User talk:ImprobabilityDrive/Archive001

Welcome!

Greetings...

Hello, ImprobabilityDrive, and welcome to Wikipedia!

To get started, click on the green welcome.

I hope you like it here and decide to stay!

Happy editing! dave souza, talk 10:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

– short greeting in place of WelcomeGreen added by Mermaid from the Baltic Sea, 01:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I delete the above table please?

Thanks. ImprobabilityDrive 20:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Since it seems that you find the WelcomeGreen template rather overpowering, I've replaced it with the shortest welcome template on the current Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates/Table. Feel free to delete it, but it's as well to have something to save well intentioned welcomers from thinking a big hello is just what you need. Oh, and 'Ay ay, fit like?', .. dave souza, talk 10:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It was a bit over-powering. Maybe a hide/expend feature on the big welcome would be better. ImprobabilityDrive 02:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A note on Billy Sunday biographies

Welcome to the discussion on Billy Sunday! Just to let you know.....the McLoughlin biography was the first scholarly treatment of Sunday's life, published as an expanded PhD dissertation in 1955. It's very detailed and represents the most in-depth research on Sunday's revivals. Although it's dated, and also has a negative tone (the author doesn't like Sunday much), it is authoritative. More recently, Bruns wrote a popular, and somewhat inaccurate in details, book; Dorsett (a history professor at a Bible college) wrote an insightful and valuable but short, complimentary, and undocumented book; Martin wrote a careful study of Sunday's Midwestern roots and the influence of his younger years; Firstenberger (the curator of the Billy Sunday Museum) wrote a fascinating and perceptive book on the contents of Sunday's home; and Knickerbocker wrote a detailed book on Sunday's baseball career and his coming of age, including his conversion. (All of those are in the article's bibliography.) The Larson book, it seems to me, adds depth to our picture of Sunday. Rocketj4 21:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for hte help and taking the time to write. I'll save your comment and take a look at some other Billy Sunday resources when I get some time. (Have to get a garden in before my seedlings outgrow their containers.) ImprobabilityDrive 04:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Noah's Ark

Hi, I-drive, I left your one change alone, thanks for explaining. The other I modified in a way that should please both of us (and, one hopes, other editors), although I think the secular accounts would be more along the lines of criticism (in sense of analysis of qualities and evaluation of comparative worth). Nice quote from Dawkins, by the way. •Jim62sch• 14:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. The quote is from his eulogy for Douglas Adams, if the internet can be trusted. ImprobabilityDrive 04:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Never trust the internet....well, OK, sometimes trust the internet, as long as what you're looking at doesn't promise free Microsoft Operating System upgrades for life so long as you donate $15 to help some girl in Appalachia who has three eyes and needs to have special glasses made by an optometrist living with monks in Tibet. ;)
Ya gotta keep an eye on me with word-usage, not that I use the wrong words, just that I sometimes use obscure ones because, well, a) I know them, might as well use them, b) I like to see if anyone is paying attention, and c) for people like yourself learning a new word is always seen as a plus, and that makes me feel more positive about huimanity's future. So, one dictionary actually defined it as elitist? Utterly bizarre.
Your worldview is a bit "warmer" than mine -- I seem like a cold-hearted Vulcan! •Jim62sch• 19:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I got ya, my bad. Yes, I was using vulgus as the equivalent of "hoi polloi" as you correctly determined. The OED has a pretty good "everyday" dictionary, "The Shorter OED", which runs about $120. The full OED is available on-line through http://www.oed.com/ for $30 a month, although that's only worthwhile if you'll be using it a lot. The CD version of the full OED is $295 (which, while a lot, is worth it as you can use it for years, and better than the $1100 you'd have to spend on the equivalent version on paper). Otherwise, there are a few "OK" dictionaries out there, Webster's New World College Dictionary*, Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, The Oxford American College Dictionary, and Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary -- the latter being pretty good. *I have this one, but vulgus isn't in there as a separate entry, it appears only in the etymology of vulgar. (I guess in my case learning Latin has had a few benefits.) •Jim62sch• 09:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: Heads Up

See my further discussion on Talk:Creation-evolution controversy:

• No consensus existed.
• The ICR was not simply "pointing to research," it was shoddy research that they themselves commissioned (through their RATE project). Pretending that it is legitimate research is definitely undue weight. Additionally, this 'research' was not directed at whether decay rates were constant, this was merely an inference they took off it (a more scientific inference would be that there was a probable defect in their methodology).

In reference to the quoted document:

• ICR was the primary source.
• ICR's research has not been verified by any scientific source, nor has it been published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal.
• ICR made a MASSIVE (and unwarranted) "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative" claim.

ICR's 'research' therefore has zero value other than as an indication of the Nuclear Physics claims that Creationists make -- which was the use I was attempting to make of it. Hrafn42 04:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"In this case, I think rather than undue weight, the sentence was just inaccurate or at least misleading." I think we might both be right. It is actually bad on a number of levels:

• It does not identify it as ICR's own research (inaccurate).
• It does not mention that this research is unpublished & has been debunked (undue weight).
• It states ICR's unwarranted inference as though it was part of the research's conclusion (inaccurate & undue weight).

"I don't mean this as an insult; I can see you have strong feelings about at least ICR."

Actually, the ICR mostly slips under my radar. It tends mostly to "preach to the choir" & doesn't have that big a profile with the (current) wider controversy. The Creationist group that really gets up my nose is the Discovery Institute. I dislike pseudoscience on general principles, and take a fairly hard line on anything that (accidentally or otherwise) presents it in a legitimate light.

Anyway, imagine some other controversy, say the abstinence-birth control controversy, this would be a sociopolitical article. It is different than an article on birth control, and it is different than an article on abstinence. It is an article about the controversy.

In such an article, we might try to find neutral commentators and observers of the controversy as sources. These would be the ideal secondary sources. But perhaps that is not possible on many important aspects of the controversy, where important is evidenced by both sides of the controversy repeatedly contesting some aspect or other. In such cases, we might have to rely on the points and counter points of the forbearance fundementalists, and points and counter points of sex education professionals. I believe that the wikipedia policy states that while we can use these primary sources, we cannot take sides (in the article on the controversy). We also have to be careful to identify the sources, not conduct original research, and so on and so forth.

Actually the abstinence-birth control controversy is very similar. The scientific evidence is that abstinence education has no discernible effect. To present the controversy in any light other than one that highlights this fact is to present it dishonestly.

"But in the controversy article, the intent of the article is to describe the controversy, not resolve it."

If a controversy is a heavily asymmetric (particularly in terms of the weight of evidence and/or expert opinion), the only way to honestly describe it is to highlight this asymmetry.

These sorts of issues are likely to dominate any objective controversy. However they would be far less applicable to purely subjective ones (i.e. where only such issues as morality, aesthetics, etc apply).

Such controversies as evolution-creation & abstinence-birth control have effectively already been "resolved," but one side is unable to admit it, irrespective of the weight of evidence.

Let me take a counter-example. Suppose a major world religion held that the world was flat. How would one present the 'flat-round Earth controversy.' Would you give equal weight to their 'scientific' claims and rationalisations in favour of a flat Earth? Or would you write the article in such a way that highlighted what they claimed, and why these claims were widely dismissed? Hrafn42 08:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"I contend that by taking the side of the scientists in a socio-political article regarding a controversy involving scientists, it is POV--while taking the side of the scientists on a pseudo-scientific article is NPOV."

And I would contend that to fail to take the scientists' side, when they are in overwhelming agreement, is to violate WP:Undue Weight. It falsely presents a heavily unbalanced controversy as a balanced one. The asymmetries are very important pieces of information about the controversy. Hrafn42 08:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Just in case you missed it, I undid your changes earlier, but after you justified them, I basically communicated to you to feel free to revert them. I don't want to do it because while I assume you know what your talking about regarding the ICR research, I do not."

I have put up a couple of alternatives for comment + SheffieldSteel still appears to be arguing the toss. So I will hold off for now & see if a consensus emerges.

Richard Sternberg

"Work in progress, please read the sources before deleting other contributor's material)"

I have read them.

Neither Meyer, Sternberg, nor Souder's (not the USHRCGR's) report are credible. I'm familiar with all three. Sternberg has been caught in numerous misrepresentations relating to this issue. Meyer works for the Discovery Institute, an organisation with a long history of dishonesty and of attempting to spin people as victimised pro-ID martyrs. Souder has documented ties to the Discovery Institute.

I have put up a Talk-section on this article-section, so suggest we discuss this there. However, I do not consider your current "work in progress" to be the basis for a useful section. Hrafn42 04:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"please be patient"

Why should I? What you have written to date completely swallows the ID POV hook, line and sinker -- including numerous misrepresentations and disputed facts. It is a dishonest section.

"By the way, it is not POV to quote Sternberg."

"...and had ensured that the paper was peer reviewed by three other relevent scientists in evolutionary and molecular biologists teaching at well-known institutions." This is Sternberg's POV stated as fact. IT IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF WP:NPOV!

"Retaliations ensued." Again, Sternberg's POV stated as fact.

"The office of special council determined that Richard Sternberg was subjected to a hostile work environment and demotion at the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History (NMNH)."

No such determination was made, as the OSC (which is highly politicised, and headed by a known culture warrior, who is himself under investigation) never had even the semblance of jurisdiction. All that was produced was a very one-sided "pre-closure letter." Hrafn42 04:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you should check out The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Also, please try to calm down. If you can improve the contribution, please do. I can work with you. But please don't replace everything I took the time to cite and contribute. ImprobabilityDrive 04:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"Well, how close are we from removing the POV tag? Do you think we're close yet?"

Not even close. You are presenting only the pro-Sternberg opinions, and stretching things to present these opinions in the most favourable possible light, while doing your best to minimise issues that would (quite legitimately) reduce the pro-Sternberg sources' credibility (by moving all reference to such to the bottom of the section). It is a blatantly pro-Creationist section. Hrafn42 08:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"I am presenting information that is verifiable."

You are presenting information that grossly violates WP:Undue Weight.

"I understand that you have specialist knowledge that I do not have..."

If you lack such knowledge then I would suggest you at least attempt to read up on the subject before you attempt to write about it. It doesn't take too much time. You should at the very minimum read what Sternberg's sponsor at the Smithsonian had to say about Sternberg's accusations. It turned out that many of his accusations were based on misrepresentations:[1]

Although I do not wish to debate the merits of intelligent design, this forum seems an apt place to correct several factual inaccuracies in the Wall Street Journal’s Op Ed article by David Klinghoffer, “The Branding of a Heretic” (Jan. 28, 2005). Because Dr. von Sternberg has filed an official complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, I cannot comment as fully as I would wish.

1. Dr. von Sternberg is still a Research Associate at the National Museum of Natural History, and continues to have the usual rights and privileges, including space, keys, and 24/7 access. At no time did anyone deny him space, keys or access.
2. He is not an employee of the Smithsonian Institution. His title, “Research Associate,” means that for a three year, potentially renewable period he has permission to visit the Museum for the purpose of studying and working with our collections without the staff oversight visitors usually receive. 3. I am, and continue to be, his only “supervisor,” although we use the term “sponsor” for Research Associates to avoid personnel/employee connotations. He has had no other since Feb. 1, 2004, nor was he ever “assigned to” or under the “oversight of” anyone else.
4. Well prior to the publication of the Meyer article and my awareness of it, I asked him and another Research Associate to move as part of a larger and unavoidable reorganization of space involving 17 people and 20 offices. He agreed.
5. I offered both individuals new, identical, standard Research Associate work spaces. The other accepted, but Dr. von Sternberg declined and instead requested space in an entirely different part of the Museum, which I provided, and which he currently occupies.
6. As for prejudice on the basis of beliefs or opinions, I repeatedly and consistently emphasized to staff (and to Dr. von Sternberg personally), verbally or in writing, that private beliefs and/or controversial editorial decisions were irrelevant in the workplace, that we would continue to provide full Research Associate benefits to Dr. von Sternberg, that he was an established and respected scientist, and that he would at all times be treated as such.
On behalf of all National Museum of Natural History staff, I would like to assert that we hold the freedoms of religion and belief as dearly as any one. The right to heterodox opinion is particularly important to scientists. Why Dr. von Sternberg chose to represent his interactions with me as he did is mystifying. I can’t speak to his interactions with anyone else.

Sincerely yours,

Jonathan Coddington

(Incidentally, it took me two minutes on Google to find that quote from scratch.)

"Also, that you think this is pro-Sternberg is interesting..."

And I find it interesting that you have not cited a single opinion from the pro-Smithsonian side. Not one! How can this help but present a relentlessly pro-Sternberg section? Hrafn42 09:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"I think I added this: "However, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel had no jurisidction because Richard Sternberg's salary was not paid by the Smithsonian, and the investigation was concluded without a fuller response from the Smithsonian." Is that not pro-smithsonian? Let's just keep finding sources and present the information as we find it. " ImprobabilityDrive 09:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what you wrote was the more pro-Sternberg: "However, the office of special council could take no action because Richard Sternberg's salary was not paid by the Smithsonian." The rest is mine. In any case, this is not including an opinion or assertion of the pro-Smithsonian side (the Smithsonian itself, Coddington, NCSE, etc), it is merely a minor (and minimised, the way you wrote it) caveat on the strength of pro-Sternberg side. This section is completely one-sided, in that it does not present the pro-Smithsonian interpretation of what happened, only the pro-Sternberg. Hrafn42 10:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Summary style

Regarding SheffieldSteel's suggestion and the two sources you've been citing, It's a fair point that the two articles should be coordinated, and there are a number of other references in the main article that should be taken into account. Try having a look at Wikipedia:Summary style which discusses the problem of POV forks and gives guidance about how the articles should relate. The references you're working from should already be covered in the main article, and if there's a difference in the coverage, the main article should have the more detailed version and the section in the creation-evolution controversy article should concisely summarise it rather than adding points yet to be covered in the main article. I don't know where they came from, but descriptions like "lashed out at Sternberg", "a think tank that promotes the teaching of evolution" and "pariah" seem dubious to me, and if they're attributable to a secondary source care should be taken about the neutrality of the source. Ah yes, some at least seem to come from The Washington Post, which also has the dubious assertion that President George Bush supports the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution – that's quite a stretch from his words, as I recall. It does seem that more sources should be taken into account to get balance, so working on the main article does look like the best way forward. .. dave souza, talk 18:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, did I mention that ID's a minefield? Dunno where you're from, but there are obviously US cultural nuances and sensitivities which I can barely grasp, and there's an enormous mass of information which FM has grasped admirably. Anyway, if you can turn your attention to Sternberg peer review controversy (or whatever we call it) it can surely be improved. However, be cautious about dismissing science blogs as they may appear jokey, but often set high standards of scholarship. No doubt as the history books of this weird episode get written we'll have better sources available – though that may depend on who's writing them! Orrabest, .. dave souza, talk 16:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR

Welcome to wikipedia you have made a lot of good contributions in the last four days. However, please carefully read WP:OR. Your reading of it doesn't apply to some of the claims you made at Louisiana Baptist University. Arbustoo 22:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I responded with what I hope is clarification. Take it easy. Taking a break for awhile (going to walk the dog). ImprobabilityDrive 22:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Your quote didn't explain anything. Walk me through how you think it applies to each of your tags. We don't like to let tags stay up unless there is talk going on.

I did reword one part of it, but that was mainly because the claim was not cited.

My suggestion is everything you added a tag, explain why you think it appears as a synthesis of unpublished ideas. Arbustoo 22:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I just responded on the talk page. BTW, I think you might have typed unpublished when you meant to type "published". ImprobabilityDrive

No, I meant "unpublished," a USDE website is published for the purposes of our discussion. I just removed your tags as your claims are baseless. You added in a disputed tag for the reference section when you offered an uncited/ WP:OR conspiracy theory about the Morey article. If you want to dispute all the sources give reason on the talk.

Have you had a previous account on wikipedia? Arbustoo 02:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As it is clear you were protesting claims without looking at the full article: Are you going to remove the tag or should I? Arbustoo 04:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it, I thought you had already indicated that you were going to do it. ImprobabilityDrive 04:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Previous account

As you commented that some have accused of being a sock puppet, have you had a previous account? If so, what is it?

Your edits are truly impressive looking at your history. I know it took me longer than 10 days to learn policy, know how to add tags, seek an RfC, view other user's contributions, and dispute material.

Yet, with your second edit and within 15 minutes of registering you already knew how to sign your username. Truly impressive. Arbustoo 05:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to follow the discussions and learn from other's mistakes. The other insinuation was that I was Gnixon, by the way. Also, are we friends, or are you trying to intimate yet again that I am a sockpuppet? No matter what, I truly hope you learn to like me. I am pretty objective when I force myself to be, and more than willing to admit when I have misunderstood something. ImprobabilityDrive 05:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

...I didn't accuse you of being a sock puppet. I asked if you previously had an account. Aren't the two different? One means you are deceiving, the other means you might have posted under another account. The latter means perhaps you had forgotten your password and had to start a new account.

So have you had another account/edited as another user? I am just trying to get a straight answer. Arbustoo 05:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you think I have, you wouldn't believe my answer anyway. Please don't retaliate for the content dispute by filing an official sockpuppet allegation. I think you may be taking things personally, and may have article ownership issues. But accusations of sockpuppetry are cheap. I already left the LBU article to give you time to cool down. What more do you want? ImprobabilityDrive 05:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"Aren't the two different?" Been reading up, have you? :) ImprobabilityDrive 06:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Put yourself in my shoes: You see someone who is trying to remove cited criticism. They are using all kinds of intricate policies that are not used often (synthesis of WP:OR). That person just happens to be a new editor.

Then you look at his contribution history. You notice that their second ever edit they already learned to sign their username. Now, you don't think I should ask if that person had a previous account?

How did you learn to sign your user name for your second ever edit? Arbustoo 06:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles that are subjected to scrutiny turn out better. I AGF, and did not delete anything, and sought feedback. Sir, your accusatory questions are simply becoming annoying. But if you have ever studied edits like this, as I have, you would see the problem and learn the solution. Please desist from pursuing this line of questioning on my talk page. Thanks. ImprobabilityDrive 06:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So my question is baseless then? Arbustoo 06:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

An interesting essay. ImprobabilityDrive 06:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That looks like a yes to me. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to explain how you learned to sign. Arbustoo 03:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sternberg

I think you've pretty much done all that's necessary. A move proposal can be listed at WP:RM (rather than WP:RFC) - this one wasn't; in future, you can list it there. By the way, thank you very much for notifying me (and for being so reasonable). Guettarda 13:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Disputes

It's always better to discuss things than it is to edit-war (although I admit that I am only marginally successful at sticking to that). I think that tags should actually be used as a last resort, if it proves to be impossible to resolve a dispute. Going up to 3 reverts and stopping, and then coming back in 24 hours and doing it again is unlikely to achieve much (although it may get the article protected, which may force people to talk).

I would suggest that take it to the talk page of the article. Clearly outline the issues - explain why you think that the section should be in the article. Ask the other person to explain why they believe it isn't notable. Look at what they say and try to find common ground - "ok, we agree on X and Y, but Z we differ on Z". See if they agree. Then say why you think that Z should be the case. If you can't get anywhere, or the person doesn't participate, the next best thing to do is to file a request for comment. Unfortunately, RFCs tend to be marginally successful at obtaining support. Try to phrase the request as neutrally as possible - I don't think there's any real advantage in filing one-sided RFCs, no matter how tempting it may be.

You may also want to ask some people for their opinion. If you do so, make sure you don't only appeal to one side - only inviting people you think likely to share your opinion is generally frowned upon. Look for people who have been active on the article recently, or made major contributions in the past. Bear in mind that there is no single standard for notability - it's a matter of opinion.

Sorry I don't have any more concrete advise. Be reasonable - it may not win a dispute, but people will think better of you in the long run. Guettarda 17:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

An additional comment - this is probably a bad idea. To begin with, vandalism is specifically defined, and anything done in good faith should not be called vandalism. In addition, warning templates should be used judiciously - they are useful tools to explain things to new editors, but they tend to be unhelpful with established editors. It can generally be assumed that established editors know the rules, so spelling things out tends to look rude, tends to imply that you think they are stupid. If you think someone has violated a rule, say so, and link to the page. Guettarda 17:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What WP:NOT says

"Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not: Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view." WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox

Please consider the quote from the What Wikipedia is Not policy above. When I looked over your contributions today, I was struck that all of your edits to Intelligent Design related articles exclusively promote the viewpoint of the ID movement and use its rhetoric and way of framing issues. As you can see from WP:NOT, relying on a single point of view violates policy. This may be the cause of much of your difficulties at those articles. Just a thought. Odd nature 18:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Creation-evolution controversy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. Orangemarlin 01:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning

You are at or beyond the 3 revert limit at several articles. Please abide by WP:3RR or you will be blocked from editing. FeloniousMonk 02:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

So when can I go undo the vandelism? ImprobabilityDrive 02:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh? There's been no vandalism at these pages. Are you claiming my edits are vandalism? FeloniousMonk 02:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Blanking contributions that are well (or at least getting better) written, well cited, from sources that are not only reliable, but netural, on the grounds that other contributors don't *think* it is of much concern appears to me to be vandalism. I don't think you were the only one blanking contributions, though. And, I am not the decider. ImprobabilityDrive 03:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find that there is nil support for your edits there being neutral, much less an improvement. In fact, Odd nature was correct in his estimation that you appear to be promoting a particular POV; an assessment that enjoys broad support from what I've seen. My experience with the community and it's level of tolerance for tendentious editors tells me that you're skating on very thin ice. I suggest chilling out there and elsewhere for a while. FeloniousMonk 03:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Eugenics and evolution

Not only do I fail to see the relevance of your addition, as you brought to the attention of Talk:Louisiana Baptist University must be cited. Do not add anything that is controversial without a citation. Arbustoo 02:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you see this, and this, too? Also, don't add tags without adding a comment on the talk page. Now go home. ImprobabilityDrive 02:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I sure did see that. However, my concern that that you added it without a source only to remove it once I added a fact tag. On the other hand, you want cited material removed from an article about an alleged diploma mill.

Do you understand the doublestandard? Arbustoo 04:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you see the time difference between the earliest edits, that as time elapsed, an improved better understanding of policy, and the intellectual honesty in reverting the challanged tag without whining? You could learn something from the progress if you studied your own detective work just a little bit more. Again, please desist from my page, this could have been handled on the relevant talk page, and although it is odd that you are stalking and harassing me over a simple case of trying to bring the LBU article up to wikipedia standards, all I really want is for you to leave my page. Thanks. ImprobabilityDrive 01:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

NPA

This edit is a personal attack. I strongly suggest you strike it or remove it. Remember to comment on the content, not the contributor. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't suppose I'll get the same break as OrangeMohel. ImprobabilityDrive 02:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, doing it now.... KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I'm in a bit of a thicket. Anyway, appreciate the kind gesture. ImprobabilityDrive 02:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Calling other editors valid contributions "vandalism" [2] when they are not is not acceptable either, and is often taken as personal attack. I hope you take some time to rethink the method of your participation here and cease the edit warring, attacks and misrepresentations. FeloniousMonk 03:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears that whether or not blanking cited, NPOV RS contributions is vandalism is in the eye of the beholder. Consider what you will, and I'll consider what I will. ImprobabilityDrive 03:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That attitude will not produce the results you desire in all likelihood, but please, by all means, suit yourself and carry on as you have. FeloniousMonk 03:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> ImprobabilityDrive, in my opinion you've already made helpful contributions to removing WP:OR and pressing for improved sources, but edit warring will only damage your own reputation and won't achieve your aims. Please take your time and focus on presenting your case on talk pages. If you can't reach agreement, dispute resolution shows the way forward. It may seem painfully slow, but rushing things doesn't work. Hope this works out, take care.... dave souza, talk 09:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Dave, yes, I should be civil. I am not engauged in edit warring, intentionally, however. I am trying to force a reasonable discussion. My reputation here may be suffering, but I do hope that others will continue to see that I am, as I continue to learn more about them, stiving to encourage myself and others to follow wikipedia policy on the addition to content. It appears that the creation-evolution controversy page is owned by a group of editors who, rather than refuting logic, endeavor to intimidate and provoke those who do not contribute content with their POV. This of course is my opinion. In any event, I do hope to continue to working to make wikipedia articles better (that is, to meet wikipedia standards and objectives regarding OR, NPOV, and synthesis.). ImprobabilityDrive 03:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dave. You need to slow down, seek consensus and be a bit less aggressive. In addition, saying to another editor, "now go home" is hardly a way to get people to pay any atention to any point you are trying to make. You onece made a statement that you weren't being agressive but were being bold. Well, the jury's still out on that one, but remember that being bold does not equate to being reckless. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Jim, thanks for the civil tone here. Thanks for the advice, I will consider it tonight. ImprobabilityDrive 03:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

To proceed I started Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ImprobabilityDrive. Arbustoo 15:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is starting to look like a fishing expidition. You do realize that I can read, and that help pages exist on wikipedia for adding tags, don't you?

Check user inquiry

Regarding the checkuser inquiry (I saw your comment on Guettarda's page). Don't worry. If you aren't related then the checkuser will determine that. There's no need to defend oneself in this regard. JoshuaZ 03:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks JoshuaZ, for the information. But you do understand that it is hard to be civil when you also added yet another user. But I will bite my tounge for now. Wait, I just found out, it looks like I was, at least in the words of one of the contributors to the checkuser, "vindicated" (the check user was declined). Does this mean it's over? ImprobabilityDrive 03:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where you see the word "vindicated". It means that at this time, there is insufficient evidence in the judgement of hte CheckUser to justify check user at this time. If, I were in your position, I would actually find that unfortunate since a checkuser result (if you are telling the truth) would have likely confirmed your claim that you are none of the users in question. This way, suspicions will still exist. JoshuaZ 03:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbustoo stated in the check user request he filed "This checkuser will prove socks or vindicate the user for the RfC as well as 3RR rules." Of course, Arbustoo doesn't seem to know that this page on templates is pretty easy to find on google (his knowledge of tags remark). Even if it was accepted, and turned up negative (as it would have), you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that those who accused and goaded would still have suspiciouns, if only for pride, IMHO. Oh well. ImprobabilityDrive 03:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding if you think you've been vindicated. Arbustoo 04:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

vindicated: Your words, not mine. Quit haraassing me on my talk page please. This is the third or fourth time you've been asked to leave. ImprobabilityDrive 04:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You're taking that out of context. "Vindication" refers to the results. Since it was declined there are no results, and thus no vindication.

You've been block nonetheless. You've been asked told to leave. Good bye. Arbustoo 16:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbustoo, no sense piling on here. ID was found to be a sockpuppet of another disruptive editor, and was banned because you can't evade a ban by creating a sockpuppet. Unfortunately, he was not a sockpuppet of those we thought he was. Orangemarlin 16:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Just adding the link for interested parties. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich. Arbustoo 17:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm still not agreeing with anything you've written so far on the Creation-evolution controversy, but your comments here are honorable and appreciated. Orangemarlin 05:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I wouldn't classify it as honorable, but it was honest. But what would be honorable is to move the discussion FM marginalized in favor of the RFC he is pushing for back to the main talk page where we can make progress. ImprobabilityDrive 06:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Hi ID, I don't know what the issues are, or what the disputed content is, but it does look as though you're editing disruptively. Please stick to content on the talk page, and try to post succinctly. The shorter your posts, the more likely they are to be read and understood. Perhaps you could take the pages in question off your watchlist for 48 hours until things have cooled down. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Will do--about the watchlist. The content on the talk page was the content dispute. The other stuff was regarding actions taken by inexperienced users at the goading of experience users (a sockpuppet fishing expedition). It should not have been on the page, but much of it should not be on the page. The conversation regarding content should be on the page, but that was moved in favor of an RFC discussion (which does not improve the article). As I said, you can undo the protection, I won't edit, per your request, for 48 hours, and I won't re-address the content dispute until after FM's RFC is completed. But, at that point, I will attempt to reintroduce the conversation back on the talk page where it does belong. Hopefully, this is satisfactory to all involved. ImprobabilityDrive 06:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block

I have blocked this account indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich. As detailed at the RFCU request, this is obviously not the editor's first account. Consistent edit warring on topics of interest to fundamentalist Christianity is consistent with that banned editor's behavior and in particular attempts to whitewash the Louisiana Baptist University article, Gastrich's alma mater, make this a WP:DUCK indef block. Durova^Charge! 07:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Lying is still a sin. 151.151.21.102 16:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, John 8:7. Also worthy of note: the IP address from which the above comment was posted originates from Wells Fargo, a bank that has offices in Jason Gastrich's city of residence. Durova^Charge! 17:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, Wells Fargo has offices in so many cities that if you used that as a standard of sockpuppetry, we're all up the creek. Orangemarlin 18:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I was watching this dispute from afare, and I did wonder where there was an RFCU request, I don't see it anywhere, and the one for this user said it was declined. Homestarmy 18:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Contributions

This is a brief list of some of the contributions I am proud of:

Removal of orhaned references (to talk page)

Talk page notice of of above removal of orphaned references. Note, this took a lot of time to do(searching the entire document for each references, formatting for the post to the talk page, and the quality of work is probably up there with other top notch wikipeidans. You don't even have to edit that talk page to cut and past back into the article (assuming there was a mistake, which I don't think there was.

Ten Commandments Formatting

Summer for the Gods article creation

Response to RFC

Talk:Billy_Sunday

Discussions on Billy Sunday

More Billy Sunday

More Billy Sunday

More Billy Sunday

Thanks, ImprobabilityDrive 21:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my learning to sign (and use edit summaries, find help tags, etc.)

Before going to the LBU article, I found this via google: Wikipedia:Template_messages/Disputes. I have used VSS, CVS, RCS, and other revision control systems, and am technically competant, I know how to diff files, learn from other user's mistakes (not me), and I know how to add change messages. I know how to find and read help pages, use preview, and read suggestions to sign, for example this one, at the bottom of of talk page contributions:

Your changes will be visible immediately.

* For testing, please use the sandbox instead.

* On talk pages, please sign your comment by typing four tildes (~~~~).

Just trying to make the appeal evaulator's job easier. I hope this is acceptable. ImprobabilityDrive 03:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my contributions to Louisiana Baptist University

Contrary to other comments regarding by blocking as a socpuppet of Jason Gastrich, and as can be seen at the article logs, or below (I believe it to be complete), most of my edits to Louisiana Baptist University article and talk pages were with in good faith, with many attempts to find a consensus, with a few point in time where I lost my patience with another editor whom I now believe thought I was somebody else.

Time/date	My contributions to the LBU talk page
02:39 02 May 2007	2 edits
00:22 02 May 2007	3 edits
13:36 01 May 2007	2 edits
04:54 01 May 2007	4 edits
05:00 01 May 2007	2 edits
04:48 30 April 2007	3 edits
04:27 30 April 2007	2 edits
04:17 30 April 2007	2 edits
04:03 30 April 2007	2 edits
03:55 30 April 2007	1 edit
03:31 30 April 2007	5 edits
01:07 30 April 2007	9 edits
21:37 30 April 2007	6 edits
05:13 27 April 2007	1 edit

Time/date	My contributions to the LBU article LBU Article log
00:19 2 May 2007	2 edit
04:44 1 May 2007	1 edit
04:17 30 April 2007	1 edit
03:20 30 April 2007	4 edits
00:28 30 April 2007	6 edits
21:35 29 April 2007	4 edits
15:55 27 April 2007	1 edits
05:08 27 April 2007	2 edits

Just trying to make the appeal evaulator's job easier. I hope this is acceptable. ImprobabilityDrive 03:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Diff logs for appeal

The table compiled below was taken from: My logs and Jason Gastrich's logs.

See also Jpgordon's fishing expidition comment on why he declined Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ImprobabilityDrive an unrelated sockpuppet check user request. ImprobabilityDrive 21:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Date/Time	ImprobabilityDrive (me) logs	Jason Gastrich logs
07:12, 28 April 2007	[3]	none
07:03, 28 April 2007	none	[4]
06:53, 28 April 2007	none	[5]
06:48, 28 April 2007	none	[6]
06:41, 28 April 2007	none	[7]
06:30, 28 April 2007	[8]	none
06:29, 28 April 2007	none	[9]
06:28, 28 April 2007	[10]	none
06:22, 28 April 2007	none	[11]
06:18, 28 April 2007	none	[12]
06:17, 28 April 2007	none	[13]
06:14, 28 April 2007	none	[14]
06:11, 28 April 2007	none	[15]
06:10, 28 April 2007	[16]	none
06:09, 28 April 2007	none	[17]
06:07, 28 April 2007 through 04:25, 28 April 2007	[18], [19], [20], [21], [22], ..., [23], [24]	none
04:15, 26 April 2007	none	[25]
04:08, 26 April 2007	none	[26]
04:07, 28 April 2007	[27]	none
04:06, 26 April 2007	none	[28]
04:01, 26 April 2007	[29]	[30]
03:34, 26 April 2007	none	[31]
03:33, 28 April 2007	[32]	none
03:31, 26 April 2007	none	[33], [34]
03:30, 26 April 2007	[35]	[36]

Appeal

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ImprobabilityDrive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It appears as though an error has been made in the assessment that I am a sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich based on

the wikipedia essay WP:DUCK. I am a surprised to be summarily banned, this being the first opportunity to respond to this allegation. An unrelated check user case, which was declined as a fishing expidition (see Jpgordon's talk page), and made no mention of Jason Gastrich. I am not nore do I know Jason Gastrich, either on wikipedia, online, nor in real life. No evidence has been presented for me to refute, and I have not had an opportunity to defend myself on this determination, until this appeal. Without evidence to refute, only an essay, I am going to respond the best way I know how. 1. A careful look at our the logs of our contributions should make it obvious that it is not possible for me to be a sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich, in that the logs indicate a number of contributions under very closely spaced, but from different accounts. Please see Diff Logs for Appeal A check user on my account against his, or the Well's Fargo IP address, would provide further evidence, but to my knowledge, no such check user request was made. Specifically, note the simultaneous edits at 04:01, 26 April 2007, as well as other rather close edits. 2. While I am engauged in some content disputes, I have also made several contributions (see Contributions). 3. As far as I can tell, the only article I ever edited that Jason Gastrich also edited was the article on LBU. This is a coincidence. My contribution there was mostly on the talk page, trying to bring the article up to wikipedia standards. This effort was praised by a disinterested Admin Dave_souza. 4. On being a quick learner as evidence of sockpuppetry: While I am a very quick learner, using google to find "how to"'s on tags, and reading instructions, delimiting meta-tags, and studying diff logs, is not that difficult for somebody who is used to using revision control (such as VSS, CVS, RCS, etc.) and with an expert familiarty with programming langauges such as C and PERL, as well as basic familiarity with HTML. Also, being familiar with concurrent development tools allows me to know in advance the value of reading instructions and adding comments. This statement is being made because one of the earlier pieces of evidence against me was the fact that I knew how to add edit summaries. 5. My display of the number of times I have been accused of being a sockpuppet might look suspicious, but it was emulating other users who count the number of times their account pages have been vandalized. While looking through the diff logs of other contributors, I saw a post by Orangemarlin intimating that I was a sockpuppet of Gnixon. Later, apparently unrelated, another user intimated that I was a sockpuppet of Cbeech. At this point I added the sockpuppet allegations count. After Arbustoonoticed my account, he started to harrass me on whether or not I had a previous account. As he was rather hostile, I declined to answer him. Later, he was encouraged by others to file a check user request. A check user was filed, and still later a third wikipedian, JoshuaZ, then added that I might be a sockpuppet of Benapgar. All three of these requests (in one check user request) were declined as by Jpgordon, who, when asked by JoshuaZ, stated that "Checkuser is not for fishing.. Besides which, I don't see the links to the dozens of incidents required for a code C checkuser" on his talk page. 6. I would like this ban lifted so that I can continue to learn about wikipedia, and continue to make contributions. 7. If lifted, I agree, voluntarily, to remove my sock puppet allegation count from my talk page, as it seems to be having the effect opposite of what was intended--that is, rather than discouring other users from resorting to cheap sockpuppet allegations, it seems to be bringing even more allegations that I am a sockpuppet, without formal sockpuppet cases being filed (only one formal check user request was filed, as indicated above), and without diffs being provided, and ultimately, in this last case, my being summariliy banned as a sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich, using an essay as justification, by Ryulong and/or Durova. 8. I do not work at Wells Fargo, nor do I know anybody who works at Wells Fargo. I have not shared my password with anybody, and I only use this account from my home computer, which, as far as I know, does not have a key board sniffer installed. 9. This appeal is based on my understanding of the ban after researching to the best of my ability the comments from other users. If I have failed to address any allegations related to this ban, it is because I am unaware of those allegations. This was a summary ban without resort to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets or a suspected sock puppet case where evidence was presented and I was given an opportunity to respond.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. Please make this more concise, say like in 100 words. No admin, including me, will be willing to read through this. Shorter unblock requests will be more persuasive than endless droning. — ²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Shorter appeal (sorry for the verbosity)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ImprobabilityDrive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I apologize for the verbosity. I will get to the major points.

Please take a look at the contributions made on 04:01, 26 April 2007 and 03:30, 26 April 2007, by both myself and Jason Gastrich, in the links below. Simultaneous edits at the exact same time by two signed in users is strong evidence that I am not a sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich. Note, too: No check user requested with regard to me and Jason Gastrich to the best of my knowledge, no suspected sock puppet case filed against me with regard to Jason Gastrich, and no opportunity to defend myself. This was a summary ban based on an essay WP:DUCK. See below for an unrelated (and declined) check user request. Thanks. ImprobabilityDrive 00:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

reason — JoshuaZ 06:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

My Contribution 04:01, 26 April 2007

Jason Gastrich's contribution at 04:01, 26 April 2007

See table above for other evidence of multiple posts by two different users during the same period of time for more evidence.

See also Jpgordon's fishing expidition explanation on why he declined Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ImprobabilityDrive an unrelated sockpuppet check user request. ImprobabilityDrive 00:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And this one is so ironic:

me at 03:30, 26 April 2007

Jason Gastrich at 03:30, 26 April 2007

Thanks again, The I.P 151.151.21.102 is in San Francisco, according to dnstuff. ImprobabilityDrive 01:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm unblocking you. Based on your comments above I am unconvinced that you are Gastrich. I'm going to ask Durova to look into this further. JoshuaZ 06:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

JoshuaZ's reasoning holds with me. I do strongly suggest you try the WP:ADOPT mentorship program to steer clear of further troubles. Your edits have been such that you resembled the patterns of one of our banned editors. I hope you follow a better path than he did. Durova^Charge! 07:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see that seems to be working out, Durova's advice is sound. It just crossed my mind that to achieve anything here you need to apply politeness, patience and persistence - if there's opposition, take it to the talk page and give people time to discuss things rather than repeating edits or adding tags. Just my tuppenceworth, .. dave souza, talk 13:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If that sort of behavior resumes there's already a strong consensus for a community ban for disruption. I won't be at all surprised if this all turns out the same regardless. Odd nature 17:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Odd nature, maybe because I am a big fan of due process, I think that your comments are a bit unfair. I am concerned about ID's behavior, but, if he wants to listen to everyone's advice and edit as a team player, then we should move on. The community ban might have consensus, but it has not been effected, so he's free to do as he wishes here. I think we should assume a little good faith here. Just my humble opinion. Orangemarlin 19:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

He's free to do as he wishes here within the bounds of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines I think you meant to say. Odd nature 20:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Dave, thanks for the advice. Maybe you can be my mentor. To the others. I am seeking reconcilliation with FM, OM, JoshuaZ, and anybody else who desires, though I see some email canvassing is occuring behind the scenes. No hard feelings, but next time, could you please use some KY. I mean, wow, that really hurt. I think I will be limping for a few days.

Meanwhile, I do hope to win an award on Creative problem solving when the hard feelings have subsided, and we all go out for a beer.

Also, Durova, you might want to review logs for negative evidence in the future. Summarily banning is a very sharp knife, and such a tool can do as much harm as it can good (though it might seem to be an easy solution to a difficult problem). Assuming users as sockpuppets of others based on reasoning found in the first part of an essay and a recollection of contribution style is not so wise. We would all be better off to AGF, and, before taking drastic actions, looking for negative evidence. If you cannot find any, talk to somebody else, and sleep on it. At the time you banned me, I had already agreed to sleep on the content dispute for 2 days, per another Admin's advice. Infinite Improbability Drive 02:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Since the block was for less than a week, may I remove the block appeals? Thanks again. Infinite Improbability Drive 02:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Unanswered questions

I still want to know:

1) Have you had a previous account. 2) How did you learn to sign. 3) How did you learn about tagging articles.

The person who unblocked you thinks you are a sock. Arbustoo 02:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Another interesting article. Be careful, they may turn on you in the end. Also, I am trying to seek mediation, and your presence here may hamper that. I think you guys are onto your 5th or 6th sock accusation. Infinite Improbability Drive 02:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Cute link. See: WP:DICK.

I asked: 1) Have you had a previous account? 2) How did you learn to sign? 3) How did you learn about tagging articles? Why don't you want to answer. It seems pretty straight forward. Arbustoo 03:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)