User talk:Firefly322

AfD nomination of Einstein and Religion

I have nominated Einstein and Religion, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Einstein and Religion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 19:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD closure

Yes, I did take all the arguments into consideration - see the current DRV for my breakdown of that. I'm not immune to non-policy-based requests to keep articles - see this one for an example of that - but I just couldn't see the weight of argument for this particular AfD. Thanks, Black Kite 00:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Puppy-throwing marine video incident

I have nominated Puppy-throwing marine video incident, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puppy-throwing marine video incident. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Nick Dowling (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Process physics

Hi there, this article has been deleted, but you mentioned wanting to merge some of its content with Process philosophy during the AfD discussion. Just drop me a note if you need any of the deleted content copied into your userspace. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to systolic geometry

Hi,

User:Loom91 is unhappy with the page. Could you please comment? Katzmik (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comment. In the meantime I added manual links in both articles (to each other), which should help people navigate if they are stumped by the systolic geometry page or bored by the introduction to systolic geometry. Katzmik (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I do seem to care more about wikipedia relationships than the content itself, I suppose. * smiles * --Firefly322 (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as the "Introduction" template is concerned, I think it is appropriate and could be helpful to wikireaders. Since it would be best to avoid further flare-ups, perhaps this matter should be discussed. Would the talk page at Introduction to systolic geometry be the appropriate place for such a discussion? Katzmik (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

re:Acceptable?

I'm thinking of adding List of science and religion scholars to See also sections on the respective scholars article page. But I want to get at least one other editors idea on such an act before I do it. --Firefly322 (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's fine. it seems like what the see also is about....related people and ideas. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Line of force versus field line

I notice you removed the merge tags last month. Maybe merging wasn't the best thing to do, maybe it is, but something has to be done to those two articles. The entire text of Line of force doesn't mention the term "field line" once (outside of "see also"), despite the fact that the alleged "current text book definition" of line of force is identical with the definition of a field line. Likewise, the field line article doesn't mention "line of force". If a merge isn't appropriate, the least you could do is explain in each of the two articles what the distinction is. As written, it sounds like it's one concept, and it used to be called Line of force, and now it's called field line. Thanks! --Steve (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC) Alright I removed the section on Current text book definitions. What else might u be thinking? --Firefly322 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. By the way, I just want to make clear that I like the article line of force and I'm glad it's there. Also, the comment by JRSpriggs is not in any way "a lighly concealed slam against" that article. I think you must have been mis-reading the conversation, and encourage you to take another look at it.

Good. Glad to hear it. And I did.--Firefly322 (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, based on my cursory internet search, it seems that these terms are now used synonymously (at least, often used synonymously). The websites describing "magnetic lines of force" seem to be describing exactly the same thing as the websites describing "magnetic field lines". Do you agree? If so, do you nevertheless think these should be two separate articles? What, exactly, should their distinction be? (And whatever the distinction is, each article should clearly explain what the distinction is!) Having done all the research to write the article on "Line of force", I was hoping you might have a good idea of how these concepts relate. (I don't, beyond the two minutes of internet searching!) Moreover, by removing the merge tag, it seems like you're confident that these are distinct concepts, and I'm hoping you have some basis for this belief, which can then be incorporated into the articles. What are your thoughts? And thanks a lot!! :-) --Steve (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The references already incorporate these differences, at least implicitly. The Lines of force article reflects the term's usage and meaning given to it by Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell and those who have and still do intend the same meanings and usage as these important scientific figures. The Field line article reflects the other term's usage and meaning given to it by David Griffiths on pages 65-69, sec. 2.2.1 (of my Intro to electrodynamics edition). Naturally, I can also certainly agree that the results of a simple google search will be quite likely shallow in telling us only about a few trends in academic fashion (if that's what u sort of mean by "two minutes of internet searching") that need not necessarily be but could be addressed in the wikipedia encyclopedia. As far as the wikipedia articles are concerned, these articles can stand separately based on their respective easily sourcable references. David Griffiths clearly uses the term Field line and carefully avoids the Michael Faraday/James Clerk Maxwell term of Lines of force. As far as I'm concerned, a reason to keep the separate are differences in philosophy. Michael Faraday/James Clerk Maxwell shared a highly successful 19th century philosophy that almost looks like naive realism/idealism (though their scientific success tells us that such a characterization probably falls dreadfully short and doesn't do them justice at all). Anyway, their usage and meaning is reflected in the term/article Lines of force, while David Griffiths's usage and meaning of Field line reflects a very modern scientific realism that is both post functionalism/fictionalism (i.e., useful fiction) and post logical positivism. --Firefly322 (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you understand this better than me. :-) Based on my understanding of what you just said, here are two possibilities that I think would be sensible:

• Put a note at the top of Line of force, saying something like "This article describes the historical meaning and evolution of the term "Line of force". For the use of the term in modern physics, see the article: Field line." Vice-versa at Field line. Of course the wording could be improved.
• Combine the two articles, with half the combined article being "History", including everything that's currently in the line of force article, and the other half being "Modern usage", including everything that's currently in the field line article.

What do you think of either of these? I'd be okay with either, but I somewhat prefer the second, since there seems to be a continuous evolution from the 19th-century "line of force" concept to the 20th-century "field line" concept (even if that evolution is not currently described in the articles), so it seems more logical to have them as one article (even if they do, as you say, stand separately based on references). This also would be more consistent with other physics articles I've seen, which tend to include the history of a concept in the same article as the concept itself, even when the historical understanding was entirely different from the modern one. --Steve (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You are one of the most well-mannered editors I've encountered in a long time. Thanks for that. And I also should have said earlier, thanks for adding the reference to Field line article. The first option is a good one. No objections there. As for the second, I'm always extremely leery of article mergers. When they happen, good work can end up on the cutting room floor. Also looking back through the history of Lines of force, one can see that the original editors were writing as though Michael Faraday/James Clerk Maxwell's concepts were current ideas. With historical references and sources in place, editors who wish to think and write along those lines can now easily make contributions to the current Lines of force article. If the two articles were merged, it would be much harder for them to do so. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Bertrand Russel

I agree with your comments 13:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_August_9#Committee_for_Surrealist_Investigation_of_Claims_of_the_Normal

WP:NPA. Corvus cornix_talk 00:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• If an admin behaves badly, stating what and how they behave badly is not a personal attack. It's like saying don't take up the sword use the cross when a rogue gunman is firing a the Pope. Sorry, but only a retard would say No! No! No! christians don't shoot back. Actually, in this case they should. Perhaps not as agents of God, but as men(/women) living in a world of other men (+women). --Firefly322 (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Phil knight has willfully ignored commonsense and good evidence in debates with me. This is how he has treated me. In this sense, he or she has treated me the worst of any admin on wikipedia. That's just a fact. To call that a personal attack is ignore reality. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• On wikipedia, well-sourced content and fair argument is the pope. In the cases in which I've been involved, Phil Knight has demonstrated time and again that he will take gun shots at the "pope" of wikipedia (or at least rip up his pictures in front of the eyes of the world like Sinead Oconor on Saturday night live). Someone needs to guard aginst this. And least let Phil Knight know that well-sourced content, evidence, and fair agrument are what counts. Admins need to hold themselves to the highest standards. Assuming good faith towards an admin using his or her admin powers and being in a debate when other admins know he or she is an admin (and may actually or seem to side with Phil Knight over non-admins, either way) must be held to such standards. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• I have posted a question at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Committee_for_Surrealist_Investigation_of_Claims_of_the_Normal which you may be able to answer. Can you please return to that discussion to answer it? Stifle (talk) 11:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Aydin Sayili

A tag has been placed on Aydin Sayili requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Thomas.macmillan (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable independent sources towards his notability?--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to assume good faith here, but I need you to answer whether you do or don't honestly consider the already present reference to a three page Eulogy in Isis (journal) to be a reliable independent sources?

Thomas H. Lee (engineering professor)

From WP:PROF the following are the guidelines:

• The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources.
• The person is regarded as an important figure by independent notable academics in the same field.
• The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is widely used as a textbook; if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works; or if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature.
• The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known.
• The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources.
• The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.

I have not proposed to delete the article, I thought it would be better to have you include something verifiable to substantiate notability. There is no indication in the article for Thomas H. Lee (engineering professor) that there is any verification of any of the above. I looked on google and I see some references to him but was having trouble identifying any third party sources that establish notability. If you are able to add some of these, I would have no issue with the article.

|► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 19:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Look at any biographical article - Thomas H. Lee is a good example. Try to find mentions of your Thomas H. Lee in sources (legitimate journals, articles, etc.) written by others about your subject (i.e., referring to his work, legacy, importance). It is generally a good rule of thumb that if nobody else has written about your subject then they are probably not notable for purposes of wikipedia. the purpose of wikipedia is not. You would know a lot better than I would about what makes this guy notable. I have a list of articles I have worked on included on my userpage. Take a look and try to find similar type sources for your subject. In addition to demonstrating notability, this will also improve the quality of the article. Good luck.

(BTW - you can respond here, I always watch a talk page after I leave a message)

|► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 23:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm..What?

“ Hi. I put something on WP:3 that may concern you. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC) ”

On the talk page for User:Toddst1, you wrote this. What do you mean? --The One They Call GSK // talk to me // 21:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to answer me? --The One They Call GSK // talk to me // 17:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion project

Please read Wikipedia:Third opinion#How to list a dispute, including:

Be sure to discuss the dispute on the talk page as the first step in the process before making a request here.
If, after discussion, only two editors are involved, you may list the dispute below in the Active disagreements section.
Otherwise, please follow other methods in the dispute resolution process.   [WP:DR]

Your additions to the project page, in ten eleven edits inclusive of 20:07 through 21:20 30 August 2008 (UTC), which did not fulfill the basic project guidelines, will probably be removed soon. If you seek further clarification, you are welcome to post your questions on Wikipedia talk:Third opinion. — Athaenara ✉ 04:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(Added underlining for emphasis.) — Athaenara ✉ 04:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Sandstein's closure comment for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Depression and natural therapies (2nd nomination) was, specifically: "The result was keep, any subsequent merger is an editorial issue."

The revision history for the article shows one edit by Coren (talk · contribs) (moved Depression and natural therapies to Treatment for depression: History merge). — Athaenara ✉ 04:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Forwarded

"==Admin tool used to erase it==

"The revision history for the article shows one edit by Coren (talk · contribs) (moved Depression and natural therapies to Treatment for depression: History merge). — Athaenara ✉ 04:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"An Admin tool was usd to erase the discussion. Other editors such as User:Colonel Warden will probably confirm this if there is some question of accuracy. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)"

The message (diff) blockquoted above is forwarded from my talk page to avoid fragmenting the thread here.

I am not involved in editing the depression articles or their associated talk pages, and I'm not sure what "admin tool used to erase it" meant, but it can be seen that there's quite a lot of discussion on Talk:Treatment for depression and Talk:Major depressive disorder. — Athaenara ✉ 18:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

My comment refers to Revision history of Talk:Depression and natural therapies. This history is incomplete. There was more than a re-direct. All entries but one are missing. I saw the entries earlier. In fact, User:Colonel Warden's has a quote from one of the missing entries: User:Colonel_Warden/wounds. Can you as a third opinion representative ask that this discussion be restored, so that the discussion can be seen and you can make a proper WP:3 on it? --Firefly322 (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe all of the history has been kept. The entry you're referring to was refactored by me [1] --Ronz (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ronz. Can you please restore the article with its talk pages and all the edit history's? For right now it's not possible to see what ended up on the cutting room floor nor is it easy to bring it up to the attention of the WP:3 project or the WP:mediation cabal, etc. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A reminder: too many editors are involved in the dispute for it to fit WP:3O's specific brief. — Athaenara ✉ 19:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Depression article

Hi. Couldn't see what you meant about W3, but I see from the above message that someone moved Depression... to Treatment for etc...this had surprised me, because it looked like the consensus was in favour of keep. However, can't be bothered making an issue of it. Am sick of the whole subject. It's amazing how some people got so worked up over that article. Some of them just seem to be prejudiced against natural therapies. thanks for telling me.

Sardaka (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• See Arbitration enforcement where I tried to get some action over the intemperate refusal to accept the result of the AFD. Sardaka's disinclination to resist this is discouraging but I will continue to watch the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

response

I think this sums it up: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? _{(stolen from User:Martinphi)}. No one can do anything if the baseline virtue isn't up to scratch.--Asdfg12345 10:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

For believers of the Bible, there's an answer. There are also notions like Anonymous Christian for those who do eventually question themselves and are outside this tradition. Sooner or later, I believe that rational believers, to outside observers, simply watch themselves (though that isn't what proponents of such of view see as really happening in their inner selves). --Firefly322 (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Book of Mormon 3O

Thank you very much for your thoughtful input into Talk:Book of Mormon. It would be premature to state that it had a useful effect. Personally I think it had. Wanderer57 (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

MEDCAB

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-02 Relationship between religion and science has gotten pretty crazy; since you haven't been there in a bit, I thought I'd give you the short version. Nothing can be done about users' behavior unless they admit that they're breaking rules, and no one has made such an admission. As such, only the concern over the content dispute are going to be discussed from here on out. Hopefully we can straighten things out in regards to that. Cheers, JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Firefly, i have encountered you because you have been targeted for incivility and hyper-verification demands by hrafn. I spent the morning tracking some of your edits and just wanted to say that i like what you are doing, and that hrafn is way out of bounds in his abuse of you. What i too have heard from JeremyMcCracken (and others) is that Mediation may not solve this case because hrafn is intransigent in his assertions, and therefore there is no ground upon which to mediate. It has been recommended to take the matter to the level of either an AN/I report or to ARbCom based on the premise that hrafn violates the WP:IMPERFECT core policy by refusing to acknowedge that articles on religious figures or their books can have a "needs sources" template added without being deleted or redirected out of existence. I am not a bureaucratically-inclined person, but i have started a research project on hrafn's behaviour, which has upset other editors as well as you. Some seem to have left Wikipedia due to his pre-emptive and non-discussed deletions of their work. See here -- and feel free to add further pages to the list or to correct my many typos (caused by low vision), for which i apologise in advance. catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In secular terms: what a coincidence. And WELL thanks for positive evaluation, Catherine. My concerns are repeated incivility and hyper-verification. Add to that a justifiable sense of being targeted by hrafn ([2]). --Firefly322 (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The MEDCAB case is still open, for the purpose of looking into the reverts of your edits. If you want to mediate in that area, great; if not, please post there saying so, so I can close it. The best next step for a user conduct issue is Request for Comment, but make sure your disupte meets the guidelines for listing there. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how long it will take to address so many other users. Maybe it won't be as bad as I imagine. After all, the main issue is between me and Hrafn. Please hold it open. I'll begin to address it to either tonight or tomorrow morning. --Firefly322 (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Science and religion

Sorry for removing your post to WP:3O, but the only dispute that seemed active on that page was the merger proposal, which was being discussed on Talk:Relationship between religion and science. There appears to be a fairly robust consensus, so I performed the merge.

I have also placed a prodded tag on List of science and religion scholars. If you can establish these people as self-identifying or being listed by relevant organizations as "science and religion scholars" or some similar terminology, I would support having this article. As it stands, however, significant original research is required to populate the list. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of J. C. Massee

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA is a two way street

One of the great advantages of the Wikipedia software and community is that it is both possible and permissible to edit text once one realizes that an error has been made. For instance, it is not too late to edit the inflammatory and counterfactual section title to your AN/I post of 8September. It might even be considered a show of good faith and sincerity. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I am perfectly happy to ignore you as a person along with any philosophical or personal differences we may have, and concentrate instead solely on edits to improve the encyclopedia. Quite frankly, that is the only aspect of this project that really interests me. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly apologize for my own limitations in acheiving judicial precision in these matters (some of it may very well be too much for the situation, yet I'm not exactly a legal expert), but I don't see that what I wrote is essentially counterfactual. Hrafn does routinely do things that are unWP:CIVIL and constantly tests the partience of WP:AGF. For anyone to work with him without taking these things into consideration seems, to me, to also test the patience of WP:AGF. And I don't believe that edits or comments that are done by other editors at the suggestion of someone who unrelentingly tests WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL are improvements to the encyclopedia. An extreme example (and I certainly don't believe Hrafn or your association with him has reached it) Nazi biological research. Most of those findings were moth-balled by the scientific community. Although that work was done sincerely, it violated values that transcend sincerity. I'm only using this example to make the idea clear. Sincerity and good faith are no where near the same thing in the realm of values. --Firefly322 (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for making that title change. Regards. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Hi Firefly. Just here with a piece of friendly advice from someone who also works on articles about people who aren't as immediately recognizeable to many wikipedia editors as Big Brother contestants, Pop Stars, Porn Actors or Pokemon. It saves one a lot of grief to put in a paragraph that states explicitly why he or she is notable. For example if when writing I doubt whether a pokemon fan will realise that the topic of my article is notable I will put in a pargraph simply stating: "x is notable because of Y" (of course supplying a reliable source if it isn't too obvious that it is in fact the case, and of course you might be able to find a subtler wording). This strategy may seem crude but it apart from saving you the trouble of fighting AfD's, notability concerns and pedantic editors, and it greatly helps the reader to realise why the person or topic of the article is important, so its a doubly good idea. Happy editing.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Gloating

Gloating is generally considered poor form. {{uw-npa2}}. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have reviewed Firefly322's comment and it does not seem to gloat, being mainly an encouraging commendation for editor Catherineyronwode - a worthy and positive sentiment. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That you, Eldereft think I'm gloating based on what I wrote seems to me to be a difference in perception. I will assume WP:AGF here. If Eldereft overall concern is that Hrafn will no longer provide feedback, defend himself, or offer his distintive crystal commentary, then I agree everyone should tred lightly here. --Firefly322 (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

All the same, User:Hrafn left a WP:POINT message about me on his talk page. An idea that goes against WP:IMPERFECT and in that sense its {{uw-npa2}} from Hrafn to me. Not sure why Eldereft affiliates with Hrafn, it seems to me to be the wrong kind of crowd to be defending much. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

All the same, the user retired from Wikipedia due to your actions...what is the point of accusing a former user of a personal attack...especially without diffs? --Smashville^BONK! 22:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No. He or she retired because he or she had a pattern of cold, calculuated bad behavior that came to light and he or she decided to martyr themselves. I can worship someone who was crucified, i.e., Jesus Christ, but a self-exhiled wikipedia account who had exhibited a cold, calculated pattern of bad behavior. That would be silly. By the way, here are some diffs of his bad behavior: [3] --Firefly322 (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Again - the user is gone. Please stop dancing on graves. --Smashville^BONK! 04:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Leaving an outline of bad behavior along with non-WP:AGF commments, User:Hrafn's talk will probably need be blanked. And in order to do this, the case against him along with the light upon him has to keep going. Sorry if it makes you feel uncomfortable, but just because someone claims that he or she has retired doesn't mean he or she gets to maintain an attack page. Also please don't post anymore on my talk page. Use Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hrafn instead thanks. --Firefly322 (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

His talk page is a redirect and has been for almost a week. I find it a little ironic that you accuse him of having an agenda and deleting things when they remain in the page history, but at the same time, refer to his talk page as active when it is in redirect status. Anyway, I'm assuming by your responses that - despite our requests - you have no desire to cease your actions and want to clarify as much. --Smashville^BONK! 14:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Cease what actions, exactly? Anyway, I recommend reading Catherine's User talk:Catherineyronwode#Retraction requested and Admin Incident. She has a deep understanding of the issues and has already taken great pains to explain what Hrafn has done wrong and why it's not a good idea to follow his example if that's why you are so concerned about these issues between me and him. If you are a high school student, then I really recommend Catherine's posts. They are something you can learn a lot from. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"High school"? I'm sorry...but I'm going to have to just assume I didn't understand what you meant with that one. I have read both of these discussions which is why I have asked you to stop harassing a retired editor. Even if he were an active editor, there is no excuse to continue to go into various forums discussing the "evils" of an editor. If you are unable to provide diffs in the appropriate discussion forum (which at this time is the ANI), then I implore you to drop the matter. --Smashville^BONK! 15:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please provide the diffs of what your talking about, in particlar "evils". The reality is that I am far from alone in my grievances with Hrafn. By the way, so you aren't in high school? Your comments and the fact that you keep writing just to me in the light of other editors addressing this issue seems rather naive. Your comments, to me, just sound like someone who is very, very young. That's all I meant by high school. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you do not wish to discuss this civilly and instead choose to resort to passive aggressive insults, I'm going to cease this discussion right now. --Smashville^BONK! 16:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:IssuesInScienceReligion.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:IssuesInScienceReligion.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 05:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's end all Hrafn discussions

Firefly, I suggest that everyone drop the Hrafn matter. It is somewhat moot right now, being that he is no longer editing. I am sure that he will return and then the matter of his style can be brought up again, if necessary. My point is that this discussion amounts to beating a dead horse and right now we all have better things to do. Let's get out there and improve the articles, and close any open discussions. Please, Madman (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In principle, I'm not one to beat a dead horse. That's why three days ago I wrote close it here. Hrafn has not however shown me the same courtesy, since his talk page User:Hrafn#Unfinished business reads like a Fatwā explicitly suggesting that I as an editor am untrustworthy. In fact, he keeps updating his talk page, doing so only 5 hours ago. So in fact there's evidence that he has not retired. --Firefly322 (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned several places, I am sure Hrafn will be back, and soon. But I don't think we need to respond to postings on his User page. Let's just improve our own articles so when he does return, he won't have as much to complain about. Madman (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Catherineyronwode's most recent description is accurate and purposeful to the wikipedia community in perpetuity. I don't see any legitimate reason for her to drop it. I've already closed my case, but the pattern of behavior in question is one that does serve as a universal example that needs to be addressed. And I want to support her in making this case. I fully believe I and Catherine have a moral duty not to drop the ball here. --Firefly322 (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of law. In my limited experience, each case is decided on the particulars and there is little reliance on precedents.

Moreover, with Hrafn having declared his retirement, I doubt that anyone would be interested in some sort of complaint.

If you want to make a statement or change the way Wikipedia operates, I think you'd have more success by working on some of the guidelines or writing an essay. Madman (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:ModernTheologyCover.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:ModernTheologyCover.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Reviews of Issues in Science and Religion

The reviews you added to Talk:Issues in Science and Religion#Reviews are probably copyrighted text, and full or substantial reproductions are not covered by fair use. Please either indicate that their publication there is compatible with the GFDL or remove the text per WP:COPYVIO. - Eldereft (cont.) 04:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer. They aren't in main space. They are there for purely educational purposes. I put them there so that you or some other editors could read them and improve the main space article. I think that from this comment and your other comments your goal in Issues in Science and Religion is to make things difficult for me. I would appreciate it if you did not work on or tag any more articles that I work on. There are plenty of other editors to do that. Thanks. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Mainspace or not doesn't matter. Look down below the edit box - it clearly says Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. Guettarda (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Firefly322, please retract your unsubstantiated accusations [4], [5], [6]. You have indicated before that you are aware of the relevant policies, please read and abide by them; {{uw-own3}}, {{Uw-agf3}}, {{npa4}}. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Content issues

Please use the article talk page for questions related to article formatting, not my talk page. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:NWofMrTompkins.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NWofMrTompkins.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

Regarding your comments on User talk:Guettarda: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. This edit is a personal attack. Please refactor and refrain from further personal attacks.

OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I asked him [7] to please stop what appears to me to be essentially Wikipedia:Tendentious editing of religion and science articles. If I somehow offended him, then I apologize to him. However, OrangeMarlin, you too seem to be Wikipedia:Tendentious editing with respect to religion and science articles. At least that's why we appear to have come into contact. So even an outsider looking at this might suspect that your comments are far from impartial and most probably unwarranted and inaccurate in regards to what has happened and the attributed characterisitcs of the parties involved. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I don't see this as a personal attack. At least three times, User talk:Guettarda has called a set of impersonal edits to a religion and science article anecdotal [8], [9], and [10]. This is what led to [11]. What disturbs me the most is the fact that his or her usage of the word anecdote is either wrong (a usually short narrative of an interesting, amusing, or biographical incident) or supposed to be a slight personal comment on my edits. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me for jumping in, but the term "anecdotal" refers (I believe) to the evidence. In the realm of scientific inquiry, there is experimental evidence and anecdotal evidence, the latter being something on the order of "Fred drank a cold glass of water and dropped dead". So, Guettarda is referring to the quality of the edit/evidence. I don't think there's anything personal intended. Madman (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

From the start you have insisted on personalising simple editorial issues. That approach to editing Wikipedia is extremely unhelpful. The "nutshell" version of our policy on personal attacks says Comment on content, not on the contributor. You wrote:

Based on your continuing use of the word anecdotal and the lack of any real contributions to the category, it seems to me that your goal is simply to cause chaos in the religion and science category. If so, this is truly reprehensible behavior.

1. Your conclusion that it seems to me that your goal is simply to cause chaos is a comment on my motivation. As such, it's a comment not on actions or content, but rather on me as a person, on the motivations behind my actions. This alone brings it into the arena of our WP:NPA policy.
2. Your assertion that there was a lack of any real contributions to the category is both uncivil and inaccurate. Apart from the fact that I have been editing articles in Category:Religion and science since late 2004 or early 2005, the underlying philosophy of Wikipedia is that anyone is free to improve articles. As I have tried to do on the Relationship between religion and science. Generally, fixing formatting errors and trying to make sure that an article meets our core policies is a good thing. On the other hand, repeatedly reverting formatting changes, and refusing to discuss the issue are seen as a bad thing. Over a week ago I asked that someone clarify parts of the "Parallels in methods" section. You responded to the request most uncivilly, flat out refusing to explain, and following up with a spurious complaint to ANI. I have given you over a week to explain the disparity between the article and the source. And yet...nothing. I asked for clarification before fixing a section that was obviously problematic.

   Given your hostile response, I decided to leave the issue alone for a while, so as to give you an opportunity to fix the problem yourself. My mistake, of course. But to then spin my attempt to defuse the situation as a "lack of any real contribution" is quite something to behold.

3. I raised the fact that there were problems in the "Current scholarship" section ten days ago. Despite that, you chose to exacerbate the issue by adding yet more examples. Even if you didn't understand what I meant by "anecdotes", it was very clear that I was raising concerns about the nature of the "references" in that section. It's reasonable to ask "what do you mean by X?" (as I did in the "parallel methodology" section). It's reasonable to expect a response. If you don't understand what someone means, you should ask.
4. You have accused me of tendentious editing. On what basis did you choose to make this accusation? How is it that you describe a formatting change as partisan, biased, skewed editing? How does a request that articles adhere to our core policies not conform to the neutral point of view? Certainly there's no way to describe my edits as repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors. The edit you were complaining about neither "insert[ed] or deleted content", nor was it resisted by "multiple other editors". It was a formatting change which you chose to revert. So accusing me of "tendentious editing" is simply a false accusation. It is unacceptable for you to engage in attacks like that.
5. You seem to be upset with my usage of the term "anecdotal". Since it would appear that the previous link I provided did not explain things well enough for you, I would like to point you toward our article on anecdotal evidence. Obviously it's a Wikipedia article, and as such is far from an ideal source, but it should help to clear up some of your confusion.

Guettarda (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Mystic

Hello, Are you a Christian mystic?

Mateus Zica (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)