User talk:VorpalBlade

Welcome!

Hello, VorpalBlade, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Alai 03:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

heya![edit]

Noticed the good work on teach the controversy -- welcome onboard:). Ungtss 13:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I am sorry you feel I protected the wrong version. At this point, your best strategy is to list the major grievances you have with the caurrent version on the talk page and try to resolve with the other editors them one by one. As usual with controversial topics, it best not set your expectations too high; the best one can usually hope for is an article with which you don't have any major issues. -- Viajero 19:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to be constructive, but Mel Etitis just ignores my comments and insults me. He ignores my requests to focus on the unilateral deletions he made without consensus.

The current intro is a POV mess. Your picking his version functionally endorses his bad behaviour, and lets me know how the power to fix pages will be used. I think my editing record is very good in comparison to theirs, and can only assume by this that good behaviour in editing counts for very little here. I think further efforts on this page are futile. --VorpalBlade 19:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am just like you - a Wiki User, so I have no power to do anything - however, having already started and written many articles on Wikipedia I have run into this kind of problem - but not the locking. It comes from people getting into revert wars and turning the Talk into a blog so that everyone is talking and no one is listening. I figured that the easiest way to call a halt to that kind of nonsense (this is not a blog) is to do the "Jack Webb" thing of the old TV series "Dragnet" - call for "just the facts".

So, starting out with the fact that this is an article about a movement, well, then, let's hear about the movement. Others can then attack the movement - after the movement has been defined.

Now as far as the issues driving the movement are concerned, well that is simple. Shove the people who want to debate over to the Creationism or Evolution articles because that is where that debate belongs.

This debate should be about the movement and its organisation. Is it honest? Is it corrupt? Is it unified? Is it fighting within itself? It is a movement discussion with NOTHING to do with creationism or evolution.

Once you start making THAT point on the Talk page then the article can be rewritten and all of the bloggers who want to argue for the fun of it, will just go away. After all, how can they argue about the movement if they know nothing about the movement?

Its elementary dear Watson!

Back up my words to pull the plug on the bloggers - then ask the Admins to unlock the article! MPLX/MH 03:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that![edit]

Sorry about that, but somehow I managed to stick my comments on your User page - so I have moved them off and put them here. I came back after reading your latest note. I have a suggestion. The Discovery Institute article is very short. Start a sub-section off on that article to begin with - since it links there. I will see what I can do to assist. Leave the present article alone for the moment, develop the other one and then ask for this one to be deleted. When the other article gets to the point of exceeding the article length create a separate article with a slightly different name by using the same methods I mentioned. I hope this makes sense. MPLX/MH 04:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Acknowledgment to you[edit]

Snicker-snack! ---Rednblu | Talk 17:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Request for mediation[edit]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Astrology, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Marskell 12:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

are you still in wikipedia,vorpalblade 2601:83:4201:8970:E0D1:A569:7379:8A84 (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]