Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:09, 9 March 2010

Operation COOKIE MONSTER

.

Re:Comment removal

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

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

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

3RR warning Creation according to Genesis

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

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

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

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

category

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lol

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

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

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

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

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

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

"sources listed in archive on talk page"

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

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

Edit warring at Creation according to Genesis

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

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

Bayless Conley

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

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

List of Stanford University people

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

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

Theremes

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pete Williams (journalist)

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

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

My view on how to change BLP policies

Feel free to read and comment with what you Think

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

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

Ha ha

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

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Akron politicians

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

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

Kenneth McLaren

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

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

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

Talkback

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

IP Soapboxing on Talk:Evolution

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

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

Nothing personal

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

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

Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary

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

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

Talkback

Osarius  : _{Naggin' again?} : 18:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

FAQ

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

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

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

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

Age of the earth

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

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

Thanks!

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

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

Final discussion for Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

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

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

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

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

ANI

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFC

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

barbera d'asti

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

Barnstar of Diligence

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

.

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

Edit Warring

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

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

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

Fine

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

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

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

Comment on Talk:Genesis creation myth

Hey Nef, thanks for the background. And no issue responding on my talk page. Infact I'd prefer it. I find article talk pages so often get cluttered with discussions that are essentially only between two editors, and are unlikely to be of interest to others. I've always wondered if these would be better conducted on user talk pages.

It appears as though a great deal of thought has gone into the "myth" title. It still makes me very uncomfortable though, because my initial strong impression was it raises all sorts of NPOV issues. Reading through the FAQ, I was interested by the line of arguement that goes "Myth is the accepted term in scholarly RSs. Even though myth may imply falsity to the average reader, wikipedia has to follow RS because wikipedia isn't censored to avoid offending the average reader". Not sure who wrote that FAQ, but I find this line of argument a little dubious, because, while I accept that "myth" might be well back by scholarly RS 1) ultimately wikipedia is written for the average reader, and this article covers a topic that would be interesting to the general public 2) I'm sure if we thought hard enough about it we could come up with a title that was compliant both with RS and didn't risk offending the average reader with POV issues.

Regarding consensus, was there ever a clear survey/Rfc similar to the kind I setup here. If not, would you object to me setting one up, with the primary intent of simply getting a measure of consensus? I don't want to reopen old wounds here, and I'll be content with leaving the title as is, but I'd really like to see something that clearly shows a majority of editors support the title.

In summary let me note, that you and I would probably be in complete agreement regarding the veracity of "creation" as presented by Genesis (either symbolicly or literally speaking). However, after having been at the butt end of allot of disputes where I've been outnumbered (or out shouted) by editors who I felt were pushing POVs, I've become hyperconscience to these NPOV issues. I feel that it is incumbent on us to ensure we uphold the basic principle that Misplaced Pages neither endorse nor refute religous beliefs. NickCT (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

hey Nick, I wrote the FAQ and to give some clarity that point you think is dubious was taken almost word for word from WP:RNPOV. We've already had one RFC, two RMs and two AN/Is on this very point and all have closed in favor of usage of "creation myth" in the article and title. Opening another RfC won't likely result in any further advances because it's current usage is specifically supported by multiple policies and the only real arguement against it's usage is that some people take offense or some people are worried that readers will interpret it's usage the wrong way, both of which are considered invalid arguements by WP:WTA#Myth and Legend, WP:RNPOV and WP:NOT#CENSORED.

I honestly feel for your point of view and the concerns of others but in dealing with wikipedia I follow a pretty strict paradigm of policy adherence since policy represents broad (across all of WP) consensus and as such I tend to fight for what is supported by policy whether my personal beliefs are inline with the policy or not. Nefariousski (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Nef, if I may butt in, there are two problems: 1) it isn't just that readers will take the meaning as "false" but that editors were unable to use the term in a way that did NOT mean "false"; and 2) the title is worded in such a way that it limits the passage to this one angle. Although the first problem wouldn't be an issue for a title such as "Genesis creation allegory" the second problem would apply. We can keep "creation myth" in the title with something like "Genesis as creation myth." Instead of trying to win every war, wouldn't it be best to do a win win for everyone and stop the fighting (or at least cut it way way back)?EGMichaels (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The article isn't ABOUT genesis 'as a creation myth'. It's about the creation myth told at the beginning of the book of genesis. There already exists Book of Genesis for general information about the book. --King Öomie 17:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, King, it is about the Genesis creation account as myth (and not allegory or fact). You can't POV something and then claim you are talking about the thing itself. You are merely talking about one potential (and very legitimate and scholarly) aspect.EGMichaels (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time explaining this over and over. Busstop agreed with the neutrality of the definition of creation myth. The article name doesn't interpret genesis "as myth" it just classifies genesis as a religious or supernatural cosmogenical account which it is no matter how someone chooses to interpret. A "creation myth" can be interpreted as allegory, fact, false, story, etc... Genesis 1-2 is a Creation myth just like a star is a giant ball of gas. Nothing in the definition of "Creation myth" passes value or even posits the slightest interpretation. And now it's time for breakdown:

Creation Myth: a religious or supernatural story or explanation that describes the beginnings of humanity, earth, life, and the universe (cosmogony), often as a deliberate act by one or more deities

Genesis 1-2: Religious or supernatural story or explanation (Check), describes the beginnings of humanity, earth, life and the universe (Check), Deliberate act by one or more dieties (Check)

You'll see there is no categorization or interpretation or bias one way or another. Everything is a plainly stated fact regarding the contents of Genesis 1-2. You can't argue that "Creation myth" is just a categorization of genesis any more than you can argue that "Planet" is just a categorization of earth. ZERO case can be made that genesis is NOT a creation myth (and please don't go jumping into splitting the word myth out again and using it informally) thus it can't be an interpretation or categorization because if it was someone could make an opposing case against said interpretation or categorization. Nefariousski (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh, Nef. Several things. First, if we are NOT talking about the term "myth" why the heck do you guys keep pointing to the guide on the term "myth"? Also, if we are NOT trying to make a value judgment, why the heck the adamant refusal to use ANY synonym for "myth"? In any case, it isn't the "story" folks who have been using it informally, but the "myth" folks, as I demonstrated with my simple request for the use of the term "myth" in ANY context on ANY subject in which the so-called informal meaning was avoided. Rather than show that they knew what they were talking about, I was accused of being unreasonable and even plastered by Ben with an ANI -- also accusing me of being unreasonable! In any case, I wasn't being unreasonable at all, since I gave two very easily conjured examples myself. The problem isn't the editors or the readers, but the guide itself. With my proposed three words, we should be able to agree that the informal synonym for myth is "false" while the formal is "symbol." NEITHER are literally true. But one may have some symbolic or subjective meaning aside from any lack of objective or literal fact. As you said, you are tired of explaining this over and over. The PROBLEM is not that you can't explain it or that they can't understand it. You aren't clumsy with words and they aren't stupid. The problem was merely that the guide was not sanity checked by this particular problem, and the formal meaning was not worded in a way that excluded the informal. If my three words stick, both sides will get their way, and your life will be a lot easier.EGMichaels (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You keep bringing up "myth" as a standalone term and discussing ambiguity and using it as an example for an interpretation. I keep trying to explain that the current title does no such thing because a creation myth is not (as you're defining it) a myth. Next, even though I'm usually against working in the realm of Negative proof I replied to you regarding formal use of myth and gave examples, please see talk page. Next, we can't use ANY synynom for myth because we never use "MYTH". we use creation myth and there are no other formal terms that are synonyms (that I could find) and informal terms lose accuracy and precision of intent (per UCN), violate multiple sections of WP:RNPOV and aren't supported by academic sources. You insist on splitting "Creation" and "Myth" apart and building your entire case on analyzing the various meanings of "myth". There is no, zero, zilch issue for ambiguity if you leave them together in the proper term which only has one single definition (which is stated multiple times in the article and talk page). The guide exists BECAUSE of this specific problem. The initial debate on the Creation myth is if I remember correctly what initiated the "Myth and Legend" section of WP:WTA nothing you bring up to VPP or the other policy forums is going to be new and unique. The policy is written as such because this exact same debate has gone on in previous discussions on multiple articles. I by no means wish to stifle you from giving it a go but I respect you enough that I would like to see that you look at the dozen or so past initiatives that dealt with this EXACT same issue, realize that consensus has turned out the same way every time and that the current policies are written the way they are in the hopes that we can stop fighting the same fight over and over before you formulate your post so that hopefully you can bring up something new that hasn't been discussed to death with the same result each time. Nefariousski (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully my three words will save you all the headaches you've been having from a poorly worded guide. That's the problem when "consensus" is reached through conflict instead of collaboration. My goal is for all groups to get a break, including you. In any case, you keep saying that "myth" has nothing to do with "creation myth" and then you keep pointing me to the guide on "myth." If it has nothing to do with it, then why keep pointing me there? And why say -- even now -- that the guide was created from this very conflict?EGMichaels (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Now there's a good point. I do think an additional policy / guideline for formal terms not being defined by their component parts would be a good idea. Maybe in addition to your current thoughts on adding to the guide it would be a good idea to create a section in WTA that discusses the value of formal terms and the difference between them and their component parts. With regards to using "myth" as a standalone term you and I are damn near in complete agreement. Nefariousski (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nef. Maybe we can save you all this constant reexplaining yet.EGMichaels (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Rereading WP:WTA#Myth and Legend it would seem that using "myth" in its "formal sense" is specificly supported by long standing policy. Frankly, I'm not sure that's good policy, but its existence make me less desirous to argue the issue we've been discussing. I withdraw my call for another Rfc/survey, though I'd note that the existing Rfc's and RMs appear to be long discussions/debates. Short, concise I support / I reject type surveys are always nice to demonstrate consensus. NickCT (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Nick -- the jury's still out on the words "symbolic literary structure." If that sticks, that should solve 90% of the problem for the anti-myth folks. Even the most sincere theists can grant symbolic structure in the passage (though not all will, the theists will be divided and challenges to the article will be less intense).EGMichaels (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm..... Frankly, I have no idea what "symbolic literary structure." means. Is this English? EGM, can you point to where the debate over this language is being had. I'd like to weigh in.NickCT (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Right now I'm putting appropriate quotes on the talkpage to the guide. Frankly, I had another dozen citations to add before we go to the village pump (don't ask me, it's all new to me too). Since my mother in law is on the train coming here, and since my wife is ready to give birth at any moment, my time is a bit limited. I'm hoping in a week or so to have all the citations in place, and we can take it to any forum people want to take it. Honestly, I'm hoping it's not that big of a deal.EGMichaels (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Further to my last post; if you google "symbolic literary structure" you get a mere 6 hits (2 of which are from wikipedia!!!). I wonder what kind of perverted mind came up with such obscure jargon? EGM, when you have a forum in which this can be discussed, please let me know. NickCT (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Nick -- I'm the "perverted mind." I read myth all the time, and as a writer I try to make it. There is a specific literary structure that modern writers are trying to use in order to create myth in their writing. Basically, it's Jungian depth psychology's love child with Hollywood. Jung first identified it, Neumann extrapolated it in his "Great Mother" and "Origins and History of Consciousness." Campbell popularized it in his "Hero with a Thousand Faces" (Lucas used this as the basis for the original Star Wars trilogy). The "Hero's Journey" pattern is embedded even in details from the bios of Moses, Oedipus Rex, Jesus, etc. In any case, this reverse engineering of myth falls right in line with what well known mythologists have been nearly universally saying: myths are symbols. It's like metaphor on steroids... in which the metaphor itself becomes more real than the thing being symbolized. Right now I'm just going through my books on mythology (a couple of shelves) and scanning until I find some definition for myth being given in the book. I'm finding "symbolism" almost universal in those explanations, regardless of which ethnic group is being used for the mythological study.EGMichaels (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies on the "perverted mind" comment. Clearly you have the scholarly background to allows you to create such clever phrases like "symbolic literary structure". However EGM, I think it worth noting that policy pages and such should be written with consideration for mere mortal editors such as I. We have trouble when people use language like yours. I find best practice on Misplaced Pages is to use the dumbest, least verbose language possible. Always assume your audiences only has a high school diploma. This is partly why I think the whole WP:WTA#Myth and Legend policy is silly. It assumes too much on the part of the reader. The average wikipedia reader is not smart enough to "correctly" interpret the word "myth".

On another note, let's stop cluttering Nef's user talk page. NickCT (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Nick, I'd rather a full rewrite, showing that "symbol" is a formal synonym for myth, and "false" an informal one. That would be clear enough. I'd be willing to draft it, but not in the current climate. I need one or two folks from each side of this collaborating with it. Until then, my three words are the least intrusive to the present reading.EGMichaels (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Eh, i don't mind the comments, makes me feel loved ;) I do see what you mean about using common and easy to understand terminology (we even have policies that direct us to do so}. But I would ask you to please note that we also have gone above and beyond required due diligence to define, explain and clarify the term "creation myth" not only on Genesis creation myth but on the other applicable articles as well. Nefariousski (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahhhhh.. You are loved Nef. Re "above and beyond required due diligence to define, explain and clarify the term "creation myth" not only on Genesis creation myth" This I don't deny. But the title to me seems especially important. I don't think the fact that there is what amounts to a disclaimer/clafication in the article that says "and by the word myth we don't necessarily mean false" improves the situation. Still, I bow to the precident and policy dictated in WP:WTA#Myth and Legend. NickCT (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

NickCT — at WP:WTA#Myth and Legend we also find "Article and section titles should be chosen, where possible, to avoid implying a viewpoint." That is found here. While that is not my main argument, it is supportive of my argument. My main argument in a nutshell is that "creation myth" in the title is superfluous; that is not essential material for a title. By the way, it is not offensive. I have not seen anyone complain that it was "offensive." Nefariousski seems to be saying that others are perceiving "creation myth" as being offensive, but I see little evidence of that. Bus stop (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Bus, you'll see that I didn't really participate much in the initial RM because I initially thought changing the title would be superfluous, but the WP:UCN analysis, the precedent of all the other creation myth article's titles and the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV inherent in words like account and story decided the issue for me. My only objection to your "Genesis 1-2" suggestion aside from a loss of precision and accuracy and the fact that it would be better suited as a section under the book of Genesis article as opposed to a seperate article. There are plenty of "this offends me" comments on the talk page and this debate has gone on multiple times before. What other justification is there to abandon the title? It's supported by policy, it's supported by sources, It's well defined etc... I'll gladly consider any alternative as long as it's presented in a comperable framework of the current title. Show why current title is bad (policy, sources etc...), suggest alternative, show sources that support alt, show policy that supports alt. That way we can get around any issue of opinions, hurt feelings, pov claims etc... Nefariousski (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The present title is bad because it implies there are no other articles on the subject. "Genesis creation allegory" would be just as bad because it would imply THIS article does not exist. "Genesis creation as ancient near eastern myth" would be fine.EGMichaels (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Nef, also (now that you asked the question and reminded me), there is ANOTHER problem with "Genesis creation myth": there are myths ABOUT Genesis creation. Lilith is but one example, but I could easily give you more. The first reaction I had when I saw this article was to look for Aggadic material, and I was concerned by the fact that it was talking about Genesis, and not myths based on it. I've let that slide for a while since that isn't what anyone has been arguing about, but it is a way the title is misleading. We need to be clear that it is Genesis ITSELF that is regarded as a creation myth. "Genesis as creation myth" would do just that. It's clear, it's accurate, it's about the article, it follows all of your guidelines, it allows for the existence of other articles on Genesis, and it is clearly NOT about myths BASED ON Genesis.EGMichaels (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Superfluousness. Bus stop (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hardly, it's not superfluous to make a good case for an alternative when a good case has already been made for the status quo, it's required. Nefariousski (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for throwing in material that is not needed for the title. That material ("creation myth") is gratuitously thrown in. It may suit the sensibilities of the editors that support this wording, but it is not essential to what could be a title for this article. It is out of order to pigeonhole the subject matter of an article unnecessarily. The treatment of Genesis as a "creation myth" has a rightful place in the article. But the article is not solely about that particular characterization of Genesis. Bus stop (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

We can't very well just call the article Genesis it needs another descriptor and per policy and sources the best one suggested so far has been creation myth. I don't understand how it is any more gratuitous than "Chapters 1 and 2" Nefariousski (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"Chapters one and two" is part of the essential information about the subject of the article. It can be left out, if other language takes its place. But "chapters one and two" is not merely a characterization of the subject matter of the article — it is essential to it. I don't know if you are reading policy carefully. You referred to WP:UCN, which starts out by saying that "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article." Genesis is not always spoken of as a "creation myth," and rightfully so. The instances in which one fails to consider Genesis as a "creation myth" are not only those instances in which the speaker is opposed to thinking of Genesis that way, but also would include those instances in which the characterization of Genesis as a "creation myth" is irrelevant. There are contexts in which the evocation of "creation myth" would not be contemplated. Hence there is no logic to including "creation myth" in the title unless the article were solely about the treatment of Genesis as a "creation myth." But a look at the article in its present state shows little material treating the Genesis that way. Bus stop (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I bow to the precident and policy dictated in WP:WTA#Myth and Legend THIS THIS A THOUSAND TIMES THIS!!! If more editors understood that policy trumps their opinion then maybe we could redirect discussion towards whether we should change the policy instead of having a megs upon megs of length on the Genesis creation myth talk page. Nefariousski (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Nef -- the problem isn't you or them, but sloppy wording in the policy that's caused you too much grief.EGMichaels (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you very much for the barnstar! I try my best. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's well deserved. You've shown the ability to be tenacious while still being able to consider opposing viewpoints openly even if you don't agree with them and I particularly liked your take and input on the Cush RFC. Nefariousski (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

if a then not b

Truth table:

A  B
-  -
T  T
T  F
F  T
F  F

"if A then not B" means cross out anything that contradicts that, which in this case is B being true when A is:

A  B
-  -
X  X
T  F
F  T
F  F

and in what remains, in all instances that B is true, A is false, i.e. if B then not A. hence (if A then not B) implies (if B then not A).

i commented here only because i didn't want to distract from your latest comment on the article talk, as i felt it was poignant. :) Kevin Baas 22:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No no no I get it. I'm not saying that you're logic is wrong, I'm saying that your approach is just begging to have someone come in and using stupid examples or logical fallacies to disprove your logic and then we all have to resort to a long discussion on basic logical statements and so on. Instead of that approach why not just say "Policy and guidelines tell us to use the most common, reliably sourced definitions in the lede" and move on. Policy trumps even the soundest of original research, even if someone synthesizes a new definition that is totally logically valid it's still synth and as such frowned upon. We can't go wrong if we just follow the policy and usage of reliable sources. Nefariousski (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

this is what just edit conflicted with that "..and because i feel the logical debating (which i have played a role in) is getting to be a bit of a distraction from more constructive discussion."  :) Kevin Baas 22:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

And I agree wholeheartedly. Nefariousski (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

199.60.104.147

You may want to take a look at Haida chieftain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It's pretty clear that 199.60.104.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same editor back again. —C.Fred (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it's pretty clear, I follow AN/I and SPI pretty closely. Do you feel like posting the block evasion info at AN/I or should I? Nefariousski (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead. I've been closely enough involved that I think it's a good thing for the report to come from a less-involved editor. (Conversely, if I weren't so involved, I'd have already blocked him.) —C.Fred (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Shenanigans, tomfoolery and other assorted asshattery have been reported Nefariousski (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Canwest cleanup

Thank you for archiving off the page. It should help things there. —C.Fred (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

C.Fred (talk) has given you a wiki free beer of your choice to wiki drink. This user advises you to not get too wiki-drunk or you could get a wiki-hangover. See Misplaced Pages:Free beer for more info or give some one a free wiki beer with {{subst:freebeer}}

It's true though, censoring information about a small nation's free press, based on you being a http://en.wikipedia.org/Hare_Krishna.

User:Halvorsen brian

What gives you the right to remove somebody's picture per WPNOTMYSPACE? That editor has a right to have their picture on their User space as much as anybody else does, and there is nothing there which says that User is a child. Woogee (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The user states that they are a highschool student and considering recent arbcom pedophile / pederasty rulings etc... I think it's best to err on the side of caution. If the user wants to revert my fix and state that they are no longer a minor then TOTALLY fine by me. No harm no foul. WP:CHILD is far more important than myspace in me making this decision. Nefariousski (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You can be in high school and be 18. This is not a brand new newbie editor. Why not discuss it on their Talk page? I have reverted you. I will not edit war, let's see what ANI decides. Woogee (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

- you reverted another User's edits. Woogee (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Shit... Sorry about that. Good catch woogee. Edit conflicts forced me to be a bit hasty with my cut and paste. Nefariousski (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There were a lot of them at one point.  :) Woogee (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)