Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:31, 12 December 2007

Archives

Barnstars Humor Mainpage Staging Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

RE: supportsummary2

Looks generally good. A few points:

• "Prof. cred." probably should be relabeled "Res. cred." or "Sci. cred." as MDs etc are called "Professional Doctorates" and PhDs etc "Research Doctorates"
• "Rel. No. (est.)" is a confusing title (too heavily truncated to get any meaning off it). "Bio/Geo PhD (est)" might be better. Why is it est, incidentally?
• Formatting points:
  • It's best for contents to have the same justification (left/centre) as their titles (or vice versa).
  • The "Petitions" & "Creationist Lists" titles would probably look better left-justified (and possibly bolded) -- where they are they break up the columns, visually.
  • Is there any reason why some lines are peach-coloured?

Hrafn42 14:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow interesting. Thanks.

• Prof cred stands for professional credentials, since I wanted to list clergy for the Clergy Letter Project (which I might have to eventually remove) and also so I could drive home the fact that the "Physicians and Surgeons" list includes a lot of people that are not physicians or surgeons.
• Rel. No. might be too abbreviated. Previous versions had it more expanded by I was trying to fit a lot in a small space, obviously. I wanted something like "relevant number" or "Number of signatories that are in relevant fields" with some definition of relevant fields. It is estimated because when I am going through these lists, it is very hard to tell who is a biologist and who is not, since there are so many biologically-related fields. Is a biochemist? Is a physiologist? Is a biophysicist? Usually I left all those out, but that might be incorrect. Where does one draw the line? This problem has to be confronted over and over and it is pretty difficult. I would not swear that I have not made any mistakes. Same with geologists; some work in areas relevant to this issue, and some do not. Is a geophysicist a geologist ? Is a geochemist? Is a meteorologist? Again, I left those all out, but that might not be appropriate. I also did not include physicists or astronomers, even though they are involved sometimes with determining the age of the earth or the universe. So it is all pretty difficult to determine exactly. In addition, I have excluded those with masters degrees, or those I cannot find confirmation of their PhDs. Some are PhDs from diploma mills or bible colleges, and I included those, although they are doubtful as well.
  • Try List of fields of doctoral studies Hrafn42 16:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• I will try other justifications.
• The peach/pink color or shading is to indicate which are lists of creation scientists/creationists and which are lists of scientists/evolution supporters. The fact that this was not obvious, even with the text underneath and the title tells me I am doing something wrong here. Hmmm.--Filll 14:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Eclectic Medicine

Could ye have a look at this article? I'm not sure about it: On the one hand, it's not all that bad, on the other hand, the sources are very poor. Adam Cuerden 16:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is pretty lousy.--Filll 02:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Aye, but not half so bad as some of the other articles I've been tearing to pieces. (Royal Rife, Electromagnetic Theory, Georges Lakhovsky - all of which were about 90% unsupported POV-pushing woo, and had to be eviscerated. (If you think those are bad now, check out a version from a month ago.) Still, I'll have a go at that one. Adam Cuerden 03:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not trust a lot of its claims. The references I have found, which are few and far between, do not really agree with the text.--Filll 03:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

True. I guess I'm just getting a little jaded. Adam Cuerden 16:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It draws on Thomsonian medicine so I am trying to fix that article, which is also in horrible shape. Then maybe if that makes some sense, Eclectic medicine can be cleaned up. Part of the difficulty is that the sources contradict each other and it is a huge mess. Who writes this crap?--Filll 17:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Woos. Have a look at User:Oldspammer's contributions to article talk pages sometime... Adam Cuerden 17:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Some articles that need help

• Pharmacognosy
• Eclectic medicine
• Creation (theology)
• Samuel Thomson

Would you object if I added Psychic surgery to that list? ornis (t) 03:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Eclectic Medicine

I found a really good source for this. Can you send me an e-mail, and I'll send you some scans? Adam Cuerden 19:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduction to evolution

The pisser is .... he/she is right on nearly every point. My legacy can't be two failed banners. I printed the complete article and the "list". Give me a few days to work on it in a hard copy format.--Random Replicator 19:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That is why I was so glad to get such good feedback. The last time, we really had sort of lousy feedback, to be honest (hopefully that doesnt offend anyone). This is much MUCH more helpful, and will make for a better article by far. So I do not really count the last "failure" as a failure. Plus eventually we can compress these as they did on evolution so they do not take up so much space. It is a record of our efforts. I am quite excited that someone would put so much time and energy into a careful review for us. This is the kind of help we needed all along, I think. And I think things are looking very good!--Filll 20:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Filll, I am not sure I understand this suggestion from our critique; can you clarify.

Under "Some definitions" we read that it would be helpful to know some additional definitions in order to understand the complex definition of evolution. After listing all of the definitions, I think it might be a good idea to rephrase the definition using the words from the newly learned words - it helps readers retain the information and it reminds them why they were reading the list in the first place. --Random Replicator 12:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked at this. I think we have examples of all terms, but not of gene, gene pool, chromosome, and DNA. So maybe we need an example of these as well, not just allele and the others. --Filll 13:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

On the COI vio

Please go ahead and note it after my post, I'm done with that one for a while. Odd nature 23:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Red teeth and bloody claws.

RE: Introduction to evolution:

"Query: "Nature, red in tooth and claw" - from Alfred Lord Tennyson's In Memoriam A.H.H. (1849) - Why is this considered a reference to Darwin, when Darwin's Origin of Species wasn't published until 1859? Is it a reference to other evolutionary thought, perhaps? (To me, it looks like a reference to Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan.)"

Has that concern been addressed or corrected?

And

The format guys seemed to have improved the situation --- does it look good on your screen?

And

The incorporation of the key concepts within the article has had a powerful effect don't you think; especially dealing with the level of acceptance of evolution within science. --Random Replicator 19:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I made a stab at fixing the red tooth poem with a footnote. I thought about other things but I thought this was best. I have liked what you have done so far. I will check more. I have liked the graphics too so far on my system.--Filll 20:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we done.

Filll, are we done? I was thinking maybe Tim V. might square us up some more; but he disappeared after a late night visitation of edits. I have tweaked it to the point of nausea.

I can't find any more errors; of course it is one of those "can't see the forest for the trees" no doubt. I don't know of any one to ask for a copy/edit. The English Department will not grade my paper! Beesides, Iam teh bess spellur I know.

I have not heard back about the dinosaur picture; I think the husband realized you just can't give away already copyrighted material on a whim. I'll wait a few more days and chat with Karen.

How do you call for a peer review? Getting help from the experts on the Evolution page is like squeezing blood out of a turnip. If I say "God determines Truth" I can get an epistle; when I asked for some suggested readings they remain silent. If that can be done; and it passes; then it would take a rather confident reviewer to add a third failed G/F at the top don't you think? Let me know what we should do, so I can sleep at night and stop staring at the damn screen?! --Random Replicator 00:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There's always WP:PR. You can get the feedback of a GA review without actually having to risk failing one. ornis (t) 01:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent idea. Do any of us know how to set it up? --Random Replicator 03:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. It may take a while for someone to pick it up, but that's just how it goes I guess. ornis (t) 03:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Reflexology

Oh. My. God. Adam Cuerden 09:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

hardy-weinberg

Filll, I've been brainstorming Weinberg. I need more time. Can you please move the entire section to above speciation but below evidence. It would make more sense there I think. When you get a chance.

A professor of composition ... I feel like I'm back in school! ... as a student. Not sure we will ever rise up to her standards; but I have learned a hell of lot from her. Eliminating "this" had an incredible impact on readibility.

And congrats on the paranormal banner ... I think?--Random Replicator 02:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Joy

User:RyanFreisling @ has wished you well! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the WikiJoy by sharing the joy someone else, Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Weinberg

Last suggestion: I'm not sure about the "example approach" to Weinberg. So many complaints about it being too difficult to understand --- maybe it simply is. You could delete the part: Hypothetical: yada yada... or perhaps just delete Weinberg and the entire population genetics section.

I'm going to keep the fingers off the keyboard and allow the communal mind to mold it into something worthwhile. Maybe if I give it a rest others will be more willing to clean it up. The current edits by our English guru have certainly improved the article; it’s changed enough that I don't feel comfortable making edits in fear that I will distract from their positive contributions. Besides the questions they raised on the most recent list --- I don't know how to answer. I was pleased --- and somewhat proud --- of the rapid defense by the community in regards to the delete request. I just wish I had the skills to hit the GA status; no doubt with some effort it will eventually met the standard. I am delighted to have been part of the Wiki process. It has also been a pleasure working with you; your quick wit and effective prose have been a source of entertainment -- I’m thankful that I was always on your good side!!! All as a result of a wire in my wall. Well I'm going on a pro-longed Wiki-break; I need to spend more time watching Oprah --- all this thinking is damaging the brain, perhaps beyond repair. Take care friend--Random Replicator 22:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we are making great progress and are so lucky to have a real English instructor working with us. I hope we can eventually all pull together and create something we can be proud of. I think that our English expert needs a huge barnstar for this effort!--Filll 21:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

NOR

I know you care about the policy. What do you think of my proposal to revise the second section (on the origins of the policy) in section 1 of the current talk page? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		Thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 58 supports, 1 opposes, and 1 neutral. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified. Addhoc 19:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit

on a certain recently blocked editor's page. Please reconsider your post and retract (remove) it - that's either kicking someone while they're down, or feeding the troll, and it can only exacerbate the situation. Thanks much - KillerChihuahua 21:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Too late, I've removed it. I was just here to warn you for precisely the same reason William M. Connolley 21:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite correct. However, it was already gone when I went to remove it. I have dealt with a long string of flack from this same editor, but I should not antagonize him further.--Filll 21:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

I just wanted to invite you to my myspace page again to refute my polonium halos blog. /nothingwilldie I'm not trying to cause trouble. This is simply meant to be invitation to a friendly debate.EMSPhydeaux 23:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not interested in debate. I am interested in peer-reviewed journals and confirmation by other scientists in peer-reviewed journals. And after a few years, your theories might get scientific consensus.--Filll 23:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

NOR comments

Hi Filll. I figured this part of my reply really isn't neccessary over on the NOR talk page. There's been quite a few insults flying back and forth from all side the last few days, as can be readily seen browsing through the page. Without looking, I think the one one you made about 3 or 4 editors trying to push their own agenda was wrong. I think that is what I termed "group 1", I think most people fall into "group 2", even a few people who started out as "group 3". Anyway, I also will apologize, as I myself have been guilty of making snide or otherwise sarcastic remarks, getting so flustered there. One person that I've seen the edits,e tc. of that really surprised me was FeloniousMonk. Just two "I oppose" comments on different days without any further explanation of why he was ooposed, leaving the impression that he was just opposed to any change, no matter what or why. In some cases like this, I think perhaps people (myself included) start associating what we see as non-constructive or even insulting comments as all coming from the same group, and begin to associate everybody we've arbitrarily placed in that group the same. I am sorry for doing so, and look forward to working out some sort of compromise whereby (most) everybody can be happy. wbfergus 14:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

NOR

Well, we have had our disagreements in the past, but I have to tell you: I am so grateful you are involved in the NOR discussion right now. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I am starting to lose patience with WAS 4.250, which is a bad thing. Am I misinterpreting him? Am I being unfair? I would appreciate it if you would comment on this exchange. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Good_article_reassessment#Homeopathy

This is a note to inform you that the article on Homeopathy has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment for review to see if it still meets the Good Article Criteria. Editors are encouraged to comment on this nomination and reach consensus on the specific concerns raised by reviewers. Tim Vickers 22:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

New try at homeopathy intro

To all involved: please see "My two cents" edit of homeopathy intro here

Friarslantern 22:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Quote mining

I'm interested to hear your take on this article. Carbon Monoxide 01:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The article needs work, but it is a very valid topic and the material should be edited, and expanded, not deleted.--Filll 01:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a major POV problem, clearly attacking creationists. I agree with you, it's a valid topic, but it needs serious neutral point of view work. Carbon Monoxide 01:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 21:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Creationism

Thank you for your recent message regarding Creationism. However I am completely at a loss as to why you think I am "undoing other people's edits". In fact an edit of mine, which I explained on the talk page, was 'undone' without explanation. I also think classing two edits as an "edit war" is over the top. I would welcome your explanation. Thank you. 199.71.183.2 16:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, Fill, as is often the case with self-examination of behavior, and especially among Misplaced Pages editors, you're a dick to 199.71.183.2. 66.71.75.149 22:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Denialism?

What's "denialism", and what does it have to do with me? Badgerpatrol 16:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Maybe I am mistaken. I will check.--Filll 16:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. My apologies.--Filll 16:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, apology appreciated in and taken in good faith. Thank you. I thought you were suggesting that I was in denial about something, which, apart from perhaps denial over my rapidly receding hairline, I think I'm pretty much safe from. That kind of makes my point- good faith mistakes and misunderstandings do happen sometimes. It's best to discuss things civilly to clarify things rather than making assumptions and assuming bad faith when there isn't any. As for your other points...a) I'm happy to discuss, as a geologist, any concerns about my judgement you may have over --Cretaceous Boundary Extinction Event]] (which I assume is the article you're talking about). I like discussing geology (most of the time). In fact, no-one ever actually discussed any of the substantive points that I made. Instead things just descended into an escalating series of attacks on me which certainly stressed me out and it seems had a negative effect on you too. It's just silly, it's unnecesary, and it helps no-one. b) I'm not sure what you mean with regard to admin privileges. I'm not an admin, have never been, and thus am not in a position to abuse privileges that I don't have. c) I didn't accuse anyone of being a sockpuppet, that is not what I was driving at at all. I've clarified this elsewhere. Badgerpatrol 16:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I had you confused with someone else who was also at the K-T boundary article. There have been several there over the months who came in professing deep knowledge but never contributed anything more than criticisms. We are not subject matter experts. If someone who is a subject matter expert, or professes to be, wants to fix the putative numerous problems in that article, they are free to do so. I just want someone who is an expert to fix the problems instead of demanding that nonexperts fix the problems. Which happened at least 4 times I know of. If experts want to split these hairs, that is fine. It is up to them, not those of us in the hoi polloi.--Filll 17:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I do take your point- but in the case of an FA review, it is kind of the point to flag issues with an article. There are two purposes to an FA candidacy- to flag issues for immediate improvement, and to ultimately decide whether the article, at that point, is of sufficient quality to become a featured article. Sometimes problems can't be fixed overnight, even by those with "expert" (a word I hate) knowledge- but that surely doesn't mean that they should go unmentioned. Good faith criticism of the article should not be conflated with criticism of the author. I should also point out that I did make quite a few edits to that article, and I intend to make quite a few more, provided the behavioural climate remains stable. Anyway, the events of that particular FAC are in the past. Thanks for discussing this civilly, it is much appreciated. Badgerpatrol 17:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Irreducible complexity

One of the references you added to Irreducible complexity is generating an error. Also I disapprove of pandering to a troll's demands for multiple references for a perfectly ordinary (not extraordinary) claim. Hrafn_Stalk 16:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to resist and finally I decided after almost a week of this to give in. I tried to fix the reference. HOpefully this will plug that hole.--Filll 16:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(EC)Sometimes that's what it takes to shut them up. If being buried in good solid, clear references, doesn't satisfy them, and they continue to demand shrubberies, then so much the worse for them.  – ornis⚙ 17:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The feeding with additional references seems to have left the troll undiminished vocally. ;) Hrafn_Stalk 02:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh well. At least our proverbials are well covered. ;)  – ornis⚙ 22:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

When we slowly boilerplate our articles with this, we leave trolls and POV warriors less chance to cause chaos and make inroads. They basically just move on. If I compare the situation at evolution now with a year or so ago, there is now far less vandalism and attacks by trolls and POV warriors at evolution. I think that intelligent design will eventually also be far more impervious as we put more mechanisms in place to deflect trouble. We are just arming ourselves against attack.--Filll 22:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Evolution talk page

Could you try to stop debating the creationists? That isn't what the talk page is for and only encourages them! :) Tim Vickers 16:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

But Tim, it's so hard to stop. And maybe, just maybe, we can convert one to the Evil Society of Darwinism. You just never know.  :) OrangeMarlin 16:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If you wrestle with a pig, you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. Tim Vickers 17:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

But sometimes I get bacon, ham, and some good spare ribs. OrangeMarlin 17:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I am torn here. I notice if we ignore them, they become emboldened and then start edit warring. Although on the other hand, it might be better to remove all their comments immediately from talk pages.--Filll 17:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Advise to read the FAQ, direct to Google groups/TalkOrigins if they wish to discuss subject rather than specific comments about the article. That seems reasonably effective? Tim Vickers 23:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Threats, threats and more threats

YOU'RE not in the mood to play? Then stop playing, problem solved.Tstrobaugh 21:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What is your problem? Just relax and try to be civil. How many times do you have to be asked? What do you think your behavior looks like? You have been a productive editor on WP for a long time. Just try to behave in a more reasonable fashion. --Filll 21:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to have a discussion? Good. I have no problem. Why do you keep attacking me? Why did you move the discussion page? Please also explain to me what behavior I have exhibited that is not reasonable. You are the one who moved that page and said it was at my request, that seems like very unreasonable behavior to me. What am I doing that you dislike so much? Tstrobaugh 21:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I will let others look at the evidence and take their advice. I have no idea what possessed a seemingly rational editor to behave in the manner I witnessed.--Filll 21:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Whose advice did you take for the first strike ? and why did you say it was at my request?Tstrobaugh 21:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, Filll, that was very kind of you. For now, I'm going to move that into the hidden, HTML commented out section on my talk page, because I'd rather not draw any more attention to the incident; worried about WP:BEANS. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Note

Anyone who proudly flaunts a 100 year old psychometric gauge has already discredited themselves.--Filll 01:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting subject, I don't know what reference to "100 year old" means, but I the test I took was developed in 1997, see:WAIS III. There is a science though called Historiometric which estimates IQ's of historical figures. As for "flaunting" that person is probably exhibiting Narcissism, for some help with dealing with one see: .Tstrobaugh 19:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

George Albert Smith (inventor)

Hi Filll,

I am confused as to why you reverted my edit on the George Albert Smith (inventor) article. The otherpersons template which I removed is intended to be placed on articles whose titles could refer to other articles. To add this template to all the articles that are listed on a given disambiguation page would be tedious and superfluous. It does not make sense for someone to type "George Albert Smith (inventor)" into the search bar when searching for any George Albert Smith other than the inventor. If you disagree, please explain your reasoning.

Thank you,

Neelix 16:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I guess that makes sense. Ok.--Filll 16:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Dawkin's Video

Filll --- One of my students showed a video clip of Dawkins where he has a pregnant pause before attempting to answer a question about increasing genetic content through mutations. I've read a few commentaries where he debunks the video as a "set-up" and a few from the producer who claims Dawkin's misrepresents the truth. Its an old issue that seems to have revived itself on AIG sites as well as you-Tube. Do you know if / where it was definitively decided either way. --Random Replicator 02:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, youtube videos are not the way science is done. However, I would use this as a teaching moment. The assorted videos are obviously doctored and there are allegations of looping to make the pause look longer than it was, similar to quote mining. I would ask the students to come up with 10 reasons why this video is a valid attack on evolution, and 10 reasons why this video is invalid as an attack on evolution. One can find copious amounts of material on this on all sides on the internet. Instead of looking at a video that proves nothing and might be faked in various ways, let them do some real thinking and investigation. There is a huge amount of this in the literature and on the internet. This would give them an opportunity to start thinking critically and investigating for themselves, instead of just taking some nonsense as factual and accepting it.--Filll 13:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Aspen & Apse Heath

Hi, I've amended the wl for the specific name to Populus tremula as this is the aspen native to Europe. I must admit I hadn't realised that there were non-European aspens! DuncanHill 17:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Remember there is even a town called Aspen, Colorado. However, we do not call them aspens in Canada, but poplar trees, which is probably the wrong name).--Filll 17:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It's fascinating stuff, I must say I wouldn't normally call an aspen a type of poplar, tho' that is clearly what the botanists say. Did you see my reply at the Language Ref Desk? I found a couple of other Apsley/Aspley places, but they are in Beds, not the IOW. DuncanHill 17:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I saw your reply, thanks. It is interesting. I grew up calling these trees poplar trees (actually white populars, and there were black poplar trees as well, but I have no idea what these really are botanically). It was as big shock to see the aspens in the US and realize that they might be the same or closely related trees.--Filll 17:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

If you're going to archive talkpages in an effort to cut off trolls (which is an ambiguous proposition at best), could you please make sure you {{talkarchive}} it. The results of not doing so can be seen here, with the troll continuing to add comments to the archive. Hrafn_Stalk 16:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I decided the page had become too long so I thought it needed to be archived. Of course, sometimes archiving can help with troll problems. I did not know about the notice and I will endeavor to use it from now on. Thanks.

I was going to cut and paste the last trolls comments on the main page, but I decided this is just more nonsense from someone who is clueless or just looking for a fight. "In the literature" is not a common phrase in academia? It gets something like 36 million hits on google, after all. The other stuff is just nonsense as well. Of course some quotes reference creationists and some describe evolution as fact and some as theory and some as fact and theory; so what? What nonsense..--Filll 17:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a well-known fact that the persistence of trolls is inversely proportional to the validity of their arguments. :P Hrafn_Stalk 17:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The Needles

You're doing great work on the article, especially references. By any chance have you come across {{cite web}} and its friends for even better citations? They work inside <ref></ref> pairs very happily, too. Fiddle Faddle 19:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at that and many people have pushed me to use it. However, at least so far, I have not felt it was flexible enough for my purposes. I know that sounds lame, but oh well..--Filll 19:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought that at first, then I forced myself to use it. Now I am a convert. What do you find inflexible? Fiddle Faddle 20:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well perhaps I should make a list of problems I have when I try it. I have tried it a few times and always abandoned it in frustration when I could not make it do what I wanted.--Filll 20:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just had a crack at one, where you used a sort of "double reference" within one, split it in 2 and deployed cite web. Happy to have your thoughts on flexibility or otherwise (this is pretty much the most basic use, btw). If I'm aropund I'm happy to offer help - I seem to have become quite "experienced" with it recently. Fiddle Faddle 20:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Isle of Wight - bold - MOS

regarding your edit

I won't be reverting your edit mentioned above; I am just placing this note here to clarify why I bolded "Angel Radio" so it is less of a mystery ... in those cases where a redirect refers to a term in an article which is a subtopic or "has possibilities", I generally do bold that term as it has effectively the same status (semantically) as the main topic term (in this case "Isle of Wight"), which is bolded as part of the MOS. Based on my non-expert understanding of the MOS, I don't think this behavior is either encouraged or prevented. I think this is the first time I've seen a bolding I've put in place as part of this behavior reverted, but that's ok - there is a first time for everything. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure, but I would say the best approach to this is to make a separate article for Angel Radio.--Filll 14:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you know?

Rather than the wikipedia project, this is a much more disappointing reference to this. WLU 06:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages gets longer and worse by the way?

Filll, I'm not an expert editor, I need help, I woudln't know where to start. It may be that I'll have to look for an administrator. I've seen in the past what kind of support you're usually asked for, and also it seems your editing and managing skills are useful in scientific issues. The premise is, I'm the biggest anti-smoking person. But this article seems to me to be trash, and it goes too far beyond its scope. Note, here already there's an article about health issues. Apparently, the one I'm pointing to you is the type of articles that attracts angry anti-anti-smoking. But the hard-core editors seem to me have gone too much beyond the scope of WP in defending it from such attacks. It is a pamphlet that, to me, seems to mix real facts with huge emotional resentment toward smoking. I'll give you an example of an edit that I had to modify that stood up quite for a while unchallenged (you should really read it in the way it sounded before my correction). I make a prediction that someone will remove that source now.
Worse still, recently an editor has destroyed the article completely. Here is his main contribution, but you should rather read here on the talk page where I comment on his changes. If I understand correctly, you muust have a very scientific approach, and you should undesrtand what I'm talking about. I'm furthest from being an anti-anti-smoker, but I feel habitual editors are really stretching this one too far, for my idea of what an encyclopedia is. It's not the place to fight social wars, however right they might be.
Curiosity. I recently found out (I don't know if you have access to the pdf here) that it is likely not smoking, but complete sedentary life as opposed to practising intense physical activity the first avoidable cause of death in western countries, and I so would like to see sedentary editors fight their altrustic editing war also there. --Gibbzmann 05:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Talk

I am not sure I can help, or how I can help. The best advice I can give you is to have multiple sources, and get them in the highest quality publications you can find.--Filll 12:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoa

TS take it easy? OM is the combative one. "I owe you shit". Calling me a troll and my edits pov. Why are you singling me out? Turtlescrubber 00:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Do not keep pushing it. And edit warring. I sent him an email. --Filll 00:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring? I added a pov tag to the section on the page. He has reverted me without comment (other than calling my edits pov)and hasn't used the talk page on the article. If you are talking about his talk page, OM trying to hide an uncivil comment by calling me a troll and "banning" me from his page, this is unacceptable behavior. Turtlescrubber 00:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Men an Tol

Hi. I think it is OR & should be removed if a citation is not provided. I do not hold with ley lines anyway as the research is broadly against them and a balanced view is best anyway.Rosser 16:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

Some people just love to implement 'the rules' no matter how useful something is. Someone will no doubt suggest that 'we' should send the article to Wikibooks and then they will find a reason for deleting it! I have added my comments. Rosser 23:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dominionism

Hi Filll. The Template:Dominionism TfD, on which you commented, has been closed with no consensus (default to keep). Although the TfD debate touched on several issues regarding the form the infobox should now take, much seems unresolved. I invite you to participate in further discussion on this topic. Thank you. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Smile (hows the mud)

Enternoted has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Did you check out the Nova documentary? I can't believe that they used the "Inherit the wind" footage so deceptively. Keep up the undercover work. Enternoted 05:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Bernard d'Abrera

In case you hadn't noticed, we have an admin making substantial (and in my opinion problematic) edits on Bernard d'Abrera, based on a WP:OTRS complaint from d'Abrera himself. As the primary author of this article, I thought you might wish to weigh in on the subject on the article's talkpage. Hrafn_Stalk 05:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back. This discussion has spread to WP:AN#Bernard d'Abrera. I'm signing off for a while, will take a look at the state of play in a few hours. Hrafn_Stalk 18:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Creationism talk thread

Hello, I deleted the unconstructive thread that anonymite had started on talk:creationism per WP:TALK. Just wanted to let you know the edit summary wasn't directed at you.  :-) Kindest regards, AlphaEta 03:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Original Study?

Hi Filll. I translated into Bulgarian the article about "Evolution as theory and fact". There are people claiming this is an original study. Is it? Please give me some arguments. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.87.62 (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No, this is not WP:OR. First, the statement that evolution is a theory is quite common and can be see in many references, some of which we cited in the article. Second, the statement that evolution is a fact is also quite common and we cited many references. The same is true of gravity, although we do not have any references cited for this at this point, I do not think. The comparison between evolution and gravity is very old, and I think goes back to Darwin, if I remember correctly. I have a rough draft of a rewrite of the article that is half finished, and much of this will be addressed in this rewrite. I will see if I can find some references for you which make this case. I do not think that it is SYNTH, since this case has been made so often in the mainstream literature, at least in English.--Filll 21:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

I have mentioned your username in evidence presented at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Your contributions were mentioned as one of many participants in an edit war. GRBerry 01:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hi there. I'm responding here to your characterisation of this edit as a "massive edit" in your evidence in the above case. If you look closely, you will see that hardly any of the text changes. It is the breaking up into different paragraphs and the way the mediawiki diff generator works, that makes it look like a massive edit. This has been pointed out earlier on the evidence page. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#Evidence presented by JzG ("My thanks to Carcharoth for pointing out the actual textual difference in the change...") and also here. Carcharoth 20:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, and regarding your absolute conviction that MatthewHoffman is a sockpuppet. It appears that it is an account operated by a real person named Matthew Hoffman, who e-mailed an arbitrator to complain about the block and sock-puppet accusations. Generally, it is best to avoid making such accusations against people who use their real name on Misplaced Pages. Carcharoth 21:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well if he is not a sock puppet, he sure is doing a good job of imitating a sock puppet. I have over 20,000 edits, but when I look back at my first few hundred, I obviously was completely clueless. If he just absorbed all that information by reading and observing and osmosis, I will be a monkey's uncle. NPOV? sources? wikilinking and linking? formatting? It took me quite a while to figure all that out.-Filll 21:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If you actually start looking, I think you will find things are different to what you think. Look at the early edits of a wide range of accounts and see what you come up with. Carcharoth 01:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Discovery Institute

I've had a look at this page and I'm very troubled by your behavior there. While I understand and agree with your motivation to fight off nutty creationist POV, you shouldn't make other editors into enemies when they should be your collaborators. I understand arguments about tendentious issues can get heated, but you aren't even letting them get heated, you appear to be starting out with the heat on full blast. WP:AGF isn't just a nice thought, it should be how we approach every dispute, and I'd like to see you do more of that in this particular case. There is no call for you to assume that every new editor or respondent to an RfC is a creationist agent, and that kind of approach should halt immediately. Thank you. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 20:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I offended anyone. I was just taken aback at being called uncivil and being threatened for having said his complaints appeared baseless. Where I am from, this is a very polite way to state that we disagree on that point.--Filll 21:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not your comment about an argument being "baseless", but your general and immediate hostility towards new contributors to that article, as well as much more uncivil remarks like "get a dictionary". Again, I ask that you restrain yourself from this behavior and initially assume good faith from new contributors. Thank you. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If you will check, you will see that I was FIRST branded as being "uncivil" for using the word "baseless", and several other nasty things were said about me and to me. Let me make this clear:

I am highly offended and outraged that I was branded as being uncivil for using the word "baseless".

To me, this was the trigger. I had not said anything that should have insulted any reasonable person before this event (and I did not really say anything offensive after that, as far as I am concerned; I was trying to point out the ludicrousness of the complaint and to try to defuse the situation with humor). So the complaint about the word "baseless" is the seminal issue, in my humble opinion. If you disagree, that is fine, however, I would beg to differ with such a characterization.

Maybe my understanding of this word "baseless" is wrong. Maybe it is different than his or yours. However, I would respectfully disagree. I am willing to stand corrected, if you can document to me how using the word "baseless" is uncivil or some sort of invective or expletive, or that its use should necessarily cause some sort of affront. You are cordially invited to demonstrate to me using some sort of reliable source that the word "baseless" is patently offensive.

To my mind and as far as I understand, I did not write anything uncivil when I said that his "complaints appear to be baseless" at 14:53, 1 December 2007. Do you think this is one of the most horrible examples of incivility you have ever seen on Misplaced Pages? Please document to me how this is one of the most uncivil comments ever observed on Misplaced Pages and the use of the word "baseless" is among the most egregiously blatantly rude events that have ever occurred on Misplaced Pages. I await your well-documented response with interest and baited breath.

After he called me uncivil, and said I did not understand that ID != creationism (contrary to all our dozens of reliable peer-reviewed sources listed in these articles), and said I had "a hostile attitude of POV" (whatever that means, but it sounds aggressive, far worse than the word "baseless" to me, but then I am obviously stupid compared to Crockspot and you, and have a very limited understanding of English compared to the two of you), lectured me that I should engage in self-reflection, said I was on a "soapbox", implied was not conducting myself in accordance with WP policies and hinted at several other slurs at 01:34, 2 December 2007. In response to this provocation, I gently suggested he might want to get a dictionary in an edit summary. I wrote:

Will anyone apologize to me for repeatedly badgering me and making nasty comments about me? I have yet to hear one hint or suggestion that CS or any of his defenders might have made a mistake or acted out of line. Others are far too sure that they are correct, no matter what.--Filll (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. However, I humbly suggest that the next time you choose to scold someone, it might serve your interests and the interests of Misplaced Pages better for you to get your facts straight first. It might be difficult for someone to focus on your purported points when they are struggling with irritation over being falsely accused. Best wishes...--Filll (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Gamaliel speaks wisely, and it's worthwhile always trying hard to be polite and AGF as far as possible. Of course this can be very hard to sustain when articles are the subject of orchestrated campaigns to play the rules in order to promote a religious viewpoint. I must admit having assumed good faith and welcomed several users who turned out to be trolls or socks, and also having genuinely enquired if evident misreadings were due to English not being the editor's first language, with the result that said editor took considerable umbrage. As it happens, that was a pov warrior determined to attack a Christian fundamentalist. So it goes. ... dave souza, talk 21:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If this were just about the "baseless" remark, then you might have a point, but this conduct concerns your initial reactions towards multiple users. I suggest you put aside your anger over that specific incident and examine your overall behavior. Thank you. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 22:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you already wrote this.--Filll (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, Gamaliel - seriously? You're lecturing Filll for letting himself be baited by Crockspot? And you're lecturing him for sarcasm? You really have nothing better to do than scold people for not picking their fights better? The irony makes my head spin. Guettarda (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you think this response is particularly productive? I have plenty to do, and part of that includes attempting to prevent editors from attacking other editors as their opening gambit, including respondents to an RfC. Do you think there's something wrong with asking other editors to assume good faith? This isn't the best example to set here. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 00:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy talk subpages?

Hi there, I just noticed the Talk:Homeopathy/pro and Talk:Homeopathy/anti, what function did you have in mind for these pages? All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

PS, you do a good job. Nil illegitimi carborundum. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes those pages. If you look back in the homeopathy talk page history, ScienceApologist and Orangemarlin and Peter and I and a few others were discussing the relative weight of the "pro" homeopathy material and the "anti" homeopathy material in the article. Each side said that the other side was too dominant and had too much space. So I decided to roughly estimate it, and created those two subarticles. When I realized that the two sides were far more evenly balanced than they had been claiming, I stopped worrying so much and agreed that the article should be promoted. I do not know about the current balance, however. --Filll (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you mind if I delete them as housekeeping? I worry about Google indexing what could be seen as POV-forks. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No go ahead and dump them. If we have to recreate similar files later for more measurement, we will just do it. --Filll 03:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Re , here in Iowa we call Missouri the "Show me again, slowly" state. (Just one of those silly inter-state rivalries.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Filll/homeopathyscales

OK Filll will do...do you want me to edit it direct in your sandbox or suggest changes to you? I see a few corrections I could make but am not sure whether to edit them myself or tell you about them first; just let me know which you prefer. You will be happy to know that none are major changes or contentious issues BTW, cheers Peter morrell 17:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I only have asked a few people so far to help review it, there should be no problem with just editing the original right in the sandbox. If you want to make more comments, you can write them here or on the talk page of the sandbox article which is at User talk:Filll/homeopathyscales. I hope this will not be too controversial. I think if we can make an article like this, it will be very valuable to many people, since it will clearly describe these potency scales for anyone who wants to know.--Filll 17:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I will follow through as time allows. cheers Peter morrell 20:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Christine Comer

This article is interesting and needs work and fleshing out.--Filll 22:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Christine Comer

Thanks for all your work improving my meager stub. Do you think it should be moved to Christine Castillo Comer? The more sources I see makes me think sh2e treats both Castillo and Comer as a last name. (I thought, initially, that Castillo might have been a middle name until one site had a hyphen betweeen the two.)

Also, any sources that give a more detailed bio would be great. Thanks, — Scientizzle 22:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if it should be moved. I suggested that it might be a good news item at Wikinews but I am not sure if they will pick it up. I am Filll there too and you can see the draft under my contributions.--Filll 22:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I heard her speak on Science Friday and she was pretty compelling.--Filll 22:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. (I've never worked w/ Wikinews.) I won't hear her until the podcast comes out tomorrow. — Scientizzle 23:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

New users on ID and related articles.

Hey, Filll, per the arbcom case, could you do me a huge favour? Count up the new users that appeared on Intelligent design and Talk:Intelligent design over two months or so (and who started or almost started, by editing there), then check the block logs for them - I'd be surprised to learn that much under a third of them don't turn out to be checkuser-confirmed socks of raspor et al, which is, of course, very relevant to the case. Adam Cuerden 03:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The investigation

No rush - it might be useful to ignore the last month, as it takes some time to figure out if they're socks or not, though. Adam Cuerden 18:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet explanation please?

Would you care to explain why my username is apparently listed at your page here? Thanks! Dr. Cash (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for any undue concern I caused you. If you look above, I am compiling evidence to help a friend with an ArbComm case. And to do that, I will go through all the people that edited intelligent design related articles over the last couple of months that are not "regulars". I will then look to see how long they have been on WP, how many edits they have, what articles they edited, history etc. It is to try to determine how many of the "new" or "unfamiliar" editors of the ID pages are really SPA and socks etc. We are trying to make the case that it is understandable that Adam Cuerden has blocked some accounts with only a small amount of evidence, given the frequency of socks and SPA on these articles. Sorry about worrying you. It is just for data collection purposes. You are obviously not a sock.--Filll (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I was quite disturbed to find my name there as well until I saw the explanation above. It might be a good idea to put a bit of explanation at the top of that page to avoid needless concern. Seeing one's name on a list of "suspected ID socks" without further explanation can be unsettling (especially when one is not a sock, and most definitely not an ID proponent). Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea.--Filll (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

RFA

Hi Filll, I trust your judgement but with this edit I'm not clear why you oppose so strongly. Any chance of some examples and rationale? David D. (Talk) 16:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A couple. I think that his level of editing experience is only moderate given the length of time he has been on WP. I also have been quite discouraged by some of his attitudes in edits, particularly associated with Homeopathy. A GA is a 90K train wreck? This was the result of months and months of compromise and discussion between real homeopaths and real MDs and scientists; dozens of editors in all and thousands and thousands of edits. Then we finally agreed that it was GA status, and it was promoted. It was difficult and a lot was done in a sandbox rough draft. Finally we were all reasonably happy, except for a few trolls who appeared later and wanted a complete rewrite to make it all prohomeoapthy since they do not understand NPOV. A couple were blocked and are probably back as socks. Thumperward marches into this situation, and without understanding the situation starts making imperious changes and declarations and changes as though he was some sort of expert in the subject and science and the article. Amazing.... Therefore, I am not sure he has displayed the correct temperament to be an admin. I am not sure the place to test his theory of "no references in LEADS" is on an article like homeopathy. If he wants to change policy, let him argue at a policy page. This also strikes me as someone who does not understand WP very well and also has fairly suspect judgement. Also, I find that I am put off by people who argue every vote against them. I think it is unseemly and it does not sit well with me. If they have to do this, are they really suited for the position? --Filll (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I can understand the frustration on homeopathy but don't you think the LEAD is better now than a month ago? I'll look into his edits at homeopathy in more detail but with respect to the recent LEAD discussion I have found myself sympathetic to his comments. David D. (Talk) 18:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is too bad we need to overcite. But that isi the nature of controversial articles. And my personal tastes are irrelevant. It is what is NPOV and a fair summary, fairly accessible and protected against POV attacks and well cited, and the product of a wide-ranging consensus.--Filll (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

When four or five editors pour several man months of effort into writing an article, and shepherd it to GA status, then have it knocked down, and then re-evaluated and repromoted to GA, how do you think they feel to have someone say it is a "90K train wreck"? Also, if he is to be an admin here, there are really really controversial articles: abortion, 9/11 controversies, black people, intelligent design, dominionism, etc. There are HUGE fights at these articles, o a regular basis. When I look at his contributions and see him on the homeopathy page, I really think he needs a bit more seasoning in dealing with these really contentious subjects and difficult situations. Especially if he has a self-admitted "short fuse". It just is a bit early I think for him to be given the extra tools. I have seen too many admins who abuse their tools.--Filll (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Filll, I just wanted to express my sympathy with your frustration on this RfA. It's obviously touched a nerve for you and I can see from your contributions that you have high standards, and understandably take offence (as would I) when hours of work are apparently disregarded. However I thought perhaps that, when things have blown over a bit, you might look again at the way you played this RfA? Posting an Extremely strong oppose with no supporting comment was bound to get you asked: 'Why such vehemence?' Had you just posted Oppose as several people below you have done, no comment would have been called for. Thumperward may well have a lot to learn, but I see no evidence of malice, just (at worst) naïvete. Laying into him as you did in your latest reply there is unlikely to improve his editing skills, and I think just contributes to a sour atmosphere. I'm not posting this here to prolong the unpleasantness, or as any kind of counterattack. If I was Phaedriel I'm sure I could spread some warm and fuzzy wikilove, but my age, gender and nationality (middle aged Englishman...) are against me! So again, I do understand and sympathise with your frustration: but perhaps it's not too late to go back there and lower the temperature somehow? I'm sure if you do, Thumperward is more likely to take your criticisms on board, and you'll feel like you've got back onto the moral high ground.

Apologies for this awkward (and quite possibly unwelcome!) message, just felt I ought to try and say something rather than pretend nothing was happening there. Best wishes - Kim Dent-Brown 21:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me be a bit clearer. My last post was an attempt to lower the temperature. However, I felt I had to defend myself against people who attacked me for saying I was offended at being asked for a reason, when I did not want to give one. I felt I had to describe why I did not want to give a reason. The reason is, I do not want to make an unpleasant situation worse.

Let me clarify further why I am irritated. I personally spent maybe 100 hours on this article. I know several people who spent as much time if not more. I also have personally verified that the editors who contributed substantially included:

• A PhD in physics
• A PhD in biochemistry
• several other PhDs
• An MD
• An internationally recognized homeopath and author with a faculty position at a major university

This editor appears to have no credentials to match this. Nevertheless, he signalled his intention to discard the vast majority of the efforts of this group of people who spent hundreds if not thousands of man-hours on this article, in a capricious, cavalier fashion. This is very discouraging. And encouraging this kind of attitude will destroy Misplaced Pages. Is this the kind of thing we want to reward on Misplaced Pages? I think not.

When I read WillowW's account, I was even more aghast. I respect WillowW more than just about any other editor on Misplaced Pages. WillowW is an incredible contributor and a real scholar and works very very hard on her articles. WillowW has a raft of FAs and GAs to show for her incredible efforts. We are lucky to have her. When I read that she had the same sort of experience with this editor that the editors on homeopathy were threatened with, it really gave me tremendous pause. It is painful to work on something very hard for hours and hours and hours and then have it dismissed by someone who really does not understand at all. This is not the way Misplaced Pages should be heading, at least in my opinion.

I think this editor needs a lot more seasoning before he is ready for adminship, if ever. I think that I would like to see at least another 10,000 or 15,000 edits on controversial articles, and a record of success in doing this. The adminship tools are too powerful and there are too many very sensitive situations here on controversial articles to just award them to someone with this type of attitude and level of experience. Certainly I need to have some evidence of competence at handling tense environments around contentious subjects before I would support him. If and when I do, I would be happy to support him. However, by goading me into laying out my reasons for opposing, a bad situation is made much worse. We do not need more tension and animosity here; we have too much of that already. Now by asking me to explain, however, politely, things are made far more poisonous. That is why I did not want to give my reasons.

The reason I suspect that the "oppose" votes of people who came after me have not been challenged is because I made such a big stink about it. I really think that the wheedling and begging and pleading and badgering for "support" votes creates more bad blood than is necessary. I do not like it. It wastes time. It looks bad. It hurts feelings on all sides. It makes people not want to vote at all, since it is basically intimidation. That is my opinion. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Filll, why did you write "I have been taken to task by "supporters" several times on my talk page, for both opposing and for being reluctant to state why I oppose at this time."? I seem to be one of these two supporters, but that is strange interpretation. I came to your talk page because i was wondering if I should switch to oppose based on your comment. I just wanted to know exactly why you felt this way since i thought i might have missed something. I'm sorry if you felt that was inappropriate but it was certainly no intention on my part to question your judgment or even force you to write more on the RFA. David D. (Talk) 03:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood then. But what I said before stands. Having to explain every possible oppose just makes the candidate feel worse (which I am loathe to do), increases the general feelings of animosity and ill will on Misplaced Pages and might even cause conflict between those opposing and the candidate. This is not constructive, since all editors, including those who oppose, will have to continue to work with the candidate, and those who oppose might very well want to support the candidate at a later date. I do not want to be involved with bringing up these negative issues, a role I feel I have slid into, unfortunately. This is very regrettable, since it reflects badly on me, on the candidate, on those asking for more information, on Misplaced Pages, and so on. I am sorry that I misread your motivations. I am sorry to have smeared you with that post. I would far rather have just voted, and then stayed mute. And I probably should have done just that. Live and learn.--Filll (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"Having to explain every possible oppose just makes the candidate feel worse" Agreed, which is one of the reasons why i brought my question here. As you say live and learn. By the way i don't feel smeared, just wasn't sure if you misread my original intent. Everything is resolved now. David D. (Talk) 04:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

courtesy notice. Thanks. Ra2007 (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Heisenberg's certainty principle

Covered in The Economist. Ra2007 (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Surely you are joking. Just because some journalists at the Economist magazine incorrectly wrote the "Certainty Principle" instead of the Uncertainty Principle does not mean that it is notable. Please. I think you are possibly trying to be disruptive, so please do not bother me again.--Filll (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll go a step further: it's conceivable that the phrase might be accidentally used in a honest-to-goodness journal article and that it might get past peer-review (a paper from our lab that stated 18-7=9 did, after all), but unless that phrase was being used to refer to something other than the uncertainty principle, it would clearly be a typo. Ben Hocking 20:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Creation & Evolution similarities

Creation and Evolution have similar traits. If you believe in evolution you believe that the universe came from a cosmic egg which exploded in the big bang. If you believe in creation you believe God formed life. Do you realize both beliefs have something That has been there before Time began.God or a cosmic egg.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesus Is risen (talk • contribs) 18:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Totally similar, except one has evidence, and the other does not. But other than that, they are identical.--Filll (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)