Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:39, 10 June 2011

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

/archive1 /archive2 /archive3 /archive4 /archive5 /archive6 /archive7 /archive8 /archive9 Barnstars & similar

SDA

I happened to notice something a little bit odd. There is a long section in Southern Adventist University on a scandal in the 1980s which resulted in the resignation of the president. The material is based on cherry-picked portions of this source. Similar and simultaNeous events at Pacific Union College are not mentioned in that article, even though the material is available in exactly the same source. BelloWello edited both articles, including negative material for SAU and peacock statements in the lede for PUC. I don't edit in this area, but that does not seem quite right. Mathsci (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

That coverage on Adventism-related articles is unbalanced doesn't surprise me (the SAU article appears to be little more than a string of obscure obsessive 'tails wagging the dog') -- nor that BelloWello was part of the problem rather than part of the cure. The only thing I've reserved judgement on is whether he is better or worse on average than than the regulars in that thar neck of the woods. I'm beginning to wish that I'd stayed away from "this area" as well. If anything is "quite right" there, it'll be the exception rather than the rule. :/ Hrafn_Stalk(P) 12:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD: Cort Webber and Bobby "Fatboy" Roberts

This is a courtesy notice given your prior involvement with Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cort and Fatboy or its deletion review (Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 10) that these related articles are currently listed at AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cort Webber. As attribution issues are involved, closure of this current AfD may result in the restoration of the earlier article, as a list of contributors would be necessary if the articles are retained. Moonriddengirl 13:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Demand to be allowed to continue to indulge in pointlessly WP:POINTy WP:LAME WP:WIKIDRAMA

Please don't modify my Talk: page comments again, per WP:TPO. I'm looking for an actual response here, thanks. Jayjg 00:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please take your pointlessly WP:POINTy WP:LAME WP:WIKIDRAMA and take a long walk off a short plank! Hrafn_Stalk(P) 03:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

oops

Sorry about that edit on Objections to evolution, it was an honest mistake. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No problemo -- we all make such mistakes at times. :) Hrafn_Stalk(P) 02:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

User Flying Fische still vandalizing templates, despite two previous blocks

Despite multiple warnings from you and two other editors to Flying Fische about vandalizing templates , and despite two previous blocks, he vandalized yet another maintenance template today . Since he has ignored all warnings and learned nothing from his blocks, I think a permanent block may be in order. Qworty (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

gish gallop

You won't get an official definition of the Gish Gallop anywhere else. RationalWiki is simply the source on the subject. But it's not my call, of course, I'm only here to plug wikis. Which is likely frowned upon...--68.96.52.71 (talk) 05:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It is: WP:ELNO #12 "Links to open wikis" Hrafn_Stalk(P) 05:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I had no idea

but apparently we are BFFs. Which is odd, because you'd think I wouldn't typo your uName every time I type it were that the case. I am posting here as a courtesy notification, if this is news to you as it was to me. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 19:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I've also been a creationist and a bunch of government employees living in Kansas at various times -- so being your BFF doesn't faze me in the least -- just feel lucky I wasn't your evil twin. :) Hrafn_Stalk(P) 04:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I could handle having an evil twin, some days. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 21:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI stuff

Hey Hrafn I have opened an ANI thread to hopefully draw some attention to the issue at Southern Adventist University article. As one the more rationale voices you comments would be helpful The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks RA, but I think I'll sit this one out. The editors involved are such 'enthusiasts' that I've had a hard time of convincing them of even non-ideological issues (balanced coverage of the university's units, need for substantive third party coverage) that I don't see any point in boning up on Adventist theology/politics just to 'touch the third rail'. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 00:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Vote

Hrafn, we need your help deciding wether or not to change 'Creation Science' to 'Creation science'. The reason you were chosen is because you're practically the only other person who has done anything helpful for the article apart from its creator (whoever that may be). Here's the link: Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Debate link

I was trying to add a list of current debates that was much better than the current one. If you don't want it that's fine.--Mleefs75 (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(i) Misplaced Pages generally disapproves of people coming on just to add links to a particular site. (ii) Given such debates are generally theatre rather than serious expositions of the subject (due to the lack of time and the reliance of rhetoric over substance), it is unclear if they add much to the article. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 03:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand links for link sake aren't helpful. But there was already a link to debates so I was trying to update it with a listing that was more up to date (47 vs 68). I also disagree that debates are not substantial with regards to WLC. He is mostly know in the public for his debates. --Mleefs75 (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That argument might have legs if you were only adding a link to William Lane Craig -- but when you also add them to Dan Barker & Alvin Plantinga, a pattern develops. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 03:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Jeremy Taylor

I undid Larasister's blanking of the Jeremy Taylor article since I believe that given his contribution to publishing and journalism in TT, he is notable. Now, whether I can source that and make a convincing case is another issue. But I'd rather not simply see it speedy'd because the main author doesn't want to go through the fight. Guettarda (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know

Hi Hrafn, just so you know, I've got absolutely no interest in the actual content of the article (from an editing/scholarly or other point of view). This article, and a number of editors who've been contributing to it have been on and off AN/I numerous times, and, a couple of the editors involved in it asked my perspective in the #RR and policy issues they were facing, which is what prompted me to watchlist it. But, a perusal of my contributions will clearly show that. I do very little article editing... though I have managed to end a few edit wars and help form numerous consensuses. Anyway, I am more than interested in getting another outside opinion on my interpretation of the guidelines, if you wish to do so. As I said earlier, if it's pointed out I am wrong, I will definitely be fully willing to revise my opinion on the matter (and admit I'm wrong). Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 05:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

My main problem with the article is that it has a very incestuous ('for us/about us') feel to it, and presents very much an insider's view of the university. This is exacerbated by the very heavy reliance on Adventist sources (which make even the local media, like The Chattanoogan, feel detached by comparison). The article, as it stands, is about how Adventists view "their" university -- which is really a form of collective WP:OWNERSHIP. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 05:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I havent managed to peruse the whole article yet, but what I have glimpsed at, I would tend to agree (hence all the ANI activity I suspect). First step was getting collaboration started and ending the edit wars... next step? Making the article unbiased, properly balanced, properly cited, and so on. At least, that's my thoughts on it. I have a feeling, with the task that will be, I will probably end up learning a lot more about the subject than I want to (which would be going from nothing to wherever I end up being; knowledge-wise) ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 05:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I see from the article-talk header that the ANI discussion was on the Raymond Cottrell business -- an intense insider theological spat on a highly peripheral topic that I stayed well away from. Unless and until prominent third parties pay attention to theology-as-applies-to-SAU, I think Misplaced Pages should avoid inserting commentary on the topic in the article. But I suspect that even stating that on article talk would require a pair of asbestos underpants. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 06:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

LoL, and mine are out being dry-cleaned. Incremental fixes... betcha it will turn the article into something decent and properly cited - with a lot less edit warring and such. ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 06:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I am however having the devil's own time finding solid coverage of them from beyond Chattanooga and Adventist circles. Admittedly I don't generally cover regional American universities, so I don't have much to compare, but the thinness of coverage seems odd. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 06:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Admittedly, I know nothing about them that's not in what I've glanced over on that page; but I am wondering if it's anything like the CoS thing, where content they don't like/want/etc gets removed? Or, they simply aren't that notable? ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 06:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There may be a bit of "content they don't like/want/etc gets removed", but that's not the main problem. The main problem would appear to be adding stuff that is personally-important to them, without relying on third-party sourcing to demonstrate its importance. This tends to lead to relying on topic-affiliated sources to verify material. And I'm beginning to suspect that, no, SAU is not particularly notable. Outside Chattanooga and the Adventist Church it seems to exist only as an occasional footnote to that church (a place where various Adventists occasionally go to study, teach and/or hold meetings). Hrafn_Stalk(P) 06:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a note here on notability. Any institution covered by the USN&WR rankings should be considered notable. It's #31 out of 71 ranked regional colleges in the South. Yopienso (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting it was delete-it-by-AfD-not-notable, just that it was very-difficult-to-find-information-on-it-outside-its-immediate-geographical-and-theological-vicinity not particularly notable/"not that notable". Hrafn_Stalk(P) 08:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of William Meeke‎

The article William Meeke‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dolphin (t) 03:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The originator of William Meeke has been blocked indefinitely. Hrafn is the only other substantial contributor to the article. Dolphin (t) 03:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Noah's Ark and Ussher chronology

And why are the sources reliable for one and not the other?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Because I was not aware of its usage elsewhere (I'm not aware of every single reference in every single article in Misplaced Pages). Regardless, Creation Ministries International would only be considered a WP:RS for the views of biblical literalists/YECs. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 03:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought by posting in that section I was making it clear that I was posting the view of literalists. I did clarify that in a later edit. But if that was your problem, you should have stated it.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No, you cited it as the source verifying that Ussher's is "one of many calculations of the date of creation" -- a statement of fact which requires a reliable Histiography (or similar) source, not an unreliable partisan Creationist source. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 07:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where those other sources are, but it is your duty to declare the source unreliable in the other article.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 14:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it? Says who (or which policy)? I thought Misplaced Pages editing was entirely voluntary. But regardless, I've already made an effort to root out citations to CMI for anything other than an explicit biblical literalist/YEC opinion/viewpoint. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 15:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm just saying that if you're told a Misplaced Pages article is using a source you find unreliable and you do nothing about it, it's a double standard for you to revert someone in the one article and let it slide in the other.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

But the point was I hadn't 'found' it. And when I did find it I removed it. I am neither omniscient about every source in every article in Misplaced Pages nor responsible for sources I'm unaware of. Hrafn_Stalk(P)

Just noticed

New user - Hrfan88 - Most probably innocuous, but anyways - ---Shirt58 (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth should I care? Do you care about any of the (presumably hundreds) of users with "shirt" (or "shrit" etc) in their name? Hrafn_Stalk(P) 12:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"Why on earth should I care?" - answer

We are both "editors in good standing", whatever that means. I'm just a plain editor; you are very active at WP:FT/N and about all things fringey. It's unlikely someone is going to spoof my username; it's rather more likely someone is going to spoof your username...

--Shirt58 (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Anybody knowledgeable enough to monitor WP:FTN, and going to that trouble, would be entirely unlikely to do so just to create a half-baked (and immediately speedy-deleted) article on some obscure youtube actor. -- "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." (or in this case ignorance) -- Hanlon's razor Hrafn_Stalk(P) 14:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

S58 shrugs shoulders and walks away.--Shirt58 (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

H waves goodbye somewhat bemusedly. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 18:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Kenatipo

I think some of those last edits of yours came under the heading of Really Didn't Help. Will you tone it down a bit, please? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. -- A møøse once bit my sister... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please don't inflame the situation more. If you talk to him instead of adding retaliatory headers you might be able to resolve the situation without this blowing up.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"The situation"

(4) IDONTLIKEIT doesn't work, yes, it is really appropriate.

— Kenatipo

since the reason for removal was bogus, I assume IDONTLIKEIT is in play 4)(again!) follows naturally from the other arguments.

— Kenatipo

Hrafn has a hissy and templates the regulars in June 2011

• Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Eston College, without getting my permission first, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive to those of us blinded by our agenda, and has been reverted. Thank you.
• Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with tolerance-challenged liberals, which you did not do on Talk:Eston College. Thank you. — Kenatipo

Yes I saw what he did, in fact you'll note I'd talked to him about that before you made your change. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to use the same sort of behaviour in return.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking more closely I think that the real "situation" is a chronic and aggressive WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on Kenatipo's part. I rather doubt if the fact that this mentality occasionally elicits a response neither helps nor harms the situation -- as Kenatipo appears largely intractable. I will however at least attempt to observe WP:DNFTT. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 05:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

user:Ed Poor's talk page topic ban on Unification Church related articles

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FEd_Poor_2. I informed you of this because your regularly edited Unification church related articles. Andries (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2011