User talk:Wing Nut

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Wing Nut, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Mushroom (Talk) 15:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that gracious welcome. I see I have some extensive reading to do. --Wing Nut 17:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

1 Yes, I was...
2 WP:3RR
3 Image Tagging for Image:Lacmapmaster.gif
4 NPA
5 3RR
6 Please comment on plagiarism
7 User page
8 WP:POINT
9 Edits to science articles
10 Hello I'm your Mediator

[edit] Yes, I was...

>Hola! Are you confusing "North" America with "Northern" America? Mexico >is part of North America, along with Central America and the Caribbean. >But it is not part of Northern America, a UN-defined subregion. >--Wing Nut 20:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I was, I am sorry.--Ornitorrinco 20:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No hay problema, and thanks for changing Northern America back! :-) --Wing Nut 20:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR

Please be mindful of WP:3RR. FeloniousMonk 17:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Lacmapmaster.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Lacmapmaster.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPA

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Er, whom did I "attack"? Another user? --Wing Nut 21:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I considered the following removed sentances to be uncivil personal attacks against other contributors, and removed them per WP:RPA [1]. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to anyone on the talk page - not even in general! I meant to refer only to non-Wikipedians, i.e., writers of books, magazine articles, or reviwers - the sort of people we can quote as sources for a Wikipedia article.

If there is some sort of 'count' involved (as there seems to be for 3RR), please reset it to zero. --Wing Nut 21:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no count. I believed you were commenting about other contibutors. I suggest you act with hypersensitivity towards others predilection to take offense at innocouous remarks, regardless of your noble intentions. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. Is it okay that I re-inserted my comment, with amplification? --Wing Nut 21:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I will not remove it, but I would note that talk pages are for discussions of articles, not for political slapfests. Please focus on the article, not your distatste for liberals. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought the topic was Coulter's distaste for liberals - as well as their distaste for her. I have no desire to create a biased article. Don't you guys believe in presenting both sides? --Wing Nut 21:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The topic of the talk page is the article. The topic of the article is Ann Coulter. If you are discussing something that is not the article on the talk page, you are in the wrong place. Please don't do that, if you ever have. Just continue not talking about politics on our article talk pages. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you an admin? Are you officially warning me that I'm in violation of policy?

Is it against Wikipedia policy to discuss matters such as evidence of plagiarism and motivations of accusers with regard to the most hated political writer in America?

I am not an adminstrator. I am warning you that you are skirting the bleeding edge of what is acceptable. It is NOT acceptable to discuss things other than the article on article talk pages. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Hi Wing Nut, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at Godless:_The_Church_of_Liberalism and have been blocked for 24 hours. When you return, please try to reach a compromise on the talk page. In the meantime, you may wish to review the 3RR policy. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. Which edits did I make which violated the 3RR rule? Did I insert the same information four times, or something like that? --Wing Nut 14:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You reverted more than three times in 24 hours, and you were warned. Any undoing of another editor's work counts as a revert; it doesn't have to be the same material that is reverted each time. Take a look at the policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I get it now. Thanks, and sorry for the disruption. I'll be more careful in the future. --Wing Nut 20:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Wingnut, I'm going to unblock you now because of your response, and because this was your first block. In future, please be careful not to violate 3RR, and better still, don't revert up to that point either. Trying to trash out a compromise on the talk page can be tedious, but it makes for more stable articles in the end, and no blocks. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That's awfully kind - I was prepared to wait out the 24 hours :-) But it's all good: I've been reading stuff like Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club and WP:0RR, which seem like good ideas. --Wing Nut 20:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please comment on plagiarism

Thanks. Here you go. ____G_o_o_d____

[edit] User page

Nice user page comments. Ras Billy I 14:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I forget where I plagiarized them from. ;-) Maybe we could ask Ann Coulter. Anyway, they are certainly NOT the "liberal" definition of left and right (where left is progressive and liberating and right is reactionary, stultifying and fascist). --Wing Nut 14:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:POINT

Please read WP:POINT. FeloniousMonk 21:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've read it. The most interesting part was in Wikipedia:Don't_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point#Examples:

If you wish to change an existing procedure or guideline...

do set up a discussion page and try to establish consensus

I am currently discussing NPOV and how it applies to cases where a supermajority of contributors believes (or supports) a POV - and wants to marginalize or exclude the opposing POV.

Was this what you had in mind, or is this another warning like the 3RR thing (which I didn't realize was a warning)? --Wing Nut 13:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. You think I'm going around to "all" the related articles and "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point". Well, I'm not. First of all, it's not all articles. Secondly, it's not disruption to ask for a source. --Wing Nut 16:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to science articles

I'm a bit confused by some of your edits to science articles. In particular, you seem to be concerned with promoting a creationist ideal of "balance" in scientific subjects. If this isn't the case, please let me know, but right now I think some of your contributions border on accomodating psuedoscience in a way that conflicts with our NPOV policy. Pseudoscience as an extreme minority does not deserve equal treatment on science pages and it may even deserve outright exclusion depending on how notable the pseudoscience is with regards to the subject at hand. --ScienceApologist 18:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point me to a Wikipedia policy page or guideline on "science pages". Where does it say that views which disagree with the science mainstream are (1) pseudoscience and (2) deserve outright exclusion?

Anyway, the views of Creationists (of the sort who reject the fossil record) aren't an extreme minority. Around 1 in 5 people is a creationist, as far as I know. It's probably more in the U.S. --Wing Nut 18:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You can check up on WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience to start. Scientific subjects are contextualized by the scientific community. The fossil record is an article about a scientific subject. That's not to say that we write it from a "scientific point of view" but only that the subject for all intents-and-purposes does not exist outside of the people who study it as a scientific idea. So prose in the article is necessarily contextualized by a description of the fossil record and not by people who dispute such a description. Believe me there are a number of ways one can dispute the fossil record outside of the scientific study of it. Flood geology is a good example. However, this doesn't necessarily bear mentioning in an article that is written to explain the subject of the fossil record, not to record the opinions of people about the description.

To draw a comparison, look at a subject such as May crowning. This is an article about a Roman Catholic ritual. Are there people who dislike May crownings? I'm sure. There are probably plenty of conservative Protestant groups who view such actions as idolatry but unless their views actually generate controversy within the discourse of May crowning, NPOV directs us to marginalize or even exclude any polemical criticisms that an anti-May crowner may support. That's not to say if you find a group that criticized May Crownings you can't write about them in an article about that group, but they may not deserve inclusion in the article about May crowning itself.

I understand that you come from political and law articles which are subject to many more "balance" issues with regards to NPOV. These spill-over occasionally into science-related articles but there is a danger that editors that are familiar with the NPOV-subtleties in politics may not be as familiar with the NPOV-subtleties in science. Whereas to you, including a description of how creationists dispute the fossil record on the fossil record page may look similar to the NPOV balance needed on the unlawful combatants page, the comparison isn't really apt. A better analogy might be if there was a person who wished to include critiques of combat itself in the forms of pacifism on the unlawful combatant page. I'm sure pacifists have a lot to say about what "unlawful combatants" are, but as they reject "combat" outright from a moral perspective, their opinion on what makes a combatant lawful or unlawful is quite irrelevant and it would be a violation of NPOV's undue weight section to write about pacifism's take on the unlawful combatant's page, however relevant the comments may appear superficially.

--ScienceApologist 19:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I don't agree with it, but I appreciate your perspective. I'll check with some admins, and see what if they share your opinion.

The part about the subject for all intents-and-purposes does not exist outside of the people who study it as a scientific idea simply doesn't make sense in light of NPOV. Unless science is treated differently? I'll do some searching, if you can't point me to a page that backs up your opinion. --Wing Nut 19:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the controversy about "evolution" is one thing, ignoring it regarding the "fossil record" is quite another. Creationists dispute a whole slew of scientific subjects including such unrelated ideas as radioactivity, speed of light, and even gluons. Most of these objections are promulgated by a few virulent creationists who make it their business to be bugged about the inconsistencies between science and their beliefs. The vast majority of creationists have no interest in the fossil record or in any of the other subjects I mentioned above. This seems to indicate that it would be undue weight to discuss what creationists do or do not believe regarding the fossil record on the fossil record page which is simply a description of a well-known and almost universally (among those who are aware of it) phenomenon that there are fossils and that they represent life that existed in the past. Larry's comment about evolution doesn't seem to apply. We aren't writing CreationWiki, we're writing a general encyclopedia. --ScienceApologist 19:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks again for taking the time to explain all that. The speed of light thing sounds kind of obscure, same as gluons. I just think it would be nice to have a minimal reference to the fact that some Creationists reject the fossil record (YECs) and that some design theorists accept it while others reject it.

Is Wikipedia only about science? Or is it a general encyclopedia?

Are certain subjects marked "scientific viewpoints only"? Is how the general public or even "dedicated science opponents" view topics officially deemed irrelevant to these topics? --Wing Nut 19:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can find another use for the term "fossil record" other than the scientific one, please let me know. Until then, we report the facts associated with observing the fossil record without bias by discussing what the fossil record is and how scientists interpret it. No articles are marked "scientific viewpoints only" since Wikipedia does not have a SPOV (scientific point of view). However, articles that are about particular subjects are subject to issues of undue weight. The fossil record like any other scientific evidence for evolution is disputed by some creationists. However, that doesn't mean that their dispute is worthy of inclusion or even brief mention in the article on the fossil record. It is an editorial decision that is supported by having specific pages which describe the creationist position on the subjects (e.g. flood geology, c-decay, gluon disputes). WP:V determines how we report on subjects that are scientifically studied. Opinions about the fossil record just don't appear to be notable with regards to the fossil record subject. It may be more appropriate for the flood geology or the creation-evolution controversy article. --ScienceApologist 22:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello I'm your Mediator

Hello Wing Nut I'm Aeon I will be your Cabalist for your issue. I will be setting up a special Talk page in my user space once I notify the other users. Please note that they have to except Mediation in order for this to work. Happy Editting Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 04:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Wing Nut, Nowimnthing has replied, he doesn't understand why you would request Mediation on him and as also informated me that the article is pending a merge. His statement is that he only revert you once. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 13:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist has also replied. He agrees win Nowimnthing about mediation. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 13:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wing Nut, two out of the three Users you have issues with have turned Mediation down. I will be closing this case this weekend. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 12:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Case closed due to lack of response from you and all opposing users turning it down. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 15:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/n/User_talk%7EWing_Nut_0259.html"