See also
this diff of August 23, on the main article on "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" where I introduced the same correction. If you advance to the next edit, you will see that Hrafn instantly reverted it, stating as his reason his unshakable belief in the theory I had just dispelled.
Now advance again to the next edit, where I expressly give the source as the cited ad, and describe in detail what can be found in it.
Advance again, and Hrafn reverts it, asserting that the cited source is "unsourced material".
Advance a few more diffs and you get the idea of what I was up against.
After three reverts, the dispute migrates to the
article's talk page, where I get nowhere with Hrafn.
Read on down that talk page colloquy and you will quickly see the utter arrogance of Hrafn. And all of this is taking place on August 23, just two days into
my first edit in his bailiwick.
And because I had the temerity to try to argue him out of his misconception, I was labeled "tendentious" (which, according to Filll's RfC against me, is evidently a bannable offense on the English Wikipedia).
QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 20th May 2008, 8:49am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 20th May 2008, 1:28pm)
What I need help on — and I'm quite sincere and serious about this — is understanding what I might have done differently
here, when I first raised the same objections to Hrafn, Filll, and ConfuciousOrnis.
If you wanted the biography sorted out swiftly, you shouldn't have written this type of thing :
QUOTE(Moulton)
You're projecting, Hrafn42. I appreciate that you have an issue with immaturity.
Also, you appear to have turned discussions with your "adversarial editors" into some difficult, opaque, hide and seek session.
It felt like I was arguing with a petulant child. I had expected to find mature, professional editors, who behaved like my peers in academia.
Obviously that was a unwarranted expectation on my part.
I had no experience in dealing with a character like him.