User talk:SkepticBanner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Avatar Characters 2 Neutrality 3 My edit to Answers in Genisis 4 ASN 5 List of Democratic Party (United States) superdelegates, 2008

[edit] Avatar Characters

Simply stating that the discussion is still ongoing is not enough. We need more people to help with the discussion. Please help us reach an established consensus. Rau's talk 22:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

More than willing. That's why I added my views. SkepticBanner (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Appreciated. The best debate is one with many participants. Rau's talk 03:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Answers in Genesis appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My edit to Answers in Genisis

You called my revision that changed calling creationism a theory to a tale a "blatant POV edit" but the National Academy of Sciences appears to have a different opinion.¹ Creationism has never been shown to be a theory and no evidence is needed to show it isn't one if there is no evidence showing it is one, and no evidence shows it is a theory. Theory is a top rank reserved for the absolute best in science (Theory of General Relativity, Theory of Special Relativity, Theory of Evolution, Quantum Theory, Germ Theory, etc.), not things like String Theory, creationism, M-Theory, and other unsupported claims. In short, my edit was not POV because it was simply a statement of fact, for which I have a source to back it up, and creationism was never shown to be a theory in the first place. It would seem POV to write the article to automatically assume creationism by calling it a theory when it has not passed the test, so it seemed biased in favor of creationism. Tale seems appropriate given that it is clearly but one of many tales of creation from around the world. Do you agree or is there a flaw in my reasoning?

1). National Academy of Sciences. Science, Evolution, and Creationism. 2005 SkepticBanner (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ASN

Bringing up Nick's endorsement of the site is usually ignored, I tried that when we were arguing for the site. I brought up the fact that Nick has given ASN material to release to the general public, the season three trailers were my example. Another reason that we do not use them is their copyright violations. Don't get me started on that one... Rau's Speak Page 02:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Which for some reason completely disqualifies the interviews? Thing is, I would think that an endorsement from Nick would make ASN considered reliable for writing about their material. But as much as I hate to say it (and I really do hate to), if it is Wikipedia policy, so be it. I'm not arguing against that, even if I personally disagree. But if there are any points I can still make, I will try. SkepticBanner (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what we said. I thought it would as well, but when I brought it up is was completely ignored. It also doesn't directly violate any Wikipedia policy other than a possible violation of WP:V. I even called in WP:IAR so that we could use the information from the interviews because some of that stuff has no other source. They said that policy didn't apply to this situation. Rau's Speak Page 10:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Democratic Party (United States) superdelegates, 2008

Hey there. I had to revert your recent edit to this page. Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead". Which states "When a link in the References section or Notes section "goes dead" (see link rot), it should be repaired or replaced if possible, but the citation need not be deleted.". Considering the cite you deleted was one stating Bill Clinton endorses his wife Hillary Clinton. I think the passage in question is covered by this guideline.--Dr who1975 (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. Thanks. SkepticBanner (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

To which I say, I had no way of knowing it said that. The only claim it said that was on Wikipedia. In all honesty, I had no way of knowing the article existed, except taking the word of Wikipedia. But if Wikipedia wants to cite itself, by all means. But don't jump on me, please. Thing is, I don't appreciate things that I perceive as insults. I can think of no source off the top of my head that says "Bill Clinton endorses Hillary Clinton for president." Has he even officially endorsed her? Questions I would like answered. But don't insult me. SkepticBanner (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)