Hi! Welcome to my talk page,
(Continued from 2005Archive#Vicki Walker)
Kind of, but I was wondering if it is possible to push the text up in to the blank area. Do you know what I mean? If not, that's ok. I just thought it would possibly look better if that could be done. Maybe it's that I'm just too picky. Davidpdx 08:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Susan, thanks for your reply and I added a link to your site on my website, and I submitted my url under the Cross-dressing category on your site. Thanks for the suggestion! -- Athena2006 18:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
What's going on with the FISA article? Incidently, could you sign your comments with ~~~~? Makes it hard to read the flow of discussions. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks and good night! Killdevil 05:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I know, I did that once too (and an anon reverted me!) which is why I made sure to say "or error". :) CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Susan,
Sorry if you saw this article as advertising.
-- Flacinhell 01:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by retroactive editing. Could you explain? Perhaps we can move it to a relevant WikiProject so the list is still available, but not in the main namespace? - Mgm| (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Could you be persuaded to reconsider your post at the poll? This particular list has unique educational and research value. Approximately 2500 children are diagnosed with brain tumors each year in the United States alone. This presents thousands of families and schools with the challenges of answering questions. The patients want to feel as normal as possible. Other children may wonder if cancer is contagious or be frightened of the side effects, which often include hair loss and seizures. [1] [2] Relatively few resources put a human face on this illness. Nothing on the Internet covers this particular aspect of the subject nearly as well as this presentation. It offers a starting point for parents and teachers to develop innovative educational techniques. Grade school age children may be interested in the early Osmond Brothers recordings or Elizabeth Taylor's juvenile starring role in National Velvet. High school and college students could write papers about Lance Armstrong or Senator Arlen Specter. I hope our disagreement over List of Japanese artists doesn't color your view of this other subject. Respectfully, Durova 00:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
(* Note: responded on users talk page)
Most of the time when i post someting, it puts it in a yellowish box with a blue outline. Also then when I go to my contributions, it says "(top)" by it. Why? - Abhorsen123 15:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Worry do not about sockpuppets on afd, :) they are usually discounted. By the way, the proper way to add a signature to an unsigned comment is {{unsigned|username|date of post}} as shown in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronicles of friendship. I'll be away for rest of weekend, but if you need assistance, drop me a note -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, "Susan." I saw your vote on the NAMBLA discussion page, and couldn't help but be concerned that many of the reasons you have cited for casting your vote have already been discussed and refuted on the talk page. This leads me to believe that you voted on the subject without really knowing what NAMBLA is, what its history is, and without reading any of the discussion on the talk page.
NAMBLA does not "espouse illegal practices" or advocate that anybody break the law. This is made very clear at the NAMBLA home page. NAMBLA is a political and education organization that seeks to inform members of society about a different perspective on relationships between adult and adolescent males (which is NOT pedophilia, since pedophilia is a sexual attraction toward PREPUBESCENT children), and seeks to end the criminalization of those relationships.
NAMBLA has been "rejected" by ILGA, but not after being a member for over ten years, during which time ILGA's own position statement coincided with NAMBLA's platform on revision of age-of-consent laws (see the section on ILGA in the nambla article). The fact that most gays now hate NAMBLA because right-wingers have used it to paint all gays as child molesters does not have any bearing on whether NAMBLA is classified as a gay or "LGBT" group for encyclopedic purposes -- a classification, I might add, which has already been given to NAMBLA by an online queer encyclopedia called GLBTQ. And quite rightfully so, since many other gay rights gruops in the 1970s and early 1980s supported NAMBLA's platform (again, see the article's subsection entitled "ostracism"). Regards, Corax 16:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I apologize -- you're right. I didn't think to check your own talk page. This whole cross-user talk business seems a little counter-intuitive to me, but I should remember how it works. Sorry. Clayboy 20:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Susan,
I sense you got a bit upset on Talk:Dinosaur. I don't mind you archiving that discussion (it seemed to have degenerated anyway), but in general you should avoid archiving current, ongoing discussions (see WP:ARCHIVE). I don't know why you've assumed that people on that page (and yes, it's clear you included me in your comments) were there to push a POV, but I'm saddened that you've simply decided that I'm a deceitful POV-pusher out to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. I'm not! Wikipedia:Assume good faith is good advice. I would hope that you can remember that Wikipedians can argue in favour of including a POV without holding to that POV themselves, and that reasonable people can disagree about the best method of achieving NPOV.
With regard to your self-appointed "arbitration" of the page, I would again encourage you to avoid such an approach in the future — it isn't very wiki, it's inaccurate (you can't self-appoint as an arbiter), and it's very aggressive; people are likely to be irritated and "push back". It's good that you wanted to help mediate a dispute; a better approach would be to have said something like, "Hi, I'm a newcomer to this debate, and having read the arguments it would seem that the biggest bone of contention is X; perhaps we could compromise by doing Y" etc. The job of a mediator is to help facilitate reaching consensus, not settle it themselves. — Matt Crypto 08:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't buy the disinterested party line from either of you. No one pushes an extreme minority point of view on an article unless they have a personal interest in the subject.
What you were pushing was highly POV. It was about the views of a specific sect of Christianity not religion in general, it claimed the beliefs were highly popular, and it claimed 50% of Americans believe part or all of the YEC beliefs which was not backed up by the citation provided as justification which did not specifically mention either YEC or dinosaurs. The article instead ended up with a very NPOV statement of religious disagreement.
You claim one thing I firmly believe another. I don't see either of you convincing me otherwise. This is the last contact I want from either of you on this matter. Future contacts on this matter will be construed as harassment. So let’s let this end gracefully. -- SusanLarson ( User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 17:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
This is solely in response to what these two users placed after on their talk page in response to my Cease and desist contact request. If they had let the matter end gracefully I would have dropped the matter. Here is the full story.
I came to the article in question via the Special:Random feature. I go to random articles and edit them for clarity and word flow. At this article I found a dispute which had been ongoing for several months where the above two users and one or two others were trying to push the following text into an article about dinosaurs.
Advocates of young Earth creationism, a popular position in the United States, have views on dinosaurs which differ from mainstream science. Based on Biblical accounts and the belief that the Earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old, creationists argue that the scientific dating of dinosaur fossils must flawed, that the fossils date from the Great Flood of Noah, and that humans and dinosaurs must have at one time coexisted. Some contend that dinosaurs were present on board Noah's Ark, but became extinct after the Flood [10]. Virtually no life scientists support these views on dinosaurs [11].
The paragraph in question is clearly highly POV and in clear violation of NPOV requirements. Matt Crypto as an Administrator should know better. Jfg284 can be excused since he just started wiki'ing October 29th 2005. If they had attempted to add a neutral paragraph about religious disagreement I seriously doubt that the regular editors of the article nor myself as a non-interested neutral party at the time would have had any objection over it (I had never seen the article before that point and had no opinion on the matter). Instead they attempt to use the dinosaur article as a soapbox for these views, hyping these views instead of presenting them in a more general and neutral manner.
I read the entire discussion including the claims by Matt Crypto that he was pushing this tripe into the article in the interest in NPOV and that he had no personal interest in the matter except NPOV. I call as I see it and it is bullshit. If that was the case this text would not have had the clear POV that the above text did. Here are the steps I took that day and the ones that followed. It may not be how things are generally done but stopped the arguments and reached a consensus.
Various religions may have other views on prehistoric life which differ from scientifically accepted fact. These beliefs can not be proved using scientific methods and thus believers accept them on the basis of personal faith. See the following articles for specific examples:
It ended up after Edits by Myself, Matt Crypto, Vsmith, and Killdevil as:
Various religious groups have views about dinosaurs that differ from those that are generally accepted as fact by scientists. While many mainstream scientists respect these views as faith positions, they argue that religiously-inspired interpretations of dinosaurs do not withstand serious scientific scrutiny. See the following articles for specific examples and further context:
In conclusion, it is neutral, meets NPOV requirements, and represents the views of all religions with differing points of view not just the YEC'ers unlike the text Matt Crypto was trying to push into the article. I have no problems nor embarrassment about my actions in this case as suggested by Matt Crypto and JFG284. In fact below is the entire text from the point I jumped into the fray. If anyone should be embarrassed it is Matt Crypto who as an administrator should have acted in a more neutral manner which would have eliminated the need for me to intervene in the first place.
Once again if they had been content to let the matter drop I would not have had to ensure that this complete and accurate version of the story got out. -- SusanLarson ( User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 01:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
There are competing theories even about creationism try researching the Gap theory which has no conflict with the existence of dinosaurs. Until you have scientific proof which one is right science, Gap theory, or yours, and since this debate has been raging over a month, I am removing this material.
You may not like this decision however, one has to be made. Since you are free to fork articles and since this article deals with primarily with the science of dinosaurs. This is how it needs to be.
I come to this as a neutral party who came here solely to clarify a article not one with a vested interest either way. I am a Christian and I am a believer. I believe that god in his or her wisdom had enough foresight to make science, the bible, and religion able to peacefully co-exist. This is not a statement against your beliefs only a statement of what is proper for this article.
I have added 3 religious links to the See also section and specifically said for a religious view point see....
You are of course free to add the removed material it to the creationism article or start a divergent dinosaur article. However be aware that re-addition of this material to this article may be considered vandalism. SusanLarson ( User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 06:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that removing that paragraph makes this article quite biased. Your use of the word "vandalism" is inappropriate above, but, certainly, removing any reference to young-Earth creationist views on dinosaurs is, in my view, POV pushing. I am not a young-Earth creationist, but I expect Wikipedia to provide me with information on notable human views on topics, no matter wacky or unscientific they might be.
It is unacceptable to decide that religious views about dinosaurs, views which likely have millions of adherents, should not be described in any way on this page. Note that we have plenty of space to describe dinosaurs in comic books, dinosaurs in computer and console games (including naming specific computer games as examples), dinosaurs in film and TV etc.
For reference, this is the paragraph that was removed. It was originally placed at the end of the article, in the "Dinosaurs in popular culture" section. It could in no way be construed as promoting or presenting creationist views as science.
— Matt Crypto 13:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it might be cleaner and more straightforward to create a separate article for this information. I linked to an as-yet non-existent article -- "Religious perspectives on dinosaurs". There'd be enough room in this proposed article to discuss the views of young earth creationists, old-earth creationists, and other groups as well, and it could be linked from the pop-culture section in some fashion. Killdevil 13:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
As an intersted bystander I completely agree with Susans decision to remove the YEC text from this article.-- nixie 23:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
As an interested bystander I completely disagree with Susans decision to remove the YEC text from this article. This is not a science textbook. RossNixon 00:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Since you have declined to present a NPOV text on religion in general where it relates to dinosaurs I have added one. It is neutral and represents the religious point of view without representing any one group or sect. This paragraph should not be expanded or significantly edited without first discussing it here. I will keep an eye on the article it now lives in my watch list. I review every edit to it. If I feel someone is attempting to insert bias or a specific groups views I will remove it.
The official NPOV policy deals with this section nicely. It seems applicable to this situation.
This is my resolution of the religious matter in relation to this article. Once again I will defend this decision as needed. I hope it won't be necessary. -- SusanLarson ( User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 19:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
It works that way in this instance because you have been unwilling to compromise at all. Religous issues are mentioned in the article.
It's NPOV, it covers the issue, and it gives a nod to the religious disagreement on the subject this fullfilling the requirements of npov. The prior text was not NPOV as it stated the view was popular, it stated a specific view held by a subsect of a single religion. This covers it from all angles. If you still have issues I invite you to request a formal arbitration on the matter. -- SusanLarson ( User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 22:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you are right. I came here to do cleanup on a random article and instead got drawn into a childish and pointless argument about a matter instigated by 2 or 3 people who came here with the specific intention for forcing their POV on this article under the guise of making the article more NPOV. The Wikipedia could benefit without those type of individuals, they should think seriously about that. It is clear that some people here believe that the Wikipedia is a soapbox for their beliefs, publicly stated or not. Oh well in the end "true" NPOV was satisfied, not the pretend kind that they came here to spread. That is all that matters. -- SusanLarson ( User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 02:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I did not name any names. That was intentional. If you apply that to yourself that is not my fault. As for assuming good faith that got worn away during the course of this farce. The people involved know it, I know it, and anyone else reading this talk know certain people did not come here to push NPOV they came here to push a specific pov. Nothing personal just the facts. Oh wait facts is a bad word so I guess I better use theory. -- SusanLarson ( User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 22:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC) (at this point they started the Dinosaur section here on my talk page so I ask them to stop contacting me regarding this.)
Hi, I got the Dinosaur article to the main page, & as a result, watch who edits it closely. Seeing you have a keen interest in dinosaurs, due to your extensive edits to the dinosaur article, I'd like to suggest that you join Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs, as we have few members & even fewer specialists. We'd love for you to join. If you decide to do so, enter your name on our participants list & slap one of those dinosaur user boxes on your user page. Thanks, Spawn Man 07:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, as you may have noticed, I posted the message above. I have one thing to say to you: You have guts! Not many people would be able to write their whole life story & about how they're a trans sexual & post that they're a Christian on the same page. Because, lets face it, Christians aren't really all that nice. They often think they're above everyone. Being a fellow Christian, I often feel ashamed by my religion, as they often exclude people in situations like yours. Basically, if they don't understand it, disown it! I tend to embrace everyone no matter what they're like. I scrolled down your user page & noticed something about being in the navy. I read the whole section & scrolled to the top of the page. I read your whole biography! It was quite amasing to read the ups & downs of somebody's whole life! I really enjoyed the whole thing, even though it took me quite a while to get through it all. Although I'm not trans sexual, & don't intend to be, I feel with your story. I too was a "loner" & a "geek" at school & was bullied & angry. I would love if we could share a few conversations. Hopefully you haven't left Wikipedia after your last discussions, as I've noticed you haven't edited since January. May I ask a few questions about your autobiography? Why did the guy who eventually got you fired from the navy want to get you fired in the first place? What did you do that finally got you fired? Why did the old man set you up with someone & how did you feel? I don't want to sound ignorant, but I don't know if once you become a transexual, do you still like women or do you like men? Thanks, Spawn Man 07:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC). P.S., yes, shaving does make facial hair grow more rapidly, as I found out too when I was younger.... :)
I'm trying to build support for this nomination in iuts last few days. Please check out this page. Pass it along. Nudge nudge. -- evrik 20:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Just for your information, I wanted to let you know that I've nominated this article for deletion due to a number of issues, which are outlined on the discussion page and the deletion page. As an anglophone who lives in France, this is clearly a case of "autopromotion" and this fellow's name and his school keeps popping up in all sorts of odd places on the French version of Wikipédia. If you read French, please have a look at the article's "PàS" entry [6]for more information. Musikfabrik 15:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that you voted to keep Eric Van when it went up for AFD in January. Someone put it up for deletion again; if you're still interested in the subject, please take a look. Thanks. Stilgar135 17:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi everybody, we are importer and distributor of wild pacific salmon from Canada. It has a kosher certification, but also pareve.
Now is our question: what is pareve?
Can somebody help out and mail us at: scalibre@gmail.com
Many thanks, Judith and Max —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.41.194.93 ( talk) 10:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{ inactive}} and/or {{ historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 16:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Susan :) I know it's been quite sometime since you've edited. I do hope you'll see this cup of tea! I just wanted you to know that your contributions are valuable to making Wikipedia what it is, and I do hope you'll participate with a new edit or article. Thank you for your contributions - past and future! SarahStierch ( talk) 20:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC) |
WikiWomen Unite! | |
---|---|
Hi SusanLarson! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative. As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by:
We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our
meta page (under construction) to see how else you can get involved! |
WikiWomen - We need you! | |
---|---|
Hi SusanLarson! The WikiWomen's Collaborative is a group of women from around the world who edit Wikipedia, contribute to its
sister projects, and support the mission of free knowledge. We recently updated our website, created new volunteer positions, and more! Get involved by:
Thanks for editing Wikipedia, and we look forward to you being a part of the Collaborative! -- EdwardsBot ( talk) 01:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC) |
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{ User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.
Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Your help is needed. Will you help steer the direction of this article that you have contributed to? See discussion at Talk:System_testing#What_is_the_intended_scope_of_this_article? Stephen Charles Thompson ( talk) 22:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi! Welcome to my talk page,
(Continued from 2005Archive#Vicki Walker)
Kind of, but I was wondering if it is possible to push the text up in to the blank area. Do you know what I mean? If not, that's ok. I just thought it would possibly look better if that could be done. Maybe it's that I'm just too picky. Davidpdx 08:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Susan, thanks for your reply and I added a link to your site on my website, and I submitted my url under the Cross-dressing category on your site. Thanks for the suggestion! -- Athena2006 18:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
What's going on with the FISA article? Incidently, could you sign your comments with ~~~~? Makes it hard to read the flow of discussions. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks and good night! Killdevil 05:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I know, I did that once too (and an anon reverted me!) which is why I made sure to say "or error". :) CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Susan,
Sorry if you saw this article as advertising.
-- Flacinhell 01:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by retroactive editing. Could you explain? Perhaps we can move it to a relevant WikiProject so the list is still available, but not in the main namespace? - Mgm| (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Could you be persuaded to reconsider your post at the poll? This particular list has unique educational and research value. Approximately 2500 children are diagnosed with brain tumors each year in the United States alone. This presents thousands of families and schools with the challenges of answering questions. The patients want to feel as normal as possible. Other children may wonder if cancer is contagious or be frightened of the side effects, which often include hair loss and seizures. [1] [2] Relatively few resources put a human face on this illness. Nothing on the Internet covers this particular aspect of the subject nearly as well as this presentation. It offers a starting point for parents and teachers to develop innovative educational techniques. Grade school age children may be interested in the early Osmond Brothers recordings or Elizabeth Taylor's juvenile starring role in National Velvet. High school and college students could write papers about Lance Armstrong or Senator Arlen Specter. I hope our disagreement over List of Japanese artists doesn't color your view of this other subject. Respectfully, Durova 00:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
(* Note: responded on users talk page)
Most of the time when i post someting, it puts it in a yellowish box with a blue outline. Also then when I go to my contributions, it says "(top)" by it. Why? - Abhorsen123 15:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Worry do not about sockpuppets on afd, :) they are usually discounted. By the way, the proper way to add a signature to an unsigned comment is {{unsigned|username|date of post}} as shown in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronicles of friendship. I'll be away for rest of weekend, but if you need assistance, drop me a note -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, "Susan." I saw your vote on the NAMBLA discussion page, and couldn't help but be concerned that many of the reasons you have cited for casting your vote have already been discussed and refuted on the talk page. This leads me to believe that you voted on the subject without really knowing what NAMBLA is, what its history is, and without reading any of the discussion on the talk page.
NAMBLA does not "espouse illegal practices" or advocate that anybody break the law. This is made very clear at the NAMBLA home page. NAMBLA is a political and education organization that seeks to inform members of society about a different perspective on relationships between adult and adolescent males (which is NOT pedophilia, since pedophilia is a sexual attraction toward PREPUBESCENT children), and seeks to end the criminalization of those relationships.
NAMBLA has been "rejected" by ILGA, but not after being a member for over ten years, during which time ILGA's own position statement coincided with NAMBLA's platform on revision of age-of-consent laws (see the section on ILGA in the nambla article). The fact that most gays now hate NAMBLA because right-wingers have used it to paint all gays as child molesters does not have any bearing on whether NAMBLA is classified as a gay or "LGBT" group for encyclopedic purposes -- a classification, I might add, which has already been given to NAMBLA by an online queer encyclopedia called GLBTQ. And quite rightfully so, since many other gay rights gruops in the 1970s and early 1980s supported NAMBLA's platform (again, see the article's subsection entitled "ostracism"). Regards, Corax 16:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I apologize -- you're right. I didn't think to check your own talk page. This whole cross-user talk business seems a little counter-intuitive to me, but I should remember how it works. Sorry. Clayboy 20:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Susan,
I sense you got a bit upset on Talk:Dinosaur. I don't mind you archiving that discussion (it seemed to have degenerated anyway), but in general you should avoid archiving current, ongoing discussions (see WP:ARCHIVE). I don't know why you've assumed that people on that page (and yes, it's clear you included me in your comments) were there to push a POV, but I'm saddened that you've simply decided that I'm a deceitful POV-pusher out to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. I'm not! Wikipedia:Assume good faith is good advice. I would hope that you can remember that Wikipedians can argue in favour of including a POV without holding to that POV themselves, and that reasonable people can disagree about the best method of achieving NPOV.
With regard to your self-appointed "arbitration" of the page, I would again encourage you to avoid such an approach in the future — it isn't very wiki, it's inaccurate (you can't self-appoint as an arbiter), and it's very aggressive; people are likely to be irritated and "push back". It's good that you wanted to help mediate a dispute; a better approach would be to have said something like, "Hi, I'm a newcomer to this debate, and having read the arguments it would seem that the biggest bone of contention is X; perhaps we could compromise by doing Y" etc. The job of a mediator is to help facilitate reaching consensus, not settle it themselves. — Matt Crypto 08:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't buy the disinterested party line from either of you. No one pushes an extreme minority point of view on an article unless they have a personal interest in the subject.
What you were pushing was highly POV. It was about the views of a specific sect of Christianity not religion in general, it claimed the beliefs were highly popular, and it claimed 50% of Americans believe part or all of the YEC beliefs which was not backed up by the citation provided as justification which did not specifically mention either YEC or dinosaurs. The article instead ended up with a very NPOV statement of religious disagreement.
You claim one thing I firmly believe another. I don't see either of you convincing me otherwise. This is the last contact I want from either of you on this matter. Future contacts on this matter will be construed as harassment. So let’s let this end gracefully. -- SusanLarson ( User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 17:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
This is solely in response to what these two users placed after on their talk page in response to my Cease and desist contact request. If they had let the matter end gracefully I would have dropped the matter. Here is the full story.
I came to the article in question via the Special:Random feature. I go to random articles and edit them for clarity and word flow. At this article I found a dispute which had been ongoing for several months where the above two users and one or two others were trying to push the following text into an article about dinosaurs.
Advocates of young Earth creationism, a popular position in the United States, have views on dinosaurs which differ from mainstream science. Based on Biblical accounts and the belief that the Earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old, creationists argue that the scientific dating of dinosaur fossils must flawed, that the fossils date from the Great Flood of Noah, and that humans and dinosaurs must have at one time coexisted. Some contend that dinosaurs were present on board Noah's Ark, but became extinct after the Flood [10]. Virtually no life scientists support these views on dinosaurs [11].
The paragraph in question is clearly highly POV and in clear violation of NPOV requirements. Matt Crypto as an Administrator should know better. Jfg284 can be excused since he just started wiki'ing October 29th 2005. If they had attempted to add a neutral paragraph about religious disagreement I seriously doubt that the regular editors of the article nor myself as a non-interested neutral party at the time would have had any objection over it (I had never seen the article before that point and had no opinion on the matter). Instead they attempt to use the dinosaur article as a soapbox for these views, hyping these views instead of presenting them in a more general and neutral manner.
I read the entire discussion including the claims by Matt Crypto that he was pushing this tripe into the article in the interest in NPOV and that he had no personal interest in the matter except NPOV. I call as I see it and it is bullshit. If that was the case this text would not have had the clear POV that the above text did. Here are the steps I took that day and the ones that followed. It may not be how things are generally done but stopped the arguments and reached a consensus.
Various religions may have other views on prehistoric life which differ from scientifically accepted fact. These beliefs can not be proved using scientific methods and thus believers accept them on the basis of personal faith. See the following articles for specific examples:
It ended up after Edits by Myself, Matt Crypto, Vsmith, and Killdevil as:
Various religious groups have views about dinosaurs that differ from those that are generally accepted as fact by scientists. While many mainstream scientists respect these views as faith positions, they argue that religiously-inspired interpretations of dinosaurs do not withstand serious scientific scrutiny. See the following articles for specific examples and further context:
In conclusion, it is neutral, meets NPOV requirements, and represents the views of all religions with differing points of view not just the YEC'ers unlike the text Matt Crypto was trying to push into the article. I have no problems nor embarrassment about my actions in this case as suggested by Matt Crypto and JFG284. In fact below is the entire text from the point I jumped into the fray. If anyone should be embarrassed it is Matt Crypto who as an administrator should have acted in a more neutral manner which would have eliminated the need for me to intervene in the first place.
Once again if they had been content to let the matter drop I would not have had to ensure that this complete and accurate version of the story got out. -- SusanLarson ( User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 01:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
There are competing theories even about creationism try researching the Gap theory which has no conflict with the existence of dinosaurs. Until you have scientific proof which one is right science, Gap theory, or yours, and since this debate has been raging over a month, I am removing this material.
You may not like this decision however, one has to be made. Since you are free to fork articles and since this article deals with primarily with the science of dinosaurs. This is how it needs to be.
I come to this as a neutral party who came here solely to clarify a article not one with a vested interest either way. I am a Christian and I am a believer. I believe that god in his or her wisdom had enough foresight to make science, the bible, and religion able to peacefully co-exist. This is not a statement against your beliefs only a statement of what is proper for this article.
I have added 3 religious links to the See also section and specifically said for a religious view point see....
You are of course free to add the removed material it to the creationism article or start a divergent dinosaur article. However be aware that re-addition of this material to this article may be considered vandalism. SusanLarson ( User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 06:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that removing that paragraph makes this article quite biased. Your use of the word "vandalism" is inappropriate above, but, certainly, removing any reference to young-Earth creationist views on dinosaurs is, in my view, POV pushing. I am not a young-Earth creationist, but I expect Wikipedia to provide me with information on notable human views on topics, no matter wacky or unscientific they might be.
It is unacceptable to decide that religious views about dinosaurs, views which likely have millions of adherents, should not be described in any way on this page. Note that we have plenty of space to describe dinosaurs in comic books, dinosaurs in computer and console games (including naming specific computer games as examples), dinosaurs in film and TV etc.
For reference, this is the paragraph that was removed. It was originally placed at the end of the article, in the "Dinosaurs in popular culture" section. It could in no way be construed as promoting or presenting creationist views as science.
— Matt Crypto 13:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it might be cleaner and more straightforward to create a separate article for this information. I linked to an as-yet non-existent article -- "Religious perspectives on dinosaurs". There'd be enough room in this proposed article to discuss the views of young earth creationists, old-earth creationists, and other groups as well, and it could be linked from the pop-culture section in some fashion. Killdevil 13:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
As an intersted bystander I completely agree with Susans decision to remove the YEC text from this article.-- nixie 23:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
As an interested bystander I completely disagree with Susans decision to remove the YEC text from this article. This is not a science textbook. RossNixon 00:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Since you have declined to present a NPOV text on religion in general where it relates to dinosaurs I have added one. It is neutral and represents the religious point of view without representing any one group or sect. This paragraph should not be expanded or significantly edited without first discussing it here. I will keep an eye on the article it now lives in my watch list. I review every edit to it. If I feel someone is attempting to insert bias or a specific groups views I will remove it.
The official NPOV policy deals with this section nicely. It seems applicable to this situation.
This is my resolution of the religious matter in relation to this article. Once again I will defend this decision as needed. I hope it won't be necessary. -- SusanLarson ( User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 19:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
It works that way in this instance because you have been unwilling to compromise at all. Religous issues are mentioned in the article.
It's NPOV, it covers the issue, and it gives a nod to the religious disagreement on the subject this fullfilling the requirements of npov. The prior text was not NPOV as it stated the view was popular, it stated a specific view held by a subsect of a single religion. This covers it from all angles. If you still have issues I invite you to request a formal arbitration on the matter. -- SusanLarson ( User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 22:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you are right. I came here to do cleanup on a random article and instead got drawn into a childish and pointless argument about a matter instigated by 2 or 3 people who came here with the specific intention for forcing their POV on this article under the guise of making the article more NPOV. The Wikipedia could benefit without those type of individuals, they should think seriously about that. It is clear that some people here believe that the Wikipedia is a soapbox for their beliefs, publicly stated or not. Oh well in the end "true" NPOV was satisfied, not the pretend kind that they came here to spread. That is all that matters. -- SusanLarson ( User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 02:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I did not name any names. That was intentional. If you apply that to yourself that is not my fault. As for assuming good faith that got worn away during the course of this farce. The people involved know it, I know it, and anyone else reading this talk know certain people did not come here to push NPOV they came here to push a specific pov. Nothing personal just the facts. Oh wait facts is a bad word so I guess I better use theory. -- SusanLarson ( User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 22:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC) (at this point they started the Dinosaur section here on my talk page so I ask them to stop contacting me regarding this.)
Hi, I got the Dinosaur article to the main page, & as a result, watch who edits it closely. Seeing you have a keen interest in dinosaurs, due to your extensive edits to the dinosaur article, I'd like to suggest that you join Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs, as we have few members & even fewer specialists. We'd love for you to join. If you decide to do so, enter your name on our participants list & slap one of those dinosaur user boxes on your user page. Thanks, Spawn Man 07:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, as you may have noticed, I posted the message above. I have one thing to say to you: You have guts! Not many people would be able to write their whole life story & about how they're a trans sexual & post that they're a Christian on the same page. Because, lets face it, Christians aren't really all that nice. They often think they're above everyone. Being a fellow Christian, I often feel ashamed by my religion, as they often exclude people in situations like yours. Basically, if they don't understand it, disown it! I tend to embrace everyone no matter what they're like. I scrolled down your user page & noticed something about being in the navy. I read the whole section & scrolled to the top of the page. I read your whole biography! It was quite amasing to read the ups & downs of somebody's whole life! I really enjoyed the whole thing, even though it took me quite a while to get through it all. Although I'm not trans sexual, & don't intend to be, I feel with your story. I too was a "loner" & a "geek" at school & was bullied & angry. I would love if we could share a few conversations. Hopefully you haven't left Wikipedia after your last discussions, as I've noticed you haven't edited since January. May I ask a few questions about your autobiography? Why did the guy who eventually got you fired from the navy want to get you fired in the first place? What did you do that finally got you fired? Why did the old man set you up with someone & how did you feel? I don't want to sound ignorant, but I don't know if once you become a transexual, do you still like women or do you like men? Thanks, Spawn Man 07:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC). P.S., yes, shaving does make facial hair grow more rapidly, as I found out too when I was younger.... :)
I'm trying to build support for this nomination in iuts last few days. Please check out this page. Pass it along. Nudge nudge. -- evrik 20:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Just for your information, I wanted to let you know that I've nominated this article for deletion due to a number of issues, which are outlined on the discussion page and the deletion page. As an anglophone who lives in France, this is clearly a case of "autopromotion" and this fellow's name and his school keeps popping up in all sorts of odd places on the French version of Wikipédia. If you read French, please have a look at the article's "PàS" entry [6]for more information. Musikfabrik 15:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that you voted to keep Eric Van when it went up for AFD in January. Someone put it up for deletion again; if you're still interested in the subject, please take a look. Thanks. Stilgar135 17:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi everybody, we are importer and distributor of wild pacific salmon from Canada. It has a kosher certification, but also pareve.
Now is our question: what is pareve?
Can somebody help out and mail us at: scalibre@gmail.com
Many thanks, Judith and Max —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.41.194.93 ( talk) 10:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{ inactive}} and/or {{ historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 16:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Susan :) I know it's been quite sometime since you've edited. I do hope you'll see this cup of tea! I just wanted you to know that your contributions are valuable to making Wikipedia what it is, and I do hope you'll participate with a new edit or article. Thank you for your contributions - past and future! SarahStierch ( talk) 20:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC) |
WikiWomen Unite! | |
---|---|
Hi SusanLarson! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative. As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by:
We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our
meta page (under construction) to see how else you can get involved! |
WikiWomen - We need you! | |
---|---|
Hi SusanLarson! The WikiWomen's Collaborative is a group of women from around the world who edit Wikipedia, contribute to its
sister projects, and support the mission of free knowledge. We recently updated our website, created new volunteer positions, and more! Get involved by:
Thanks for editing Wikipedia, and we look forward to you being a part of the Collaborative! -- EdwardsBot ( talk) 01:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC) |
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{ User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.
Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Your help is needed. Will you help steer the direction of this article that you have contributed to? See discussion at Talk:System_testing#What_is_the_intended_scope_of_this_article? Stephen Charles Thompson ( talk) 22:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)