User talk:Hrafn - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ikanreed (talk | contribs) at 17:33, 18 August 2011 (→On the subject of dead horses: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:33, 18 August 2011 by Ikanreed (talk | contribs) (→On the subject of dead horses: new section)(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.
This user defines a "regular", perhaps somewhat idiosyncratically, as somebody who can be trusted to observe policy with sufficient regularity that it is not necessary to "template" (or "tag") them on their user talk. This user therefore regards exhortations to WP:Don't template the regulars as an oxymoron (and as such unproductive).
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

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)

Just to be clear...

This is NOT an appropriate forum for complaining about reversion of ludicrously inappropriate categories. I am not interested in tortured reasoning as to why they might, in some alternate universe, be considered relevant. And I am profoundly disinterested in hearing further creationist POV-pushing on that, or any other, subject. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 07:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles on Creation and the Ronald Numbers article

For the record:

I appreciated your telling us of your background in working with articles on creation. You are tough to work with, but your experience especially in these type of articles makes your expertise important to the genre.
I took a look at the Ronald Numbers article. It looks like a good start. I noticed that you have contributed to the article. Numbers is a very notable fellow. I did the infamous google search count and noted 1.6 million hits. Ever considered developing it further? Want some help? :)

Any way, it helps to know that you have such experience on the topics we share an interest. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I have followed through on your advice to do a User subpage. You are invited to share your thoughts.

It is located HERE DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Signature in the Cell

You may be interested in checking out the recent changes in this article again. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You might want to give it another check, as well as the article on William Dembski. Someone out to inform the SPCDH (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Dead Horses), as well. ]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

All ID proponents

I've been talking with KillerChihuahua on the ID Talk page and expressed the view that you agreed to the latest change concerning the use of the word all within the lead. I hope I haven't misinterpreted your last comment there as an agreement, but if I have I apologize. I just wanted to let you know, as I have a difficult time speaking for others even when I'm fairly certain I'm correct. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk  contribs) 21:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the decision

Hi Hrafn, you are a tough helper. No matter what the decision coming down, I want you to know that your persistent interest in quality is respected. We will meet again. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Leonard Brand

Hi Hrafn, I'm Hunter Kahn. I voted in the Leonard R. Brand AFD discussion, which I watched with great interest. Since you were the nominator, I just wanted to draw your attention to a comment I made to the guy who closed it. I think he meant well and did the best he could with what he had, but I did have a concern about the outcome, and thought you might want to read it. I was, and possibly still am, considering taking it to WP:DRV, but I'm not sure. (I don't really have a strong feeling about the article itself, I'm just more concerned about the possible bad AFD precedent.) What do you think? — Hun ter Ka hn 16:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hrafn and Hunter, I have responded to Hunter's concern at: User talk:Bigtimepeace#Leonard Brand belated signature DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of dead horses

I think it would be helpful if you stopped replying to Drrll on the OR noticeboard. Just let him have the last word, because, as you may have noticed, he will just keep repeating the same points indefinitely. At this point, all we can do is revert it if he actually tries to make the change he's demanding. Any hope of actually getting an agreement that the argument is closed is dead. For the same reasons you are asking him to let it go, please let it go. i kan reed (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)