will provide a counter proposal, and address your concerns about some of the references. Gotta go. Thanks, --Wonbillions (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wonbillions: could you please place further comments related to the same subject as subsections of your original top-level section. It helps to keep the conversation coherent. Thanks. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn: I don't know which section you mean, or how to get there. Do you mean on the Religious Science Talk page or this one? --Wonbillions (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This one, if you are continuing on from a topic you have already raised here -- you click on the "[edit]" next to "Why did you eliminate my edits?" & add a new subsection at the bottom of it with "=== New-section-name ===". If it is a continuation of discussion of proposed changes then it should be on Talk:Religious Science. Also, if the conversation is just a continuation of previous discussion, it is acceptable to simply include it in the already-created section. What I am objecting to is the repeated creation of new, un-nested, sections on the same topic.Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn....OK, I get it now. Thanks for the tips.--Wonbillions (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Tag placement dispute

For your information, I've filed this complaint concerning your actions in our ongoing dispute regarding the proper placement of the clean-up tag on Old Earth creationism. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

And I've commented there, where the tag goes is the least of the article's problems and hope that you can both relax and see some improvements made rather than escalating a minor disagreement. .. dave souza, talk 19:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate Reference

What sort of reference are you looking for re the YEC assertion that the earth is 5800 years old? --Nowa (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Something a bit more authoritative on Young Earth Creationism than "a monthly Islamic magazine published in Bangalore." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Just to be sure I am clear on what's needed, however, what we are looking for is an authoritative source that supports the statement that it is a common position among YECs that the earth is no more than 5800 years old. Correct?--Nowa (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I agree that Islamic Voice is not the best reference for this particular article, but it is a recognized source for Wikipedia for both Islamic and non Islamic issues. Take a look at Google search for "Islamic Voice" in English Wikipedia.--Nowa (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Back to the point, how does this look? [1]

Actually, looking at Ussher chronology, does the assertion even need a citation?--Nowa (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The Ussher chronology lists the Creation at 4004 BC, making the Earth 6012 years old, not 5,800. There are a number of calculations, my point being that we need references for both the highest and lowest number that has any authority/acceptance. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Since we have an authoritative reference for 6012 years old, why not change the 5800 to 6012?--Nowa (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like 5800 is by Jewish reckoning. See Dating Creation--Nowa (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That is one option. However, I'm not sure that most YECs accept Ussher as authoritative. I'm fairly sure that a lack of a solid consensus among them is what led to there being a range rather than a single number in the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

One of our references to Dating Creation, [2], had at one time a very nice essay describing dozens of religious estimates for the age of the earth and the universe. Unfortunately, this essay has been replaced by a very short version and the longer one is not available on internet archive. I wrote to B. A. Robinson to ask about the longer essay but received no reply.--Filll (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Dating Creation doesn't provide any reference for 5500 BCE Nor does it offer any figure more recent than Ussher -- so perhaps we should take Ussher as the lower bound unless & until we find a WP:RS for a more recent date. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Çreation in Genesis

Reverting already! Wow you're fast! Give us a chance, I'm still working on it. PiCo (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to "work on it" then do so in a sandbox, until it is referenced -- mainspace is not the place for unreferenced statements, let alone unreferenced sections. WP:V does not have an 'I'll get around to it soon' exception. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And because I love stalking talk pages, I'll add my two cents. WP:PROVEIT says the burden is on the adder to justify the information, not the remover. And sub-pages will allow you to draft a version that you can work on with full wiki markup, unhindered by policy or reverts. On top of that, you can solicit other editors for their opinions before establishing a final draft version. WLU (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Creationism

You have vandalized a perfectly valid and referenced, and not irrelevant, addition to these pages. Please try not to do this again. Mike0001 (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of WP:OR is not "vandalism". Please familiarise yourself betrer with wikip[edia policy before you start throwing around accusations. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There was no OR there! Mike0001 (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You have no WP:RS stating that the research may impinge upon creationism, so the claim is purely WP:OR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources for creationism, so it figures there would be an article on it! LoL Mike0001 (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Creationists is a rather obvious counterexample to that idiotic claim. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Supporting, not against! Lol Mike0001 (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The Creationists is a WP:RS on the subject of Creationism. now stop trying to make a WP:POINT and go do something useful for a change. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Christian Right page

I am new to editing so I do not know all of the rules, but you undid my revision because you said I removed sourced material. But the sourced material that I removed was extraneous and sometimes irrelevent. The section on diversity, apartheid, and indigenous rights was too long. I was trying to shorten it so that the main points were still there but it was easier to read. I also have a question, why is it bad that I removed sourced material? Just because it is sourced does not mean it is particularly relevant to the article or section. Could I then add anything to an article as long as it is sourced?

The removed material was generally neither extraneous nor irrelevant (most of it was quite explicitly documenting the Christian right's attitude to race & minorities). The length of the 'diversity, apartheid, and indigenous rights' section is due to repeated (generally pro-Christian right) demands to substantiate statements made in it. This has required introduction of a considerable amount of detailed information. If you want to get a feel for this, then I suggest you read the article talkpage discussion on the subject. Please do not make controversial edits (which almost always includes the removal of long-standing sourced material, particularly if the edit summary does not clearly explain the reason for the removal) without first discussing them on the article's talkpage. Such undiscussed controversial edits are likely to be routinely reverted. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 21:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Never seen this before, you might find it interesting

I've never seen this kind of reaction to an editor (but I don't spend much time on AN/I). Inspectre could do with some similar attention perhaps. WLU (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Inspectre is nowhere near as aggressive as 'Abuse truth', so is unlikely to warrant similar treatment. To be honest, I don't think he has any real expectation of changing the article, but most probably gains masochistic pleasure from being a martyr for his cause. I wonder if there's a "help, help, I'm being repressed" template (with a pic of Michael Palin as his anarcho-syndicalist peasant character from Monty Python and the Holy Grail). Given that Inspectre is almost certainly Cameron Wybrow, this blog-post may give some background (Denyse O'Leary, if you haven't encountered her already, is a prolific, if ignorant and much-derided, Canadian professional pro-ID blogger). ERV in turn punctures his pretensions. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 22:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

When you have a moment

Would you look at the edit history for Millstone99? And then look at his blog that he's spam linking everywhere. I believe people who have a vested interest in an article (such as Expelled or Ben Stein) have an obligation to mention that, yes? And his petty vandalism of the Richard Dawkins article is funny, but not in the way he intended it. Angry Christian (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've come across him myself. First step is to template him (with {{subst:uw-spam1}}, {{subst:uw-spam2}}, {{subst:uw-spam3}}, or {{subst:uw-spam4}} ). A potential second step would be to have his blog listed on WP:Spam blacklist and/or get him blocked, if he is/becomes sufficiently persistent. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, hope no-one's upset that I restored the link to Expelled as an inline reference. It saves misunderstandings that he might be a notable Miller with a link, and it was a useful source for links to reviews of the film. The Variety review he didn't much like was useful for the release date, the review he did like has been covered here and balancing it is rather more complex so I've not tried. Yet. Anyway, I won't object if the Millerlink is removed.. dave souza, talk 18:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Gents in good faith I removed the Miller link again and here's why - the fact that Kevin Miller co-wrote Expelled is clearly documented on the Expelled website. I don't think there is a need to link to Kevin's personal blog or any other source. Angry Christian (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Discovery Institute Campaigns article

About this reversion; Odd nature was right, Wikpedia's goal is to present complete and comprehensive articles. Meaning the article should cover all notable campaigns, not just the most notable. I'm restoring the content, and please work together next time. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Also this reversion. If you'd go the articles Wikilink-ed in that section you'd see that there are appropriate sources at those articles. Instead of slapping a template on a section next time consider adding sources. Frankly, I'm not sure adding sources from the subject article are necessary since they are readily available there. I'll add them this time. Next time please try to work together and not just revert those working alonside you. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to Talk:Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns#Notable campaigns in the lead & Talk:Intelligent design movement#Legal arms, where I gave detailed reasoning for these changes. I would very much appreciate if you would not revert my edits without at least addressing my concerns there. In summary my concerns are:

1. The statement in the lead of Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns stated that campaigns that have sunk without a trace were "notable". This is clearly misleading.
2. Intelligent design movement contained numerous exaggerations and two apparent falsehoods:
   1. that the Thomas More Law Center had "participated as a plaintiff to remove legal barriers to the teaching of intelligent design as science." I have been following this controversy for some time, and have seen no mention of a TMLC-as-plaintiff case, nor is it mentioned in its article.
   2. that the Alliance Defense Fund has been actively involved in the legal defense of ID. Again I can find no evidence (beyond them lending moral support) for this statement.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've responded there and added sources and performed some minor copyediting to address your points. This is not the most effective method to strengthen our articles on ID, please consider working more collaboratively, less confrontationally. Instead of slapping templates and tags on articles and sections then deleting the content when sources do not appear to suit, try adding issues to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject_intelligent_design#Tasks and working to find sources needed. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

FM: I'm the only person who has contributed to Wikipedia:WikiProject_intelligent_design#Tasks (either to add tasks or remove old ones) in the past year. Likewise the first half of Talk:Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns is me talking to myself, because nobody else could be bothered posting there -- even when they had a dispute. So I would suggest that I don't really need a lesson in working collaboratively. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but this is over the top. The article's topic is notable on its face and the sources there are more than sufficient. All this tagging and deleting is not best practice for making better articles nor is it helping the regular contributors who maintain these articles. It would be best if you were to bring your issues up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_intelligent_design instead of tagging and templating articles willy-nilly. I'd rather we work together than against each other. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No it is not! As I stated on that article's talk: "The references in it seem to be exclusively to coverage of underlying issues and the DI playing it up. If not, it probably does not meet WP:NOTE, so I'm tagging it for notability." The campaign appears not to have gained "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", so its notability is legitimately in doubt. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to continue this discussion by email. Please use the "E-mail this user" link at my user page and let's talk this out; there's some very good reasons for keeping these articles that may not be so apparent. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any point in an email conversation on this. However, if you insist that one is necessary, you are welcome to email me.

I would like to take issue with your initial comments about implying that I was impeding "Wikpedia's goal is to present complete and comprehensive articles":

• THIS is what the 'Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns' article looked like when I started editing it back in September. It was a lead plus a single, unstructured section.
• I was the one who restructured it, and I have been the one who has contributed the bulk of its growth since (to over 2.5 times its size at that time).
• I was the one in fact who moved the sentence now under contention out of that single section and into the lead.
• However, in my work on the article since, I have gained a greater awareness of how the DI's campaigns fit together, and which ones have gained momentum and which ones were stillborn. This led me to consider that the this sentence was emphasising some of the less prominent and less effective campaigns over more successful ones.

By all means argue with me if you think I'm wrong, but don't treat me as some newbie, either to wikipedia or to this article, who should not be making major changes without permission. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Unbalanced?

[Moved to Talk:Christian right Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC) ]

Civilty

Hello. I noticed that you seem rather rude in a few of your comments. As an example:

Most probably because Gravano was convicted before the newspapers went online, making researching such things far less easy than with more modern events. But by all means contribute additional detail to Sammy Gravano -- or any article at all for that matter. Your sole activity to date has been asking not particularly helpful questions on talkpages. Are you here to improve wikipedia or just to tie up other editors answering your questions? HrafnTalkStalk 14:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

From the Talk:Kent Hovind page. I'm sure you know about Wikipedia:Civilty, as you often cite other guidelines and policies to other contributors. Please keep this policy in mind as you converse with other Wikipedians. Hazillow (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a four-month old comment to an editor who has (even now) made a total of only one mainspace edits. Are you claiming that his questions were helpful to the article? This isn't incivility so much as an attempt to cut short a line of questioning that fell outside the remit of WP:TALK. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If your conversational style has changed notably since then, I apologize. I am not claiming that his questions were helpful, and quite frankly that is irrelevant to the discussion. I am stating that you were being incivil: "Are you here to improve wikipedia...." and not assuming good faith.

I really don't want to get into any arguments with you; I just want to ensure that Wikipedia is a place that is an environment that encourages collaboration. Many times someone's "unhelpful" question is a simple misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. You could have easily left out everything after "Your sole activity...." and your message would still be the same, sans incivilty.

This isn't a general attack on you as a contributor to Wikipedia. I find many of your edits highly useful and it would be a shame to lose you as an editor. I really don't mean any harm. Hazillow (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My conversational style changes depending on who I'm talking to & what I'm talking about. The editor in question had a habit of asking borderline-irrelevant questions that never led to serious discussion of changes to the article. Having already answered, politely, at least one such question over at Talk:Creationism, I was indicating that my tolerance for such antics was wearing thin. He eventually completely wore out his welcome, and the threads for his questions were mostly moved to his talkpage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

David Barton

I finally replied to your comment on the David Barton talk page. Thanks. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Kent Hovind

I agree that these compromises tend to come about because one "side" adds something and the other adds more to counterbalance. In my opinion, most "nice" things said about Hovind make the article POV since very few RSes view him in a favorable light. Placating is part of Wikipedia though. :P Hazillow (talk) 15:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Subjectivity in articles

Richard Sternberg is not an ID advocate. I trust his personal webpage more than other sources. Choose your truth. http://www.rsternberg.net/Structuralism.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.50.9.167 (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not copied any copyrighted material

Hi! You left a message on my talk page on 29th Jan, 2008. I have written this reply regarding your objection to my contributions to the article Adnan Oktar. Mr. Adnan Oktar has given free permission to copy material from his website http://www.harunyahya.com Any material on his website is NOT COPYRIGHTED. I quote from the website's home page: "All materials in this site are freely downloadable and may be freely copied by referring to the works of HARUN YAHYA". Please reply at the earliest.

I suggest you learn to read. The site states "Harun Yahya International © 2008. All rights reserved. Our materials may be copied, printed and distributed, by referring to this site." It IS copyrighted. Whether the permission is sufficient to cover its usage by Wikipedia is something to leave up to the lawyers. In any case to lift a large chunk of his biography straight off his own website is grossly unencyclopedic and, as I stated in my edit summary, a probable violation of WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. Please don't do this this kind of thing again. 01:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you learn to understand. After reading such a clear cut statement of permission from the website you still say "It IS copyrighted". If you remember, I did provide a link at the end of the addition to his website, thereby "referring to this website". Why do you need lawyers. Your common sense should tell you that "it IS NOT COPYRIGHTED". And once permitted, it is grossly encyclopedic to take xerox copies from the referred sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salmanmdkhan (talk • contribs) 20:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Snow - Zomet Institute

Employing a metaphor DOES NOT mean that one is invoking a wikipedia policy that happens to be named for this metaphor.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please, next time you try to enact WP:SNOW at least try googling for the article's name.}} It scares me to think how many good articles received that kind of treatment. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Please learn the difference between a employing common metaphor and invoking a wikipedia policy whose name comes from a different metaphor. What scares me is the vast number of articles that have been permitted through a completely shoddy interpretation of WP:V & WP:NOTE. The onus is not on the challenger to disprove notability or purported facts, but on their defenders to prove them. HrafnTalkStalk 16:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC) That's why WP:BITE was written. Imagine a newcomer to whom words like wikify, NN, NOR, SNOW and RS are gibberish. He writes a good article, and then someone who has no understanding of the subject deletes it. In most cases the newcomer won't come back and Wikipedia will lose a good article. WP:SNOW comes from the metaphor of "snowballing" which has nothing whatsoever to do with the metaphor, "a snowball's chance in hell", which I employed (other than that they happen to both be based upon different properties of snowballs) -- so I have no idea as to why you're still wittering on about SNOW. Wholly unsourced articles are NEVER good articles. Nor are ones written by their subject. HrafnTalkStalk 16:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC) I would further point out that editors who come to wikipedia specifically to write about themselves seldom show any interest in writing about topics they aren't WP:COIed on. HrafnTalkStalk 17:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Crap articles will be discovered and deleted one day; good deleted articles are likely to be gone forever. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC) And how many people will read the crap article and either (i) be misinformed or (ii) form a lower opinion of wikipedia in the mean time? I do not agree with your permissive attitude towards them. HrafnTalkStalk 16:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC) You're not following: There is damage in having a few people misinformed, but there is more damage in losing forever a possibly good article and a possibly good contributor. I encountered a few COI users, and yes, most of them are here only to promote their company. But i still assume good faith. No, it is you who is not listening: unsourced articles are never good articles. At best, they have to be re-written more or less completely to reflect sources, a task that is generally more time consuming than writing them from scratch. And WP:SNOW is about "a snowball's chance in hell" and not snowballing. You very boldly said that that article "has only a snowball's chance in hell of surviving", without bothering even to google the subject, and you were very wrong. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I did not look closely enough at that policy (it is one that I was not invoking, and have had very little need to look closely at previously), and was under a misapprehension as to the metaphor it was based upon. That does not however alter the fact that I did not, and did not give any impression that I was invoking it. That you are making are still making a massive deal about an off-the-cuff comment is completely ridiculous and boerdering upon harrassment. I am therefore closing this thread down.

Tpfeditor

Dear Hrafn -

I'm sorry that I didn't understand the no external linking policy at first. When you pointed that I out, I realized that my first round of edits weren't compliant with Wikipedia's rules.

But I think that this second round of edits is compliant. For example in one of my edits I was updating the list of books by a particular author to include his most recent publication by Templeton Press. Can you explain to me why is this spam? I'm new here so I'm entirely familiar with Wikipedia's spam definitions but it seems to me that endeavoring to make an author's list of publications as complete as possible should fit within the guidelines and policies. It doesn't link anywhere and it is information that is relevant to the article.

If this is still out of line, please let me know if there is any way to add this kind of information without getting deleted. Clearly there must be a way since there are already several books listed in the example I used.

Thanks - sorry if I'm stepping on toes. -tfpeditor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfpeditor (talk • contribs) 18:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Tfpeditor: every one of your edits has involved Templeton Press. You clearly have some sort of relationship with them (either you are an employee, you work for the their PR firm or similar). Therefore you have a WP:COI on books that they publish and should not be editing to add information on books that they publish to articles (including a number that are not on the authors of the books you added). That you do so in bulk means that your edits are likely to be reverted wholesale. The way to avoid getting this information deleted is to place a note in a new section at the bottom the article's talkpage giving the new information and requesting that it be added. This will allow an editor who does not have a WP:COI to evaluate the information and decide if it is worth adding. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Unity

You are correct the core text is Lesson in Truth by Cady then the Bible. Unity is the most Christian sounding of the New Thought movement but it is New Thought. It has been influenced by a wide range of ideas and thought out side of Christianity.72.225.239.38 (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

[Moved to User talk:86.128.217.153 Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC) ]

OK

Ask yourself this question -- how did someone get to be elected FRS?

A guideline is a guideline not set in stone.

If you want something deleted then get it deleted properly. Chances are you'll be laughed at for being an idiot or a troll (I haven't decided which yet) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.217.153 (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite probably because his father-in-law was a Nobel Prize winner and had only recently stepped down as president of the Royal Society. It is likely that Keynes' brother-in-law, Richard Adrian, 2nd Baron Adrian, another apparently otherwise-undistinguished physiologist, became a FRS for similar reasons. Are you suggesting that the RS has no internal politics? In any case and as I have stated before, the requirements for election to the RS (which are about contribution to science) do not automatically meet the requirements of WP:BIO (which are about reliable independent secondary sources). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for that? Or are you just spewing crap? Fellows are elected anonymously —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.217.153 (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You asked the question. I answered it. If you don't like the answer then don't ask. Regardless, it is WP:BIO that applies, and neither Richard Keynes not Simon Keynes currently meet it. So either find some reliable independent secondary sources, or stop whining. And sign your bloody comments -- I'm sick to death of getting an edit-conflict because a bot has come along to sign it for you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And a question in response: what was Richard Keynes' "substantial contribution to the improvement of natural knowledge, including mathematics, engineering science and medical science"? There's no mention of it in the article, just information on who he's related to. Therefore it's not an unreasonable jump to suspect that these connections played a larger part in his election than his contributions. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

David Snoke

Just wanted to let you know of my attempt to correct something with David Snoke yet remain out of the current controversy: Someone associated with Snoke contacted me, asking me to do something to promote Snoke's position. My beliefs are far closer to Snoke's than to that of the scientific establishment, but please know that I'm well aware of Wikipedia standards and I'm going to ensure that the page remains a standard, properly-referenced article. I changed the controverted "debunked" to "rejected", since it's quite obvious the general meaning of the statement, but "debunked" does carry an obvious POV that "rejected" doesn't. Please don't think I'm going to go and wreck it; I'm well aware that you're doing a far better job on this page, and I'm not going to stand in your way. Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with uninvolved editors tinkering with the article, just with a WP:COI one removing a whole paragraph because he didn't like one word (while refusing to respond to repeated requests for a suggestion for a more accurate replacement word). I think that "reject" is to faint a term for the thorough trashing of both the assumptions and conclusions they received at the hands of Musgrave et al, but see no point in arguing about it, as I'm intending a major rewrite in any case. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow - he seems to think that the fact that Wikipedia is the top google hit is proof of a conspiracy. I suppose that's the mindset behind "Expelled": the dominance of evolution is science is "proof" of a conspiracy. There's no way there could be an alternative explanation, huh? :) Guettarda (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

your reverts on Lee Strobel

Please discuss on the talk page before pulling the trigger on another revert. Ἀλήθεια (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Christian Right; Sexuality and Reproduction change

Undid revision 197850960 by Kmm210 (talk)identification of "premarital sex, or homosexuality" as "promiscuity"is WP:OR, WP:POV)

You undid the section back to say the same thing: "*Opposition to promiscuity (through prostitution, premarital sex, or homosexuality.)" < this is the current post.

I simply reorganized the section to eliminate the excessive repetition of sentances and create an easier format to read. Is there a specific problem with the new format that I created that you would like me to change when I attempt to reorganize the section again? (given that your previous action and explination were contridictory) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmm210 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it was in the original (and your version merely made it more apparent). I have modified it to correct for this. However MOS shows a strong preference for prose rather than list structure whenever possible, so the original structure should probably stand. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

nice try

but by the same measure, you are not free to blithely claim (WP:OR!) that the information is "random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information". that constitutes little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. since another editor has kindly added citations, clearly you were in error in removing the material. have a scrumptious day. Anastrophe (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm free to claim WP:OR on anything that isn't WP:V. and what could be sourced is far smaller than the original section. As for your WP:AGF-violating accusation that I'm violating WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I would point out that I didn't originally delete it, but merely reverted its restoration in violation of WP:PROVEIT: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."

please add fact tags before removing material you aren't sure about. or are we to assume you are an expert on zoroastrian angelology? if so, my apologies. i look forward to your addition of well sourced, corrected information on the topic. otherwise, give other editors an opportunity to address your concerns by fact tagging first. thank you ever so. Anastrophe (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I was not newly-removing material, I was reverting restoration of unsourced material in direct violation of WP:PROVEIT. Please stop making demands that have no basis in policy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Andreasen references

I tried adding references to the bio for Nancy Andreasen yesterday and was going to finish today, but everything has disappeared! I used pub med and endnote - so I don't know why everything reverted back to the version you edited.

Why has so much of the bio been deleted? Dr. Andreasen is an internationally know researcher. She has written several books and hundreds of articles. She is a former editor of the American Journal of Psychiatry and a National Medal of Science winner (2000). it takes more than a paragraph to describe her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecotopian5 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Lgodlove's reversion was a complete and utter mess (no paragraphs, incorrect use of referencing), as well as being ludicrously hagiographical (Lgodlove admits to being her assistant). If you have good sources, then I suggest you rewrite the article from scratch. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Christian Right: separation of church and state section

I removed the Huckabee quote because there was no information relating him to the christian right, or introducing him as a member. Also the IRS information seems to me relevant to the issue of separation of church and state, with or without the Barton quote, as it discusses how churches can and cannot participate in politics. I added this sourced information, in response to your comment that Barton was not qualified to comment on tax laws. I would like to know what issues you take with this information being added, or what suggestions you have to work it into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SFTass (talk • contribs) 03:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Read Political positions of Mike Huckabee and you will see that he is very much in the Christian right mainstream.
• The IRS information applies to both religious and secular non-profits, so is not really a separation of church and state issue. Further, lacking the Barton quote, there is nothing to connect it to the Christian right, it is thus irrelevant to an article on the Christian right.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• I understand that Mike Huckabee's positions align with many of the christian right's. However, his name goes unmentioned elsewhere in the article, and I do not believe that he advertises himself as a member. If I am wrong in my belief, then so be it, but he would still need an introduction that clarifies him as an active participant in the movement, or as the candidate supported by it.

• Secondly I am confused as to why the rules and regulations that dictate what a church may and may not do in the realm of politics ( the state) "is not really a separation of church and state issue". Just because these mandates also apply to secular institutions does not make them irrelevant to the issue at hand. would it help if that were clarified within the article? Also regarding the Barton quote, you have said previously that he is not qualified to comment on tax law. So how then is it a necessary piece?

• He is aligned with the Christian Right both in terms of political policy and theology, his main support base is the Christian Right, and he has been reported as a rising leadership figure in the Christian Right. How is he not part of the Christian Right?
• The rules don't dictate just what churches may or may not do, but what ALL NON-PROFITS, religious and secular may not do while still remaining tax-exempt. It could be repealed, as long as the repeal covered all non-profits (both religious and secular) without violating the Establishment Clause. Therefore it has nothing to do with separation of church and state. Likewise, IT HAS NOTHING SPECIFICALLY TO DO WITH THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT, it is a legal issue affecting all non-profits (Right, Left & Center; Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, etc, etc).
• Barton was important because he gave the issue relevance to the Christian Right (but not to Separation). He is not a WP:RS on tax law, so any statement that made it appear that he was an expert (as opposed to merely a leader of the CR), is impermissible.

Finally, PLEASE SIGN YOUR COMMENTS (with ~~~~). Failure to do so leads to edit conflicts as a bot comes along to sign them for you. I will summarily revert any further unsigned comments you make on this page! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Second Coming

After re-reading the quote, they may be discussing the Final Battle in general, rather than the death of the Jews as told in the Left Behind series. However, might those quotes be a better fit on the page discussing the Second Coming? If the section is about the Christian Right stance on Middle East politics, do we need a quote about the inerrancy of the Bible? Set207 (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's badly written, obscuring the context. I've attempted to rewrite it to make the relevance somewhat clearer. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As promised....new Religious Science Text

Hello, Hrafn, As promised, following is the revised Religious Science text, including the third party references you requested. However, I just did a search and found the original Religious Science entry missing. What happened? I did not edit some sections. I hope they are not lost.

Please let me know if any further changes are needed.

Thanks again for your valuable help. --Wonbillions (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

DRAFT RELIGIOUS SCIENCE WIKIPEDIA ENTRY (except last sections) [Moved to Talk:Religious Science Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 01:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC) ]

Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed

If you want to argue the toss, then become a constitutional lawyer and take your arguments to SCOTUS.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Hrafn, You used a {{hat|reason=[[WP:SOAP]]}} template to hide the discussion which I started on the Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed| Talk page, about an inaccuracy in the article, and you accused me of "pure WP:SOAP." The article inaccurately says that the Establishment Clause prohibits the promotion of religion in the public schools. But that is not accurate. It is not the Establishment Clause which created that prohibition. It was the SCOTUS, and they did not do so on the basis of the First Amendment, they did so on the basis of a reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, which (they held) selectively "incorporates" portions of the Bill of Rights as applying to the States. This inaccuracy in the article needs to be fixed, so please do not seek to block the discussion on the article Talk page. Thanks. NCdave (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Plus edit button

Thanks Hrafn! How cool is that! This is great, I never even noticed that thing before. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

oops-guess I don't need the == with it either. Thanks again. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not copy other people's comments onto my Talk page, Hrafn.

Hrafn, with this edit, you inserted a big chuck of an article talk page onto my talk page, making it appear that several people who have never commented on my Talk page at all have left comments there. Will you please revert yourself? Thanks. NCdave (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No I will not. Your WP:SOAP on the Establishment Clause has no place on Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. If you don't want it own your own talkpage, you are welcome to delete it, as it has absolutely ZERO value to wikipedia generally. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 21:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete material from article Talk pages

With this edit, you deleted (rather than archived) a discussion from the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed Talk page, which contrary to WP:Talk. Please don't do that anymore.

(In fact, since among the comments you deleted were some that were only a few hours old, it would not have been appropriate even to archive them.) NCdave (talk) 11:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that it is totally appropriate and even reasonable to userfy or delete offtopic discussions or SOAPbox rants. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:TALK#Others' comments -- Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is NOT the place for WP:SOAPboxing against SCOTUS's interpretation of the Establishment Clause. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 21:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)