User talk:Hrafn/archive9

Ofishial welcome

• Thanks. I came back mostly to do a major rewrite to What Darwin Got Wrong‎ (which I've mostly done now). Don't know if I'll be staying -- too many appallingly bad articles, with too many editors fighting tooth and nail to preserve them as such, means that this place is too often too irritating to stand. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There are people *wrong* on the internet! Seriously, I hope you stick around for as long as it keeps being fun. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha...agreed, please stick around we need you. Teapotgeorge^Talk 19:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Glad you're back

Even if temporarily. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

• 168.137.100.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 168.137.100.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thank you for being on top of this individual. Seems to have a habit of modifying and/or removing critical material related to affiliations with a specific organization. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No problemo. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Wolfview (talk · contribs)

This user appears to be going around and adding these changes back. -- Cirt (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hrafn, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wolfview. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. You might be able to research and/or analyze from your prior experience, other possible accounts, or IP usage, or prior disruptive behavior patterns, that I have not yet identified in the report? -- Cirt (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that they're the one-and-same. Could be -- but insufficient non-UC overlap for it to be a smoking gun (and for both Wolfview & IPs, UC is only a small part of their editing history). Hopefully a checkuser will smoke out the truth. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Your continued input would be appreciated. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

[EC][Mutter] Wikistalk ( toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py ) doesn't handle IPs, only registered nicks. There's another tool around that I think does handle IPs, and I seem to remember it being good for doing editing pattern analysis, but I can't for the life of me remember its name. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Update: [1]. Thoughts? Probably likely there is other evidence of disruptive behavior from socks and/or IPs, what do you think? -- Cirt (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, question now becomes has his (combined) edits violated WP:3RR, or otherwise be considered a WP:EDITWAR? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Not yet, no. The SPI case page is closed, for now. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge

I've just suggested merging True Family into List of Unification Church members since the information in the first is mostly aready in the second. Please discuss if you like: Talk:List of Unification Church members#Merge in True Family. Kitfoxxe (talk) 09:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added the material in the article into other articles and suggested a redirect to Divine Principle. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscience edit

RE this edit of yours: I thought your edit reasonable and demonstrative of an astute sensitivity to how the word "accepted" is used within a community of scientists and among others intimately familiar with their work. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeh. The problem with pseudoscience is not that their results don't match those of "main stream" science, but that their methodologies (to the extent that they exist at all) lack sufficient rigour to be "accepted" as scientific. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

{{Expand}} templates RfC

Since you have recently commented on the type/color of one or more "expand" templates, could you express your opinion in the centralized RfC on this issue? The discussion is currently fragmented between various template and TfD pages, which makes a consensus on this issue difficult to form. Thank you, Tijfo098 (talk) 08:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to this discussion. Please remember that we are just discussing the color of a template. This is not something to let yourself get irritated by. Please keep an open mind and discuss in a calm and civil way. The confrontational approach is not helping much. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brother Jed. Jaque Hammer (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Col Warden at Natural Theology

I have warned User:Colonel Warden for the edit that you had identified as disruptive. Feel free to bring future issues with him directly to me. It is my hope that he will listen productively to criticism from a friendly ear and edit without such inappropriate removals in the future. Jclemens (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I would note that Colonel Warden immediately deleted your warning (and has deleted/archived two other recent ones), and appears to remain unrepentant. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawal request

Hi Hrafn,I've found several answers to my question Adamic Language and Nature. If I write a brief paragraph with linked sources, and contribute it to the article, would you be amenable to removing my question on the Talk page. My question was never really about the article (it was a fumbled attempt to have a dialogue apart from the article), but through this accommodation the article will be strengthened and my question, which incorporates no sourced information, and which provides little, if any, value can be withdrawn.

Would this be acceptable to you and within the spirit of Wikipedia?

Jayintheusa (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Jay, we generally don't remove stuff from talkpages unless they're badly offensive, wander off-topic at great length, or insist on repeatedly bringing back up stuff that has already been decided. Your questions weren't particularly bad for a first attempt, and my response (which I hope wasn't too curt) is the sort of thing you'll see on most talkpages: asking for citations for a claim, trying to determine what is and isn't relevant, and suggesting avenues of inquiry. I'd suggest leaving it where it is. However if it's really important to you, then I'll agree to a mutually-agreed redaction (we're allowed to alter, even remove, your own comments -- as long as we're not disruptive over it, so if we both agree, then the section can vanish). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hrafn, Thank you for your thoughtful response. I would really, really like to have my question withdrawn from the Talk page. I will also add some sourced content to article (by midnight CT today) so that any future discussion on this precise topic can refer to, and add to, the article itself. Thank you very much for your understanding.

Jayintheusa (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know how to properly effect a mutual redaction, so I have removed this Talk page section to the best of my abilities. Please adjust as you see fit.

Jayintheusa (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to it. Many thanks.

Jayintheusa (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've re-removed the section (mutual consent is all that's needed). As Adamic language is not a concept that seems to have any support in modern scholarship to speak of, I'd suggest that you keep in mind WP:WEIGHT & WP:FRINGE when writing any material for it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hrafn, I read WP:WEIGHT & WP:FRINGE, and in that light, don't think I should add to the article just yet. Rather than contribute the material that I have right now, I'd rather contribute more-relevant facts from more-notable sources.

Jayintheusa (talk) 06:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB

Hello, a few days ago you reverted some of my edits. I then deleted fragments of BLP-articles, which were sourced by the persons websites, because of the WP:SELFPUB-rule. You disagreed with me, and reverted the deletions. Well, I believe you had a point in those cases. However, would you please have a look at the Adnan Oktar-article? It is heavily edited last week, and I'm afraid this article would not meet the SELFPUB-standards. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Will do. You might also want to post at WP:FTN -- as Oktar's views are decidedly fringe. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Took a look & ended up reporting it to WP:FTN myself -- ouch! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on it! Great job!Jeff5102 (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Adventures in Odyssey

Please refrain from vandalizing pages Glman99 ☲☳☶ (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making fallacious personal attacks. And please read WP:VANDALISM, as you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about. You should probably also read WP:Verifiability, particularly the WP:BURDEN section. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not attack you, i misread who had edit it, i have read the vandalism article. Iam sorry for the mistake, Thanks, Glman99 ☲☳☶ (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Adnan Oktar

You have not commented on the proposed version "Alternatively, I could write..." Did you see it? ---Geoffry Thomas (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Harassment

For the avoidance of doubt, User:TreasuryTag is unwelcome on my talkpage due to repeated harassment compounding a borderline abuse of {{talkback}}. Any further comment from this user, will result in them being reported. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Stephen C. Meyer

The discussion there might interest you. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible move of discussion

Hrafn, would you mind if I moved our discussion of this morning to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia, as it is more general than the talk page of a specific article warrants? --Crusio (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

STOP!

3RR, remember? You're right, but may still get blocked. I thought I'd reverted that. Dougweller (talk) 08:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure I've reverted only three times in total (twice on the source, once on the tags). But your reminder is well-taken. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD

I went ahead and nominated this article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternate successions of the English crown. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

AfDs

Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Calm down, please

I considered blocking you for 24 hours for your comments at Talk:True.Origin Archive, but changed my mind - it would be overkill and you're not a disruptive editor. In any case, it's really not appropriate to call other users dicks. To quote from the essay, "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is usually a dick-move — especially if it's true. It upsets the other person and it reduces the chance that they'll listen to what you say." Clam down, perhaps extend an olive branch - and focus on the problem, not on the other user. I'm willing to offer a helping hand, or find a mediator if you're having trouble finding a consensus. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Response:

1. You seem to have gotten the software more than a little confused -- it's telling me that I'm both blocked and unblocked. It's also telling me that I've got an autoblock on my IP.
2. As to the argument that got me blocked in the first place, it involved:
   1. Headbomb first removing a WP:SPEEDY A7 tag, for what I thought was a ridiculous reason (one that would basically make A7 redundant), and demanding an AfD instead.
   2. When I pointed out that it had already been AfDed and deleted and G4ed it, he again removed the tag, without giving a reason, and demanded a second AfD.
   3. When I nominated the article, as he had demanded, he requested that the AfD be put on hold for 18 hours.
   • By that stage, I was sick of being mucked about. I'd done as he'd asked, and gotten nothing but obstruction in return. I expressed my displease intemperately. (May I mention that if you consider citing WP:DIK to be blockable offence, then the logical thing to do would be to eliminate that redirect to WP:Don't be a dick.)
   • I think the best thing possible is for me simply to have as little as possible to do with him in the near future -- the AfD being already in motion.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the autoblock should be lifted. Syrthiss (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Intelligent design

You recently reverted my edit where I removed the image of a watch. I don’t mind and I won’t revert it for now, however, I have had this argument with many people in the past over the images used in the creationism template and the evolution template. The pocket watch really does not represent the whole idea of intelligent design and it really isn’t appropriate. See: [2] discussion over the image on template:evolution3. It is more about that image, but the arguments used are still in principle, universal when decorating Wikipedia with icons and images. A. Z. Colvin • Talk 10:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

1. I would suspect that there are very few places where image X "really does ... represent the whole idea of" Y. Should we therefore convert Wikipedia into a text-only encyclopaedia?
2. If you don't want to keep on having this argument, then start a discussion at Talk:Intelligent design & get a WP:CONSENSUS. As long as you don't have such a consensus, I doubt if you'll get the removal to stick.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

How about your not an asshole. I dont really care, but the image does not relate to the topic as a whole. I won't bother to get consensus. A. Z. Colvin • Talk 03:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Adam Fitzroy

If you are going to delete Edward II's illegitimate son, you should also amend the number of sons from 3 to 2 and the numbering of them on the list.RGCorris (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Do not delete my edit

I see that you have deleted my edit. I am part of the Colombo International School and am trying to put the proper facts in. I would appreciate if you do not delete information I am putting in. If you need to verify you can call me, I can give a phone number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulbright8 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Please desist in adding material without including a citation to a WP:RS. Doing so violates Wikipedia's policy of WP:Verfiability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Bernard_d'Abrera

Hi, just as a side note, there has been a fair bit of reverting at Bernard_d'Abrera and I think both of you are close to 3RR so please take this as a warning and lets work it out with discussion thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of about 47.5 hours (to match Sumbuddi's block for the same) for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at Bernard d'Abrera. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Hrafn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

(i) I assert that I did not violate the WP:3RR. I made my first revert here. 8.5 hours later, I made my second with this single edit, and my third revert in this series of edits, with only a bot intervening, on a matter unrelated to the first. (ii) Given the time elapsed between the first and second edit, and the fact that I did not further dispute the sourced re-addition of the material I had excised in my 1st, I did not, at the time, view it as the same conflict. Whether this amounts to a WP:EDITWAR I would consider questionable. Whether it was sufficiently obvious an WP:EDITWAR that it would be unreasonable for me to fail to recognise it as such without a warning (as Mkativerata suggests), I would disagree with. (iii) I assert that by (a) reporting the conflict to WP:BLPN and (b) ceasing to edit further (over four hours before the block), I had already mitigated any prior violation (a point that Mkativerata failed to address). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Accept reason:

3RR is designed to prevent edit warring; mitigating circumstances of seeking dispute resolution and clearly good faith editing mean a block is not in the interests of the encyclopedia. Rd232 ^talk 13:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I have raised this with the blocking admin, noting that it seems strange to block someone after they have already complied with the warning. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll obviously leave this to another admin now but I will note that reverts do not have to relate to the same subject matter material to constitute a 3RR breach or edit warring. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

(i) I have not claimed that different subjects do not contribute to 3RR, and explicitly counted the revert on another subject in my count. (ii) I would however assert that it does contribute (along with the time lapse) to whether an WP:EDITWAR is obvious, and thus to your no-warning/"especially as an experienced editor you should know better" comment. (iii) You continue to fail to address the fact that I (a) reported the conflict, (b) did not edit the article thereafter (for the four hours before the block) & (c) did not edit between the warning and the block. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"Exactly this type of behavior" already the topic of discussion on WP:ANI. Enough said.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Revert 1 + Revert 2 + Revert 3 + Revert 4 + Revert 5 + Revert 6 = more than three reverts in a twenty-four hour period. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 09:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC) Thank you for violating WP:AGF by misrepresenting my edits TreasuryTag. It's the type of personal attack I (along with others commenting on your talkpage & ANI) have come to expect from you. You included a number of edits that were either (i) not reverts or (ii) part of the same revert. Please read WP:3RR more closely before making wild accusations. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC) Yes, I think "wild" may possibly be a wee exagguration... ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 09:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC) 100% exaggeration = "wild accusations". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC) Again, the question I have about this block is: was it necessary to prevent disruption? Since Hrafn complied with the warning given by 02RR (i.e., refrained from editing the article any further), I can't see how it was. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC) Clarifying: User:Nomoskedasticity was the original complainant on WP:3RRN (against User:Sumbuddi). User:TreasuryTag is simply an editor I've butted heads with on AfDs who really really doesn't like me -- who has neither involvement, not relevant knowledge, of matters relating to the block. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC) I really really don't like you? Sure it's not the other way round? And FWIW, I don't need "relevant knowledge of matters relating to the block," all that is necessary is the ability to count to four and to determine what constitutes a 24-hour period. The six reverts a listed above were not part of compound reverts, and they were all undoing the actions, in whole or in part, of another editor or other editors. And you were clearly edit-warring anyway. I'd advise you to just sit this one out. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 12:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC) "Sure it's not the other way round?" Yes -- because you're the one butting in here trying to convince admins to uphold my block. "The six reverts a listed above were not part of compound reverts" -- FALSE -- "Revert 4 + Revert 5 + Revert 6" are all part of "my third revert in this series of edits, with only a bot intervening" ("Revert 2 + Revert 3" not being reverts). Please cease and desist WP:HARRASSing me with false accusations. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC) < I am trying to convince the admins to uphold your block because you violated the 3RR. Whether or not I dislike you is irrelevant to this; happening to oppose someone in a discussion does not mean that they are your mortal enemy. This was not part of a series of reverts because it was preceded by another editor, although it was followed by a bot so that one is debateable. Five to go. This was not part of a series of reverts because it was preceded and followed by other editors, and your other consecutive edits were not among the ones I linked above. This is clearly a revert because it has removed material which was placed there by another editor = undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor. The same goes for this I can only recommend that you re-read the definition of what is not harassment because you seem to misunderstand it at the moment. I won't trouble the poor sod who gets to close this discussion with any further dialogue on the topic. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 12:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC) I have stricken your "Revert 4" above. It was in fact my "second with this single edit", already admitted to. For the rest, I dispute your interpretation (e.g. "clearly a revert because it has removed material which was placed there by another editor" = reverting -- mere removal of old text is not reverting). I would ask any reviewing admin to take note of TreasuryTag's behaviour here, and comments left on User talk:TreasuryTag & WP:ANI#User:TreasuryTag. Some action w.r.t. this may be appropriate. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC) Comment: Hrafn, please don't throw around terms like "harassment" unnecessarily, it's not helpful (WP:AOHA). TreasuryTag, I'm sure you're trying to be helpful, but your input is not required for an unblock request relating to 3RR - we expect reviewing admins to take care of that. Rd232 talk 13:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC) rd232: how would TreasuryTag repeatedly and unnecessarily injecting themselves into a dispute that in no way involves them, involving an editor they have previously had unrelated conflicts with, be considered "trying to be helpful"? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC) WP:AGF, that's how. In general, users may comment helpfully on disputes even if they have had previous unrelated conflicts, if they have new information to present and do so neutrally. But for 3RR unblock discussion, it's pretty unnecessary, unless providing additional mitigating info. Merely analysing the revert history is not needed, and I understand given other conflicts it's harder to construe as trying to be helpful, but WP:AGF is most valuable precisely in situations where you're tempted to disbelieve good faith. Rd232 talk 14:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC) PS: thanks for the unblock. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk page header

Um, Hrafn, it strikes me that the final paragraph of your talk page header (re talkback notices) could be written in a gentler tone. Let's try and make WP a pleasant place to communicate; you can make your preferences clear without sounding quite so threatening. I'd guess it was added in response to 1 or 2 users, but remember most people coming here will read it, and it just doesn't set a great tone for communication with you. Rd232 ^talk 16:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Rd232 ^talk 16:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It was in fact added in response to, you guessed it, User:TreasuryTag. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Vile Vortices

I've raised the principle at WP:RSN. It shouldn't be that hard to get a copy, but inter-library loan will take a few weeks. Dougweller (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionism (2nd nomination), since you contributed to the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Indemnity (Unification Church)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Indemnity (Unification Church) , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Borock (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC) Borock (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Gerald Schroeder

Just warned one editor about 3RR, my guess is you are there too, so I advise you to act as though you are at 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Ummm -- isn't this just a tad late -- my last edit was four hours ago, and my last revert seven hours ago. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but I've been busy, and I hadn't really counted yours, just didn't want to see you trip up if I ended up reporting the other one and they tried to get at you. I know I worry at times I'll lose track. Dougweller (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

for this. I'm eager to read it. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Audio theatre an article to audio dramas

Please if you have time and you know anything to it (I have seen that you have made edits in the article area which owns relations on it) , please look on the article Audio theatre, somebody placed a erase discussion on it. after we have had a merge discussion. It would be interesting what you would say to the merge and the delete discussion. And possibly it could help to contact other people that they should help also. )-: Merry Xmas --Soenke Rahn (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

[Further posts here on the subject of your canvassing will be deleted without comment. If you want to ask questions about it, do so in the thread on your user talk that I created with the warning notice. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC) ]

ANI discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Bondiveres/User:64.85.252.225/User:Sgaran. Thank you. KrakatoaKatie 08:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

LeShaun

I've replied to your delete !vote at the LeShaun AfD. While I'm agnostic on the notability of the article, it's my belief (and please check the article history) that the AfD was begun on an article that was discussing LeShaun Williams, who may or may not be the same person as LeShaun Thompson. The presence of Thompson instead of Williams in the stage name is the result of an edit by an IP who has made two edits over time. No problem here if you'd like to leave it at "delete" in view of those refs, I did myself, but I believe they are relevant to the discussion. Cheers! --j⚛e decker^talk 19:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Oktar Bibliography

Where did you find the ISBN? I had wanted to add them. Also before you work to change the whole list, I thought a list of the first ten and most recent ten publications would be better than from what I can tell is essentially a random list of publications. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It's easy. For example, a Google Books search for "Romanticism: A Weapon of Satan" yields these results, top result is this page, whose Amazon link gives the ISBN (8188273201). You can either feed the ISBN into OttoBibo, or follow the link into the Amazon page on the book (not available in this case), for more details (publisher, date of publication, etc). WorldCat (follow ISBN link once the ISBN has been entered into the article, then WorldCat link) may also have info. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If Amazon link doesn't yield the ISBN (either in the link, or in the Amazon listing of the book itself, if such a listing exists), then first try Google Books ABEBooks link (often yields the ISBN), other Google Books links to 2nd-hand dealers, or look the book up in WorldCat directly. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Anne Lukas

I nearly died laughing. :D Yopienso (talk) 05:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Hrafn/userbox what me a creationist -- Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Associates for Biblical Research

Thanks for alerting me to this, but frankly I don't think I'd miss it. PiCo (talk) 08:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Peace Festival since you contributed to the article. Borock (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Scriptural geologists

I think the new text is still too closely paraphrased, see [3] and [4] -still probably copyvio from the source by our standards. What do you think? Dougweller (talk) 09:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Given I had already noticed that (i) the new material directly quotes from Millhauser fairly frequently & (ii) Millhauser's fairly heavily cited for the 'Background' section, I'd have to agree with you. Trouble is I don't (as far as I can remember) have access to a copy of Millhauser to rectify matters (short of a wholesale redaction). Are you in any better a position? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No, DGG or someone else with access to JSTOR could get it. Dougweller (talk) 12:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ad hominem [words mean things -- please DON'T use them if you don't know what they mean]

Best wishes for a happy and healthy new year, looking forward to intereresting - yet civil and hopefully pleasant - exchanges, Racconish ^Tk 11:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd be a lot happier about accepting your olive branch if it weren't for the title you put it under -- which does rather sour the message. But anyway Happy Berchtoldstag. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing sour: it was very literally ab homine ad hominem, a play on words for a message to you as a person and not as a contradictor at AFD. In any case, if it can make you happier, please trust protracted studies of latin and classical philosophy led me to assume I had a decent notion of these terms. Cheers, Racconish ^Tk 14:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD of article you worked on

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Sternberg.Wolfview (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Spurious civility warnings

Spurious and WP:POT, given User:Cla68 was recently admonished by ARBCOMM for misbehaviour
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[5] Please don't personalize content discussions on article talk pages. Cla68 (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC) [6] Please don't personalize noticeboard discussions. Cla68 (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Looking over those pages, I think Hrafn has shown a great deal of patience with tendentious editors on a controversial topic - far more patience than is deserved. Raul654 (talk) 06:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Raul, I just reread the civility policy and couldn't find the part where it says that editors are granted a limited amount of patience, which once exhausted exempts them from compliance with the policy. Could you point it out to me? Cla68 (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Cla68: Please cease and desist issuing SPURIOUS civility warnings for doing things like: Pointing out the reason why a article talk thread went off track, when another editor complained about its derailing (which he had contributed to). Pointing out that the implicit unsubstantiated accusation in "hrafn, you and I both know that it's possible (intentionally or unintentionally) to use reliable sources to present a skewed version of a topic." In fact please cease and desist posting here altogether. I may have to put up with your tendentious WP:BATTLEFIELDing on article talk and noticeboards, I see no reason to put up with it here. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

More on CW

Did you see what else I dug out? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

At this stage it wouldn't even surprise me to discover that CW was using a Ouija board to produce his references. :/ Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Nor me. :(

But he's utterly unrepentant, so I don't see any way of stopping it except by an arbcom case. The community can't put a halt to it thanks to the likes of DGG defending and praising CW all the way, so arbcom is the only option. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

True. But hopefully CW will now understand that people will be on the lookout for these shenanigans from him and that he can never get away with it again. And hopefully that will convince him to stop. Reyk _YO! 06:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

He'll probably pull his horns in for a month or two, but after that my suspicion is that he'll start seeing what he can get away with again. He's an unrepentant zealot -- and those leopards aren't exactly known for changing their spots. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) @Reyk: I admire the hope, but I see no reason to expect change.

At this point, I think it has to go to arbcom, not just because CW has given no acknowledgement that there is cause for concern nor assurances that it will stop, but also because the RFC has starkly confirmed what I feared: it's not just about one individual. CW couldn't have got away with this for so long if his antics hadn't been encouraged and defended by a few other editors. (Even as the evidence piled up, we still had an ARS member defending CW as "one of our best editors").

Far from trying to clean up the ARS, we've had several vocal ARS members at the RFC busily defending CW at every turn ... so as well as tackling CW's own misuse of sources, I think it's also appropriate for arbcom to take a long hard look at how ARS has facilitated this for so long.

CW is not the only ARS member to argue at RFC that wikipedia should not aim for scholarly standards, and the whole any-old-stuff-which-generates-a-footnote approach needs a long hard look. It goes to the heart of a core policy (and I would argue that WP:V is the core policy), and I don't think we'll put a stop this by allowing an unrepentant, serial source-fabricator to simply trim his style for a while while the scrutiny is at its most intense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

bilaterals

these have been previously nominated but I think they have questionable notability:

• Chile – Estonia relations notice the amount of trade!
• Estonia – Sri Lanka relations notice the extremely low amount of trade.
• Australia–Barbados relations

LibStar (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Now you're just depressing me. :P Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Abraham Varghese. You are the number one editor of the article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian republic -Steve Dufour (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Dacia scope clarifications and disclaimer

Hello! Given the potential for conflict and suspicions raised by the WikiProject Dacia , I added an important notice for scope clarifications and disclaimer in the intro section. If interested and willing, please review and provide any feedaback and suggestions you may have. Thank a lot! --Codrin.B (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Tasty morsel

This should be an article you might enjoy, I'm giving up on it... --Crusio (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

"quantitative world-systems theory"? Sounds like something from out of Isacc Asimov's Foundation trilogy. Thanks for the heads-up. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience Talk

I've replied to your comment on the pseudoscience talk page... just posting here to inform you quickly. As I stated there, I would highly recommend moving your comment to user space before it becomes an issue. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 04:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to userfy my comments, if Ludwigs2 is willing to userfy his repeated and unsubstantiated accusations as to the motivations of the editors opposing him. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arno Tausch (2nd nomination) since you are one of the contributors to the article. Jaque Hammer (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Your favourite editor

Now that the RFCU is closed ... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Authenticity in art. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverting my deletion of extravagance as one of the Seven Deadlies

Please take a look at Seven Deadly Sins and the citations I make for "luxuria" meaning not "extravagance" but "lechery/lust" (a misinterpretation being now used to support Keep for extravagance.) Just because I criticize the way you criticize Colonel Warden doesn't mean I favor his flatly specious reasoning in the extravagance AfD (or any other AfD -- specious Keep reasoning seems to be his specialty). Nor does it mean I don't know what I'm doing. Yakushima (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed your various "unsourced negative comments" per AfD Wikiettiquette, but have also made a note of each deletion. (See the AfD discussion for details and citations.)

I think it's important to understand where the Colonel is, on the dictionary/encyclopedia distinction. Despite his claims that everybody else is misinterpreting WP:NOTDICT, he

• doesn't get it
• will never get it
• will never get that he'll never get it, because ....
• he doesn't get that there's something to get

But Wikipedia policy tells us we can't say those things! (Except maybe "you don't get it") How crazifying is that!? Especially since this guy has also become a very adept civil POV-pusher. He gets your goat. He might always get your goat. He lives on goat meat. And he knows how to avoid being convicted of goat-theft.

OK, but remember that your ultimate audience in any AfD discussion is the admin who closes it, not certain editors who might have been dropped on their heads too many times as infants. When he/she reads your comments, you want to evoke the thought, "I like this editor -- he/she reminds me of me!" (You don't want, "This editor should be censured for incivility.") My deletions of your unsourced negative comments (notwithstanding a kind of deadpan " bleep" implied by how I marked those) are in fact addressed to that closing admin, not to you. They say, "I'm a bit of a stickler for the rules, even as I have a few issues with the rules -- I don't worship them, far from it -- and basically I'm trying to play fair here." The admin thinks, "Hm, and how did Mr. Reasonable Stickler vote on this one? Ah, 'Delete'. What's he done with this and related articles? He corrected and/or improved them. Well: it's that kind of thing that made me the admin I am today!" That throws more weight on my Delete vote, perhaps compensating for any dilution of the Delete case we suffered from your dyspeptic replies to the Colonel.

Don't get me wrong -- I can totally relate, having crossed swords with the Colonel in the past, and even now[7]. And while I'm at it: mea culpa -- I've been scolded by others in much the same way I'm scolding you now, and for pretty much the same kind of incivility. Now: let's put all that behind us, and work together to get the right thing done about this article. It can't go to the Dantean Circle of Hell for Extravagance, because it turns out there never was one. But sending it to some place in Hell -- say, Hell's municipal sewage treatment plant? -- would be about right. On that much, I'm sure we can agree. Yakushima (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Nanny Yakushima for that lecture. One aspect of Colonel Warden's (apparently near-pervasive) dishonesty is his tendency to misrepresent others comments. This tends to annoy others and leads them to express their disapproval of such behaviour (often in far more excitable language than I employed). I dare say our hypothetical (or eventual) Admin will have heard him called far worse things (I certainly have). I specifically object to the language that specifically called CW on his misrepresentation ("Then kindly cease and desist misrepresenting my comments by making nonsensical leading questions") being removed and therefore chose to restore and strike my comment in its entirety, rather than allowing your overly-censored monstrosity to stand. Good day. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I tried to approach you as an equal, not a "nanny", saying I've also fallen prey to the temptation to be similarly uncivil (probably to CW at one time or another). But you come back at me uncivilly, with your "Nanny" characterization. I didn't make up the policy of civility. Have others have used "far more excitable language" with CW? Yeah, so what? That's a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, it's "all the kids are doing it" -- it doesn't absolve you in the least. I will continue to "refactor" your comments per WP:AFDEQ (and my own suggested guidelines for annotating the deletions), because your comments don't help resolve this AfD, and where they violate WP:BLP, they are hardly sacrosanct -- read WP:AFDEQ if you don't believe me. You've got some personal issue with me or CW? Take it up on the WP fora reserved for such disputes. See you there. Yakushima (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

1. WP:AFDEQ only provides for removal of "unsourced negative comments about living people" -- my comments about CW clearly had a source (explicitly cited via direct quotation) -- (i) his comment & (ii) my own comment that he was misrepresenting.
2. I tend to find WP:DEADHORSEs annoying -- and tend to get irritated at those who insist on continuing to flog them at me. If you had left things at your comment dated 14:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC), I probably would have positive thoughts of you. But you insisted on keepin' on flogging, and now I'm sick of the sight of you, Nanny.
3. You may find me deplorably blunt -- I find you deplorably circumlocutious. I guess we'll just have to live with each other's styles.
4. No, my point was not WP:OTHERSTUFF, but merely pointing out that you can hardly be a regular Admin on AfDs without seeing CW's honesty being called into question -- so somebody questioning it is hardly likely to phase an Admin as much as you were claiming. Calling John Dillenger "a thief" is hardly likely to raise eyebrows -- WP:SPADE and all that.
5. I'm fairly sure that WP:BLP does not apply to merely pointing out the dishonesty of a misrepresentation of your own comments -- and even if it did, then it would surely also apply to that dishonest misrepresentation of yourself as well.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Without getting into all the details, may I just object to the outrageous suggestion that somebody questioning it might phase an Admin. Phasing admins may be acceptable behaviour on Star Trek, but not here. Of course somebody questioning it is hardly likely to faze an Admin, but you already knew that. Anyway, straightforward clarify per wp:spade is, in my view, likely to be less of a problem than devious incivility, always good to keep it polite while still making intended meaning explicit. Carry on, dave souza, talk 17:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI

I personally always like to know when editors are discussing me, so as a courtesy:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=b7e909bb8ff346be71d298d776b5b089&showtopic=32677&st=100&p=267460&#entry267460

It is a shame that POV rules do not apply off wikipedia. Okip 17:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Family Research Council

Someone restarted the straw poll re: including the SPLC's characterization in the lead. You are getting this because you participated in the last poll. Please see Talk:Family Research Council to give your input on its inclusion. _WM^O 05:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Just for laughs

Hi! You wrote this a long time ago on a page that needs to be archived. It's a good comment I just happened to see the other day.

Indeed. You can argue against people being anti- to anything, if you take a sufficiently idiosyncratic definition of that thing. Anti-aircraft guns aren't "anti-aircraft", if you define "aircraft" to mean "something the travels under water". HrafnTalkStalk 18:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Then today I happened to see a photo of the “world’s first underwater aircraft.” LOL Who'da thunk? It's Richard Branson's. Hope you see the humor in this. Best wishes. Yopienso (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Karen Jeppe

[Off topic, whining & nit-picking removed. This thread is closed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC) ]

Somatosensory Rehabilitation of Pain

Discusses amply what one of the main editors of this article did on the French WP. I have no time to delve into this, but you may find it amusing... --Crusio (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The impenetrable jargon gave me a headache -- nasty, nasty man. I think I'll post it on WP:FTN and spread the pain. I can't actually work out if it is completely off-the-wall or just impenetrably written. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry about the headache :-) First time I see FTN, that's a good place to keep in mind next time I find something like this. I had already posted something on the talk page of the Alternative Medicine Wikiproject, but got no takers. Cheers! --Crusio (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• It's a good place both for offloading mind-numbing insanity & for getting the occasional laugh (I've seen articles on there that make your one look perfectly sane by comparison). :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

False accusations:

This is your first warning. You have reverted 3 times within 24 hours. Your edit summary gives a false reason, since both the principle of literalism, and actual references explicitly stating literalists' opinions that the ark is in heaven, were given. Do not do it again. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 07:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This is WP:Complete bollocks. Most of your ludicrous ref-spam doesn't even mention the Ark. As far as I can ascertain none of it juxtaposes Revelations, the Ark and Biblical literalism, let alone the "physical" & 'not on Earth' implications you draw from the passage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Have a WP:TROUT and get a clue. Even if your accusation had merit (it doesn't), it belongs on WP:AN3, not WP:ANI. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Maciej Giertych

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please do not vandalize my talk page. If you did not notice, I added bunch of sources to the Giertych article. Also, dare I say, it is unwise from you to treat me like a newcomer, especially since I am admin. Regards. - Darwinek (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Please do not violate WP:AGF by accusing me of vandalism for simply tagging you for your repeated violation of basic policy.
2. You only sourced a fraction of the material you restored, leaving your restoration of the remainder in direct violation of WP:BURDEN (and without restoring the {{cn}} tags on that remainder).
3. If you act like a newbie, by edit warring to restore unsourced material -- I'll darn well treat you like one! (And question your qualifications for being an admin, besides.)
   • Also, if you're an admin you really don't have any excuse whatsoever for not knowing the difference between removal of unsourced (and long-tagged) material and WP:BLANKing -- thus aggravating this violation of WP:AGF.

Now, if you're finished making complaints with no basis in policy, kindly get off my user talk, and stay off! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You, yourself have trouble with AGF, so don't lecture me on that matter. I did not violate any policy. I provided sources for all statements with "citation needed" tags. WP:BURDEN does not have anything to do with it. If you want me to reference other statements, just mark them with "citation needed" tags. Last but not least, be civil, please. - Darwinek (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Egregiously violate WP:AGF by making false accusations of blanking and vandalism, and darn right I'll lecture you on it. Consider yourself told off again.
2. This dif clearly demonstrates that the tags have been removed on "After the fall of the communist regime in Poland in 1990..." & "The council included several prominent Poles such as..." have been removed without sources for them being added (and this only well after my initial complaint about the reinsertion of unsourced material -- previously, considerably more was left reinserted but unsourced). You also removed the two tags I added here without providing sources.
3. Claiming that "WP:BURDEN does not have anything to do with" restoration of unsourced material is WP:Complete bollocks.
4. Given your false accusations of blanking and vandalism, your plea for civility comes across as remarkably WP:POT.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this diff. It nicely shows how you removed whole paragraphs, even though the "citation needed" tags were attached only to last sentences, which DOES NOT mean the whole paragraph is unsourced. Again, if you think more "cites" are needed, add more "citation needed" tags. By the way, it would be much more beneficial for Wikipedia if you would actually provide some article content, and not only remove it, post multiple links to Wikipedia essays, and lecture more experienced and actually creative users. - Darwinek (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Get a clue. Yes, a {{cn}} tag does mean that the "whole paragraph is unsourced", back to either (i) the last reference, or (ii) the start of the paragraph. You will very rarely see sentence-by-sentence referencing (except when different references are given for different sentences), so there is no precedent for requiring sentence-by-sentence fact-tagging (which would probably be considered disruptive over-tagging). Your argument is without merit -- as has everything else you've said on this thread.

This thread has been closed due to the accusations against me being completely lacking in merit and completely lacking in policy basis. As User:Darwinek appears to be completely incapable of avoiding making such false accusations, they are no longer welcome on this user talk page, and any further comments they make here may be subject to immediate removal or reversion without comment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Roy Eugene Davis

I hope you are content with the way I have rewritten it and the sources I have used? I just wanted to check with you to make sure there weren't any more issues. Silverseren^C 07:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I am. I've a minor quibble on the Miami News piece -- its simply a WP:NOTNEWS routine announcement, and superfluous besides -- but that's really not worth fighting over. Bibliography entries really should have an ISBN (and preferably a full {{cite book}}) rather than a reference, where possible. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Nagyon köszönöm

Köszönöm!

Köszönöm a kedvességét.
Köszönjük, hogy az ember vagy:
kedves és figyelmes,
érzékeny és figyelmes,
A nagyvonalú és figyelmes adakozót.
Ön önzetlen mindig,
üzembe mások előtt magát,
éreztem magam különleges és fontos.
Ez egy kiváltság és öröm, hogy ismerlek.

Ön olyan személy,
aki megkönnyíti az életet és a jobb
mindenki körülötted.
Ön folyamatosan jár
Az előzékenység
és kedvesség
felderül minden nap.
Mit tettél velem
felvillan emlékezetemben,
frissítő kellemes érzéseket
minden alkalommal,
amikor belegondolok.
Hálás vagyok, hogy,
és én köszönöm.

—J.Z., egy magyar barátja

unit cohesion

Palmer, in Slate, is hardly the first or last word on what unit cohesion is. I hope your edits on the definition will reflect due regard for the history of the term, and of the concept before this particular term became attached to it. Yakushima (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Palmer is a lousy source (hence my tag and comment on article talk), but at least he defines the term -- and an article should start by defining the topic, before launching into its history. I really don't care too much about this article (yet another half-cocked Ed Poor effort), but would prefer to see it presented in at least a non-confusing-to-the-reader order. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Whatever axe Ed Poor's grinding here, I don't particularly care; half my friends who have done military service are gay or bisexual; and I'm bisexual, and I didn't take the article as homophobic per se. I just happen to think this is a really interesting topic, in fact, I'm amazed it didn't exist until recently on Wikipedia.

Thank you for your work on the article. However, slightly better organization of what amounts to a stub in the first place isn't the first task that comes to my mind when I see a bad article that should be improved. I tend to focus on finding better sources, improving the citations for existing sources, trimming out what's superfluous, rewording: edits that help show me what's really there to talk about. AKA Real Work. In this case, my priorities are somewhat skewed (and my efforts somewhat diverted) by a need (irrational?) to educate people about what constitutes proper grounds for deletion, about what the article really has in it and what it's really about, and by showing how concerns expressed about the article in AfD discussion can actually be pretty easily remedied. Except for that last, none of it feels like Real Work. If you don't particularly care about the article, there are plenty of others to do Real Work on. Yakushima (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that Ed thinks enough about most of his articles to even have an axe to grind. The only commonality with most of them is an inability on his part to articulate (often blindingly obvious) notability and a strong predilection towards quote-farming. I've just cleaned up one of his recent efforts at J.C.C. McKinsey‎, and tagged another at Wicker Amendment‎. Something you might want to consider for what will end up most likely being a substantial rewrite of a heavily-scrutinised article, is doing the bulk of the work in a sandbox, where interfering busybodies such as myself won't be looking over your shoulder until you have it ready for public consumption. The AfD isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No sandboxing for me. Wikipedia guidelines for AfD actually encourage modifying the article to address concerns raised in the AfD discussion. Hiding those modifications in the sandbox basically has the effect of making a lot of the AfD comments look stupider, when, suddenly, a much improved article appears, after a lot of people complained about how crappy it was. I have no desire to make people look stupid -- unless, of course, they are actually behaving stupidly. As it happens, this Ed Poor gave me enough to get started on a subject I've always wanted to look into anyway. Can't say that about some rough-drafty stuff I've picked up and turned around. Anyway, back to Real Work. Yakushima (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Angry Polamidologist

Oh, that was rich! Just ignore him. He's got an agenda, and he'll be blocked eventually. Again. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Theft

I'm stealing the stuff at the top of your page. Sue me if you wish, but I saw no trademarks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh -- that boring ol' stuff -- I thought for a moment that you meant my SORT-OF-SOMETIMES-BUT-NOT-ALWAYS-SEMI-RETIRED banner, my User:Hrafn/userbox the conspiracy is me or my User:Hrafn/userbox what me a creationist off User:Hrafn -- if you'd taken those it'd have meant war. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Everyone ignores the box. Why did I bother ripping it off from you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

<grin> Shear cussed-ornariness? A desire to have one more stick to beat the fools-wh-aren't-to-be-suffered-lightly with when they ignore it? A desire for at least the illusion of control in this madhouse? Take your pick (but take it quickly -- I may end up copyrighting these reasons :P ). Oh, was that meant to be a rhetorical question? Sorry. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Credit where credit's due

In case you missed the subtle reference on my user page to a previous collaboration where we first clashed pens... editing with you can still be an annoying experience, but you are making a better encyclopedia—keep it up! Greetings, - Fayenatic (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Young Earth Creationism

You are at 3RR, so please don't revert again for 24 hours. I'll watch the page. Dougweller (talk) 09:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Another thing - with editors like this, I'd suggest you use another template, either the NPOV one or the improperly sourced one, technically those edits don't look look like vandalism as we define it. And drop a welcome template on the page also, see the one I used. Dougweller (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I was using {{Uw-error3}} "Introducing deliberate factual errors" (in combination with parts of {{Uw-delete3}}), as the edits were repeatedly introducing erroneous claims about YEC, (e.g. "Anywhere from 80 to 85% of adults in the United Kingdom say they believe in YEC" & "Radiometric dating methods, the basis of "Old Earth" theory, are proven unreliable, showing that YEC is accurate.") this seemed appropriate. It is the template itself that calls repeated introduction of such errors "vandalism". 09:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, forgot about that one. Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Ark of the Covenant

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.251.150 (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

See Blocklog for "DrakeProf" Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Adventism & science

You may be interested in helping include a section on this in the article about Southern Adventist University. I'm not qualified enough to provide a summary of their activities on behalf of YEC and not promote the viewpoint, and you seem like the perfect man for the task! BelloWello (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we'd really need some WP:SECONDARY sources (Numbers includes quite a bit of discussion of the Geoscience Research Institute at Loma Linda University in The Creationists, but AFAIK no info on Southern Adventist University). Reading over the material, my thoughts were that the reading list of this course had a number of WP:FRINGE and archaic sources, but not much in the way of serious modern scholarship on the relationship between science and religion, and that this symposium was weighted very heavily towards the creationist perspective (sole non-creationist was also sole non-scientist). But, lacking secondary sources, this is all WP:OR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL does not appear to turn up much in the way of third party sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

True, that article has been the source of much frustration. There are four editors there who are constantly trying to turn it into a promotional piece removing anything that isn't 100% positive and adding large sections about non-notable programs. Out of the four, two have a known affiliation with the school but nobody wants to do anything about it. I'm just being careful to not revert more than twice a day (to be wayyy clear of 3RR) but since the other sections are sourced to the school website, I figured another one won't hurt. Feel free to look at it otherwise though. BelloWello (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

That is why Wikipedia created templates such as {{primarysources}}, {{importance}} (both particularly useful with the 'section' parameter), {{better source}} & {{importance-inline}}. Partisans padding articles with trivia is a widespread problem on Wikipedia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, I'm going to go through and tag it now. My hunch is that they will simply claim consensus to remove it but we shall see. BelloWello (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

There we go, now I've been accused of disruptive editing based on WP:TAGBOMB. If you feel any of my tags are too much. If you have a chance, feel free to look through and if you think I overkilled, please remove any you feel appropriate. I'm sick of going around in circles with those who are simply here with an WP:AGENDA. BelloWello (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

So this is totally irrelevant to anything on wikipedia, but I thought you would find this amusing. Particularly, this phrase, "and a Ph.D. in biology and public policy from George Mason University (University of Virginia), Charlottesville, Virginia."

George Mason isn't anywhere close to Charlottesville, so is it the University of Virginia in Charlottesville or George Mason in Northern Virginia? :) Answers in Genesis is DEFINITELY a totally reliable source. ;o BelloWello (talk) 03:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Alice Ward

Hi. You forgot to sign your last comment at the Alice Ward AFD. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

C. John Collins

So I just went through the new article creations of the (indefinitely blocked) author who created that article. Seems to be a lot of trivial stuff that doesn't deserve articles. I've started four AfDs from his stuff today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan M. Portis, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Jurmain, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Before Abraham Was, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randall D. Isaac), I would start more but I don't want to clog up AfD. I think all of Firefly322's article contributions need to be reviewed for notability, there's over a hundred and the ones I've looked at so far don't seem notable. BelloWello (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I had more than a few run-ins with Firefly322 back in the day. Trouble was that they were such a bad editor that I often had to wonder if the topic was genuinely non-notable, or if they'd just badly mis-written it -- I would swear that they could make Albert Einstein look like just another patents clerk. Some of their stuff I basically rewrote form scratch, others I merged/redirected/AfDed (always with enormous wikidrama), some I just couldn't be sure enough what to do to be willing to mount a fight. I'm still in two minds about Randall D. Isaac (that article's been on my watchlist for some time) -- the guy seems like he ought to be notable, but could never put together a clear-cut case in my mind either way. Don't be surprised (or hit yourself over the head) if it turns out that Firefly322 has completely wrong-footed you on some of these, and some turn out to be notable for reasons completely unrelated to the material Firefly322 put in these stubs. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Firefly322? Wow, there's a blast from the past. I think I might have been a participant in his downfall around here.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI: ANI

FYI, Lionelt has filed an ANI report accusing me of canvassing you on Southern Adventist University, he's notified quite a few editors, but apparently thought the person allegedly canvassed wasn't worth notifying! BelloWello (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, in another thread Lionelt started where I was accused of being disruptive and an attempt is being made to topic ban me. I mentioned your comments at Talk:Southern Adventist University regarding my supposed disruption by tagging unsourced/poorly sourced material. I am notifying you under the requirement to notify anyone mentioned. bW 02:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norbert M. Samuelson. Thanks. Jaque Hammer (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Puppetry

Do you think User:Ninatukawewe might be 8teen4tfor or whatever that other username was returning? Note User_talk:Ninatukawewe/workspace and edits to Adventist church theology creationism section. bW 21:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Time for Arbcom/ANI/WQA/Jimbo Wales

This rude comment should get you blocked for 13.47 nanoseconds. Honestly, I thought it was a typo. I was editing one article where someone used "copperfastened" and now "consonant". The things I learn around here. Well, I have copperfastened and consonant to your change. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ooooooooooo -- does that mean you're going to set a copperstick (=policeman) on me? Couldn't find "copperfastened" in the OED, I'm afraid. Consonent may be slightly antiquated but fits in with the ('see the world from our viewpoint') feel far better than 'consistent'. I demand that you reduce my block to 42 femtoseconds, per WP:ARBITCOMNONSCONE ruling 37φ. So there. :P 03:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Copperfastened apparently is a relatively common term in Irish English, meaning to come to an agreement. It was used in the Counties of Ireland. BTW, you forgot to sign correctly. Your block should be moved to 138 femtoseconds, at least. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I tried, but I couldn't figure out how to do femtoseconds. Guettarda (talk) 04:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Then simply substitute the smallest Avoirdupois measure of time. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Watch it Guettarda. You'll be accused of a personal attack if you threaten a femtosecond block. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW. Good move Hrafn. Reverting me throws them off the scent of my being your sockpuppet. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

But as They™ already know this, the fact that I've reverted you (using the Secret-Masonic-Illuminati-Handshake-of-No-Returnsies) means that I must be your sockpuppet (or you mine, or both of us Zaspod-the-Marginally-Deranged's). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI mention

You have been directly or indirectly mentioned on this ANI thread. --Damiens.rf 14:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)