User talk:70.101.100.222

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 25 December 2006

Do you think it's alright to add links to "TrueOrigin" and even "CreationWiki" to the External Links of the TalkOrigin archive article on Wikipedia?

-Dan



I apologize for the mix-up! I am fairly new at editing Wikipedia, and consequently I didn't check my messages on a consistent basis. That is why I continued to edit the TalkOrigin article without acknowledging your remarks, JoshuaZ. I just read your message now, and I now realize why my editions to the TalkOrigins article kept being erased. Again, I'm sorry, it was completely unintentional, and I'll be sure to make only appropriate changes to a Wikipedia article in the future.


-Dan

Thanks for the notice. Glad it was just a mistake! — coelacan talk — 17:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've unblocked you pursuant to the above comment. JoshuaZ 17:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 15 December 2006

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in talk.origins. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. — coelacan talk — 18:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. — coelacan talk — 18:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read other individual's edit summaries. The links in question don't make sense there because that article about the Usenet discussion group not the Archive. JoshuaZ 04:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Look, this isn't that complicated- the article on the Archive is at Talk.Origins Archive. The article you keep editing is the article on the usenet group. What you are adding might be relevant to the Archive but it has nothing to do with the usenet group. JoshuaZ 20:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] talk.origins

rv to last version by Pne. -- This is not the website. This is the USENET newsgroup. Learn the difference.

USENET is a talk system similar to a bulletin board. It predates the World Wide Web. The link you keep trying to add, trueorigins, is devoted to the website, the "Talk.Origins Archive". It does not discuss the newsgroup. The newsgroup is called talk.origins and it is not the same as the website. If you are having trouble understanding what I am saying, please discuss this at Talk:talk.origins. But do not add your link again. You have been told what the difference is, repeatedly. If you add your link again, it is vandalism. — coelacan talk — 21:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits to starlight problem

You have made several edits to this article that strike me as questionable. Not "wrong", but definitely questionable, and unreferenced as well.

For one, you removed the word "independently" from the mention of Smoller and Temple. In doing so, you thereby associate their work with Humphreys. Is this your intention? Do you have a reference for such a link?

Furthermore you added "appears to have a sound understanding of the subjects." This statement contains an obvious weasel word, "appears", appears to whom? Not me. To make matters worse, you double-down with the statement "was well-received by other trained creation". Aside from the potential non-sequitur at the end, this statement is also based on a weasel word, in this case "other".

If you have any evidence that:

1) Smoller and Temple's work is in any way directly related...

or

2) Humphreys' work was "well received" by anyone qualified to make that statement...

Then please provide it. I am inclined to simply rollback, but I figured I'd give you the benefit of the doubt first.

Maury 19:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As you have declined to respond, I am RV'ing. Maury 13:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


Maury,

Sorry for the delay, I just read your message now. I do not use Wikipedia all the time, and I did not notice that I had a New Message.

"For one, you removed the word "independently" from the mention of Smoller and Temple. In doing so, you thereby associate their work with Humphreys. Is this your intention?"

No, not at all! I took out "independently" lest the reader think I meant that Smoller and Temple developed the cosmology independently of each other. Also, I made it clear that there were not affiliated with AiG, but if you want to clarify it even further, I understand.

"Furthermore you added "appears to have a sound understanding of the subjects." This statement contains an obvious weasel word, "appears", appears to whom? Not me. To make matters worse, you double-down with the statement "was well-received by other trained creation"."

I was referring to Humphrey's technical papers on his cosmology, which he said in Starlight and Time that they have "had very positive peer review at the Third International Conference on Creationism (ICC)" (1994, p. 11).

"1) Smoller and Temple's work is in any way directly related [to Humyphey's cosmology]..."

Yes, at least if you read the abstract or the final paragraph of their article (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/20/11216), in which the role of white holes in their cosmology is mentioned.

"2) Humphreys' work was "well received" by anyone qualified to make that statement..."

The scientists present at the Third International Conference on Creationism, as I mentioned above.

"Then please provide it. I am inclined to simply rollback, but I figured I'd give you the benefit of the doubt first."

Thanks, by the way.

-Dan 70.101.100.222 13:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, clearly I misunderstood the context! Tell free to add the material back. Maury 12:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
"Tell feel"? Uhh, I meant "please feel...". Maury 16:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)