User talk:Hrafn - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cla68 (talk | contribs) at 01:53, 8 August 2011 (→Nomination of Coskel University for deletion: reminder). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:53, 8 August 2011 by Cla68 (talk | contribs) (→Nomination of Coskel University for deletion: reminder)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

New threads belong at the bottom of talk pages (pressing the 'new section' link at the top, or here, will do this automatically for you). I reserve the right to summarily remove (without responding, and possibly even without reading) any new threads placed here at the top of this talk page.
Discussion directly pertaining to a specific article belongs on that article's talkpage. Where such discussion is erroneously posted here, I may move it to article talk (if I'm feeling particularly kind-hearted, or am busting for a good argument), but most likely will simply delete or revert it -- so best to post it where it belongs in the first place.
I likewise reserve the right to curtail (by reversion, deletion, archiving or otherwise) any thread on this talkpage that I (on my sole discretion) feel has become, or is is likely to be, unproductive. If you object to such curtailment, then by all means don't post here.
Please do not WP:REFACTOR your comments unnecessarily. Doing so may result in an WP:EDITCONFLICT whilst attempting to respond.
Talkback:

This user has their preferences set to automatically watchlist all articles they edit, and all pages they comment upon. It is therefore completely unnecessary for you to {{talkback}} this user to tell them that you have replied to a comment.
Further, there is nothing in that template's description suggests it should be used for XfDs or article talk -- so using it for such pages is inappropriate.
I would (fürther fürther) note that I am under no obligation to respond to each and every comment you make (and there will be times that purposefully avoiding responding would appear to be the most politic course of action).
Finally (fürther fürther fürther), if you keep doing it, I'll probably eventually have to find some more coercive way of convincing you to follow good WP:Wikiquette and stop.

Ω. (Don't trip over the møøse on the way out.)

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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

Thanks

Wanted to thank you for catching that point about how Harper's stamps do not appear to be government-issued on anarchist stamps. I guess I just thought they were based on the fact that his family has a postal history, and that he seemed to be knowledgeable and trained in stamp design. making since the article went on and on about it. The AfD is still new, but it looks like the AfD momentum is heading straight for a delete. My mind hasn't changed, but I think I have bludgeoned my arguments enough, so I'm just going to back off from the article and the AfD. Again, thanks for tweaking the article for accuracy's sake. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 18:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, I can see how it'd be very easy to be wrong-footed by the quirky style of The Gaurdian piece's writing. If it's any consolation, I also got something wrong initially. I worked out that Harper's stamps weren't Royal Mail from the start -- I simply failed to realise that the 'official stamps' mentioned later in the article were Harper's (hence my having to strike that bit of my original comment). It wasn't until your reply that I read closer & discovered that they were the one & same. Sources! -- can't write a Misplaced Pages without them -- but they're all too frequently a pain in the neck. :/ Hrafn_Stalk(P) 18:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

ID

Be careful, amigo, Missy is trying to provoke "bad behaviour". Soon, either he or Drll will be screaming "edit war". I'm not sure that Hagel's comments much matter other than to prove that he's a nutter. :) Jim62sch 13:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I've followed Nagel since his endorsement of Signature in the Cell. He's basically a philosopher of mind having a hissy fit because scientific empiricism keeps encroaching on his freedom to pontificate on the 'Mysteries of Life™' (shades of the Deep Thought scene from Hitchhikers' Guide). It's difficult to see how any mention of him is merited, let alone expanding it. I don't intend to give them an edit war -- but I certainly don't intend to let their ludicrous claims go unchallenged. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 13:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. My thing is that I read his quotes and assign him to the category of idiot. But, maybe young and impressionable minds won't.

And yeah, sience is a bitch -- I keep hoping that someone will invent a "transporter" and the the uncertainty principle tells me it can't be done and I too throw a hissy fit. Damn. ;) Jim62sch 13:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but if we keep letting the opinions of 'idiots' into the article, won't we (i) end up with an idiotic article & (ii) end up looking like idiots ourselves? But then, if we idiot-proof the article I suppose natural selection will tend to mean we'll simply get smarter idiots trying to break into it. ;) Hrafn_Stalk(P) 13:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

ROFL. Unfortunately, natural selection doesn't object to idiocy. At least not today. Maybe tomorrow. :( Jim62sch 14:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in the recent changes at Wedge Strategy.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

r&i

please note the recent debate on the subject.-- mustihussain (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Revision of section on ID

Hey, Hrafn, I wanted to just drop by and make sure you've seen the changes we've proposed to the "Defining science" section of the Intelligent design article. Dominus Vobidsu, dave souza, and I have been working on it, but if you have any comments/suggestions/objections regarding the content, I'd love to hear them. As it now stands, I've made a revision to the material last suggested by dave and am awaiting feedback. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk  contribs) 17:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Things seem to be going in the right direction, so I was staying out of the way. It tends to be fairly difficult to get me to shut up when I disagree with something, so my WP:SILENCE can generally be read as consent. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 18:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wedge strategy. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. As an aside, I understand the situation. Falcon8765 15:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that I haven't edited this article in 10 hours, this warning is ludicrously tardy -- I am "currently" doing no such thing. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 15:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, you reverted 4 times in a 24 hours span yesterday. I warned MissionNPOV as well. I personally agree that religious should be used as an adjective on the article, but the edit warring isn't helpful. Falcon8765 15:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that I (accidentally) violated WP:3RR (I had forgotten the single revert on the previous day), just questioning whether a warning, long after the edit-war is over, is itself "helpful". Hrafn_Stalk(P) 15:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Coskel University for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Coskel University is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Coskel University (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. BigJim707 (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

ID edit

Please don't take this kind of tone in talk page discussions on the Intelligent Design article. That kind of tone in talk page comments might inhibit participation by other observers. We want to encourage participation, not discourage it. Remember, also, it's just a website. We don't, in the long run, care, or are supposed to appear to care, which side, if any, these articles take on any issue. Cla68 (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)