User talk:DLH
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Unblock request
See discussion in Sternberg controversy talk pages. Apologize for being frustrated at three reverts against me in a row on that page when I was trying to give substantive improvements. I had already said I was letting Sternberg controversy settle down for a while.DLH 21:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have denied your request to be unblocked. Please wait until your block expires. Which is within 24 hours. In the future be sure to use article talk pages to discuss changes. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WIKI Policies
Introduction: "Don't be afraid to edit—anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold (but please don't vandalize)! Find something that can be improved, either in content, grammar or formatting, and fix it." WP:NPOV Verifiability: Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
No Ad hominem attacks.
I reverted your edits to Muhammad. If you put any details about the controversies in the article, other editors will want to put in their two cents worth, and that section of the article will balloon in size until it's just as long as the breakout article. I've been editing the Muhammad article for two years and I've seen the edit wars. The worst ones stopped when we moved the controversies out into their own articles, where there's space for all the arguments and evidence to be laid out. Please don't disturb that balance. Zora 13:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP:NPOV
Please take a while to read WP:NPOV, especially WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience. — Dunc|☺ 10:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pseudoscience
How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?
If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.
Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.
- Specifically, which part of this don't you understand? — Dunc|☺ 13:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- The part where the majority can coerce others to exclude the minority view.DLH 11:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Seconded, please stop inserting unsourced, biased passages into Wikipedia. --Cyde↔Weys 04:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Very curious that editing majority "unsourced biased passages" are always restored, and that links added to original sources are deleted. - Ten reverts in a row by the "majority" is remarkable "NPOV".DLH 11:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Prior art
Thank you for your contributions to prior art. Excellent point about "relevant art".--Nowa 08:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP:3RR
Please pay attention to the WP:3RR policy. FeloniousMonk 19:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 This policy in a nutshell: |
| Do not revert any single page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours, except in the case of obvious, simple vandalism. (Or else an Administrator may suspend your account.) |
Understood. And please discuss in talk page rather than just wholesale reverting multiple times good faith efforts to improve articles.
Blocked for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR after being warned. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 21:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
After second thoughts, 24h was too harsh and I've unblocked you. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 04:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Thanks Jaranda. Mea Culpa on violating WP:3RR. Thanks FeloniousMonk for the needed correction.--DLH 02:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Just-so story
Hello! We don't do vote counts on AfD's, as it's not a poll. If there is a consensus as the current situation indicates, the closing administrator will pick up on it. Best, trialsanderrors 03:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the education. I will delete that. DLH 04:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] sign your posts with four tildes
Please;
~~~~
Cheers, — Dunc|☺ 10:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Thanks, helps to have pointersDLH 02:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Link on the talk page
I couldn't get the link you added. In any event, TO is one of the largest discussion forua for this topic and also isn't run by a partisan group so I don't think the presence of the link makes much sense. JoshuaZ 14:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] You're on notice
I see you deleted an entire discussion from the 'You're on notice' section of Talk:Intelligent design. It is Wikipedia's policy that editors do not delete the comments of others. The only exceptions are for personal attacks and personal information. Period. Don't do it again. FeloniousMonk 15:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- This deletion seems particularly disturbing given the topic at hand. I'd appreciate an explanation of why you decided to delete it. JoshuaZ 15:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Just following the directions at the top of that page. See my added commentsDLH 20:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
What is meant by "teh genome "? Carrionluggage 06:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- dislexia DLH 14:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] So?
"Dealing eleven identical hands in a row wouuld exceed Dembski's Universal probability bound." Obviously probability is not one of your strong points. •Jim62sch• 23:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Intelligent Design Additions
I see that you are going through the various evolution related articles and adding the ID objections or links. I have reverted them, as those pages are about scientific topics in evolution, and ID is not science (see Dover trial for legal perspective and Intelligent Design for scientific objections). If you wish to discuss ID as it relates to evolution, do it in articles that are dedicated to the public controversy about evolution (such as Creation-evolution controversy).--Roland Deschain 02:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like keep all the criticisms in the ID articles but none in Darwinism or Evolution and put all those into Creation-evolution controversy. That is an amazing interpretation of NPOV. OK, if you will remove all criticism of ID from Intelligent Design. DLH 13:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ahh, using NPOV to justify inclusion of pseudoscience. You are wrong in your interpretation of NPOV. Read up on the rule that pertains to ID here. ID, both legally and scientifically (and there are many verifiable sources for this) is a pseudoscience at best and creationism in reality. As I said, trying to show ID to be comparable to the theory of evolutio is like trying to compare geocentrism to the current astronomical theories. It is true that geocentrism must have an article where all its flaws are laid out. This does not mean that geocentrims must have a section in all solar system related articles. The same applies to ID: it has a main article showing all its flaws (it is not science and it is creationism), but this does not mean that it has to be included in all evolution articles. Please do not use Wikipedia rules you do not understand. You seem to think that NPOV is about fairness, which it is not.--Roland Deschain 13:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Had read it. Thought police at work again in hiding controversies over and failures of evolution. Apparently you do not recognize that the first scientific revolution was identifying law or order from chaos It was founded on and enabled by a Christian worldview. Historic revisionism will not work. Neither is an atheistic worldview now capable of founding the second scientific revolution - of identifying the pprinciples or rules and origin of information.DLH 14:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, if you have trouble with Wikipedia rules, take it up with the people that made the rules. Those rules are there for a reason: to keep people like you from filling these pages with unverified assertions. You broke a Wikipedia rule and I therefore reverted you. I have just done it again at The God Delusion. You appear to be out to validate religion within Wikipedia articles. That is all fine and dandy, but please do it within the Wikipedia rules.--Roland Deschain 14:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Had read it. Thought police at work again in hiding controversies over and failures of evolution. Apparently you do not recognize that the first scientific revolution was identifying law or order from chaos It was founded on and enabled by a Christian worldview. Historic revisionism will not work. Neither is an atheistic worldview now capable of founding the second scientific revolution - of identifying the pprinciples or rules and origin of information.DLH 14:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ISCID
You seem to have inserted the wrong link. Guettarda 21:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Don't think so. Gave ISCID Google Scholar search so you can see the citations for yourself.DLH 03:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dawkins
I think you'll be pleased to know that there are now a few people editing the Dawkins and God Delusion who have a Christian perspective. I'm doing most of the work in this, but could use some help. My perspective may be a bit different from yours in that I agree in most matters with John Polkinghorne - but together, with reasonable NPoV additions, we can help improve the articles. NBeale 22:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
