Hrafn

• Thanks. I came back mostly to do a major rewrite to What Darwin Got Wrong‎ (which I've mostly done now). Don't know if I'll be staying -- too many appallingly bad articles, with too many editors fighting tooth and nail to preserve them as such, means that this place is too often too irritating to stand. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

There are people *wrong* on the internet! Seriously, I hope you stick around for as long as it keeps being fun. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ha ha...agreed, please stick around we need you. Teapotgeorge^Talk 19:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Even if temporarily. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

• 168.137.100.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 168.137.100.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thank you for being on top of this individual. Seems to have a habit of modifying and/or removing critical material related to affiliations with a specific organization. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

No problemo. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 02:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Wolfview (talk · contribs)

This user appears to be going around and adding these changes back. -- Cirt (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hrafn, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wolfview. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Will do. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. You might be able to research and/or analyze from your prior experience, other possible accounts, or IP usage, or prior disruptive behavior patterns, that I have not yet identified in the report? -- Cirt (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not entirely convinced that they're the one-and-same. Could be -- but insufficient non-UC overlap for it to be a smoking gun (and for both Wolfview & IPs, UC is only a small part of their editing history). Hopefully a checkuser will smoke out the truth. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Your continued input would be appreciated. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

[EC][Mutter] Wikistalk ( toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py ) doesn't handle IPs, only registered nicks. There's another tool around that I think does handle IPs, and I seem to remember it being good for doing editing pattern analysis, but I can't for the life of me remember its name. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Update: [1]. Thoughts? Probably likely there is other evidence of disruptive behavior from socks and/or IPs, what do you think? -- Cirt (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Okay, question now becomes has his (combined) edits violated WP:3RR, or otherwise be considered a WP:EDITWAR? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not yet, no. The SPI case page is closed, for now. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've just suggested merging True Family into List of Unification Church members since the information in the first is mostly aready in the second. Please discuss if you like: Talk:List of Unification Church members#Merge in True Family. Kitfoxxe (talk) 09:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've added the material in the article into other articles and suggested a redirect to Divine Principle. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

RE this edit of yours: I thought your edit reasonable and demonstrative of an astute sensitivity to how the word "accepted" is used within a community of scientists and among others intimately familiar with their work. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeh. The problem with pseudoscience is not that their results don't match those of "main stream" science, but that their methodologies (to the extent that they exist at all) lack sufficient rigour to be "accepted" as scientific. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Since you have recently commented on the type/color of one or more "expand" templates, could you express your opinion in the centralized RfC on this issue? The discussion is currently fragmented between various template and TfD pages, which makes a consensus on this issue difficult to form. Thank you, Tijfo098 (talk) 08:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your contributions to this discussion. Please remember that we are just discussing the color of a template. This is not something to let yourself get irritated by. Please keep an open mind and discuss in a calm and civil way. The confrontational approach is not helping much. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brother Jed. Jaque Hammer (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have warned User:Colonel Warden for the edit that you had identified as disruptive. Feel free to bring future issues with him directly to me. It is my hope that he will listen productively to criticism from a friendly ear and edit without such inappropriate removals in the future. Jclemens (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I would note that Colonel Warden immediately deleted your warning (and has deleted/archived two other recent ones), and appears to remain unrepentant. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hrafn,I've found several answers to my question Adamic Language and Nature. If I write a brief paragraph with linked sources, and contribute it to the article, would you be amenable to removing my question on the Talk page. My question was never really about the article (it was a fumbled attempt to have a dialogue apart from the article), but through this accommodation the article will be strengthened and my question, which incorporates no sourced information, and which provides little, if any, value can be withdrawn.

Would this be acceptable to you and within the spirit of Wikipedia?

Jayintheusa (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Jay, we generally don't remove stuff from talkpages unless they're badly offensive, wander off-topic at great length, or insist on repeatedly bringing back up stuff that has already been decided. Your questions weren't particularly bad for a first attempt, and my response (which I hope wasn't too curt) is the sort of thing you'll see on most talkpages: asking for citations for a claim, trying to determine what is and isn't relevant, and suggesting avenues of inquiry. I'd suggest leaving it where it is. However if it's really important to you, then I'll agree to a mutually-agreed redaction (we're allowed to alter, even remove, your own comments -- as long as we're not disruptive over it, so if we both agree, then the section can vanish). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hrafn, Thank you for your thoughtful response. I would really, really like to have my question withdrawn from the Talk page. I will also add some sourced content to article (by midnight CT today) so that any future discussion on this precise topic can refer to, and add to, the article itself. Thank you very much for your understanding.

Jayintheusa (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't really know how to properly effect a mutual redaction, so I have removed this Talk page section to the best of my abilities. Please adjust as you see fit.

Jayintheusa (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

You beat me to it. Many thanks.

Jayintheusa (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict)I've re-removed the section (mutual consent is all that's needed). As Adamic language is not a concept that seems to have any support in modern scholarship to speak of, I'd suggest that you keep in mind WP:WEIGHT & WP:FRINGE when writing any material for it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hrafn, I read WP:WEIGHT & WP:FRINGE, and in that light, don't think I should add to the article just yet. Rather than contribute the material that I have right now, I'd rather contribute more-relevant facts from more-notable sources.

Jayintheusa (talk) 06:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, a few days ago you reverted some of my edits. I then deleted fragments of BLP-articles, which were sourced by the persons websites, because of the WP:SELFPUB-rule. You disagreed with me, and reverted the deletions. Well, I believe you had a point in those cases. However, would you please have a look at the Adnan Oktar-article? It is heavily edited last week, and I'm afraid this article would not meet the SELFPUB-standards. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Will do. You might also want to post at WP:FTN -- as Oktar's views are decidedly fringe. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Took a look & ended up reporting it to WP:FTN myself -- ouch! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your work on it! Great job!Jeff5102 (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please refrain from vandalizing pages Glman99 ☲☳☶ (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please refrain from making fallacious personal attacks. And please read WP:VANDALISM, as you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about. You should probably also read WP:Verifiability, particularly the WP:BURDEN section. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I did not attack you, i misread who had edit it, i have read the vandalism article. Iam sorry for the mistake, Thanks, Glman99 ☲☳☶ (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

You have not commented on the proposed version "Alternatively, I could write..." Did you see it? ---Geoffry Thomas (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

For the avoidance of doubt, User:TreasuryTag is unwelcome on my talkpage due to repeated harassment compounding a borderline abuse of {{talkback}}. Any further comment from this user, will result in them being reported. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The discussion there might interest you. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hrafn, would you mind if I moved our discussion of this morning to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia, as it is more general than the talk page of a specific article warrants? --Crusio (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's fine. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

3RR, remember? You're right, but may still get blocked. I thought I'd reverted that. Dougweller (talk) 08:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm fairly sure I've reverted only three times in total (twice on the source, once on the tags). But your reminder is well-taken. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I went ahead and nominated this article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternate successions of the English crown. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I considered blocking you for 24 hours for your comments at Talk:True.Origin Archive, but changed my mind - it would be overkill and you're not a disruptive editor. In any case, it's really not appropriate to call other users dicks. To quote from the essay, "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is usually a dick-move — especially if it's true. It upsets the other person and it reduces the chance that they'll listen to what you say." Clam down, perhaps extend an olive branch - and focus on the problem, not on the other user. I'm willing to offer a helping hand, or find a mediator if you're having trouble finding a consensus. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Response:

1. You seem to have gotten the software more than a little confused -- it's telling me that I'm both blocked and unblocked. It's also telling me that I've got an autoblock on my IP.
2. As to the argument that got me blocked in the first place, it involved:
   1. Headbomb first removing a WP:SPEEDY A7 tag, for what I thought was a ridiculous reason (one that would basically make A7 redundant), and demanding an AfD instead.
   2. When I pointed out that it had already been AfDed and deleted and G4ed it, he again removed the tag, without giving a reason, and demanded a second AfD.
   3. When I nominated the article, as he had demanded, he requested that the AfD be put on hold for 18 hours.
   • By that stage, I was sick of being mucked about. I'd done as he'd asked, and gotten nothing but obstruction in return. I expressed my displease intemperately. (May I mention that if you consider citing WP:DIK to be blockable offence, then the logical thing to do would be to eliminate that redirect to WP:Don't be a dick.)
   • I think the best thing possible is for me simply to have as little as possible to do with him in the near future -- the AfD being already in motion.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, the autoblock should be lifted. Syrthiss (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

You recently reverted my edit where I removed the image of a watch. I don’t mind and I won’t revert it for now, however, I have had this argument with many people in the past over the images used in the creationism template and the evolution template. The pocket watch really does not represent the whole idea of intelligent design and it really isn’t appropriate. See: [2] discussion over the image on template:evolution3. It is more about that image, but the arguments used are still in principle, universal when decorating Wikipedia with icons and images. A. Z. Colvin • Talk 10:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

1. I would suspect that there are very few places where image X "really does ... represent the whole idea of" Y. Should we therefore convert Wikipedia into a text-only encyclopaedia?
2. If you don't want to keep on having this argument, then start a discussion at Talk:Intelligent design & get a WP:CONSENSUS. As long as you don't have such a consensus, I doubt if you'll get the removal to stick.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

How about your not an asshole. I dont really care, but the image does not relate to the topic as a whole. I won't bother to get consensus. A. Z. Colvin • Talk 03:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you are going to delete Edward II's illegitimate son, you should also amend the number of sons from 3 to 2 and the numbering of them on the list.RGCorris (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Done. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see that you have deleted my edit. I am part of the Colombo International School and am trying to put the proper facts in. I would appreciate if you do not delete information I am putting in. If you need to verify you can call me, I can give a phone number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulbright8 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please desist in adding material without including a citation to a WP:RS. Doing so violates Wikipedia's policy of WP:Verfiability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just as a side note, there has been a fair bit of reverting at Bernard_d'Abrera and I think both of you are close to 3RR so please take this as a warning and lets work it out with discussion thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Template:Z10

I have raised this with the blocking admin, noting that it seems strange to block someone after they have already complied with the warning. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'll obviously leave this to another admin now but I will note that reverts do not have to relate to the same subject matter material to constitute a 3RR breach or edit warring. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

(i) I have not claimed that different subjects do not contribute to 3RR, and explicitly counted the revert on another subject in my count. (ii) I would however assert that it does contribute (along with the time lapse) to whether an WP:EDITWAR is obvious, and thus to your no-warning/"especially as an experienced editor you should know better" comment. (iii) You continue to fail to address the fact that I (a) reported the conflict, (b) did not edit the article thereafter (for the four hours before the block) & (c) did not edit between the warning and the block. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Um, Hrafn, it strikes me that the final paragraph of your talk page header (re talkback notices) could be written in a gentler tone. Let's try and make WP a pleasant place to communicate; you can make your preferences clear without sounding quite so threatening. I'd guess it was added in response to 1 or 2 users, but remember most people coming here will read it, and it just doesn't set a great tone for communication with you. Rd232 ^talk 16:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Done. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Excellent, thanks. Rd232 ^talk 16:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

It was in fact added in response to, you guessed it, User:TreasuryTag. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've raised the principle at WP:RSN. It shouldn't be that hard to get a copy, but inter-library loan will take a few weeks. Dougweller (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionism (2nd nomination), since you contributed to the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

  An article that you have been involved in editing, Indemnity (Unification Church) , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Borock (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC) Borock (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just warned one editor about 3RR, my guess is you are there too, so I advise you to act as though you are at 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ummm -- isn't this just a tad late -- my last edit was four hours ago, and my last revert seven hours ago. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, but I've been busy, and I hadn't really counted yours, just didn't want to see you trip up if I ended up reporting the other one and they tried to get at you. I know I worry at times I'll lose track. Dougweller (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply