User talk:Mathezar

Welcome!

Hello, Mathezar, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! RC-0722 ^361.0/1 16:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed by Raul654)

Suggestions that the peer reviewers should have made before allowing this to be published. Especially since editing this post is not allowed.

1. Remove the TBN quote from Ben Stein. If this is about the movie Expelled, why not just focus on what was presented in the movie.

2. Remove all content that references ExpelledExposed.com. The NCSE is not an unbiased source of information. They are as much as a propoganda mill as the Discovery Institute is. The NCSE were successful, with the help of the ACLU, to get a science teacher fired for teaching intelligent design in the classroom http://ncseweb.org/rncse/19/3/new-tactic-getting-creation-science-into-classrooms. Expelled Exposed is a biased source that should not be relied on.

3. Remove the entire copyright controversies segment. It is now completely mute. Ono lost the suit and the producers removed the song from the DVD.

4. In reaction section quote a positive review (ie. Michael Medved http://images.michaelmedved.com/images/pdf/expelled.pdf) to offset the focus on negative reviews.

5. Guillermo Gonzales should include the quote from the film by the dean at Iowa State saying he didn't want his school associated with intelligent design.

6. Richard Sternberg should be heavily edited. Why reference outside sources to quote the movie?

7. Remove Nazi segment. It is completely biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathezar (talk • contribs) 20:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me as though you've got a rather biased take on this, see WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV/FAQ, WP:V and WP:NOR for relevant policies. Some of the points would be worth discussing here, for starters I've looked at Medved's "review" and it's remarkably uninformative, other than the astounding revelation that a right wing political commentator likes Stein's message. . . dave souza, talk 21:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for facts: The article is semi-protected. Not only is it "allowed" to edit it, any established user can edit it. Only unregistered users and very new account are cannot. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure any rational person can make the case that this post is not biased and would not be helped by some more content from sources favorable to the movie. I read your links provided and do not know how they can applied to my suggestions. Why not simply provide a link to www.expelledexposed.com and give up the illusion of fairness.Mathezar (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.121.198.119 (talk • contribs) [reply]

I suppose you are referring to the main article? We are usually referring to individual discussion contributions (such as this one) as posts or postings. Main space topic articles are called, well, "articles". You seem to confuse "fair and balanced" with fair and balanced. We do not aim for an "all sides are equal" postmodernist treatment, but try to reflect the weight of opinion as described by reliable sources. And the movie has overwhelmingly described as technically reasonable adept, but boring, dishonest, and propagandistic. The NCSE is a useful and reliable source (and, has not, at least not according to the link given above, "helped in getting a science teacher fired"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Schultz, Roger DeHart was the Biology teacher in Burlington Washington who resigned after his district reassigned him to teaching Earth Science after teaching Biology for 10 years. I was tempted to put a link from another source that referrenced what happened to Roger DeHart but figured I would be accused of using a "biased" source. So I referenced the "unbiased" NCSE whose take on the controversy is incomplete at best. So are you making the riduculous claim that if the NCSE found that a high school biology teacher was teaching ID they would just sit on their hands and do nothing? The level of intellectual dishonesty in this whole process is stunning. It is stuff like this that has teachers everywhere warning students not to trust the information they get from Wikipedia. Mathezar (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.110.107.251 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 1 December 2008[reply]

<undent> Mike Klein, please remember to sign your posts. Roger DeHart wasn't fired, he chose to resign when he was stopped from teaching what, in the overwhelming view of the scientific community and courts, is religiously motivated lies and nonsense. The NCSE rightly supported the constitutional right of children to learn science in science classes, not religious dogma. The level of intellectual dishonesty from creationists is unsurprising. . dave souza, talk 13:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article is nothing but a diatribe against this movie. If you want to pretend that it meets the standards of Wikipedia in that it is a fair and balnaced treatment of this subject then I would have to say that the printed standards of this wiki are meaningless. Why even give people the illusion that there is any ability to discuss the issues with this post! None of the suggestions I made were entertained by the editors that are allowed to edit this post for a second.

BTW I NEVER made the point that DeHart was fired, but an impassioned observer can say that the NCCE and ACLU's intent was to get him fired. This whole discussion is pointless. Rather than consider any of my comments you immediately launch into ad hominum attacks. "Lies and nonsense," what gives you the right to judge another's personal beliefs? Are the "lies and nonsense" of the NCSE acceptable because you happen to agree with them? Science poorly taught in not a guarenteed constitutional right. Why is the Miller Urey experiment still in biology texts if we are supposed to be teaching science in class. Why do text books include the metaphysical idea of naturalistic abiogenisis, when science has not even been able to approach the means of explained the disproven idea of spontaneous generation that is now being applied to the origin of life?

Apparently the editors of this post can lie better than me, because their lies are published.Mathezar (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're simply not up to speed with science. More significantly, WP:TALK requires discussions on this page to be focussed on improving the article, with verification in accordance with WP:V of proposed changes, remembering to comply with WP:NOR by ensuring that the sources relate to the subject of the article. You'll probably find it more productive to focus on particular points rather than making vague assertions about the NCSE which is well regarded in the majority scientific view. Stands up pretty well in court, too. . dave souza, talk 15:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're simply not up to speed with science.

This is from WP:TALK: No insults: Do not make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist. Instead, explain what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it.

I am guessing this is some kind of weird joke on your part Dave. Start with an ad hominem attack and immediately give a link that says you are not allowed to use ad hominem attacks on the discussion pages.

As to my science credentials what does that have to do with whether the Yoko Ono lawsuit should be removed from the post? Or any of the many other suggestions I made? I mean the only suggestion that I made that was even addressed in any way was my suggestion that a positive review be included if you were going to quote a negative one. I suggested Medved as an option, the editor that responded immediately constructed a strawman and said that the review was too biased, rather than addressing the larger point of why a negative review was quoted and no positive ones were.

If you feel that this post is fine the way it is fine, I can understand that. And if you only want to pull out the Wiki "Rule" book when it suits you that is fine too. But stop wasting my time and just be honest. The reality is that you do not feel this posting needs to be changed, either because you are blind to the blatant biases in this posting, or you are fully aware of them and just don't give a darn. BTW either option is not a favorable reflection on the editors of this page.Mathezar (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was changed by Mathezar (u) (t) making a minor change censoring content (Wikipedia is not censored) on 2009-01-24T11:14:48+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was not censorship, this was reverting the quote from the original article to include the dashes the editors of the original article had the good sense to put into their publication and that the writer of this section omitted for so he could include an unverified curse word into the article about this movie. This section has since been removed by another editor, to my relief. Mathezar (talk) 10:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, you will be blocked from editing. Repeated deletion of references Charles (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, I removed statements that are simply untrue. If you want the expelled post to look like a battle of the quotes, that is fine with me, but the part that I removed that alleged that the article was printed out side of the normal peer review process is quite simply a lie. And I can give you a reference for this information if you like. Until then I would kindly request that you restore my edit. Thanks, Mathezar

If you believe information and its source to be untrue you should present your case on the talkpage to see if a consensus can be reached for its removal.--Charles (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec)

Please sign your posts.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether it is true. Your statement that you can "give a reference... if you like" is starting with the wrong end of the stick. Begin with a reference which meets WP:RS. Work with your fellow editors to achieve consensus.

Helpful hint: try to avoid implying that your fellow editors are liars. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not implying that fellow editors are liars, just that they use sources that have lied. Mathezar (talk) 08:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC) 08:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As of yet no one has counted my reference that the BSW lied in there response to the Meyer article after the NCSE got involved and gave them the talking points which they then dutifully repeated to the media. The government report clearly shows that the president of the BSW agreed that the article was properly peer reviewed prior to publication. I think a couple of days is enough time for someone to rebut the facts as I've presented them. Next time check YOUR facts before you accuse someone of vandalism. Mathezar (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, So have you seen the discussion on the Expelled page. Dave Souza stepped up to the place in defending the erroneous passage and completely struck out. He claimed that the Wiki post questioned Sternberg's judgement (which it didn't) and then went on to imply that the McDiarmid quote was not reliable because the government report was never entered into the public record. But, failed to produce any information that the quote was not valid. I think I was right, and I think I need an apology for being accused of vandalism. Mathezar (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, Mathezar! I've not been following the talk on Sternberg.

You are beating your head against a brick wall. Wiki is dedicated to presenting what mainstream science says. (Or mainstream anything, depending on the subject. This article deals with science.) "Present" means "gather and report." Therefore, all material cited in it must come from something already published by what is deemed a reliable source. No original research or synthesis is allowed. This assures that no crackpot will post a bunch of nonsense. Unfortunately, it also forbids the truth when the truth has not been published in a reliable source. When I finally learned the rules, I was better able to understand and use and contribute to Wiki. See this deleted comment of mine, yellow-backed text on left:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AExpelled%3A_No_Intelligence_Allowed&action=historysubmit&diff=344179980&oldid=343935827

You may also be interested in the final portion of this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-07-07/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed

Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yopienso, I have been told that if I can get a consensus from editors on the discussion page I can delete the passage. I think I may have a shot at this since I am not seeking to use the "offending" reference to add anything. But rather to remove the erroneous info that is currently there. I would appreciate it if you could agree with removing the passage on the discussion page. Since Dave seems to have backed down. Mathezar (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the passage in question? I rather doubt, in any case, that even if I should agree with you it would make any difference. Two people against the monolithic prevailing bias still = beating your head against a brick wall. Conservapedia http://www.conservapedia.com/Expelled is for people who have a different bias.

Although the bias at Wiki and NCSE can be maddening, the nonsense at some creationist sites is even more so. I believe God created the world with a purpose, but I do not know by what mechanism. I rather doubt the "Poof!" version and tend more to believe the Genesis story is extremely condensed, like the story of the restored fortunes of Job. He didn't get seven sons and three daughters in one sudden poof. The Bible is a book of spiritual truth, anyway, not a science or history text. In my dream world honest scientists observe, collect, study, hypothesize, test, prove, discard, rethink, discuss, ponder, write, ad infin. In the real world, they have to get a paycheck from somewhere. Yopienso (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, I've added some facts and links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed Yopienso (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, of course, in your facts, but I don't really want to be part of butting my way in to a closed community of mainstream or left-wing, whatever your take is, controlling editors. As I've said before, WP has its bias, and Conservapedia has its bias. (I strolled through Conservapedia the other day for the first time just to take a look.) I really wish some similar site were unbiased! I offer what I believe are solid, verifiable facts, but if they are not welcome I back off. A year ago I did not understand the unevenly applied rules, but I'm catching on. I did not understand some of the definitions unique to WP of words such as "original research" and "verifiability" and "reliable." One guiding principle of my life is to follow the rules wherever I am in a spirit of cooperation. When that becomes impossible or too distasteful, I withdraw.

One such rule is that you aren't allowed to go around and gather a group of like-minded people to support your ideas. Editors with left-leaning, or mainstream, as they call them, ideas, are allowed to. I find WP useful on many topics as a convenient, fairly reliable encyclopedia, and useful on other topics as a barometer of what the post-modern culture believes. Therefore, I do not care to jeopardize my privilege of fixing typos and adding the occasional pertinent bit of information. Above all, I do not want to give offense or personally reject or become bitter with editors because of their ideologies, even when their dogma causes them to deny the obvious or refuse to allow others to publish what they must surely, if reluctantly, recognize as fact. It also helps to remember that I can be wrong!

Heaven knows I've given unwitting offense on what I consider minutia--on user etiquette and so forth. One editor reprimanded me for abbreviating "Wikipedia" to "Wiki"! "WP," however, is perfectly acceptable.

So here's a helpful hint for you: when writing on someone's talk page, editors generally post new information at the bottom of the page. It's easy to find there and keeps the page chronological. :) God bless, Yopienso (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just what I expected--your edit has been reverted. You cannot win this; the Ministry of Truth owns it.

Happily, the link to the BSW is working again. The font is different, but it's the same statement: http://web.archive.org/web/20070926214521/http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html Yopienso (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Sternberg.Wolfview (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Of Pandas and People. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Robynthehode (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Of Pandas and People shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Talk:Of_Pandas_and_People#Recent_edits_reverted and open a new discussion if you wish to make new points. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When the subject of an article asks you to edit the article, you have a conflict of interest with the subject and need to follow the guidelines that apply to editing with a COI. —C.Fred (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]