Jump to content

User talk:

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jonathan Sarfati/Dispute[edit]

Please be advised that that page is largely not being used now, and the discussions are largely happening on the general Sarfati discussion page. JoshuaZ 04:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx, Joshua. 04:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize the Jews for Jesus article. While you may be a missionary, this is an encyclopedia. Thank you, and have a great afternoon! TheDookieMan 05:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)TheDookieMan[reply]

Please do not confuse putting NPOV corrections to anti-Christian comments with "vandalism". 07:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Sarfati and AiG[edit]

Hi, you may not be aware, but under the conditions of the recently closed arbitration case Here I'm pretty sure you are not supposed to edit Jonathan Sarfati related articles. Thanks. JoshuaZ 04:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply] is one of the named parties. I named him here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel/Workshop#Sockpuppetry_.26_Meatpuppetry
The language of the final decision is clear: "This list is not exclusive and the remedy applies to any user, registered or not, who engages in the same type of tendentious editing as has been done by Agapetos angel." Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel/Proposed_decision#Agapetos_angel_et_al._banned
Per the arbcomm ruling will be blocked if he continues to edit any Sarfati-related article. FeloniousMonk 05:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that's true, then Wiki admins are interested only in pushing their POV and tolerating outright lies about articles, e.g. that AiG ignores gene duplication. E.g. this outright lie has been put back, and people are hiding behind personality issue to avoid addressing the issues. 07:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, becuase words like "mendaciously" are so WP:NPOV. (and note that the current version of the article has the matter rephrased to take your point into account anyways). Also, while we're on the topic, please assume good faith, and try to stay civil and don't make personal attacks. Thanks. JoshuaZ 07:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you call it when editors including you insist on a reading that states that AiG ignores gene duplication yet censor out documentation that proves the contrary, then hide behind an arbcom ruling by a cabal of known anti-creationists? And decide by fiat that an article criticising one of their writers "noted" that he didn't understand something rather than claimed this? 07:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please take a look at the current wording for the gene duplication issue, as for the issue of "noted"-see WP:NPOV. In this case, noted is NPOV. JoshuaZ 14:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I prefer English to Wikijargon. What is the justification for removing "claimed"?
And if I can be blocked by an ardent ideological opponent such as the rabid anticreationist Felonious Monk, while those who post the opposing POV get no more than a slap on the wrist, then Wikipedia has become corrupt. 05:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Five things: First, please note that your block time has been reduced to 5 days (being consistent with the 1 week block time as set out by the Arb Com). Second, if you continue with personal attacks such as calling other users "rabid" don't be surprised if your block time becomes lengthened again. Third, note that you were simultaneously blocked by Felonious and the completely uninvolved admin Cyde. Fourth, while I think that warning you prior to a block may have made more sense, to be blunt, it strains credibility that you were not aware that an Arb Com ruling occured, and you won't lose so much editing from another 5 days of not being able to edit the Wiki. Fifth, "noted" is more accurate given that their claim is backed up by the vast majority of scientists and such. NPOV does not require undue weight. JoshuaZ 15:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More like a case of any excuse serving a tyrant. It seems OK for the likes of Duncharris to attack creationists and still remain an admin, while other ideological opponents excuse harsh punishment because they are called "rabid". "Noted" is still POV, while "claimed" is indisputable. It is merely your assertion that it is more accurate (and unverified, and "vast majority" is a weasel phrase). Hardly any scientists have debated the issue of vestigial organs, and Scadding is no less qualified than Sarfati's critics. So now we have the ridiculous situation where only one side is allowed to edit such articles, since they have a cabal of admins on that side (including allegedly uninvolved ones). 04:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, please understand that I did not make a normative comment about your personal attacks, the comment about personal attacks was simply a matter of advice(I am actually thinking about bringing up the noted/claimed issue on the relevant talk page but your multiple rude comments make me less inclined to bring it up. I know that's irrational but that's how humans work). Second, while some users such as Dunc may have made uneccesary or innappropriate comments, they generally have not been as extreme as yours. Third, the comment that "hardly any scientists have debated the issue of vestigial organs" ignores the general problem dealing with creationist claims: most of the relevant biologists haven't "debated" the issues because they don't bother. As far as they are concerned, evolution won about 100 years ago, and the incorrectness of the defition of vestigial can be easily verified by looking at almost any modern Ev Bio textbook. JoshuaZ 04:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are still making a judgment, contradicting Scadding and many dictionaries. this is not the place of an editor. And Wiki lacks credibility if opposing editors are banned for editing to the contrary. "Claimed" is correct, and rightly does not make a judgment that the known Internet Infidel Reed Carter is right and Sarfati is wrong. Just state their claim and let readers judge whether they have made their case.
Note that most biologists don't even use evolution in their research, as admitted in a bioessays paper, so "evolution won 100 years ago" owes more to peer pressure than anything else. Also, the "evolution" of 100 years ago was discredited and replaced with the "modern synthesis". 05:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your moving massively off topic. First, dictionaries are not reliable sources for technical issues (and any college ev bio textbook beats a hundred dictionaries). Second, your other two comments are both wrong and irrelevant. The first one, the bioessays comment is a standard quotemine issue oft debunked (and is irrelevant to this matter anyways). The second comment about the modern synthesis fails to understand that what has changed since 100 years ago was the details, the basic fact that evolution occurs remained the same. JoshuaZ 05:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you are a nobody to try to lecture me with such nonsense or make judgments on who is right. 02:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not attempting to lecture you. I'm hoping that you will remain a productive editor of Wikipedia (certainly some of your chess edits have been quite good). However, calling other peoples opinions "nonsense" and accusing them of making judgement are not the way to work well with other Wikipedians. JoshuaZ 02:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and you aren't blocked for trying correct NPOV, you are blocked for breaking an Arb Com ruling. You could have fixed a spelling mistake or added information in support of evolution, it would have still violated the ruling. Tendentious editing by you is particularly blockable. JoshuaZ 05:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then the ruling is crap as shown by your illustration shows, and shows how corrupt and unconcerned with truth Wiki can be when some POV admins can block opposing views. 02:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow your logic. How does this show the ruling is "crap"? (Also, keep in mind nothing in the ruling forbids you from editing the talk pages, if you can persuade the other editors that you have a good edit, they will implement it). JoshuaZ 02:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should have been obvious. What sort of pathetic decree forbids correcting outright error? And you should be recusing yourself from administrating when the issue concerns something you have a strong POV on. 03:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Please don't pretend that you and 58.* are not the same editor. It is insulting to other editors intelligence when your edits principally include 1) Pushing CMI/Sarfati on various creationism/evolution related articles, 2) Edits to chess articles. It is of course these two categories which make it certain that you are the same person and most likely Jonathan Sarfati. And yet you have even other edits in common, like many editors to Star Trek:Voyager articles(which leads to an incidental question Jonathan Sarfati is supposed to be smart, why does he enjoy the second worst Star Trek show of all time?). Joking aside, you are clearly the same editor. Please don't pretend otherwise. JoshuaZ 01:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make accusations based on circumstantial evidence to justify your stalking and heavy-handed reversions. There seemed to be no reason for you to touch the presuppositional apologetics article, except being bloody-minded. Are you seriously suggesting that 203 or 58 are verboten to edit any Christianity-related articles? It is also most disturbing that you have reverted articles to blatant POV and outright lies (e.g. that AiG is unaware of gene duplication). Admins are supposed to make Wikipedia better, not hide behind arbitary decrees to block challenges to their POV. 03:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of creationists seem to be science fiction fans, not just 203, in answer to your blatantly leading question (Gary Bates comes to mind). What is the worst ST program then? ;) 03:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't that Christianity articles are forbidden, but adding multiple Sarfati/CMI links is (at least within my interpretation of the ArbCom ruling) within the prohibited form of editing. JoshuaZ 03:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How many is "multiple"? And what is wrong with changing AiG to CMI links when it concerns Sarfati or Wieland who are now affiliated with CMI? 03:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree, I suggest you ask the Arb Com for a clarification. And I repeat, there is no prohibition on the use of the talk pages to discuss the edits. If you make the suggestions on the talk pages, many of them will likely be accepted. As for the worst ST program, that would be Enterprise. The order as I see it is, TNG, Original, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise. Disagreement is reasonable about the order of the top two and the bottom two, but the overall partial ordering(forgive the notational abuse) {{TNG, Classic}} > DS9 > {{Voyager, Enterprise}} among rational, informed humans. JoshuaZ 03:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree about the order of ST series. 03:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Glad we agree on something. I've decided that the edit was sufficiently gray to merit an opinion from the Arb Com and so have added it to the requests for clarifications. JoshuaZ 03:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. 03:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply], I think the issue is tendentious editing related to Sarfati and AiG/CMI. This would include any edits anywhere in the encyclopedia related to the topic. Please place your suggestions on the talk page of the articles or you can leave them on my talk page. (We'll see if ArbCom agrees.) regards, FloNight talk 03:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx. I wouldn't have thought it was "tendentious" to change a URL to an identical article but reflecting the change of affiliation of the author concerned. And it is becoming ridiculous if so many articles are considered to fall under the ambit of this ruling. 04:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please spell out chess pieces[edit]

I like your recent changes to chess article, but please spell out the names of the pieces instead of giving their English abbreviation. Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 04:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx. It's a stylistic thing, but I don't have any problem with you editing accordingly. 04:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries[edit]

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

--digital_me(Talk)(Contribs) 02:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanx for the reminder. 02:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neanderthal, Germany[edit]

I think it may have been you who added:

The valley was named after Joachim Neander, the nom-de-plume of a 17th-century minister Joachim Neumann — Neander is the Greek translation of his name which means "new man".

I was wondering, totally friendly-like, where you read or heard that Neander was his pen name (nom-de-plume).


-Misha Vargas 19:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition in Chess[edit]

in the Opposition (chess) article you edited, there's a study (teaching tool) by Ortvin Sarapu to illustrate manoeuvres using distant opposition. Please can you give a reference for this study ?
Thanks (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]