User talk:Merzul/Archive 5

Expelled

Merzul, thank you very much for your advice. I'm extremely surprised to hear you said that the biggest anti-ID pushers are religious. I don't know if this is true, or if there is anything empirical to support it, and I really do appreciate your attempt to provide advice, but Wikipedia does not play favorites. No one editor or faction has the power to make atheists or any other group "not welcome", as they do not own the articles. I may very well consider stepping away for a bit, since the movie just came out, and the article is so huge that it will inevitably be pared down for length. Whether the anti-ID POV edits will be is another matter, but I'm going to wait to see what others say. I'd wish you chime in on that Discussion page, since it takes people like you and I to let others know that all people are welcome on WP. I see that NCdave has given his support for me on that discussion, and Dave Souza has reverted the article to bring it line with the concerns I raised. You should not be afraid to make your thoughts known. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 08:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Unwatch" What give, brother Merzul? Angry Christian (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Merzul. I have been watching all this drama about Expelled from a distance, and I am less involved in conflict resolution than I used to be, but if you see a way for me to help, please don't hesitate to ask. Pastordavid (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for asking. I unwatched the page because of two things:

1. I think there are positive indication that some editors on the other side of the debate are now responding more positively to the concerns about the tone of the article.
2. My real life duties require that I be a Wikisloth not a Wikiogre. :) This is actually extremely serious, I really can't engage in a controversial article right now. Also, I think I'm making productive edits to the uncontroversial article The God Delusion, dealing with the GA review. After that I would like to complete work on the argument from nonbelief. The latter is probably the most interesting topic that I'm editing. A fairly technical piece of modern philosophy of religion, but which really appeals to me personally.

By the way, PastorDavid, you also leave articles whenever consensus is against you, but the difference seems to be that you do it with dignity, while I cry like a pussy. So don't worry about me. Instead, what I would kindly request of you is that maybe you could read argument from nonbelief as far as I have reached. I haven't gotten yet to the main rebuttals, so I have only covered the weaker ones. In this sense, it is biased against the theist view, since the main part is almost missing. But your input on what is there so far would be very helpful. I'm sure some of my POV slips through, so if you could check it for NPOV I would be so glad. Thanks again, both of you, for the concern, Merzul (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be glad to have a glance at it, and see what there is to see. Pastordavid (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, I noticed I had left it in a very shabby state. I quickly fixed the most embarrassing part ... I hadn't focused so much on style, but just on closely report the sources. --Merzul (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you chime in with your thoughts here? Thanks.

Thanks

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I would like to present you with this award for being a great help in neatly arranging a list of action points for the Richard Dawkins FA candidacy. [[User:AC+79 3888|[ talk ] 19:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The timing of this couldn't actually have been any better... reminding me to focus on helping rather than imposing my opinion on articles, such as Expelled, were other people are doing the hard work. But it is difficult sometimes, when I think I know what is right and I feel others are doing things wrong... I'm still wondering what the right thing to do is, whether to walk away and contribute where you can do good, or stay and continue annoying the editors on the talk page.

Anyone watching my talk page is welcome to comment, think of this as a mini-RFC.

• What would you have done in a situation like that?
• What should one do, if you believe some of the top defenders of the Wiki are going a bit too far?

Any feedback no matter how critical would be helpful, Merzul (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You would have to describe the situation or give me a link, as I can't find what you were arguing about.:) Maybe because the 'expelled' talk page is so long. It looks like you're seeing problems that others report having, particularly on ID-related articles.Merkin's mum 18:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

See primarily here. I'm mostly taking an issue with a group of editors, who have defined themselves as the good guys, and any contrary opinion is seen as either completely misunderstanding NPOV or even worse, deceitful attempts at propaganda. I have nothing against being wrong, User:Silence has silenced me many times by his competent arguments. I once wanted to remove Stalin as an example of an atheist. My point was that his short list of atheist, which had put a few nice guys together with a few bad guys, was a violation of WP:SYN :) It was a brilliant argument, don't you think? But as I said, I was fairly quickly shown to have no real case by Silence's argumentation. Filll has shown some of that kind of reasoning as well, recently. I would say things are progressing. --Merzul (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Mini RFC

Anyone is welcome to comment here, but please focus on my above questions, i.e., please avoid rants about whether the article in question actually is biased or not. The question is what one should do if one believes the consensus of well-established editors is simply wrong.

• My view as a WP:WikiSloth is that you could try and change their minds a little, but if it seems impossible and just annoying, stop and concentrate on something more enjoyable on or off wiki. You could come back to it later if you feel like it. Do what you can to change their minds, but try not to be too annoyed if there's no way to change them. You may also see that they are treating people on the complete opposite side of the argument to them, far worse. As I get older I realise how many evils there are in life which can't be easily changed. Like the amount of obscure role playing game articles on wiki.:) You may also find other people have had similar problems to you, and said similar things. It's easier to get the gist of things by email where people can talk in more depth, also no-one can decide to take objection to your discussion.Merkin's mum 12:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Your input is helpful, but you probably don't understand WP:N. When I had as many edits as you, I had no clue what role playing games are all about. Editors, who have a difficult time understanding our notability guidelines, have found editing Conservapedia more to their liking; it has no articles on role playing games whatsoever. Merzul (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Of course, some people say that Wikipedia is itself a MMORPG. Maybe that's why we lowly editors without as many edits can never hope to achieve the same knowledge of true NPOV :) Merkin's mum 17:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
      • At least we have the power of indifference on our side. :P --Merzul (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [1] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

here's a good'un

I suspect this is a good article to work on, if you ever want a row for some reason lol, Master Cleanse. 'Luckily' the fans of it don't seem to have noticed the (what I think are) improvements.:) Merkin's mum 18:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Merzul. Thank you for the award. We will work hard and the article Richard Dawkins will achieve FA status. Regard, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins

Hello Merzul. Can you please explain me the meaning of this? You have removed 27 references. Please don't make such edits without discussing with other editors. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have saved an old revision. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I wrote in my edit summary WP:BRD-alert, meaning it was a drastic edit, and you have every right to revert it. When I have time I will come and discuss and perhaps defend it in part at least. In any case, it is mostly up to you to decide, but clearly one has to sometimes make drastic edits otherwise there is nothing to compare to. Merzul (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: OM and Twinkle

Thank you very much for stopping by my talk page. I had seen OM's use of Twinkle and had been rather shocked by it, causing me to remove it. But after discussing the broader situation with a few other editors, it is clear that your summary of the state of affair is too true. It seems there have been an incredible amount of issues surround ID / creationism, causing some editors to become battle-hardened warriors. OM seems like a very good content contributor, I just worry about some of his people skills. On one hand, we always need to be accepting of new editors to an article; on the other hand, some of these articles have been battlegrounds for years, and seemingly small changes can pour fuel on a timid fire. And I'd be lying if I didn't say that after a long time editing and working with this project, fatigue and weariness (and wariness) inevitably sets in.

Anyway... your comment was very well-said and much-appreciated. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

To Merzul, I disagree with some of what MZM said above, but I do appreciate what you said on his talk page. Very nice. If only MZM knew I decided to walk away from those battleground ID/Creationist articles long ago. I forgot that Picard was one of them. I fight the good fight on Medical articles almost exclusively. I don't even watch ID or Evolution anymore, because it causes aneurysms. Yup aneurysms. That's a scientific fact. Anyways, thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Out of the fring pan --- into the fire!

Delighted to see you return as well. However .... I see you jumped right into the thick of things. I plan to limit my edits to obscure freshwater fish which can't possible generate edit wars. I've also placed a stop watch by the PC which beeps after 30 minutes. Its part of the conditions of my probation. I certainly plan to stay away from "Expelled"; that would be like a recovering alcoholic renting a room above a liquor store. Best of luck with that! Cheers. --JimmyButler (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy! Great to hear from you. I'm actually quite happy. There was an episode there when I went straight into the fire, but now I'm mostly watching the ID debates from afar. My main issue with Expelled was that it has stylistic problems that I think undermine the presentation of facts. When reading it one gets the feeling that we are opposed to the ID movement. Clearly, ID is junk science because it doesn't produce any testible scientific hypotheses and so on, it's not junk science because we Wikipedians decided that it is. I think the article sometimes give a bit of that impression though...

I'm letting that matter rest, and I'm happy to contribute elsewhere. Still, I'm not sure what to make of the black-and-white mentality on many of these talk pages. It seems there is so much sustained pov-pushing by the Discovery Institute that many reasonable editors find it hard to believe how someone not supporting the movement could possibly have problems with the article.

And I now I wonder, if the Picard debate is going to make things more or less dichotomous... In any case, given the amount of time I have, just like you said, staying away from hotspots is the wisest course of action. Best wishes, Merzul (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

coppertwig RfA

I don't know if you've seen any of his work, but wondered if you might like to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Coppertwig and share any opinion about him you might have. Merkin's mum 01:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I was on different sides with Coppertwig in the fabulous WP:ATT debate, and at that time I felt he was very annoying and stubborn. In retrospect, I think it was brave of him to defend his position... However, in this RfA, Raymond Aritt gave a strong oppose. Since I think Raymond is well-versed in the art of WP:DGAF, this really can't be just a POV-issue. Merzul (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I loved your comment about atheism and assuming faith of any kind lol:) Merkin's mum 18:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, you called me a "devout atheist", so what else could I do... :D Merzul (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It could be worse- a friend of a friend does call himself a devout homosexual.:) Merkin's mum 19:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Divine mouthpiece

Unfortunately, I am not a divine mouthpiece, as I am a mere poet who is inspired by such, the Muse. My ears were faulty at that time, of course. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Breaks

Thanks for the comment, Merzul, I do hope you return refreshed. I particularly appreciated your comment on the user page about adressing/rebutting the best case for ID rather than something else. I tend to avoid most of the related articles (it's interesting to me there's little overlap between those and the ones relating to secularism and the separation of church and state), but I think an article like this is where that point is particularly important. Best, Mackan79 (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

How long can breaks of that sort last anyway? Wiki editing ends more in a wimper, I think. I'm certainly glad to have you around anyway, it's nice to have people who look for ways around problems, and who do a good job of listening, whether or not always to agree. Mackan79 (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

exciting help with formatting references

Hi Merzul I think I saw you sort out a reference of mine on the Master Cleanse article. Now much as I'd love you to do the work for me on User:Merkinsmum/Theistic_Satanism I couldn't expect that. But I wondered if before you go on a break you could give me a quick tip. How do I link directly to the books online, so I don't have to give an ugly long "google books" search link? Merkin's mum 14:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is customary to give the google book search link, but I'll come and visit you on the talk page. Let's see what we can do. Merzul (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

replied at User_talk:Merkinsmum/Theistic_Satanism- thanks for your reply, sorry I didn't spot it yesterday, I've been immersed in evil, and not in a good way lol.:) Merkin's mum 21:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

From expelled

Merzul, I appreciate your stepping in. I suspect you're right that the talk page there was the wrong place to remind Filll that his choosing to disparage others has a negative effect without a compensating positive one. I would be delighted to jump into the debate there, if I knew anything about the sources. I'm not familiar with the topic of the article, but I am familiar enough with people to know that "please stop with this nonsense" is not likely to advance a discussion, and is likely to provoke a defensive response from the other person. That sort of thing happens all the time around here, and it doesn't require expert knowledge to see it.

You're right that there's no point interrupting a discussion about sources to pursue a long-standing disagreement with Filll. I apologize for my intrusion there, and I look forward to seeing you around. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand your position, having experience it first hand, search "Your input is helpful" on this page for my parody of the attitude on that talk page. Does it seem that I capture the patterns you talk about? On the other hand, I have now maybe spent one-two weeks on the Expelled page and I already basically wrote that one editor was trolling, well, I then calmed down, but this is after 7 days or so. It is my impression that people are trying their best under extremely difficult circumstances. Merzul (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that reply. I agree that people are trying their best; that's pretty much beyond question as far as I'm concerned. I think I would probably do well to refrain from engagement with Filll for a while - there's too much bad blood there.

I'm not sure I understand the "parody" above, but don't worry about it. I'm working on some ideas about how to improve the way Wikipedia handles controversial topics such as Expelled. If you're interested, I can keep you posted on anything that comes to fruition. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot more here than meets the eye.--Filll (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Right... GTBacchus has decided to leave you alone, and we are more-or-less closing this discussion until GTBacchus comes up with some proposal. You said these are cautious times, so I'm not sure why you want to raise curiosity. In any case, due to real life reasons I will probably actually have a longish break now. In any case, Filll, you know my position, so if my input on something is needed, leave a message here or e-mail me, otherwise, we will not cross paths in a fairly long while. Merzul (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar notice

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For self-referentially creating WP:TL;DR Stifle (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Merzul, thanks for the perspective. I'm not really into the whole barnstar thing but if I was I'd leave you one. I replied to your last message on my talk page. Best.PelleSmith (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

hey merzie

How's life? The main stress etc. out of the way yet? Now you have the quiet desperation of the rest of married life:) Sticky Parkin 23:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S- this is me, merkinsmum, I had to change my name. Sticky Parkin 23:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Natural Theology

I have no idea what you had in your idea of WP:POINT in your comment. Maybe you missed that he deleted a citation directly from a notability source and used the uncited version. I'm not directly questioning the notability of natural theology, although I never heard of it before last month. It is just simply policy to cite the article, especially if one if going to undo my attempts to add cites that can be verified. That isn't being constructive. As you'll notice, I didn't out-right delete stuff from the lead when I added the cite which he later removed. Please, put the cleanup(s) back it as the article badly needs it. — Dzonatas 02:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I put the {{refimprove}}, which is maybe what you had in mind. I think I can agree with that. Merzul (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I didn't realize that tag exists -- old habit to use cleanup to generally request cites and such. — Dzonatas 02:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Theistic Satanism

The 'Satanic nonsense' article is in a bearable state to now benefit from ruthless mockery and scorn.:) So please take a look and share your wisdom about how it could be improved in order to meet WP:GA, on the talk page. Sticky Parkin 15:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Recommendation

Merzul, thanks for your note. Given how far the situation has already escalated, I made an offer to mentor on the relevant thread at ANI, assuming everyone is agreeable to such an arrangement. I don't know if anything will come of it, but we'll see. Pastordavid (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, my offer of help resulted in the editor in question accusing me at ANI of votestacking at AfD. So I don't think I'll be helping out much on this one. Pastordavid (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It's my turn to look for help. I have an editor (Daynal (talk · contribs)) who was blocked for using multiple accounts. He has a tendency toward (a) soapboxing, (b) copying others comments to various places (thus destroying the GFDL required history of contributions), and (c) editing on topics where he has a COI. If he had a responsible mentor (hint, hint), I would be willing to unblock him under a few conditions (namely, one account only, no more soapboxing, and no more copying comments all over the place). I think he could be a constructive editor, if he ever got around to content. Are you game? Pastordavid (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have set up an unblock proposal here. Pastordavid (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Baginni edits

[Post by Wikigiraffe]

I'll look into this after work. After a quick skimming of your material, I don't personally think there is anything that is unsuitable for a talk page; the problem, as I see it, is the extreme focus on only negative reviews, the quote-mining and trivialization of his writing on controversial and complicated issues, and the biased commentary with which you present the material.

I'm looking into this. Meanwhile, try to not offend our admins any further as that only serves to undermine your case. In particular, if someone removes your post from here, do not restore it, or post it elsewhere. Thanks, Merzul (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In any case, after a more careful reading, and seeing that SV has blanked this on the talk page, I've done the same here. Let's keep discussions at Talk:Julian Baggini so more people can follow. I'm not that sure about BLP policy, for example, I don't know if google indexes talk pages, etc, so I trust SV's judgement on this. Merzul (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Merzul, I hope you can find time to look into this later than. I'm spending far more time on this than I intended, of course. But it is quite clear to me that there is little connection between Slim's activities and any Wikipedia policies.

I'm putting a general note - not he material any more until we get agreement on what counts as discussion! - on the JB talk page.

Wikigiraffes (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)