Double meh.
Wow. [1] -- Hans Adler ( talk) 14:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I hope it wasn't too over the top. It's sometimes difficult to tell who genuinely believes the claims they're making and who is simply looking for attention. --
BRPierce (
talk) 17:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, I think it was firm, hopefully effective, and not over the top. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 18:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I hope it wasn't too over the top. It's sometimes difficult to tell who genuinely believes the claims they're making and who is simply looking for attention. --
BRPierce (
talk) 17:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Here's what I recommend you don't do - don't continue to revert .189s edits as this will leave you open to an accusation of edit warring. I think the first step is to try to resolve this on the talk page of the article. I can see that you have already posted to the talk page and to .189s page but your posts do not spell out what you perceive the problems to be in these edits. There clearly are some problems, deletion of anything negative to CCA, even if referenced and lack of citations for the material added. While this may be clear to you, it may not be clear to .189, so please, give a fuller explanation of how you think the article should look. If you can succeed in engaging .189 but cannot come to an agreement then I would suggest you both agree to seek a third opinion. If you cannot engage .189 in discussion then possibly starting a request for comment would help establish that you are not alone in your view. If .189 fails to make use of ANY dispute resolution process and continues to revert the article without explanation then a report to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring would be in order. SpinningSpark 02:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
If you'd like to clue me in directly either on your or my talk, i'd enjoy it. I see it can get frustrating; "traits," "species," "kinds," etc... all do not yet at least seem to be well defined. I'm not particularly biologically literate, but it's an interest. My next question would be on mutation, but, well, nevermind. I'll wait a few days. if you want to chat about it directly, i'd be interested. Bali ultimate ( talk) 16:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
To move along a discussion on how pseudoscience should be labeled, I'm trying to gather other editors' input over at Talk:Baraminology#Distinguishing_facts_and_views. Essentially, do you think the phrasing "baraminology is pseudoscience" or "baraminology is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" is more appropriate? Thanks, Emw2012 ( talk) 09:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
If I had my druthers, I'd go with the second; either one conveys the salient point, but the second does it in a way that is easier to support with references. --
BRPierce (
talk) 14:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
All information must be verifiable through reliable sources. Those were blogs and forums; hardly reliable. As such, they were removed. We also had an OTRS request concerning the linkage. Ironholds ( talk) 23:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello again. Remember me and our "debate" on creationism vs. evolutionism? I can't do it any time soon, but I was wondering if you'd be interested in one day having a more formal written debate at http://www.debate.org/ with the proposition being something like, "The biblical behemoth cannot be a dinosaur." Does that sound like a possibility? — The Sackinator ( talk) 00:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Double meh.
Wow. [1] -- Hans Adler ( talk) 14:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I hope it wasn't too over the top. It's sometimes difficult to tell who genuinely believes the claims they're making and who is simply looking for attention. --
BRPierce (
talk) 17:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, I think it was firm, hopefully effective, and not over the top. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 18:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I hope it wasn't too over the top. It's sometimes difficult to tell who genuinely believes the claims they're making and who is simply looking for attention. --
BRPierce (
talk) 17:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Here's what I recommend you don't do - don't continue to revert .189s edits as this will leave you open to an accusation of edit warring. I think the first step is to try to resolve this on the talk page of the article. I can see that you have already posted to the talk page and to .189s page but your posts do not spell out what you perceive the problems to be in these edits. There clearly are some problems, deletion of anything negative to CCA, even if referenced and lack of citations for the material added. While this may be clear to you, it may not be clear to .189, so please, give a fuller explanation of how you think the article should look. If you can succeed in engaging .189 but cannot come to an agreement then I would suggest you both agree to seek a third opinion. If you cannot engage .189 in discussion then possibly starting a request for comment would help establish that you are not alone in your view. If .189 fails to make use of ANY dispute resolution process and continues to revert the article without explanation then a report to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring would be in order. SpinningSpark 02:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
If you'd like to clue me in directly either on your or my talk, i'd enjoy it. I see it can get frustrating; "traits," "species," "kinds," etc... all do not yet at least seem to be well defined. I'm not particularly biologically literate, but it's an interest. My next question would be on mutation, but, well, nevermind. I'll wait a few days. if you want to chat about it directly, i'd be interested. Bali ultimate ( talk) 16:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
To move along a discussion on how pseudoscience should be labeled, I'm trying to gather other editors' input over at Talk:Baraminology#Distinguishing_facts_and_views. Essentially, do you think the phrasing "baraminology is pseudoscience" or "baraminology is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" is more appropriate? Thanks, Emw2012 ( talk) 09:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
If I had my druthers, I'd go with the second; either one conveys the salient point, but the second does it in a way that is easier to support with references. --
BRPierce (
talk) 14:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
All information must be verifiable through reliable sources. Those were blogs and forums; hardly reliable. As such, they were removed. We also had an OTRS request concerning the linkage. Ironholds ( talk) 23:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello again. Remember me and our "debate" on creationism vs. evolutionism? I can't do it any time soon, but I was wondering if you'd be interested in one day having a more formal written debate at http://www.debate.org/ with the proposition being something like, "The biblical behemoth cannot be a dinosaur." Does that sound like a possibility? — The Sackinator ( talk) 00:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)