User talk:Nefariousski

Operation COOKIE MONSTER

In support of Operation COOKIE MONSTER (OCM) I'm presenting WikiCookies in appreciation for military service to the United States. Happy Independence Day! Ndunruh (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

.

Re:Comment removal

I don't exactly recall doing anything like that, could you show me a diff? I was mainly reverting his blankings of his talk. Connormah (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, silly me, I thought you were referring to his talk page. It was a bit uncivil, so I just thought I'd revert it, so you wouldn't have to see it. I do apologize though, if you wanted it to remain. Connormah (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, I didn't particularly want it on there but just haven't ever had a third party remove someone elses comments before and was unsure if it was standard practice for admins or just you cleaning up the mess he made. I was just curious, thanks for getting back to me.Nefariousski (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning Creation according to Genesis

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

I believe you have exceeded the 3RR limit. Also note that good faith edits, even if POV pushing, are not vandalism.--agr (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reported this at [1]--agr (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wonder when they'll get around to reviewing it...Nefariousski (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

category

Is Westergaard anti-Islam? Anti-Islamist, I can see, but more than that I haven't seen .... but perhaps you have a ref. tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if there was any confusion. The category applied to the page was Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. I interpreted this as not necessarily meaning that Westergaard personally is anti-islam but his strong anti-islamist feelings and the cartoons / public speaking on the issue do fall somewhere in the realm / categorization of anti-islam sentiment considering the enormous backlash, deaths, world wide protests, increased nationalist feelings (on both sides of the fence) he caused and continues to cause. If you don't agree with my thinking on this I'm very much open for discussion and willing to hear your or anyone elses opinions / views. Thanks for the comment Nefariousski (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I guess my thought is as follows. There is IMHO a world of difference between those who are anti-Islamist and those who are anti-Islam. From what I see of his work and his article, he appears to be making a point against those who would cause terrorism, relying on Islam as their justification. Many mainstream Moslems have said this is wrong as well (though they didn't draw cartoons to make their point). I believe including him is overbroad, and would (if you allow that breadth) lead to including for example the Fiqh Council of North America as anti-Islam.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with you and have the same viewpoint personally but let us look at the viewpoint of the Moslem community. Would they consider Westergaard in the sphere of the Category:Anti-Islam tag? Would many non muslims even say that that you can be anti-Islamist without being at least touching the sphere of anti-islam? A quick check on the definition of "Islamist" points to Islamists being Orthodox Muslims. Could one easily speak out against orthodox jews and deeply offend them without at least touching the sphere of Anti-Semetic?

Whilst his intent was "Anti-Islamist" meaning in the strictest meaning of the term "Anti extremist / Terrorist etc..." his actions were near universally viewed as "Anti-Islam" in the Islamic world. So do we categorize him by his intent or by how he is viewed by those toward whom his message was directed? I know on English Wikipedia there is a Systemic Bias towards seeing his actions as Parody and Free Speech which most of us here hold near and dear which tends to tilt our viewpoint on the matter towards his.

I know it's all semantics and if you feel particularly strongly one way or the other I won't be upset if you revert my edit.Nefariousski (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is dangerous to conflate the two. Some Moslems did speak up on his behalf. I also think we have to view it as an intent issue. I'll take you up on your offer and revert. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Just want to thank you for the civil discussion. It seems that sort of thing is becoming exceedingly rare. Nefariousski (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Lol

[2] I like you :D -I may find myself referring to dinosaurs as "Jesus horses" even in mundane conversation --King Öomie 21:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't take full credit since I didn't coin the term. [3] feel free to keep checking in on that article's talk page, I have a feeling it's going to keep getting more interesting :) Nefariousski (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've had it watchlisted for a little bit. While I admit I enjoy the occasional flame war, I have no intention of swan-diving into a raging volcano of fundies and heathens screaming at each other. Interesting to see all the same names next to the exact same arguments from Creation myth, Atheism, Objections to evolution... --King Öomie 21:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame there's not a wikipedia policy like WP:FUNDAMENTALIST or WP:USERHASEXTREMEAGENDA. Maybe a user box that says "Logic and Reason mean nothing to this user"? Nefariousski (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There's WP:BULLSHIT. Unfortunately WP:BULLSHITARTIST is a redlink. --King Öomie 22:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Stay Tuned. I'll be nominating the article to The Hall of Lame by the end of the week.Nefariousski (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"sources listed in archive on talk page"

Where? See also WT:VG#Slow moving edit war at Niko Bellic and comment if you could. Thanks, –xeno^talk 23:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The brady games game manual for one the ref in Archive is [4]. Nefariousski (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Creation according to Genesis

You've been edit warring on this article, and an admin might take your statement in the report as promising to edit war in the future. Please leave a comment at WP:AN3#User:Nefariousski reported by User:ArnoldReinhold (Result: ) indicating that you will cease reverting the article until such time as a consensus is reached on the Talk page. This means you must give up any role as 'enforcer' of the current version of the article. If you make this concession it should help you avoid a block. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not edited or reverted the article nor do I intend to outside of vandalism or contributions that are not currently under or related to controversial discussion until consensus is reached. Nefariousski (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Bayless Conley

Sure, self-published sources aren't much use for the rest of the article. I was just restoring at least one source to the main "contentious" part of the article (drugs, alcohol and 12yo boys, never a good mix). The guidelines do allow for that; I had no quarrel with your removal of the sources from elsewhere in the article, which of course would need third-party reliable sources. Holly25 (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: perhaps the word "restore" in the edit summary was misleading; I re-inserted the self-published source directly after the contentious claim, without attempting to restore the self-published link as a source for the rest of the article. Holly25 (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Stanford University people

Um, they were already listed under the "Presidents, Vice Presidents, Prime Ministers, and royalty" and "Writers" sections, respectively. OCNative (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just saw that. Sorry, only looked at the diff and your statement and it lead me to think you were removing them because they were placed in the wrong section, not because they were duplicate mentions in the list AND in the wrong section. Nefariousski (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Theremes

Hi, Nefariousski! I appreciate your input concerning this editor and the edit war he engineered, and the advice you gave is certainly correct. This is one of those "extreme" cases, if you will. You know... the kind of editor that removes every warning tag from their talk page? Reinserts the same contested (unsourced, SYNTH, etc.) material repeatedly over the objections of upwards of a dozen or more editors? Gets blocked, then immediately after being reinstated, the first thing he/she does is go right back to the exact same dispute? This is Theremes. I watch the Edit Warring page, and I usually only involve myself if the report is blatantly one way or the other: a) clearly not an edit war, or b) a disruptive editor wreaking havoc on one or more articles. This particular editor's history speaks for itself, and is very probably (IMHO) a sock. Thanks for your input, and happy editing! :> Doc9871 (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. I actually did dig a little deeper into the Diffs and histories after I wrote that comment and found it quite a bit harder to AGF. Maybe I was a little too hasty with my suggestion of a requesting apology as opposed to blocking. Thanks for pointing that out. Nefariousski (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion was in no way hasty or out of line, trust me. That editor is luckily in the minority (meaning the extremely disruptive editors), or else there wouldn't be a WP at all. Thanks for giving your opinion, Nefariousski! :> Doc9871 (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Williams (journalist)

I'd like to see your opinion on this one. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Gladly, I'll look into it right away and comment on the AFD page. Nefariousski (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

My view on how to change BLP policies

Feel free to read and comment with what you Think

• I commented. Sorry, but I support 8 of 9 points. Bearian (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appriciate you taking the time and effort to read and comment. Can you explain why you are ok with self-written/published sources that aren't secondarily verified? I'd be interested in knowing your take. Nefariousski (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha

Wikicops... ha! --Leodmacleod (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Akron politicians

If you haven't seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Akron politicians recently, better check it out. The creator of the list up for deletion seems to believe you not commenting means you have possibly "changed your vote". He has a history of including loads of cruft and trivia into the main Akron, Ohio article and is taking my nomination of the list personally. Thanks for your input. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I added further comment to show that I am still in opposition of the article.Nefariousski (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Kenneth McLaren

Well, I have humored you. I have outlined clear reasons why Kenneth McLaren and Kenneth MacLaren have to be the same person. Sources referring to them under the two names both get their marriage dates, wifes names and first wife's death the same. Both say that Baden-Baden asked for them to be under his command in the Boer War and both say the subject was wounded at the same place. Are you satisfied? While the "fact" tag is on this article, it prejudices the AfD. User:Off2riorob is simply being obstructionist over this. Why does he have the single right to stop the removal of this tag, just because he claims without any real reason that he is not satisfied? I know the Haidoc business is an issue here, but some of us support this article but are glad to see the back of him. This AfD is not just about Haidoc. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I just checked in and read what you wrote and I'm inclined to believe that you are right regarding them being the same person and I thank you for your explanation and for performing due diligence. I have no personal agenda here, I myself was a scout and support scouting to this day. My biggest complaint was one of notability as the article was written and still currently stands. It relies far too much on the "claim to fame" of being close buddies with B-P and as such will repeatedly face accusations regarding WP:N specifically notability not being inherited. I agree with this AfD not being about Haidoc. I personally would prefer to Delete the page and recreate it. In doing so we can focus the biographical article on McLaren himself with seperate sections regarding his early life, personal life, military experience, Boer Wars, Scouting, etc... Which would be one hell of a sight better than trying to work with what currently exists. It would be a lot easier to establish notability with a fresh start on the article and as a bonus would remove the stain of the current controversy. I'm not proposing that the article be deleted and salted. Nefariousski (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, so can you remove the "fact" tag about the name and explain to User:Off2riorob? He might listen to you. He read my explanation and is still not satisfied. It should at least be removed while the AfD is running. If it is kept, we can argue about it over time, but it does prejudice the AfD right now. BTW. I was a Scout too. I have not been for 40 years! I am however interested in Scout history and support the Scouting Project. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nefariousski. You have new messages at Kingoomieiii's talk page.
Message added 18:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

King Öomie 18:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

IP Soapboxing on Talk:Evolution

Hey Gabbe, Saw your comment here and just had a question. I normally remove comments such as that per WP:SOAP, is there some sort of policy about not removing anything from talk pages even if it's just an arbitrary pov rant? Nefariousski (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal is certainly one option, I wouldn't say that it would have been wrong (or against policy or anything) to remove the comment. However, in this particular case I thought it would be more effective to provide a brief explanation to that person why this isn't the venue for their soapboxing, rather than just deleting it wholesale without comment. Maybe I was wrong, what do I know? Gabbe (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing personal

[5]- just removing the cheese from the mousetrap. I don't particularly want to converse with the mouse. --King Öomie 17:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, your page your call and quite frankly I can't blame you, there's not a lot to be gained from trying to have a discussion with a looped recording. Nefariousski (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary

Please take a look at the references that have been added to Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary. If you can't read Dutch, use http://translate.google.com to get a general idea of what the Dutch-language references are about. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appriciate you taking the time to try and hunt down some sources and improve the article. I'll check it out.Nefariousski (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nefariousski. You have new messages at Templeknight's talk page.
Message added 18:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Osarius ^{That's me!} : _{Naggin' again?} : ^{What did I do?!} 18:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

FAQ

I've added another item to the Genesis creation myth FAQ. If you get a chance to check it over that would be appreciated. I figure we can make some use of the length of the discussion on that page. Cheers, Ben (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Gladly, I'll try and mine some additional points for your addition. Thanks for helping expand the FAQ. I dream of a day when most of the comments on that page can be addressed with "Go read the FAQ". Nefariousski (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure exactly where it would be appropriate or how to do it but I'd like to see a mention of Negative Proof in the FAQ to address comments like

"There is a fatal flaw in your reasoning. You say your bias wins because science proves it. However you are wrong. Every scientist who means anything in this world will acknowledge that science does not disprove God. Science nowhere disproves Creation according to Genesis and it doesn't claim to. If this article claims that, then it is sub-par academics. SAE (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC) "

Age of the earth

The comment here... wow. Reading it gave me a nosebleed. --King Öomie 15:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think the IP was actually serious at first... If I wasn't so damn worn out from the whole Genesis creation myth crap I'd ask them to show me said evidence, point out the concept of peer review and how a PhD in divinity or hydraulic engineering doesn't qualify one as a "scientific expert" and then warn him to build an ark before the flood of counterpoints. Some of this stuff is so insane I question whether the editors are true YECers or just well practiced trolls. Listening to some of these people reminds me of the head exploding scene from Scanners. Nefariousski (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalization my userpage. (You sure have a bunch of userboxes!) Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, I submitted the vandal to AIV and they are currently blocked. Nefariousski (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Please note I've started adding information to User:Nefariousski/sandbox/Creation Myth ANI. Help will be appreciated. Ben (talk) 11:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to try and mine the talkpage for diffs that show examples of each of the items listed in your "some problems" section. We should ask King Oomie to give this a look as well. I'm not particularly familiar with how a "topic ban" is submitted (having never been part of a topic ban discussion). From what I gather most topic bans are against particular users (banning said user from editing certain topics), I think it would be preferable to have a topic ban for the article (banning any user from discussing the "creation myth" topic for a period of time) but i haven't seen any precedent for that in the bit of digging around I've done. Do you know of any good examples we could reference? Nefariousski (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. I would try shortening up some of the sections or reduce them to shorter bullet points; right now it's a little bit TL,DR. You have full permission to copy-paste any of my arguments from that talk page; especially at Talk:Genesis_creation_myth#Trying_to_use_policy. You can also at WP:NOT#CENSORED to the list of policies that support "creation myth." Mildly Mad^T_C 19:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

N-ski, just want to let you know I got your message, though because I'm so behind on my watchlist and am spending some time catching up I won't be able to review until either late tonight or tomorrow. (Although I do agree with Mildly Mad above about WP:CENSOR. It is policy.)

This may be too big for AN/I when there is more than one editor editing tendentiously. This may be a job for arbcom. And I am not one who likes to kick disputes to the arbs. I firmly believe in the power of the community to settle things. But since this involves multiple parties, it may be too complex to sort out without the structure of an arbitration. Auntie E. (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I would second that this should go to arbcom. The editing has reached a level of chaos. Deadtotruth (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC

You present you case nicely and make reasonable arguments. Though Philosophically We disagree with you on lot of issues Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC) has asked you to join him for a nice cup of tea and sit down.

---

barbera d'asti

) :) :) You definitely win the balloon. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For admirable persistence at Genesis creation myth. Keep up the good work! --Noleander (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

.

My very first Barnstar! Thanks for the recognition :) Nefariousski (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Thanks, Nef. I've been trying to keep other people's work from being deleted. How do we keep the article protected while contributions are coming in? Things can't be organized if they are deleted every night by Pico.EGMichaels (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily say PiCo is the only contributor to the current instability but I do see your point. Obviously locking down the article is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If it starts to get too out of control I'd suggest that an AN/I get submitted to request the article be placed under 1RR for a set period of time to help enforce the BRD Process. Being that I try not to fly off the handle and throw every little issue to the admins I think it would be a good idea to see if we can get the community of editors that have been working on the article to voluntarily agree to follow 1RR first. I think it's important that a dialogue is initiated that tries to get everyone on board with this first, seeing as how claims of certain outspoken editors trying to take "ownership" and others being accused of supression have been all the rage lately. Nefariousski (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd support anything that would strike a chord of civility on this page. Wikipedia is a big enough place that most of the information we're dealing with belongs somewhere (whether here or in a different article). But with all the deletions there's no way to figure out what should go where.EGMichaels (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine

Fine NickCT (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, I know it's rough working on an article where there's so much tendentious editing and endless debate over a lame issue and I know how frustrating it can be. I would just hate for this molehill to be turned into a mountain. If other editors insist on carrying on with this tiresome discussion I'll be the first one to submit an RFC. Nefariousski (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You are correct Nefariousski. Your point is well made & well taken. NickCT (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Fuck you!