User talk:ConfuciusOrnis

This will amuse you

See this comment from an editor who's complaining that her POV edits to the Herpes zoster article is being reverted because they are unsourced BS. Orangemarlin 03:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh don't act like you're surprised... hey on a related topic have you seen this abomination? ornis 04:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of abominations. Just pull up an article on a random herb or spice. Many of them have paragraphs on how they cure everything. I just went to Coriander. I might have been harsh in eliminating the section, but see if you agree. I can't believe what has filtered into this project. Orangemarlin 01:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Need your assistance at Homeopathy. Thanks. Orangemarlin 08:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, alright I had a look at the US an Uk sections, and tried to condense them a bit. The article is way too long. On the coriander thing, yeah I agree with you cutting it out, but I reckon as far as historical use goes it's reasonable to note medicinal uses through the ages. ornis 00:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think some people are trying to make Homepathy something it shouldn't be. Orangemarlin 06:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

(ri) Yeah, I'm not sure what to make of it. I'm waiting to see what Fill has in mind for a final form first. ornis 07:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking that his mind was taken over by aliens. •Jim62sch• 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably. I tried to strike a balance, but I really got burned out on that mess. It wouldnt be so bad if the writing were not so horrible. Oh well. Let the next guy have a go at it.--Filll 23:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well considering the kind of sloppy, obscurantist thinking responsible for the homeopathy, it's not terribly surprising an article substantially contributed to by homeopaths would reflect that. ornis (t) 23:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Even trying to get a confirmation of how exactly the dilution system of D, X, C, L, M etc works just ended up nowhere and I was given the run around, and told how easy it was and we didn't need to explain it. I am sorry, but I have a doctorate in mathematical physics, and I am sure it is simple, but if it is not transparent to me, then I think lots of others will find it confusing. I can try to guess as to what they mean, and spend hours looking up horribly written documents, but should I have to? I have spotted some stuff that looks inconsistent, but...ugh...what a mess. Surely the first rule should be to write clear English for English wikipedia. The second rule should be to explain technical terms, and make calculations clear. But somehow, that all seems a bit too much to ask...--Filll 23:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but plain english I suspect is anathema to pseudoscience. It's easy to hang all kinds of wild, unsupported claims and hand-wavery, off of ill defined terms like "miasma", "chi", "energy" or "quantum", without ever having to provide a concrete definition of those terms. So long as your audience doesn't ask, or you can give them the impression that you know of things they aren't capable of understanding, you can sell them tap water as a cure for any disease they happen to suffer from. ornis (t) 23:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Very well put. Homeopaths seek to prey on those who are intellectually deficient and fear those who are not, hence plain English (or any other language for that matter) dooms them either way. I'd still like to see a mathematical proof for "water memory". •Jim62sch• 17:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

List of medicinal herbs

Oh, you've got to help here.Orangemarlin 06:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of religion.

I'll look at it tomorrow morn. I've been less active lately, but I should be able to cast a discerning eye on the article. Kudos, anyway, for requesting the other side's opinion.--C.Logan 08:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Creation Museum

I just wanted to clarify my edit that you reverted on the Creation Museum page. I was not pushing POV in fact I was partially reverting someone else's attempted to push it and attempting to create a sort of compromise version. Check the history to be clear. No big deal I just didn't want you to think that I was trying to slant the Creation Museum page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel J. Leivick (talk • contribs) 03:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did see the history, it was a bit of knee-jerk on my part I have to admit. When you spend a lot of time editing creationist articles, that 99% number is one that always gets attacked. ornis 03:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of edits in Noah's Ark article

Is there a reason why you removed without explanation the edits I made to the Noah's Ark article today? --Taiwan boi 09:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

They're a copyright violation. See the note I left on the talk page. ornis (t) 09:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

They are not a copyright violation in any way, as I have cited the source and have permission to use the material in the form in which it was included in the article. I have added details on the talk page. --Taiwan boi 09:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of user page

It's your user page he's vandalizing, which is a serious matter, and he has long since passed 3rr a couple places. This is serious harassment. Report him and get him blocked immediately. -- Fyslee/talk 21:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do know what he was vandalising... that was a slip of terminology on my part ;)... to be honest I'm not big on reporting people, since he seems to be using the talk pages of the articles in question now. PS I got your mail, cheers for that, but I am trying to be more careful now. Once bitten twice shy and all that. ornis (t)

Let's hope he learns or the next block will be a longer one. -- Fyslee/talk 22:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I saw, thanks for that. ornis (t) 22:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ornis, I swear you're like flypaper for freaks.  ;) •Jim62sch• 22:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I know, what's up with that, do you think perhaps the anti-war poem or strong-atheist userbox has something to do with it ;) ornis (t) 22:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably both. But you really do attract the weirdos. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to look at this...

Hey ConfuciusOrnis, you may also want to look at Foxsux's talk page now, as he is trying to accuse you of wikistalking. Perhaps it's best to just leave him serve his block and perhaps cool off, but I thought that you might want to know. Thanks for helping to at least get him onto the talk page.... I assumed he was new, but I am not so sure now. Edhubbard 22:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I did see that, and no I think you're right it's best to let him cool off. I still reckon he's newbie, though this comment made me wonder for a moment or two. ornis (t) 23:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, when I first read that, I thought he was saying read WP:Civil, but then I re-read it and realized he wasn't referring to policy. Anyway, I've tried to talk to him a little on his page, to let him know about policy, and what we are all trying to do here, despite (and through) our conflicting points of view. I hope it helps, but if not, I'm sure that he'll buy himself a permanent block quickly. Either way, I'll step up my checks on these pages for a while. I'm off to bed; it's 1:20 in the morning here in Paris. Edhubbard 23:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch

Thanks, that is an more descriptive summary that provides a decent rationale for the change.--Isotope23 ^talk 01:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries. ornis (t) 01:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

A lot of effort goes into finding good academic sources llike this. The entire article lends a context to Ramsey's statement. Your help in providing helpful edits & suggestions to improve their usage would be appreciated if you don't like the current proposed verbiage with the source. The statement in its fundamental aspects is not biased, critical or POV. Understand QW means business when it goes after its quarries - as expressed joyfully or in complimentary fashion by various fellow travellers in QW authors' publications, in approving tones about their actions and targets. Thank you.--I'clast 08:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Harvard and Huxley

You've been helping out with putting citations in templates at Thomas Huxley, which is grand but there's a lot of repetition of sources, and User:Macdonald-ross seems to have had in mind Harvard referencing. The Wikipedia:Harvard referencing page is a bit out of date as new systems come in, but my experience of being introduced to a Harvard system (and helped to implement it) at Charles Darwin makes me think that the current version of this would suit the Huxley article very well. Unfortunately the "Cite book" templates lack a function to link from the "Harvnb" cites in a notes section to the reference itself, but they are supposed to be ok for use with Harvard referencing, so the templates could be moved to a new "References" section and Template:Harvard citation no brackets used inline to provide a reference in the notes section complete with the page number. In the longer term the reference info could be moved to use Template:Citation for a link to the "References" – see also Wikipedia:Citation templates. Sorry this is a bit of a guddle, but the results do work well in my opinion. Your comments will be appreciated, .. dave souza, talk 21:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

To be honest with you, I find the variety citation methods a bit confusing sometimes, but I had a look at Charles Darwin, and I agree with you, it would suit Thomas Huxley very well indeed. I'm more than happy to fix the referencing in the agreed upon manner when User:Macdonald-ross is finished adding material. ornis (t) 23:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've pretty much done what I wanted to, and as agreed before I've come back to you to ask you to help out with the organisation of the refs. As mentioned before, I prefer the old name, date refs (which Wiki charmingly calls the 'Harvard system'!) especially as some of the refs come up a dozen times or more. I'm grateful to you, Dave Souza, Rusty Cashman, and especially Fred.e, for your interest and support over the long weeks. Fred.e says I've progressed quickly, but it seems a long, long time since I started. I've tried to make the page enjoyable and interesting as well as representing Hux fairly. I'm pushing for Hux to be recognised as of High Importance rather than Mid-Importance, based on his overall effect on British (+American and German) life, thinking and science. Not such a great scientist as Darwin (who is?) but a great man all the same, and hugely influential. Regards, Macdonald-ross 13:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit late here, but I'll have a look tomorrow and we can see what needs to be done. I'll definitely support your push to upgrade to high importance. ornis (t) 14:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Have put some suggestions on the article talk page, let me know if you want some ideas or if you'd like me to try out some as sample. In a way the first thing is to sort out the section naming. The "importance" thing comes from wikiprojects which I've never really had time or inclination to get involved in, you could always change it and make the argument, or it would probably be more polite to raise the question on the project page first. .. dave souza, talk 16:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy rough draft

I have finished a draft of the Homeopathy article. It obviously has some flaws in it's format and wording right now but they will be kinked out within the next couple of days. Right now what I want is for you, if you're interested in helping to improve the article, to come to the articles talk page. There we will all discuss the article and how it could be improved before we replace the current homeopathy article with it. In order for this to work we need to follow a few rules. The first rule, the most important rule, is that no one but me can edit the rough draft. Do not edit the rough draft. This precaution is used to prevent edit warring and loss or addition of information that might not be up to consensus. Don't worry, It's just a draft and you'll have all the time you want to make changes after we've replaced it with the current article. The second rule is that all proposed changes in the rough draft must be made on the talk page of the rough draft and must be clear and concise. At that point anyone involved will discuss the proposed changes and if agreed by consensus they will be implemented. We will do that until there is no disputes or disagreements. After all disputes are hammered out, we will replace the homeopathy article with the rough draft. At that point there shouldn't be anyone needing to make huge edits, and if you do see an edit that you want to make, be sure to add a note on the talk page PRIOR to making the edit so that consensus can be reached and then you should make the edit. If you have any questions you can leave me a message on my talk page. Here is the link to the rough draft Link to rough draft. I hope to see you there! Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have oppositions to my current rough draft. I would appreciate if you could outline some of your oppositions to it so that I can take a look at them and we can discuss them. Anything that is problematic can easily be changed. If you believe the draft is POV right now in support of Homeopathy, please tell me how you would suggest improving it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Marking minor

oh, my mistake, thanks for letting me know! Wiki wiki1 23:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries. ornis (t) 23:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

would you mind a discussion on the various points i addressed on the herbalism page rather than a revert war?Wiki wiki1 23:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I would like you to read my edits and point out anywhere you think that I was anything put fair with either side, I'm trying to keep a balance while pointing out both the flaws and benefits of both western medicine and herbalism. I made a lot of good edits where some 'blatant' POV pushing, as well as leading statements, by the pharmaceutical side.

I did read you edits, and I suggest since it's you that wants to make such sweeping changes that you are the one that needs to justify them rather than edit warring over the matter. Any way I've replied on the talk page. ornis (t) 23:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

list of plants

The lists need to be merge when the structure is worked out. Some will have entries under both columns with some studies confirming and others disconfirming. IMO this will be valuable to researchers. For example I just looked at 3 studies on cinnamon and Type II diabetes. One confirming at 3g, 1 disconfirming at 1g, and one confirming at both doses But the latter was done in Pakistan where people weigh less so the dose/kg may have been higher. Science need to ask these types of question.Cayte 00:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Cayte

Hux reply

Bibby 1959; i bought 1972 later when I realised it was a different book! Macdonald-ross 13:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually just replied on your talk page as you were writing this... funny.ornis (t) 13:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hux thank-you!

Just to say I'm grateful for the time you've spent on the refs, despite my own preference for the old way. That's just because I'm old!

I was interested to read the current Encyc Brit entry for Hux by Adrian Desmond, new to me. I'm glad I didn't see it before I started, it would have influenced me too much. I see a couple of new refs have crept into the intro section; they seem appropriate, but might have been better placed under Vertebrate Palaeo. There's a tendency for intros to get so gummed up with links, refs, bold type &c. that they end up rather unreadable. But I guess I have to live with the open-ended nature of WP — after all, that's what drew me in! Macdonald-ross 18:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That's alright. I added those cites to the lead, another editor tagged the phrase as being unreferenced, though personally I don't think it really needed them, it's often easier to just provide a ref than argue over it. Oh, and you should check out this tool when you're editing other articles. It generates inline citations automatically given an ISBN, URL, PubMedID etc.. I use it quite a lot. ornis (t) 11:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

In your message to me: you said "If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Relationship between religion and science" I might have a COI. I have no close connection. I am a professional historian of science. Now, kindly put my link back. James Hannam 14:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hovind page

Hi ConfuciusOrnis. You are close to a 3RR problem in this page, as part of your dealings with driveby pro-Hovind user Nevinkoshy. I am becoming a bit frustrated myself at this sort of thing. Be that as it may; if we take up his activities as a 3RR issue, it will simply existing conventions if you don't have a 3RR yourself. Just letting you know I can see the problem, and am giving Nevinkoshy a 3RR warning as well so he can be blocked if he continues. Good luck. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I am aware of 3RR and wasn't planning to revert him again if he persisted. Actually I'd already issued a couple of delete warnings but I see he's blanked his talk page. ornis (t) 22:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Good; you seem to have it under control then. I'll do a revert if I see it again. Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Superb, thanks for your help. ornis (t) 22:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove requests for references

Please do not remove at will the requests for references and citations in the article Psychic Surgery, it is not polite and it doesn't show will to make the article compliant Jenny^Len 11:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Please refrain from not making any sense whatsoever. ornis (t) 11:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Extinction events graphical timeline

Hi, thanks for letting me know about your problems with this template: I've hopefully addressed them, and would be grateful if you could check the template, for example here, and make sure that it's displaying closer to how its expected. Please reply on the template talk page. Thanks! Verisimilus T 11:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That looks fine now, before it was nearly doubling the width of the page. ornis (t) 11:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy draft

Please take another look at the draft and tell me if you think anything else should be changed. I think it's about done. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ack!

Technically speaking this is 4RR, so try to be careful! I agree that it's a form of medical fraud, and should be indicated as such in the strongest possible terms, but we have to keep it per WP:FIVE. Just relax and discuss, perhaps go to the next level of dispute resolution and everything will work out according to policy. Edit warring doesn't lead to victory, consensus and policy do. Dreadstar † 00:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Was it? The dispute was over the lead, I thought it would be alright to reintroduce some of the other uncontested edits that had been lost. ornis (t) 00:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:3RR can be pretty broadly applied and could cover such an edit. Personally, I agree with ya about the nature of the edit...but others might not...it's better to be safe, IMHO...;) Nobody disputed it, and it was definitely an edit in good faith, but caution and patience are the watchwords when in the midst of a dispute..... Dreadstar † 00:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's probably wise. Thanks for the heads up. ornis (t) 00:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop

Please stop the personal attacks. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

grow up. ornis (t) 04:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

tag vandalism

Generally no I agree, but in this users case, it is. He's just tag bombing and stripping the article bare in order to get it merged. It's trolling and vandalism, and the less he's fed the better. ornis (t) 04:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I try to assume good faith whenever I can! If rises to the level of harassment or vandalism, there are ways to deal with it. I notice the other article was protected with all tags intact... So far, I think both sides of this are working in good faith...I'm trying to hang onto my illusions just a tad bit longer...;) Dreadstar † 05:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really help to make accusations of trolling and vandalism, unless you have a very clear case; and then it should go through the appropriate channels to be handled. Always best to take the high road. Dreadstar † 06:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Highroad? Wouldn't know it if it bit me on the arse ;) ornis (t) 06:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

We're beginning to understand this about you. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 12:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It’s inappropriate to make rude comments about or to another editor in the edit summaries, e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
Read through WP:CIV and WP:NPA Dreadstar † 17:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

PSurgery

Please check out the latest version for approval. Dreadstar † 19:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

SELFPUB + PZ

Please see Talk:PZ Myers. There is already a discussion about teh inclusion of miscellaneous quotes that "characterise" PZ's "writing style". By SELFPUB, wikipedia can't use primary resources to illustrate a point, that would be syntehsising the data. If such a quote is notorised by a non-primry resource, we can source it back to the original.

While the quote included may be an accurate portrayal of PZ's writing style (I'd agree it is). Stating so without a reference is WP:OR.

I think its best to allow the present discussion about quote inclusion regarding [{WP:SYNTH]] and WP:SELFPUB to finish before startinga revert war over a single quote.

Three other quotes were previously removed by another editor, I'm just following his lead. I do not see why they should be removed while that one stands (WP:NPOV)--ZayZayEM 01:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

I actually have to take issue with you on the welfare notion. Saying that it "stymies" evolution, assumes that selection occurs on an exclusively individual level, which is patently not true. If anything welfare is a trait that has been selected for by evolution, as it increases the fitness of whole populations. ornis (t) 07:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe most evolutionary theorists think selection does occur on a strictly individual level, actually many think it occurs on a strictly GENE level see Gene-centered view of evolution. I think the problem with saying it "stymies evolution", implies that evolution has a purpose to be stymied doesn't it? It certainly changes the selective pressures, but so do a lot of things--like say murder laws, anti-civilian violence laws and government in general (without say, murder laws, people who weren't good at protecting themselves physically would be at a sever disadvantage). Brentt 06:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah no, evolution is the change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. ornis (t) 07:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yea, hence evolution occurs within a population, but selection occurs on genes, as opposed to populations (leaving the question of whether it happens on individuals aside, thats a bit more involved).

The problem is that If you see anything that could be considered selection happening on populations, then there is no meta-population (poplulations of populations) for evolution to occur within. Or if there is a meta-population, its too small (say p<10) for the process to create any sort of functionality. Basically when you start getting into group selection your just looking at the population as an individual, and expecting that natural selection can create some functionality working with only a very small group of individuals (the "very small group" being the meta-population)--which is why group selectionist theories are frowned upon these days. Brentt 08:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Medical Fraud

In order to ensure that Wikipedia maintains credibility it is important that each entry is correctly structured. This necessitates that entries have a basic academic structure in which a topic is introduced and its etymology is explained prior to criticism and advocacy being introduced. In order to be best informed the reader must understand the origins of the topic before they are introduced to the controversy of the topic, else they risk developing prior prejudices.

Undue weight applies only to content not structure. For example, the order of Pro and con arguments cannot be determined as undue weight. However, the insertion of criticism sections prior to history sections can be determined to be POV pushing as it creates a prior prejudice in the minds of readers.

perfectblue 10:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

And how did YOU come to such an important determination? And who are YOU? This sounds like complete nonsense, frankly. --Filll 12:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. Having visited your user page, it all becomes clear.--Filll 12:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No shit... and just for the record, he did rather a lot more, than "properly structure" the article. ornis (t) 12:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Perfectblue is quite correct. Please refrain from further personal attacks against Perfectblue. ornis, I've already reported your personal attacks once, and if you continue to hand them out, I'll go further. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this is where to put this

It seems to me that you are involved in the "edit war" as well. It is absolutely inaccurrate to say that they REJECT those disciplines. If you knew anything about the subject, you would recognize that many of the folks associated with ICR actually have degrees in those disciplines and have worked or do work in those fields in other non-creationist endeavors.

I have no problem with saying that they come to different conclusions than what is considered to be the mainstream conclusions in the areas of physics, chemistry, and geology in regards to their views of the age of the earth. But to say that they reject the disciplines is not only not a "neutral point of view", but is also inaccurrate.

--- fcsans1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcsans1 (talk • contribs) 05:09, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

PZ Myers

OWN away! Jinxmchue 03:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

laugh. out. loud. ornis (t) 03:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What's truly "laugh. out. loud." is that you people would never apply the same standards to the Ann Coulter article and discussion page. Jinxmchue 03:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Did I hurt your feelings? ornis (t) 03:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No. You just confirmed what I knew was happening to the PZ Myers article (and by extension, to the entirety of Wikipedia). Would you apply the same standards to the Ann Coulter article? Would you go in and delete comments from the discussion page and hand out warnings? Of course not. And if I did it, I'd be yelled at, warned about it and very likely banned from Wikipedia. Jinxmchue 04:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You should wipe that spittle off the screen, it's bad for the anti-glare coating. ornis (t) 04:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've long since passed the stage of getting angry over bias and hypocrisy. I've seen so much of it from liberals, atheists and the like that the emotion I feel is complete and utter non-surprise. Your bias is obvious and your edits are unjustified. Continue to remove my comments from the talk page and I will take action against you. Jinxmchue 06:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Grow up. ornis (t) 06:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What?

What's your deal man? What reason will I be blocked, and by who, you? Is that a threat and are you not assumming good faith? I didn't blank anything, I edited it to be more NPOV and consistent. The template is belief systems, and as I pointed out the template was heavily weighted with atheism and agnostism links. Demography of atheism, list of atheists, criticism of atheism, ect, with no links to for instance demography of animism or list of pantheists, not that I think there should be, it's my opinion that there should just be links to the basic articles about each system and then one can go from there. That's what I believe the template should look like, I edited it accordingly, as I have every right to do. Roy Brumback 05:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you're a little hard of understanding, so I'll say it again... all those religions have their own nav templates. Now revert back please. ornis (t) 06:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Then simply restart the general atheism template and problem solved. I noticed it was merged without any real discussion. Roy Brumback 20:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi CO, this edit summary appears to be an automagically filled in summary by your editing tool - please confirm or correct me - and identifies edits as "vandalism". While I appreciate the ease of using a tool, please use that rollback only for cases of clear vandalism, and not for other edits. Thanks! KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

And as I see no one has yet given you a courtesy link, I make you aware of this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:ConfuciusOrnis. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replied at the AN/I. Yeah, that was me getting a little overzealous with twinkle, I just installed it yesterday... new toys and all that ;) ornis (t) 13:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've posted on the Twinkle improvements page, or request page, or whatever it is called, to have that particular edit summary toned down, or a choice of "vandalism" vs a simple "Undo" type summary, or best yet, a "Fill in your own" choice, but so far it seems that has not gotten much attention. Thanks for your prompt response to this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, an option to set your own summary would be nice, but I suspect the developers may be less than enthused about implementing such a feature. ornis (t) 14:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Its on the to-do list on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Twinkle as "Add new config item offerReasonOnCSDTag to allow a custom edit summary to be entered" and is confirmed, so its on its way, although no idea when he'll get the time to do it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well then... consider me corrected :) ornis (t) 14:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, don't you just love it when the thing you're wrong about is something you're happy to be wrong about? :-D KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Love it? Well it's about only time I'm prepared to admit to being wrong. ;) ornis (t) 14:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Ack, my comment was supposed to be light banter, I hope I didn't step on a toe (?) KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

lol, No, it was joke.. see.. smiley--> :) ornis (t) 15:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

My turn to be happy to be wrong! KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Lol. It is a good feeling. One day I hope to be wrong about them never adding general maintenance tags and template. ornis (t) 16:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy rewrite

Hello ConfuciusOrnis, I plan to implement the homeopathy rough draft( link) by September 1st, 5 days from now. Unless of course more proposals are made to change it, in which case I will postpone the implementation until it is ready and agreed upon. Some things concerning the rough draft are still in discussions, which can easily continue once it goes live. An example is the inclusion of mentions of Jacques Benveniste. Other things can easily be fixed after a week or so of copy editors from the general public going over it and removing redundancy and rewording sentences to be more brief and precise, which will cut down size of the article including the lead without removing relevant info. So If by September 1st I receive no more suggestions on improving the rough draft then I will replace the Homeopathy article with it. If you see problems with the draft, please make suggestions on improving it. Even if the suggestions might have already been made, just make a new post with the suggestions so that we can discuss them. Here is the link to the rough draft again: Link to rough draft. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry?

Hi ConfuciusOrnis. I came across the report you made on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PEAR. The last thing I want to do is accuse the wrong person, but you might want to add Hornet35 to your report. The "revert of vandalism" edit summary is quite damning.[7]. And not the mention the fact that Hornet35 started an Afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why I Am Not a Christian) of articles that, how shall I put it, may not be "favorable" to his idealogy. Spellcast 15:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd noticed hornet35 as well, but withheld so far from adding it in order to avoid sub-conscious fishing. However if you also look at the timing it's pretty convenient, (s)he appeared ten or twenty minutes after I tagged totesboats as a suspected sock, and started editing more or less the same articles in the same manner. ornis (t) 15:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered WP:RFCU, or doesn't it fit the criteria? --Rrburke^(talk) 20:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm still finding my feet here. I've never dealt with something like this before, and intially I chose a standard report because I figured the PEAR IP would be too stale for any meaningful result, though considering these new accounts of his that keep popping up, that might be wise, I'll look into it. ornis (t) 06:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR?

I have not violated it in eugenics. MoritzB 15:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess you didn't bother to read the warning then. ornis (t) 15:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Creationism and Vandalism

Sorry, I misread the diff! I was about to revert but you nailed me.Spryde 13:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright then, no harm done ;) ornis (t) 13:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

ConfuciusOrnis,

I saw that your reverted a change to the Piltdown article. you removed the italicized phrase at the end of the following line:

The hoax is now a popular target for creationists, who criticize science for falling for the hoax, and suggest that other finds backing up evolution may also be hoaxes.

I don't really object to your taking it out. But I'd like to know why you labeled this "vandalism". Why do you consider this change vandalism?

Thanks,

-coastside —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coastside (talk • contribs) 14:31, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Hey, short answer: I hit the wrong button. A longer answer can be found here. ornis (t) 14:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Random Smile!

WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-WarthogDemon 04:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The VandalBot

Thanks so much for bringing the Vandal bot IP to administrator attention. I have blocked it and reverted the most recent edits. You can leave me a message if you see another one like that soon. Academic Challenger 05:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I was beginning to wonder at the inhuman speed with which it was able to add gibberish to articles. ornis (t) 05:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Jim62sch

May I ask why you reverted my edits to this page without any sort of explanation or message on my talk page? As a guideline, WP:UP#NOT has a strong consensus among editors. And my personal beliefs have nothing to do with this removal (you'll see I explained why I did it, contrary to your revert). -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just trying to save you the embarrassment that will come when inevitably you realise what a dickish thing it was to do in the first place. ornis (t) 04:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam

Ok, I am green to wiki, but why did you cut all my stuff out? The medical light association is not a for profit site the video clips are credible doctors and scientists from around the world. The MLA links I posted are not a promotion for a product or service, it is free information like the wiki, so what is going on? Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdebow (talk • contribs) 08:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well you should start by reading, WP:COI and WP:SPAM. I know you've been given those links before, as you've been warned about this matter before. Generally, if you own or operate a website, and you think it should be included in an article, then you will need to discuss that on the talk page of the article, rather than adding it yourself. ornis (t) 09:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

Introduction to Evolution A much better layout. Would you please monitor the page and make adjustments as needed?! We might substitute a few soon; the mice and perhaps the dogs to something less fringe to the topic. Thanks again--Random Replicator 16:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

But I love the dogs and the mice! Well...if consensus is to remove them...I guess...--Filll 16:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I like them too. I know I suggested removing some pics, but to be truthful, I couldn't actually point to any I think should go. ornis (t) 16:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

CFD Category:Anti-creationism

You have either edited Category:Anti-creationism or contributed to the previous discussion[8] about its encyclopedic value.

This a courtesy notice that it has again be nominated for a deletion discussion[9].--ZayZayEM 02:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Good day

Hello Confucius,

Your accusation of sock-puppetry against me has been proven false and closed.

I certainly hope you will be more careful about accusing other Wikipedians of being sock-puppets in the future.

--RucasHost 22:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol... feeling pretty smug aintcha... actually all that was proven, was that I didn't present the evidence against you terribly well. ornis (t) 03:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Brian Sapient

Hi. I'm contacting some people who have worked on the Rational Response Squad article because someone changed my redirect of "Brian Sapient" (which I made to redirect surfers to the RRS article) into an article on Brian Sapient himself. I'm not sure one is merited, particularly given what that editor started off with the article, and have begun a discussion on that new article's Talk Page. Your input would be appreciated. Nightscream 01:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

BLP and 3R

As stated in my edit summaries. WP:3R does not apply in WP:BLP violations.--ZayZayEM 09:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Your hystrionics aside, there was no blp violation. So you clearly broke 3rr. You're just lucky the page was protected. ornis (t) 09:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• OR is BLP-violating. Please allow the RFC to take place to allow wider community commentary. I will abide by consensus.--ZayZayEM 09:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Possibly BLP-violating, is the same as BLP-violating as far as I can tell - and that is an [WP:3R#Exceptions|Exception]] to 3RR. Please allow a discussion to take place and reach a consensus. So far all we have had is a sparring match consisting of around 5-6 people which has reached a practical stalemate. I am requesting protection, and a RFC so we can develop consensus. --ZayZayEM 09:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

See below. ornis (t) 09:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection

I have unprotected the article, now. If there is no BLP violation, are you requesting the article be left unprotected, or that it be re-protected? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

God I don't don't know. Have a look through the discussion if you can stand it. Essentially what's been happening is a handful of creationists have been disrupting any attempt to improve the article with completely specious allegation and tendentious editwarring. Basically, she IS a creationist.[10] she DID sign the petition, it IS anti-evolution and her field ISN'T related to biology or evolution in any meaningful way. Now there are sources for all of these, there's no harm being done to the subject, and there is no OR or SYNTH... frankly at this stage if you or someone else where to just speedy delete the damn thing I wouldn't shed a tear. ornis (t) 09:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Images in Intelligent design

Please do not add the book cover images back into the article. If something comes of the Fair Use Review, they may be added back in then. Thanks Nv8200p talk 22:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Because an admin told you so CO.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah funny isn't it I keep thinking they're just regular editors with no more authority than you or I. I keep forgetting that they're in fact our social and intellectual superiors, granted godlike powers by the mighty one, and whose farts smell like strawberries, and whose every word is a honeyed drop of profundity, given unto us the unworthy hoi polloi.... colour me unimpressed. ornis (t) 11:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Templating established users

It is generally considered poor manners to use warning templates on established users, such as here. These templates are more appropriate to use on new users who are vandalizing Wikipedia, and may not know any better. For content disputes with established editors, it is better to work out the issue in discussion, or failing that, taking it up on an appropriate administrator noticeboard. - Crockspot 21:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You are WRONG!

Ornis, I really think that you should dig into the Real proof of evolution. In fact, there is NONE. There is no proof to evolutoin, and there is way more proof against it. And you know what, religion is waht holds the world together. I want to help you, but you ARE wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dachshundboy25 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry... maybe when I stop laughing so hard I can't breathe properly I might reply to that.... ornis (t) 01:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration request

A request for arbitration involving you has been filed here. Please view the request, and add any statements you feel are necessary for the ArbCom to consider in deciding whether to hear the dispute. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Flood geology

Can you provide an adequate explanation as to why you reverted my edit to Flood geology? Aplomado ^talk 04:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide an adequate explanation for why you made it in the first place? ornis (t) 04:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Climate change denial

At Talk:Climate change denial you're being too impolite and too profane. Please remove your profanities William M. Connolley 08:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sadly you've chosen not to do this but have continued being incivil [11]. I've blocked you for 12h William M. Connolley 08:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That was uncivil? You have got to be kidding. Have you read the crap from the other editors? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 11:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Calling people trolls who are contributing in good faith is incivil, as were a number of more blatant examples by CO. The discussion needs to calm down; a polite request was not sufficient William M. Connolley 11:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion needed to calm down on all sides -- were similar blocks meted out to others involved? Also, 28 minutes expired between the polite request and the block, if CO, like me ignores the "you have new messagers" banner, he very well may not have seen the message. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 12:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still trying to find a diff for profanity from CO. Because if profanity contra bonos mores (beat me up later for misusing latin) leading to a violation of WP:CIVIL then I'm fucked. And why was CO targeted? Because of, and let me not assume any good faith because the admin just didn't like CO as opposed to obnoxious, rude and uncivil comments from the likes of Ben Hocking who made the accusation on the admins page? I don't know, but it certainly looks like it to me. Unless you can show specific diffs where 1) CO did something different than Ben Hocking, 2) where CO used profane language against another user (the use of profanity is not in of itself a violation of WP:CIVIL and free speech may not be allowed where you live, it is allowed here), and 3) where CO violated any of WP:NPA guidelines (and yes I read them, and nothing CO has written is in violation thereof), I think you should remove this block, and apologize to CO. In addition, you should state why, based on a complaint from BenHocking, you chose to ignore his personal attacks, his violations of WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL, and proceeded to attack another editor, specifically ornis. And since I am now officially in dispute with you William M. Connolley, don't even consider throwing another rude warning on my user talk page.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 12:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

(to J) No it didn't - 24h + 28 minutes expired. AFAIK no-one else has felt it necessary to write stuff like this [12]. (to OM) If you want to make a complaint about PA from BH, please use my talk page. And no, you can't gain invulnerability by declaring dispute William M. Connolley 12:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with this block. That's hardly incivil, particularly when both you and I know that BH and others are being completely ridiculous and provoked CO's frustration. Incivil would be to call them 'f'ing idiots.' I'm going to be consulting some fellow admins, and if they concur, I'm going to unblock. FeloniousMonk 14:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I also see that you've be participating on the talk page prior to the block, you're an involved party, meaning this block being made by you was completely improper per WP:BLOCK. You should have brought this to WP:AN/I where if other, uninvolved admins agreed with your assessment, they would have made the block. But as it is, you should unblock him and apologize before your improper block ends up at AN/I itself. FeloniousMonk 14:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)