| Revision as of 22:35, 3 November 2005 edit128.101.39.45 (talk) →Intelligent Design← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:39, 5 November 2005 edit undoRandom account 47 (talk | contribs)2,175 edits Request For Abritration SummonsNext edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| The factual accuracy regarding those claims ''is'' disputed, and not just by ID adherents. Del Ratzsch, author of ''Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate'' '''also''' criticizes some of those claims (e.g. tentativeness and falsifiability). You can read the discussion section where I go into more detail here. Factual correction is ''not'' POV. -- Wade A. Tisthammer (11/3/2005) | The factual accuracy regarding those claims ''is'' disputed, and not just by ID adherents. Del Ratzsch, author of ''Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate'' '''also''' criticizes some of those claims (e.g. tentativeness and falsifiability). You can read the discussion section where I go into more detail here. Factual correction is ''not'' POV. -- Wade A. Tisthammer (11/3/2005) | ||
| = Request for Arbitration = | |||
| You have been summoned to appear as defendant at a Request for Abritation. Please vist the ] page to make your statement under the heading ]. --] 21:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:39, 5 November 2005
Archives
Intelligent Design
Would you participate in an RFC if a file one against you? I would like to know, because otherwise I will file an RFA.--Ben 22:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think you meant mediation, RFM, not RFC. You've already filed an RFC, the results of which haven't supported your allegations. FeloniousMonk 00:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- There have been no substantial comments as a result of the article RFC. I am talking about a Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct. This should be obvious as one does not file an article RFC against a user.
- Would you participate in a user conduct RFC? Yes or no. If you do not understand what I mean, click the link I provided above and read about what a user conduct RFC is. --Ben 01:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- You failed to gain consensus for your proposals at Talk:Intelligent design. An RFC will not change that. You should accept that your proposals were not accepted by the community graciously and move on to the next issue or article. Look at the discussion at Talk:Intelligent design. There is literally no support for what you've proposed. That what you proposed has been rejected by the community as inaccurate and POV has been explained to you that by at least six editors and admins, SlimVirgin being the latest . Yet you still refuse to accept consensus. Filing a user-conduct RFC against me will not change any of this and likely back-fire on you because of your history of personal attacks against admins , ignoring consensus , and disrupting the article .
- So, no, I'm not interested in "participating" with you in an RFC. My position is you're not the person to be bringing such an RFC, but that you're an excellent candidate to be the subject of one.
- You've already been cautioned by at least three admins about being disruptive, abusive and pushing POV content and ignoring consensus. I can't be any more clear than this to you: Stop being abusive, stop being disruptive, and abide by consensus. FeloniousMonk 02:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Don't know how to send messages so...
In regards to your message:
- Wade-- Please stop inserting your POV in the form of Disputed template in the article. It is only disputed by ID advocates which is already noted in the article. If you continue to disrupt the article, who can be prevented from editing. FeloniousMonk 22:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The factual accuracy regarding those claims is disputed, and not just by ID adherents. Del Ratzsch, author of Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate also criticizes some of those claims (e.g. tentativeness and falsifiability). You can read the discussion section where I go into more detail here. Factual correction is not POV. -- Wade A. Tisthammer (11/3/2005)
Request for Arbitration
You have been summoned to appear as defendant at a Request for Abritation. Please vist the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration page to make your statement under the heading Ben. --Ben 21:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)