User talk:Titanium Dragon/Archive 4

This is my talk page archive from 2007.

Believers believe? Of course they do. But I can't help feling my word-choice had more elegance than yours. PiCo 14:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just put up a new article at Support for evolution summarizing the scientific, religious etc support for evolution. I realized that although there are many creationist articles, evolution mainly has science articles, or an article or two about the history of various parts of the dispute. I am told that summarizing the support that exists on one side is nonneutral (although I do include a section describing support for the creationist side). How is it nonneutral to give the objective information? I am not saying who is right. But it is a bit hard to deny that support exists. See below: --Filll 03:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I am in support of evolution, I do find that this article is difficult to put into the light of a neutral point of view. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 03:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would dispute this. The topic is that support exists. Whether that support is justified or not is another issue. I have copious references from both sides and it is a bit hard to deny that support exists in the scientific, religious and other communities. How is that being biased to summarize the support that exists?--Filll 03:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly suggesting that you don't have sound policy grounds to categorically revert good-faith edits by suspected VacuousPoet (talk · contribs) sockpuppets. Please note the difference between a ban and a block: VacuousPoet is not actually banned.

Adding "abbot" in this article strikes me as a (misguided) good-faith edit (made without consensus during a content dispute, by a nearly-certain sockpuppet of a blocked user), and I think categorizing it as vandalism is pretty shady.

If you want to revert VacuousPoet's edits regardless of their content, you may run afoul of WP:3RR, but I suppose that's your risk to take if you so choose. I would prefer to follow official channels (see the sockpuppetry case and this notice). N6 12:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a good faith edit. He continually is causing trouble and appears to be doing it either to get a rise out of atheist editors or (more likely) is a fundamentalist Christian who is attempting to insert his POV constantly and simultaneously annoy people. Titanium Dragon 01:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I rewrote it and added a lot more on the creationism side and gave it a more balanced title?--Filll 14:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Its nothing to do with adding to the creationism side; this article is ALREADY EXTANT and is not independently notable; it already exists in creation-evolution debate and similar articles. Titanium Dragon 01:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titanium, please read the talk page of Rachel Scott, PARTICULARLY the AFD debate. That explains why she has her own page in the first place.

The reason she has her own page is very, very simple: Her father wrote books about her. Make one page about the kids who do not have their own pages. WhisperToMe 04:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to ask you if you'd join the project. Just add your name onto the list and start helping organize it. Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you have commented on the above articles talk page. I have come to you in regards of helping clear up a matter on the above article per WP:DR. There is an annon trying to push his/her POV regarding "Unsourced reports from Christian sources alleging that Cassie said "yes" persist" and "and presents the reports as fact". I have added to the talk page that unsourced reports should be deleted. Could you please help us in this dispute. Thank you. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 23:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK! What have you done with them? --Amandajm 12:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You expressed opinions on the reordering of Cho Seung-hui's name. Please vote in the straw poll on renaming him in Wikipedia here. --Dynaflow 06:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here to express my concern about the archive you just made. I completely agree an archive was needed as the talk page was quite large... But since the topic is not that many days old some of the topics now archived are have actually had recent edits -- for example the section ' "Asian American" (or "Korean American") category removal' was commented on relatively recently. I'm not sure if it matters but I just wanted to give you a heads up in case. MrMacMan ^Talk 20:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. The problem was the talk page was too long and I tried to clip out everything which hadn't been commmented on in a day. The page is just getting too long. If you feel there was something I archived that still was being discussed, please pull it out of the archive and put it back on the talk page, and if there's anything dead that I missed, feel free to chuck it in that archive or a new one. Titanium Dragon 20:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it took me a while to salvage that from the history... why are you putting those citation needed tags back in when they are un needed?Karaveks voice 04:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because that entire section is unsourced, that's why. That's why so much of the article got nuked in the first place; no sourcing or no RSs. I'm glad you rewrote the article, but lack of citations is the reason so much of it disappeared in the first place. Titanium Dragon 06:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

otherkin dot net has a LOT of stuff... i speaks of awakening and other stufff... it seems to be relaiable.Karaveks voice 10:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are guidelines for RSs, specifically found in WP:RS. Otherkin.net is not reputable, they're a random fan site. Titanium Dragon 22:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

forgive me for possible insolacne, but please proove this to me, the . net seems olderthe hte others thusfar.Karaveks voice 01:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what is the source, and can you quote the text?--Africangenesis 00:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC) I want to make sure I consider your source as well. William supplied a source that didn't address the uncertainties phrase I requested a citation for, did you have another source in mind when you reverted without discussion?--Africangenesis 21:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TD, I've been following the talk page discussion, particularly at Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows#Plot_Summary. Frankly, I think the consensus against inclusion of a plot summary at this stage has a solid basis in policy regarding verifiability. Specifically, no reliable source has indicated whether the versions on the internet are real or fake and getting one of the 1,200 genuine advance copies of the book is exceedingly hard since hardly anyone knows who has it and it probably can't be bought (like an academic journal subscription, for example). I think if you posted a plot summary tonight I would probably revert, warn, block. That won't happen because I'm going to bed right this moment (OK, I might stay up and read any reply). I'm not telling you this to threaten to block you (I hope it doesn't come across that way and I'm sorry if it does). I'm telling you this because other sysops may treat any plot summaries the same way. I suggest you make a post to WP:ANI seeking input from administrators on the policy issue. But what I see so far is that consensus and policy are against the inclusion of a plot summary at this time. Soliciting participation from ANI might change that consensus, but that's about the only way I see a plot summary going into and staying in that article. Shoot, just inserting it may prompt an edit-war with the many Potter fans working on the article. So the gist of my message is just to make sure you have consensus behind your edits. Have a good evening.--Chaser - T 04:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of what I said above has become irrelevant in light of changed circumstances: newspapers have started reporting on the content of leaked versions. See the article and its talk page for more (there's a new plot sneak peak section here)--Chaser - T 02:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a novice Wiki editor. You previously argued (in some tense confrontations) for changing the name of this article for POV reasons. I'm sympathetic, though I'm considering agreeing with Rdfox 76 that this fight might not be worth the trouble. What are your thoughts? Maxisdetermined 16:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is very much worth changing the name, but I've got nothing but time. Titanium Dragon 20:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a response to your question on your AFD nomination for Survivors of the September 11, 2001 attacks. When you nominate an article for the second or subsequent time, use the template {{subst:afdx}} on the primary page instead of {{subst:afd1}}. See the small print on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion in the first step. You will enter a parameter for {{afdx}} like this: {{subst:afdx|2nd}} (or 3rd, or whatever). That will create a page name with the suffix (2nd nomination). Then when you list the article on the Articles for deletion page, use {{subst:afd3|pg=<page name> (2nd nomination)}}. If you have any questions, leave me a message on my talk page. ●DanMS • Talk 00:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Talk:Esoteric history Archive 1, by Col. Kernal (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Talk:Esoteric history Archive 1 fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Talk:Esoteric history Archive 1, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 13:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am a professor at Boston College studying the development of the Wikipedia page on the Virginia Tech massacre. You were one of the top 5% of editors to the page, and I was wondering if you would be willing to answer a brief survey about your participation.

• The survey can be found at: User:Geraldckane/survey (your response will be by email).
• Information about my research can be found at: User:Geraldckane

Your participation will help me (and hopefully the Wikipedia community) better understand the collaborative process that results in exemplary articles. If you do not wish to participate and this solicitation was unwelcome, please accept my apologies and simply delete this message from your talk page. I will not contact you again.

--geraldckane 17:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't add weight to your argument when you have to the edit the article on massacre to say what you are trying to convince others on Virginia Tech massacre that it means. But nice try. HokieRNB 14:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else edited it to add that shortly after the Virginia Tech Shooting. But nice try. Titanium Dragon 23:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just left a reply to your most recent comment on Talk:Survivors of the September 11, 2001 attacks

There were a number of points where I disagreed with you. That doesn't mean I am not interested in fuller explanations of your position. You said I just didn't understand notability. I am willing to continue to do my best to understand your explanation of what I am missing about notability.

I am not sure if you understood from my comments that I think you are fully entitled to hold an opinion as to the future direction of the wikipedia -- just as I do. In one of the early comments someone defended your use of {{afd}} to try to move the wikipedia in the direction of your vision of its future. And I told that third party that this was one of the most frustrating aspects of participating in the wikipedia. We are all entitled to hold a position as to the wikipedia's future direction -- but, in my experience, the deletion fora have proven to be disastrously ineffective places for any real dialogue about the strengths and weaknesses. Participants in the deletion fora almost never offer a reasoned response. But most of the discussions that are not open and shut hinge around an unexplored conflict over competing visions of the wikipedia's future.

I've written you a little essary, at User:Geo Swan/opinions/Six degress of article separation I'd appreciate you reading it.

Cheers! Geo Swan 15:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, I noticed your edit to the STS-118 page, and I'd just like to note, that I do think your edit improved readability, and I'd actually considered removing the parentheses and the word tragedy myself when the article began, but I figured it would spark a huge debate, so I just decided to leave it, lol. But, I think that the edit summary accusing it of being NPOV, is quite a stretch. I understand neutrality fully, but when the entire world has proclaimed an event as a "disaster" or a "tragedy", and certainly the loss of life, and of the shuttle, was most definitely something anyone would call a tragedy, someone using that term cannot be accused of being biased, or non-neutral. Regardless, I appreciate you changing the sentence, as I agree it was improved, so thanks! ^Ariel♥Gold 01:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My intent was not to impugn the motives of others but rather to improve the article; I don't think we as an encylopedia can call something a tragedy in passing, but I don't think people inserted the language with any sort of unencylopedic intent. I'm glad you liked the edit, though! Titanium Dragon 01:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I hope you didn't take me wrong, I just meant that using the word, even in an encyclopedia, is acceptable in truly applicable situations, (as indeed I'm sure it is used with the Challenger article itself, or any other horrible disaster), but in the specific instance/context of STS-118, I felt it wasn't needed, as you obviously did as well, so I appreciate you being WP:BOLDer than I am! *giggle*. ^Ariel♥Gold 02:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you can help in this article as you find censorship. I tried to add some referenced material by prof. Levin and Time magazine but other editors just reverted my edits using "racism" or other invalid excuses as an explanation. Two editors effectively just annihilated my work which I cannot add again alone without breaking 3RR. They didn't even bother to comment their edits on talk page. Cheers, Moritz MoritzB 22:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People are trying to censor these articles, too. I posted a short summary about the findings of certain recent peer-reviewed studies. (The rate of homosexual attraction is 620 times higher among pedophiles) Unfortunately, some "LGBT" people just started edit warring. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pedophilia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homosexuality MoritzB 00:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolutely impossible. It could be 620%, but not 620; somewhere between 1-3% of the population at a minimum is homosexual, which would mean somewhere between 6 and 18 times as many pedophiles are homosexual as pedophiles -exist-. Anyway, I'll take a look. Titanium Dragon 06:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your right that type of discussion does not belong in the article talk pages so I bring it here. There is one major problem I have with the "incompetence theory". Before all these people served the current administration they were quite competent both in running multi million dollar companies and in helping to run foreign policy for two administrations. You might believe that the policies they pursued back in the day were wrong or even evil but it was not by in large incompetent. And there is the VP's 1994 statement that is all over youtube against invading Iraq and predicting pretty closely what has happened. For this administration they seemingly can not get one thing right. You would think by accident even if they were the keystone cops they would get something right. Why?? Edkollin 05:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the issue is that a number of them simply weren't successful, and indeed, many which WERE successful were successful because the government was corrupt and gave them money, more or less (Cheney, for instance). As Secretary of Defense Cheney was not all that competant, and as a member of the Reagan administration MANY of the Bush administration basically made deals which were really, really bad but often personally made them money and/or political capital. But like, Bush? He was incompetant. He couldn't run anything. And really, the thing that bailed them out was always the government; now that they ARE the government, they don't have anyone to bail them out, and they're lacking someone competant looking out for them (such as Bush's father). Titanium Dragon 06:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the difference in intelligence between the father and the son. It would make sense that with the the sons leadership even with the same people there would be a difference in competence and they have to say in public different things with a boss who looks at the world differently. What I find hard to accept is a hundred and eighty degree turn in both policy and competence. Even with a bright leader giving both the orders and direction if they were all that dumb they could have not managed the demise of U.S.S.R. and the Gulf War without starting WWIII and their business without being broke. Bush junior could not manage a business without help the others have done well. Hailiberton may or may not be a criminally run business they have not been an incompetently run one Edkollin 21:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

you deleted my note about Mr. Billy Meier in the Pleiadeans article. It does not seem, that you have read the discussion. Which stated

" * In my opinion this article is somehow very biased towards Billy Meier, who is still beeing accused of beeing a hoaxer. If we're writing an article we should keep it neutral and don't make it look biased towards a special side or person. Therefore it should be noted that Mr. Meier is beeing accused of fakery. Or we simply open a new article about Mr. Meier and leave the Billy Meier* stuff out of the Pleiadeans article.

       * * ok i see we already have one about Mr. Meier

here's _one_ page for example that talks about the hoax: http://www.ufoencounters.co.uk/BillyMeier.html there are lots of other pages. just search via google or yahoo for "billy Meier"hoaxer or similar."

I'm not the kind of person who would start a edit war, but it is a fact that Mr. Meier is still beeing accused of beeing a hoaxer and faker. We have to include this. This is not about personal opinions, this is about facts. Wikipedia should not be biased towards one guys or one groups opinion.

regards

UserDoe 21:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article because it was worded poorly. Most of the people involved in producing such things are, as you call them, "fakers" or "hoaxers". However, putting a parenthetical "known faker or hoaxer" is simply unacceptable; it needs to be integrated inline and frankly, if no one believes him, then maybe there shouldn't be a Wikipedia article on the subject matter at all. Titanium Dragon 00:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Successtech Academy High shooting, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Successtech Academy High shooting satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Successtech Academy High shooting and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Successtech Academy High shooting during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 18:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is even more interesting to note that, although Darwin tried to refute the Lamarckian mechanism of inheritance, he later admitted that the heritable effects of use and disuse might be important in evolution. In the Origin of Species he wrote that the vestigial eyes of moles and of cave-dwelling animals are "probably due to gradual reduction from disuse, but aided perhaps by natural selection."This is the source which was cited in the article --- are we reading the same thing?--Random Replicator (talk) 05:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, in response to your request for primary source information about Darwin's views, I've added links and details to Talk:Introduction to evolution#LaMarck. It will be much appreciated if you can have a look and review your comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 18:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While as the AFD nominator of this article I support your merging of this article with Robert Chambers, be aware (if you're not already) that this was a fairly bad-tempered AFD, ending up plastered across AN/I and also going to DRV and assorted endless user talk pages; there's a strong possiblity this will result in a revert-war. — iridescent 21:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at it; there seemed to be something of a consensus to merge it with the killer's article or an independent article made from both with the name of the case as its title. I dislike random pages that don't say anything and are meaningless; that page didn't add to Wikipedia in any significant way, so by merging it to the killer's article I think I made Wikipedia better. There may be an edit war; I don't know, and think it is kind of silly, she obviously isn't notable, though the case in general may be. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]