Welcome!
Hello, Mathezar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
RC-0722
361.0/
1
16:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Suggestions that the peer reviewers should have made before allowing this to be published. Especially since editing this post is not allowed.
1. Remove the TBN quote from Ben Stein. If this is about the movie Expelled, why not just focus on what was presented in the movie.
2. Remove all content that references ExpelledExposed.com. The NCSE is not an unbiased source of information. They are as much as a propoganda mill as the Discovery Institute is. The NCSE were successful, with the help of the ACLU, to get a science teacher fired for teaching intelligent design in the classroom http://ncseweb.org/rncse/19/3/new-tactic-getting-creation-science-into-classrooms. Expelled Exposed is a biased source that should not be relied on.
3. Remove the entire copyright controversies segment. It is now completely mute. Ono lost the suit and the producers removed the song from the DVD.
4. In reaction section quote a positive review (ie. Michael Medved http://images.michaelmedved.com/images/pdf/expelled.pdf) to offset the focus on negative reviews.
5. Guillermo Gonzales should include the quote from the film by the dean at Iowa State saying he didn't want his school associated with intelligent design.
6. Richard Sternberg should be heavily edited. Why reference outside sources to quote the movie?
7. Remove Nazi segment. It is completely biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathezar ( talk • contribs) 20:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
<undent> Mike Klein, please remember to sign your posts. Roger DeHart wasn't fired, he chose to resign when he was stopped from teaching what, in the overwhelming view of the scientific community and courts, is religiously motivated lies and nonsense. The NCSE rightly supported the constitutional right of children to learn science in science classes, not religious dogma. The level of intellectual dishonesty from creationists is unsurprising. . dave souza, talk 13:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
BTW I NEVER made the point that DeHart was fired, but an impassioned observer can say that the NCCE and ACLU's intent was to get him fired. This whole discussion is pointless. Rather than consider any of my comments you immediately launch into ad hominum attacks. "Lies and nonsense," what gives you the right to judge another's personal beliefs? Are the "lies and nonsense" of the NCSE acceptable because you happen to agree with them? Science poorly taught in not a guarenteed constitutional right. Why is the Miller Urey experiment still in biology texts if we are supposed to be teaching science in class. Why do text books include the metaphysical idea of naturalistic abiogenisis, when science has not even been able to approach the means of explained the disproven idea of spontaneous generation that is now being applied to the origin of life?
Apparently the editors of this post can lie better than me, because their lies are published. Mathezar ( talk) 15:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was changed by Mathezar (u) (t) making a minor change censoring content ( Wikipedia is not censored) on 2009-01-24T11:14:48+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot ( talk) 11:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
This was not censorship, this was reverting the quote from the original article to include the dashes the editors of the original article had the good sense to put into their publication and that the writer of this section omitted for so he could include an unverified curse word into the article about this movie. This section has since been removed by another editor, to my relief. Mathezar ( talk) 10:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, you will be blocked from editing. Repeated deletion of references Charles ( talk) 19:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Charles, I removed statements that are simply untrue. If you want the expelled post to look like a battle of the quotes, that is fine with me, but the part that I removed that alleged that the article was printed out side of the normal peer review process is quite simply a lie. And I can give you a reference for this information if you like. Until then I would kindly request that you restore my edit. Thanks, Mathezar
(after ec)
I was not implying that fellow editors are liars, just that they use sources that have lied. Mathezar ( talk) 08:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC) 08:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
As of yet no one has counted my reference that the BSW lied in there response to the Meyer article after the NCSE got involved and gave them the talking points which they then dutifully repeated to the media. The government report clearly shows that the president of the BSW agreed that the article was properly peer reviewed prior to publication. I think a couple of days is enough time for someone to rebut the facts as I've presented them. Next time check YOUR facts before you accuse someone of vandalism. Mathezar ( talk) 09:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Charles, So have you seen the discussion on the Expelled page. Dave Souza stepped up to the place in defending the erroneous passage and completely struck out. He claimed that the Wiki post questioned Sternberg's judgement (which it didn't) and then went on to imply that the McDiarmid quote was not reliable because the government report was never entered into the public record. But, failed to produce any information that the quote was not valid. I think I was right, and I think I need an apology for being accused of vandalism. Mathezar ( talk) 11:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
You are beating your head against a brick wall. Wiki is dedicated to presenting what mainstream science says. (Or mainstream anything, depending on the subject. This article deals with science.) "Present" means "gather and report." Therefore, all material cited in it must come from something already published by what is deemed a reliable source. No original research or synthesis is allowed. This assures that no crackpot will post a bunch of nonsense. Unfortunately, it also forbids the truth when the truth has not been published in a reliable source. When I finally learned the rules, I was better able to understand and use and contribute to Wiki. See this deleted comment of mine, yellow-backed text on left:
You may also be interested in the final portion of this page:
Best wishes, Yopienso ( talk) 14:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Yopienso, I have been told that if I can get a consensus from editors on the discussion page I can delete the passage. I think I may have a shot at this since I am not seeking to use the "offending" reference to add anything. But rather to remove the erroneous info that is currently there. I would appreciate it if you could agree with removing the passage on the discussion page. Since Dave seems to have backed down. Mathezar ( talk) 15:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
You're right, of course, in your facts, but I don't really want to be part of butting my way in to a closed community of mainstream or left-wing, whatever your take is, controlling editors. As I've said before, WP has its bias, and Conservapedia has its bias. (I strolled through Conservapedia the other day for the first time just to take a look.) I really wish some similar site were unbiased! I offer what I believe are solid, verifiable facts, but if they are not welcome I back off. A year ago I did not understand the unevenly applied rules, but I'm catching on. I did not understand some of the definitions unique to WP of words such as "original research" and "verifiability" and "reliable." One guiding principle of my life is to follow the rules wherever I am in a spirit of cooperation. When that becomes impossible or too distasteful, I withdraw.
One such rule is that you aren't allowed to go around and gather a group of like-minded people to support your ideas. Editors with left-leaning, or mainstream, as they call them, ideas, are allowed to. I find WP useful on many topics as a convenient, fairly reliable encyclopedia, and useful on other topics as a barometer of what the post-modern culture believes. Therefore, I do not care to jeopardize my privilege of fixing typos and adding the occasional pertinent bit of information. Above all, I do not want to give offense or personally reject or become bitter with editors because of their ideologies, even when their dogma causes them to deny the obvious or refuse to allow others to publish what they must surely, if reluctantly, recognize as fact. It also helps to remember that I can be wrong!
Heaven knows I've given unwitting offense on what I consider minutia--on user etiquette and so forth. One editor reprimanded me for abbreviating "Wikipedia" to "Wiki"! "WP," however, is perfectly acceptable.
So here's a helpful hint for you: when writing on someone's talk page, editors generally post new information at the bottom of the page. It's easy to find there and keeps the page chronological. :) God bless, Yopienso ( talk) 06:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Happily, the link to the BSW is working again. The font is different, but it's the same statement: http://web.archive.org/web/20070926214521/http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html Yopienso ( talk) 12:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Jeff G. ツ 18:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Sternberg. Wolfview ( talk) 11:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Of Pandas and People. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Robynthehode ( talk) 07:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Of Pandas and People shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilN talk to me 17:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Please read Talk:Of_Pandas_and_People#Recent_edits_reverted and open a new discussion if you wish to make new points. -- NeilN talk to me 17:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 12:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Jytdog ( talk) 18:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
When the subject of an article asks you to edit the article, you have a conflict of interest with the subject and need to follow the guidelines that apply to editing with a COI. — C.Fred ( talk) 02:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Mathezar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
RC-0722
361.0/
1
16:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Suggestions that the peer reviewers should have made before allowing this to be published. Especially since editing this post is not allowed.
1. Remove the TBN quote from Ben Stein. If this is about the movie Expelled, why not just focus on what was presented in the movie.
2. Remove all content that references ExpelledExposed.com. The NCSE is not an unbiased source of information. They are as much as a propoganda mill as the Discovery Institute is. The NCSE were successful, with the help of the ACLU, to get a science teacher fired for teaching intelligent design in the classroom http://ncseweb.org/rncse/19/3/new-tactic-getting-creation-science-into-classrooms. Expelled Exposed is a biased source that should not be relied on.
3. Remove the entire copyright controversies segment. It is now completely mute. Ono lost the suit and the producers removed the song from the DVD.
4. In reaction section quote a positive review (ie. Michael Medved http://images.michaelmedved.com/images/pdf/expelled.pdf) to offset the focus on negative reviews.
5. Guillermo Gonzales should include the quote from the film by the dean at Iowa State saying he didn't want his school associated with intelligent design.
6. Richard Sternberg should be heavily edited. Why reference outside sources to quote the movie?
7. Remove Nazi segment. It is completely biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathezar ( talk • contribs) 20:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
<undent> Mike Klein, please remember to sign your posts. Roger DeHart wasn't fired, he chose to resign when he was stopped from teaching what, in the overwhelming view of the scientific community and courts, is religiously motivated lies and nonsense. The NCSE rightly supported the constitutional right of children to learn science in science classes, not religious dogma. The level of intellectual dishonesty from creationists is unsurprising. . dave souza, talk 13:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
BTW I NEVER made the point that DeHart was fired, but an impassioned observer can say that the NCCE and ACLU's intent was to get him fired. This whole discussion is pointless. Rather than consider any of my comments you immediately launch into ad hominum attacks. "Lies and nonsense," what gives you the right to judge another's personal beliefs? Are the "lies and nonsense" of the NCSE acceptable because you happen to agree with them? Science poorly taught in not a guarenteed constitutional right. Why is the Miller Urey experiment still in biology texts if we are supposed to be teaching science in class. Why do text books include the metaphysical idea of naturalistic abiogenisis, when science has not even been able to approach the means of explained the disproven idea of spontaneous generation that is now being applied to the origin of life?
Apparently the editors of this post can lie better than me, because their lies are published. Mathezar ( talk) 15:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was changed by Mathezar (u) (t) making a minor change censoring content ( Wikipedia is not censored) on 2009-01-24T11:14:48+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot ( talk) 11:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
This was not censorship, this was reverting the quote from the original article to include the dashes the editors of the original article had the good sense to put into their publication and that the writer of this section omitted for so he could include an unverified curse word into the article about this movie. This section has since been removed by another editor, to my relief. Mathezar ( talk) 10:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, you will be blocked from editing. Repeated deletion of references Charles ( talk) 19:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Charles, I removed statements that are simply untrue. If you want the expelled post to look like a battle of the quotes, that is fine with me, but the part that I removed that alleged that the article was printed out side of the normal peer review process is quite simply a lie. And I can give you a reference for this information if you like. Until then I would kindly request that you restore my edit. Thanks, Mathezar
(after ec)
I was not implying that fellow editors are liars, just that they use sources that have lied. Mathezar ( talk) 08:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC) 08:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
As of yet no one has counted my reference that the BSW lied in there response to the Meyer article after the NCSE got involved and gave them the talking points which they then dutifully repeated to the media. The government report clearly shows that the president of the BSW agreed that the article was properly peer reviewed prior to publication. I think a couple of days is enough time for someone to rebut the facts as I've presented them. Next time check YOUR facts before you accuse someone of vandalism. Mathezar ( talk) 09:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Charles, So have you seen the discussion on the Expelled page. Dave Souza stepped up to the place in defending the erroneous passage and completely struck out. He claimed that the Wiki post questioned Sternberg's judgement (which it didn't) and then went on to imply that the McDiarmid quote was not reliable because the government report was never entered into the public record. But, failed to produce any information that the quote was not valid. I think I was right, and I think I need an apology for being accused of vandalism. Mathezar ( talk) 11:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
You are beating your head against a brick wall. Wiki is dedicated to presenting what mainstream science says. (Or mainstream anything, depending on the subject. This article deals with science.) "Present" means "gather and report." Therefore, all material cited in it must come from something already published by what is deemed a reliable source. No original research or synthesis is allowed. This assures that no crackpot will post a bunch of nonsense. Unfortunately, it also forbids the truth when the truth has not been published in a reliable source. When I finally learned the rules, I was better able to understand and use and contribute to Wiki. See this deleted comment of mine, yellow-backed text on left:
You may also be interested in the final portion of this page:
Best wishes, Yopienso ( talk) 14:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Yopienso, I have been told that if I can get a consensus from editors on the discussion page I can delete the passage. I think I may have a shot at this since I am not seeking to use the "offending" reference to add anything. But rather to remove the erroneous info that is currently there. I would appreciate it if you could agree with removing the passage on the discussion page. Since Dave seems to have backed down. Mathezar ( talk) 15:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
You're right, of course, in your facts, but I don't really want to be part of butting my way in to a closed community of mainstream or left-wing, whatever your take is, controlling editors. As I've said before, WP has its bias, and Conservapedia has its bias. (I strolled through Conservapedia the other day for the first time just to take a look.) I really wish some similar site were unbiased! I offer what I believe are solid, verifiable facts, but if they are not welcome I back off. A year ago I did not understand the unevenly applied rules, but I'm catching on. I did not understand some of the definitions unique to WP of words such as "original research" and "verifiability" and "reliable." One guiding principle of my life is to follow the rules wherever I am in a spirit of cooperation. When that becomes impossible or too distasteful, I withdraw.
One such rule is that you aren't allowed to go around and gather a group of like-minded people to support your ideas. Editors with left-leaning, or mainstream, as they call them, ideas, are allowed to. I find WP useful on many topics as a convenient, fairly reliable encyclopedia, and useful on other topics as a barometer of what the post-modern culture believes. Therefore, I do not care to jeopardize my privilege of fixing typos and adding the occasional pertinent bit of information. Above all, I do not want to give offense or personally reject or become bitter with editors because of their ideologies, even when their dogma causes them to deny the obvious or refuse to allow others to publish what they must surely, if reluctantly, recognize as fact. It also helps to remember that I can be wrong!
Heaven knows I've given unwitting offense on what I consider minutia--on user etiquette and so forth. One editor reprimanded me for abbreviating "Wikipedia" to "Wiki"! "WP," however, is perfectly acceptable.
So here's a helpful hint for you: when writing on someone's talk page, editors generally post new information at the bottom of the page. It's easy to find there and keeps the page chronological. :) God bless, Yopienso ( talk) 06:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Happily, the link to the BSW is working again. The font is different, but it's the same statement: http://web.archive.org/web/20070926214521/http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html Yopienso ( talk) 12:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Jeff G. ツ 18:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Sternberg. Wolfview ( talk) 11:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Of Pandas and People. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Robynthehode ( talk) 07:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Of Pandas and People shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilN talk to me 17:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Please read Talk:Of_Pandas_and_People#Recent_edits_reverted and open a new discussion if you wish to make new points. -- NeilN talk to me 17:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 12:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Jytdog ( talk) 18:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
When the subject of an article asks you to edit the article, you have a conflict of interest with the subject and need to follow the guidelines that apply to editing with a COI. — C.Fred ( talk) 02:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)