| Revision as of 06:30, 3 June 2007 editOrangemarlin (talk | contribs)30,771 edits →Evolution← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:01, 4 June 2007 edit undoOrangemarlin (talk | contribs)30,771 edits Archiving everything but some of the Christian/Myth/Reversion stuff.Next edit → | ||
| Line 115: | Line 115: | ||
| Well, I don't want you to over-commit!! I just know this article deserves to be better than it is. You can start by looking at one editor;s suggestions and also I have a comment in the section of talk that follows (on, concerning the tendency to microevolution). ] | ] 15:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | Well, I don't want you to over-commit!! I just know this article deserves to be better than it is. You can start by looking at one editor;s suggestions and also I have a comment in the section of talk that follows (on, concerning the tendency to microevolution). ] | ] 15:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == Removal of poll == | |||
| Given that Creationism is a subset of intelligent design theory, don't you think it's misleading to say that the poll listed 10% support for ID, when in fact it indicated 74% support? ''']''' <small>]</small> 00:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I disagree. ID is a subset of Creationism, polls are evil, and I prefer to get rid of the whole thing. ] 00:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::ID is absolutely not a subset of Creationism, as other theories that fall under the ID umbrella are, say, seeding of the planet by aliens, which ain't Creationism. Creationism is a specific explanation as to how man came to be involving a conscious, intervening force, but there are a potentially large number of such theories. If you object to the poll, why didn't you simply remove it altogether? ''']''' <small>]</small> 00:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think it's all BS, so I'm not sure why you're arguing with me. This should be on the ID talk page. However, you are reading the Discovery Institute propaganda, not facts. ID is Creationism by a Judeo-Christian G_d plain and simple. All they're trying to do is make it out to be something it isn't, science. At any rate, take a look at ] which makes ID out to be a subset. If you're going to argue what you are above (and I could be convinced, except ID really was never intended to include little green men from space), then a lot of articles need revision. That might not be worth your time. ] 00:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Biology== | ==Biology== | ||
| Line 131: | Line 122: | ||
| You fiend! I'm on to your evil scheme now! ] 22:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | You fiend! I'm on to your evil scheme now! ] 22:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==Thanks== | |||
| Thanks so much for kicking me while I'm down. And you call me evil? ] <font color ="green">]</font > 22:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Trying to think differently about dinosaurs== | |||
| I hear you're the expert on dinosaurs around here. If you have a second for a pathetic Apple user, I've been unable to find any information on something that's been driving me crazy for many years. I cannot for a moment believe that the K-T event executed 100% of the dinosaur species in existence at that time. It seem unconceivable, because at every extinction event, some percentage of species (and even genera) survived. Mammals survived K-T, which must have been an adequate food source for at least smaller dinosaurs. Is there any evidence that dinosaurs survived the K-T even for a few million years. Please exclude birds, because they evolved prior to the K-T event. Or maybe ] is right? :) ] 00:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi Orangemarlin! | |||
| :I'm not an expert, but I write a ton of dinosaur articles around here. There is some very limited evidence for dinosaurs in the Cenozoic, aside from birds. However, you have to consider the ]: many ''birds'' also did not survive the K-T extinction event, either. So it wasn't an all-or-nothing situation: many early birds also went the way of the dinosaurs, as did many other groups of ]: the ]s, ]s, ]s, ]s, and ]s. There is (I caution: very limited) evidence for non-avian Cenozoic dinosaurs, discussed at ]: Zielinski and Budahn (2002) found a fossil bone of a ] leg bone in Cenozoic strata 64.5 million years ago, but this could have been a fluke caused by weathering. Other have been misrepresentations of theories that aren't supported by fossil evidence. I'm not aware of any newer findings which support evidence for Cenozoic dinosaurs beyond the K-T Boundary: ''right up to'' the boundary, yes. but not beyond it. Does this help you? Probably not. If it helps, you could also think of it like this: some paleontologists think the number of dinosaur genera was already slightly declining in the ] (though others dispute this). <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 01:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, and expert is a relative thing. You know more than I, so that makes you one! For some reason, 64.5 million years ago sounds like it could be within rounding error of the K-T event, unless you're going to tell me that dating of fossils from that period of time can be made accurate. Anyways, this sounds fascinating to me. I would think that a few species survived somewhere on the planet. Of course, now this begs the question: if they all died, was the extinction event selective for reptiles and not mammals and birds? ] 03:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::The K-T event was around 65.5 million years ago, so the hadrosaurid bone is about a million years past expiration date, if it's not a case of weathering. The formation the fossils were in had previously been thought to have been Cretaceous, but pollen samples indicates it is actually Paleocene. You can read the PDF . As for the extinction event, it didn't just affect reptiles: the ] are also not found after the Cretaceous. <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 04:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I realize some species of birds and mammals also were wiped out at K-T. What I meant was why did it completely wipe out the dinosaurs, and not completely wipe out everything else? In other words, I guess I'm still skeptical that at least one species of dinosaur lasted say another few million years. This bone does sound intriguing though, if what you're saying is that we can actually accurately date to that level of sensitivity. ] 06:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Yeah, I know exactly what you mean, Orangemarlin; it's hard to believe everything got wiped out so quickly (though only "quickly" on a massive timescale). Personally, (and this is my own theory) I think it had to do with size: all the largest animals were killed off, leaving just the smallest animals. The smallest dinosaurs roughly around the K-T boundary were, like '']'' (6 feet long); only the very smallest animals would have been able to survive a cataclismic event... But the hadrosaurid fossil is intriguing... Hey, nice work on ]! <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 06:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Interesting theory. I guess I pictured dinosaurs that were small, maybe the size of a dog or cat, which could be efficient predators. Of course, an event such as the K-T extinction, might have made predation very difficult. Thanks on the Hanauma Bay article. I just cleaned up the mess, it still needs a few references. I enjoy the various volcano articles, so I've tried to improve a few. You should see what a few of us did over a couple of weeks with ]. I don't edit medical articles, because I'd write it like a medical reference article, and that's not good. I actually referred to one because I needed some quick information, hated the article so much that I rewrote a bunch of it. Then I stopped because it wasn't fun. Evolution, volcanos, hockey, a few biographies, and that's my quirky interests. I'll have to tell you that the ] articles need a lot of cleanup--a couple of them lack references. I might tackle one or two, because I usually end up learning a lot by doing it. ] 07:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah, if you spend your ''hobby'' doing the same thing you do for a ''living'', it can get to be not much fun. I'm stretched pretty thin with Dinosauria, or I'd probably pitch in to help clean up some other articles, such as extinction. But I figure there are probably around 500 dinosaur articles which need better (or any) references, and are in need of serious expansion. Hanauma Bay looks like a lovely place; I'm eager to return to Hawai'i someday. I've only been able to visit Maui, but it was a great vacation. <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 07:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, I've been reading a few articles of post K-T dinosaurs, including the solitary hadrosaur bone. Compelling evidence, but one freaking bone doesn't exactly convince me! Well, the article ] must be pseudoscience at the best. ] 17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ugh. That's a terrible article. How embarrassing. <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 23:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Cough cough. Uhhhh, you could help me edit it to be a lot more NPOV. Remember, you don't have to accept living dinosaurs to be NPOV, you just need to make sure myth and pseudoscience is balanced with actual science. I've been slowly adding in science when I have a chance, but I'm not a paleontologist, nor do I play one on TV. There are a lot of articles that drive me nuts. Try ] if you want to be truly annoyed. ] 01:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Editorial edification?== | |||
| Hi ], | |||
| I was a little surprised by of my edits to the "inheritance mechanism" paragraph. I'll gladly confess to being a worse writer than ], but my edits were pretty innocuous, no? I'm not interesting in reverting them or arguing — there's enough heat over there ;) — but I'd just like to take the opportunity to learn better. I'd be grateful if you could explain what was awry. | |||
| Was it perhaps using "hypothesis" for the Watson-Crick model of B-DNA? To me, it seems a stretch to say that they "demonstrated" the mechanism of inheritance, since they didn't take any experimental data. In that era, many scientists proposed various structures for proteins and DNA; some were wrong and but others were later confirmed by experiment data. That's why "hypothesis" seemed better to me. Just a suggestion, ] 03:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Honestly, I make so many different edits in a day, that I cannot remember each one. Can you tell me which article? It sounds like the Evolution article, so I'll give a look and post an answer here. ] 03:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == NT literalism == | == NT literalism == | ||
| Line 186: | Line 140: | ||
| The treatment the Jews have received at the hands of the Christians over the years is tragic no matter what the underlying truths. I really think it was always more the irrational fear of the "other" than anything else. No matter where they lived, faithful Jews were always an identifiable group distinct from the general population. In general, I don't see that any religion has been a cause of violence as often as it seems. I think it most often is used to justify violence that people want to carry out regardless, but want to appear morally upright when doing it. This is much easier if you can make people believe that God wants you to. '']'' <small>] ]</small> 01:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC) | The treatment the Jews have received at the hands of the Christians over the years is tragic no matter what the underlying truths. I really think it was always more the irrational fear of the "other" than anything else. No matter where they lived, faithful Jews were always an identifiable group distinct from the general population. In general, I don't see that any religion has been a cause of violence as often as it seems. I think it most often is used to justify violence that people want to carry out regardless, but want to appear morally upright when doing it. This is much easier if you can make people believe that God wants you to. '']'' <small>] ]</small> 01:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == ] == | |||
| I know you don't like these creationist articles so much, but smart people have to watch over them, or they become so POV, that a casual reader could think that there's a lot of proof for Noah's flood. Anyways, one of the editors is really make a stink about the soft tissues of the T. Rex fossils in the Hells Creek formation prove the flood. I cut and pasted , but it's not really well written. Maybe you've got a couple of ideas, since I've already nominated you as the resident paleontologist around here. :) ] 05:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Hey OM! Always nice to get a pleasant orange box letting me know you've left a message for me! As I believe I mentioned above, I am not a paleontologist (just a wannabe), but there are vertebrate paleontologists here: ] has an MS in Geology; ] is a vertebrate paleontologist (but she's not active right now); ]; ]; and in a pinch, ] is a total ''whiz'' at geological formations. I highly recommend asking one of these fine editors for advice on countering proponents of "flood geology". | |||
| :You know, I've only ever written ''one'' article which centered around Creationist-vs.-real science debates ("]"), and that took a whole lot of research on my part. Pardon the pun, but I think I'd feel ''out of my depth'' working on a "flood geology" article. And what's wrong with the TalkOrigins rebuttal? Seems to cover the bases to me... <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 06:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I know you are trying to be modest, but seriously, you know more about dinosaurs than I could ever imagine. I just learned what "Hell's Creek" was just a few days ago, and I come to find out it's like the Mecca of dinosaur bones (which I thought was out in Vernal, Utah). It's amazing how you can counter the Creationists with just a few facts, since they usually have precious little. ] 16:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| What a great article! Thanks for bringing this to my attention; I'm happy to have the chance to work on a quality piece which seems unlikely to ''erupt'' in controversy. So far I've just read through it briefly and tweaked a couple of words in the first 2 paragraphs. I have to attend to some chores in RL, but I'll be back ASAP. One question: While I have a strong personal preference for using metric units, it might be wise to include English (ie, dumbass American) units in parenthesis. Any objections to adding those into the article (I don't mind doing the math and adding the parens)? ] <font color ="green">]</font > 15:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Since it's an article about a European event, I decided to stick with metric. But if we have to pander to those Americans who don't understand metric (which I really believe isn't all that large any more), then I guess we must :) Tweak away as you see fit. I don't own it, but I had fun researching a lot of it!!!! ] 16:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks again for pointing this one out. It was a lot of fun working with you, and a nice change of pace from Vandal Patrols and talkpage shouting matches. I'm definitely willing to put in some effort and try to raise the rating. What do you think we should focus on next? ] <font color ="green">]</font > 23:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm working to get this one to GA status. I'm not sure if it's notable enough to be FA, but then again, if it resets the Chronology, this may well be very notable. My next project (which I'm just starting) is cleaning up of the ]. I was editing it during lunch (hard to eat a salad and edit), and I noticed that it didn't reference Alvarez anywhere. NO. NOWHERE!!!!!!!!!!! WTF????? That was the first thing I did. Considering how important it is to Dinosaurs (well, they might not agree), it should be an FA without a doubt. Your help in getting it there will be appreciated. I reworked the lead and the Alvarez section, so take anything else. Maybe we can get our friendly Paleontologist to help out, because it's a critical article. ] 23:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think that GA status will be no problem with just a bit more work. If we use the intro to place more emphasis on the cataclysmic nature of the event and its significance in the ancient world, it might well be considered for FA...especially with a few bribes in the right place. I'll take a look at ] the next time I'm on for an extended period; RL activites will have me off-line for awhile. ] <font color ="green">]</font > 00:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| When you get a chance, please review the latest discussion and check the link that ] provided. Copyvio issues are something we need to be seriously careful about, and I want to be sure this gets handled correctly. Thanks. ] <font color ="green">]</font > 01:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Reflists == | |||
| {{reflist|2<nowiki>}} only works with Mozilla Firefox at the moment; it puts the references in two columns. </nowiki>'']'' '''<small>]</small>''' 09:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, I don't use Firefox, but it's here on my desktop. I'll give it a try. Thanks for the tip! ] 14:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Birthday== | |||
| I've been considering what to get you for your next birthday. At first I thought that a lifetime subscription to ] would be perfect for you, but now I'm leaning towards the classically elegant "scorpion in your boot" as a more heartfelt expression of my feelings. So many possibilities...] <font color ="green">]</font > 19:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You have a few months. I have a wall that is requires a nice plasma screen TV. I think it could fit a 52" version. Of course, there's a Ferrari that would look nice in my garage. Just a couple of hints. ] 20:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Rough Draft == | |||
| Take a look at ] and let me know what you think of this first effort.--] 20:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for your help. I did not want to trod on too many physician's toes unnecessarily, but I did want to make the point that this is a fringe movement with little authority.--] 21:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Another rough draft== | |||
| Take a look at ]. Thanks.--] 23:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Re:RfA for Gracenotes== | |||
| My post was more targetted at the entire group of posters above you, rather then at you specifically. Don't take it too personally :D Things get tough at RfA sometimes. mostly because a lot of people are feeling that a large group of admins is totally loosing touch with the community as a whole. --] (] • ]) 23:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Interesting. Admins I know seem to be doing a great job. But then again, I'm never sure who is and who isn't. ] 23:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Take a break and enjoy a quick chuckle== | |||
| If you read you will be ''forfilled''. Besides, I'm pretty sure he's talking about you. ] <font color ="green">]</font > 01:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm trying to find forfilled in my OED. Damn. Can't find it. ] 01:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::While I don't have a ref to support the hypothesis, I suspect there must be a religious injunction against spellcheck software. ] <font color ="green">]</font > 01:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::My father's ] parish had a junior cantor who sang "forfilled" every time he came across the word. I'm ''pretty'' sure it was spelled correctly in the books.... '']'' <small>] ]</small> 02:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, I thought it was a major misspelling. I didn't really go to the OED. Now I will. ] 02:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sorry no. I just checked OED which has every word ever used in the English language, and it's not there. Maybe we're misspelling the misspelling? ] 02:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It is one of the more obscure laws in the Old Testament: "Verily, ye shall speak and spell like an f-ing moron". I am surprised you didnt run across it before.--] 02:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Fill, you're getting really cranky in your old age! ] 02:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Besides, he misquoted. The KJV very clearly says "knowing moron". (You know, the version called Authorized because it's the ] one authorized by God himself?) '']'' <small>] ]</small> 02:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Right. If we're going to quote the KJV, let's do it right. ] 02:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Popups== | |||
| I never said Popups doesn't work on a Mac, I said ] doesn't. WP:VP2 clearly states that it "is a ''Windows''-based application developed for the English language Misplaced Pages that will allow users to participate in the coordinated reviewing of edits". ] • <sup>(((] • ])))</sup> 03:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Hi – thanks for the message, and you're quite welcome! Popups should work in any browser with JavaScript enabled so don't turn JavaScript off in Safari's Preferences, or at least don't turn it off while you're working here. | |||
| : I like popups so well that it bums me out when I go to other websites and I can't see a preview when I mouse over hyperlinks. Popups for everyone!! :-D | |||
| : If you ever need Mac help or have questions, just ask – if I don't know the answer, I know someone who does. See ya - ]] 09:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::To Ten Pound Hammer--I'm very defensive of Macs, and you made it sound like our Mac's don't work so well with Misplaced Pages. That's all. ] 16:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::To Katie--I'm having fun with popups now, although if I don't clear the cache frequently, the popups seem to "stick" to the page. I'm using Safari. Just can't get away from the .mac syncing of Bookmarks!!! Thanks for the offer too, I'll be sure to ask. ] 16:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Hmmm. I haven't had that cache-clearing problem. | |||
| ::: I forgot to crosspost my reply to ] here so you could see it – he asked about other tools I use and I listed TextExpander, NetNewsWire, and . I'd copy/paste my reply to Gaff here, but it's probably easier for you to go there. | |||
| ::: As for Butler: Butler is the IChing. Butler is the Tao of Macdom. Butler is the Answer for Every Inconvenience. Butler washes your car and polishes the chrome. I don't think I use 1/3 of its capability and I'm still in love. I would tell you how I have it configured but Rob Griffiths does a , and is more on how to configure its Custom Pasteboards (and macosxhints.com has a bunch of hints about Butler and everything else). | |||
| ::: I have Butler set to pop up a Google search window when I type Control-Option-G, a VersionTracker search with Control-Option-T, and an ] search with Control-Option-M – no matter what software app I'm using at the time. I have my last 100 clipboards saved, so I can paste the text or URL I copied 45 minutes and 11 clipboards ago into my current page or document. | |||
| ::: Butler may not be for you – people who use launcher utilities are loyal to their particular favorite. My brother the PowerUser swears by DragThing, but I don't get it and he likewise doesn't like Butler. Quicksilver is gaining a lot of converts, and some like LaunchBar. As for me, Butler has my enduring love. It's donationware, and I gladly paid the $20. Check it out. Have a great weekend!! ]] 07:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Long Apes? == | |||
| Since you mentioned it twice, what was the etymology of your question? ] 17:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Never mind. ] 17:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ProtoCat == | |||
| Oh, I quite agree with you: Clear troll. I've thought so since he invited me to his talk page, then accused me of stalking him... because I followed him to his talk page. | |||
| I'm not sure if it's Kdbuffalo, but whoever it is is either a troll or mentally disturbed. | |||
| Comment amused me, though. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Having scanned through his talk page, I see that there is definitely something wrong mentally with this individual. They are not here to build an encyclopedia, but just to provoke fights.--] 14:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Aye. I think the best thing to do is archive anything they say that is commented on, delete anything else. Feeding the troll otherwise. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| My favourite part is when ProtoCat claims that just because Dembski said that he wants to get rid of biology departments in universities doesn't mean Dembski is anti-biology. (most of it at the heading ], though it starts a little bit above that.) ] <sup>]</sup> 15:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :(edit conflict) While I've generally avoided any direct interactions with this editor, I'm wondering if an RfC would be appropriate at this time? There's no question that his activities are disruptive and counter-productive; it seems equally obvious that he's not going to change without firmer input than you've given him already. Just a thought... ] <font color ="green">]</font > 15:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I"m pretty convinced he's a sockpuppet, based on his editing patterns. We've had one Sockpuppet that keeps coming back every week or so. I've caught him every time, except for once, when I was paying attention to ID. What got me is when he brought up a battle where someone was quite anti-semitic in the ID page. To find it requires a lot of searching through pages that have nothing to do with me, but he knew I was a party to it. It happened 2 weeks before he signed up. Pretty much a give away. ] 16:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::In that case no RfC is necessary, but a ] might be. I've never been involved in one, but I'm aware that they are ''not'' taken lightly. An RFCU would need some significant evidence to back it up, but with so many editors involved, I'm sure a number of diffs could be provided. It seems a bit ironic that sockpuppets almost always give themselves away through their editing habits, usage patterns, etc. ] <font color ="green">]</font > 16:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::His cases are: ] and ]. I'll need to redo the Checkuser, because I didn't have enough time to provide sufficient evidence. They don't do checkusers unless you can nearly prove that it is necessary. ] 16:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I wonder if ProtoCat is Behe? | |||
| ] | |||
| Sound familiar? ] <sup>]</sup> 09:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Sounds like ProtoCat's commentary on the ID page. Hmmmmm. ] 14:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Evolutionist == | |||
| I do not remember using that word. If your remark was meant for someone else, then please disregard this message. ] 17:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It wasn't meant for anyone in particular, I saw it utilized somewhere in that LONG discussion. ] 20:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Brain fried== | |||
| I'm not giving up on our project but I'm a bit scattered and brain-fried today; I don't want to attempt any serious editing until I'm back in focus. I think it's very encouraging that those reviewing the article have been relatively positive. I don't think it will take too long to whip this into shape : ) ] <font color ="green">]</font > 20:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I know, it's hard fighting each time someone blocks you. If only you were a better person, you wouldn't be so tired. Anyways, I've soldiered on with a couple of changes to the article. I think it reads better. I think. ] 20:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually it does, but despite your ''alleged'' improvements, I'm going to the Village Pump and offering 50 bucks to the first Admin that gives you a lifetime ban. God I love capitalism! ] <font color ="green">]</font > 20:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::You probably don't need to bribe them in my case. They may pay you. ] 20:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Now that you mention it, there's probably a reward for turning you in. BTW - you've got mail! ] <font color ="green">]</font > 21:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I'm sorry, is someone offering a bribe for blocking the funny colored fish? He tried to steal my steak, you know. We could probably get Bishzilla to eat him for free. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm getting that steak if it's the last thing I do. ] 21:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| </ Doc smacks own head> Bishzilla! Why didn't ''I'' think of that? This potty-mouthed piscine would be the merest morsel for the mighty 'Zilla. Plus it'll save me 50 bucks. ] <font color ="green">]</font > 22:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Not to bring up a sore subject, but this article is just ticking me off more and more. Why is it even in the Wikiproject for dinosaurs? It's cryptozoology pseudoscience that is probably less interesting and definitely less referenced than ]. Can you remove it from the Dinosaur project? Please???? ] 07:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You won't get any argument from ''me'': this article wasn't added to ] by a WP:Dinos editor. It was by a non-Project editor, which is why we didn't learn of this article until recently, and part of the reason it's in such bad shape. <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 07:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK, since I'm not a member, I don't think it would be prudent to remove the category, so I vote that you do it? ] 07:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Bwah! But if you aren't a member, do you even have a vote? ;) Hey, if you joined WP:Dinosaurs, you could then vote, and we'd ''have'' to remove it. What do you say? Our membership dues are quite reasonable... <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 07:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I joined ], and I believe they give out secret decoder rings to new members. I'm trying to implement a secret handshake, but it's not taking. What are you offering? A T. Rex tooth necklace? I think I'll join up. But first, I'm going to sleep. It's late here in California. ] 07:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We have a secret handshake (done with two fingers, just like a ''T. rex'' would do). No decoder ring, though (what would a dinosaur do with one?). And once a month, one lucky member gets to ]. This month's winner was our dear ]. Yes, go to sleep: it's late here, too, which is why I'm babbling on and have revealed many of our group secrets on a public page... <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 07:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Hey, how come <font color=red>]</font> is red? Cause of all the lava...? <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 07:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Funny. Now I won't show you my volcano decoder ring. Ppppffffffffttttttttttttt. Besides, it's well known that the ] trump your T. rex. So, how do I join the group so I have official powers to remove that dinosaur category from dumb articles ]. ] 16:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Add yourself to ], take a look at ]. Then comes the ritual hazing. ;) Actually, you wouldn't have to do anything at all, but it just helps to have one more set of eyes, or one more voice. When we get an article to Featured status (or what we ''think'' is Featured status), it would be good to have an unbiased eye looking at the material, and you've done some great geology-related work. It would rock to have you around (pun intended). But no pressure. :) <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 19:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, I ''know'' ]. But we can still vote on removing crappy articles from Project purview. ;) <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 06:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sometimes a benevolent dictatorship is just what is necessary. ] 14:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Benevolent? Muahahahahaha... <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 18:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Jesus the mythical article== | ==Jesus the mythical article== | ||
| Line 342: | Line 145: | ||
| :I give up -[REDACTED] will always have crap religious articles. ] 15:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC) | :I give up -[REDACTED] will always have crap religious articles. ] 15:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::You're right of course but I needed someone to let off steam to! I just haven't the time to pursue at the moment as I am snowed under, so I will just have to pick up the threads when I can and hope my worst fears have not been realised. ] 19:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC) | ::You're right of course but I needed someone to let off steam to! I just haven't the time to pursue at the moment as I am snowed under, so I will just have to pick up the threads when I can and hope my worst fears have not been realised. ] 19:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == Civility on ] == | |||
| Regarding your comment on ]: | |||
| :99.6% of the scientists in the US would say not only is it not true, but Adam never existed, and dinosaurs died out 64.5 million years ago. Typical right-wing press pandering to the Christian right. The Right Wing press gave us Bush, now this waste of good money. I'm still nauseous. | |||
| The first sentence is relevant to the article content, but the rest is not and is particularly problematic given the controversial nature of Misplaced Pages articles on religious-related topics. I'd urge you to re-read the ] and ] guidelines and to avoid using article talk pages to present your own political/religious viewpoint or denigrate others, and particularly to avoid this type of language. Whether the museum involved is sufficiently ], ], and relevant to deserve mention in the article is something that requires an objective evaluation, based on evidence and the merits as opposed to whether it is consistent with ones own position or even whether it makes one "nauseous". Best, --] 18:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The problem is, if a serious sophisticated challenge to creationists is not successfully mounted, then I predict that very bad things are in store for the US.--] 19:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| A quick response to the above comment plus this one you left on ]. | |||
| :The right-wing press does pander to the Christian Right (and unless I'm wrong, you and I should both find that more than frightening)... | |||
| I understand my duty as a Misplaced Pages administrator as requiring me not to feel intimidated or frightened by those I disagree with, and even if I sometimes am, ]. I understand it's my job to be ] to all sides in contentious debates, and to remind people of things like ], keeping ], and ]. For better or for worse, Misplaced Pages's ] policy permits ] and others, within policy limits, to use Misplaced Pages to present their own point of view so long as what they say is ], a reliable and encyclopedic presentation of the POV, and does not claim to be science or to represent a POV that it doesn't represent. Likewise, the policy permits scientists to note that scientists have found otherwise and to note the evidence they have used to find it, but it doesn't permit an ultimate conclusion about who's right and who's wrong. This requires a certain subtlety of language. The bottom line is that Misplaced Pages isn't here to help people fight wars or mount challenges. Its policies are designed to help the wrong side just as much as the right side, and are based on an assumption that people, if informed of the various points of view, are capable of making their own decisions. You'll find me reigning creationists in if they claim their conclusions have scientific support based on bogus science, but they are entitled to enforce the ] policy. Best, --] 02:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm sorry, but this is a load of hooey. Of course we can say that the scientific view is correct! It's the closest thing to a genuine NPOV you can get in real life. To say that we cannot is to accept fundamentalist conspiracy theories about some hidden agenda within the scientific community. ''This agenda does not exist. Scientists strive to discover the objective truth about the physical world. Period.'' You're demanding that we place a literal reading of a garbled account from an ancient book, regarded as allegorical by most of those who hold that book sacred, on equal footing with a conclusion drawn from actual observation of what the world really is like. This is not even remotely comparable to "reigning{{sic}} in" proponents of bogus science. It's beyond absurd. '']'' <small>] ]</small> 03:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| My sole intent is to apply Misplaced Pages policy, whatever it demands, and it indeed demands neutrality. Please see the discussion at ]. It doesn't demand "equal" footing, there are considerations of ] as well, but it gets some weight, and the criteria for determining what weight it gets don't depend on whether one personally agrees with it or not. I don't intend to discuss merits issues here. Best, --] 04:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Please get off your high horse. The fact is that I'm trying to apply Misplaced Pages policy too, and your voice is hardly sovereign. That discussion looked more inconclusive than anything else to me; participation was rather limited in any event and it cannot represent any kind of consensus. | |||
| :Plainly this is something that needs to be hashed out. The ArbCom decision referenced was on another topic altogether and isn't applicable here. As long as that discussion went on, I still did not see a single cogent reason given why a scientific viewpoint should be regarded as anything but neutral. It was instead simply assumed that it was not, and those who disagreed with that were shouted down. You have not given any such reasons here or anywhere else where this discussion has touched. Is this one of those questions that I ask that simply will not be answered, and you'll proceed without even acknowledging the problem posed? Or do you actually have an answer? I rather hope you do, because that gives us a place from which a civil discussion can ensue. You behaving as if you had the final word on what constitutes NPOV does not. '']'' <small>] ]</small> 06:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ], I appreciate your comments. I understand you have strong political views, but references to ones opinion of the Bush Administration, the Christian Right, etc. etc. in article talk pages can be very distracting. Best, --] 04:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Articles that presume faith over science are all distracting. You must have missed the numerous comments over the past few months that attacked me as an atheist, that I'm really not a Jew, or I pretended to be a religious Jew just to have an editor blocked or banned, etc. etc--those were quite distracting, but we focused on the article despite it. The Bush Administration and The Christian Right have induced an atmosphere that is anti-science, generally, and anti-Evolution in particular. Most of the editors who aren't anti-science would not be distracted by my comments, but would redouble efforts to keep the article NPOV. ] 14:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Were OM trying to force his opinion into the article, ''that'' would be a problem. He's not. While his comments might be "off-topic", please find me a wiki editor with over 1,000 edits who ''hasn't'' posted "off-topic" comments. Generally speaking, all that is required is a simple reminder that the discussion is off-topic. And, by the way, I don't see a violation of ] -- but then, I'm cool with allowing people to blow off steam and am not a fan of officiousness. ] 20:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Appreciate all of the support. I have no clue why I was the target of Shirahadasha's commentary. Off-topic, maybe. Uncivil? I don't think so, unless I'm misreading something. Besides, how many times are we carried off-topic in controversial topics? Sheesh. I don't mind being lectured if I'm off-base, but I can't believe that we take up this much bandwidth for my being "off-topic." ] 03:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I'm sorry you're having difficulties from other editors, and you may be angry at various actions of the Bush administration etc., but this isn't the fault of every newcomer who shows up, and there's no need to take this out on them. A little less ] would be appreciated. Religion and anti-science POVs (not necessarily the same thing) are legitimate subjects of and inputs to the encyclopedia, whether you find them personally distracting or not. Best, --] 16:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You and I aren't going to agree on this. I don't believe I was uncivil based on the facts or the law. I respect your level of authority around here, but given how vehemently I disagree with your characterization of my comments. I have agreed we went off-topic, but frankly, if we policed on not being on topic, there are going to be a lot of policing to do in Misplaced Pages. Having difficulties with other editors is part of life with regards to these controversial topics, and I have never ever asked for sympathy on that matter. ] 16:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Creationist museum rough draft == | |||
| Take a look at my rough draft list of creationist museums at . Comments?--] 00:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Don't know == | |||
| The results for AP tests don't come back until like June or something, their standardized :/. Didn't see anything about evolution in the test though. ] 03:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :LOL. You should have looked harder!] 03:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It was hard enough just taking the test normally, never mind looking around for invisible bonus questions dealing with evolutionary theory. And what would of happened if I didn't see the invisible bubble and bubbled the wrong area, the test screening machine might of docked me a point. ] 03:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::LOL. I remember taking 5 AP tests during my senior year in High School. I believe that became the point where I decided the whole world was an evil place made up of some evil people inventing evil tests. LOL. By the way, one of those tests was in Chemistry. But don't even ask me to read the Chemistry article on Misplaced Pages. :) ] 05:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Creation Museum == | |||
| Thanks, your edit is exactly what I meant to do. Apparently brain wasn't thinking completely. ] 03:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I knew what you meant. Although, I was wondering if you were a plant. LOL. ] 03:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == You're welcome == | |||
| I may be a Christian, but I'm as irritated by irrationality as you are so I expect we'll be on the same side of these issues most of the time. It's even worse when delivered in tones of benevolent condescension. Notice how he and/or she got to assume bad faith on our parts without coming right out and saying so? (Actually, traditional Christianity values reason highly. The Fathers couldn't have argued without it, nor did they wish to. It's the more recent sects that want to pretend it's the devil's work.) '']'' <small>] ]</small> 05:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Noah's Ark== | ==Noah's Ark== | ||
| Line 423: | Line 167: | ||
| Just watch this one: --] 17:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | Just watch this one: --] 17:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :Frankly, I don't get what's going on or what it's intended to mean, but it reminds me of some of the sequences from ]. Well, as long as she's enjoying herself....... ], ] 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | :Frankly, I don't get what's going on or what it's intended to mean, but it reminds me of some of the sequences from ]. Well, as long as she's enjoying herself....... ], ] 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==Extinction and evolution== | |||
| I wrote a section on this in the main evolution article. See ]. ] 19:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Despite your exhortation to "Discuss first, gain consensus", you have not responded to anything I wrote on ]. Please explain why you feel that it is appropriate for Misplaced Pages to decide what is true and false. ] 00:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You were reverted by several editors. And I don't exhort. ] 05:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Whatever your choice of verb, you have been reverting me without any attempt at meaningful discussion. The fact that multiple editors, all of whom seem to specialize in promoting anti-Discovery Institute articles, reverted me, does not excuse you from discussion. ] 23:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::You mean editors who utilize science to understand the natural world are anti-DI? No, I'm anti-DI because I think they're wasting school district money trying to get them to include religion in the classroom, which is going to waste taxpayer dollars. Of course, school boards are being thrown out regularly when they try to do that, so maybe Di is their own worst enemy. But I rant. You're not allowed to be POV. I'm not sure what else to say. ] 23:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Jesus myth== | ==Jesus myth== | ||
| Line 446: | Line 178: | ||
| ::::Sorry to butt in guys but having worked with both of you I know that if we can just cool down, identify the real wild card here (jbolden) and backtrack to a place we all recognise, that we now have the sort of people around to build a good article. Yep Str has a POV but so do I and I know from working with him in the past that he is knowledgeable and fair in a dispute. Str was in no way part of the little huddle that had a "good idea" one day to mess things up and I personally was relieved to see him arrive as I knew we would then have discussions that were not "mickey mouse". I respect you both immensely and would love it if we could all work together constructively. ] 12:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | ::::Sorry to butt in guys but having worked with both of you I know that if we can just cool down, identify the real wild card here (jbolden) and backtrack to a place we all recognise, that we now have the sort of people around to build a good article. Yep Str has a POV but so do I and I know from working with him in the past that he is knowledgeable and fair in a dispute. Str was in no way part of the little huddle that had a "good idea" one day to mess things up and I personally was relieved to see him arrive as I knew we would then have discussions that were not "mickey mouse". I respect you both immensely and would love it if we could all work together constructively. ] 12:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::::I am still completely puzzled about what happened to the article and what the sides are. I wish we could roll things back to how they were.--] 13:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | :::::I am still completely puzzled about what happened to the article and what the sides are. I wish we could roll things back to how they were.--] 13:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| heya, I was reading a discussion page where as you said "and I believe in evolution". I figure I can offer some advice on how to be careful with such wording to avoid accusations from creationalists. As a fellow scientist, I would best describe my own feelings on the issue for reference. I would say, instead of a belief in evolution that I accept evolution as the best current scientific explanation of the phenomena. Thus avoid any idea of blind belief in something without explanation or evidence, just like one would accept gravity as put forward as the best current explanation of the phenomena. My point is to avoid notions of belief or faith in anything scientific. | |||
| My two cents. | |||
| Carl Szczerski | |||
| BSc. Ecology, MSc. Botany | |||
| Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada | |||
| {{unsignedIP| 204.112.136.212|07:15, May 30, 2007}} | |||
| :Don't worry, I've changed the way I state it, although I might have slipped up lately. I'm tired of being called an "evolutionist," which is a word, but it is defined as taking evolution on faith as a method for Creationists to make evolution appear to be a religion. Well, it's not. Anyways, the problem with your sentence is that it is nuanced, and I have found that the fundamentalists (whether Christian or Muslim) tend to not understand nuance out of ignorance or out of intention. So you say "best current scientific explanation of phenomena", but they would say, so "current" means it could be replaced. Yes, it could, but not the way they're thinking, but the argument is lost. I don't have the luxury of utilizing nuance, so I go with "evolution is a fact supported by a wealth of scientific research." It's more blunt, probably not the way a real scientist speaks, but in an argument, simplicity matters. But thanks for your advice, it is well taken. ] 16:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Orange, | :Orange, | ||
| Line 469: | Line 190: | ||
| ::I understand your metaphor quite well and do not assume violence. Metaphors are metaphors, after all. I will have a look into the new situation tomorrow. ] ] 22:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | ::I understand your metaphor quite well and do not assume violence. Metaphors are metaphors, after all. I will have a look into the new situation tomorrow. ] ] 22:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==Just saw...== | |||
| ... . Good luck! Fourth time's the charm! :) <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 01:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ...If at first you don't succeed, try try try and try again. LOL. I've put in some more pictures, and tried to use some stuff I found at the German article that you linked. Thanks. ] 01:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==You were wrong== | |||
| Sorry to break the news, but I guess there are non-avian dinosaurs alive today. You need to fly to Loch Ness and change everything you've ever edited on Misplaced Pages. for evolution, the K-T extinction event, and your credibility. ] 01:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I can't get the linked video to work, but if it's anything like the previous 50 videos, it's a blobsquatch. The article says some nonsense about living dinosaurs, but my understanding is that the ''last'' video showed a paddle-like fin, like what a ], ], or ] would have, and quite unlike a dinosaur's legs. The article also compares the creature to an eel, which has no legs at all. I can only guess you sent me this link to darken my doorstep with nonsense. So I have no recourse, my friend, but to respond in kind: "... Almost a dozen advanced physicsts ''(sic)'' (PhDs) now suggest that stange ''(sic)'' beings and things may pass between parallel universes in a "muliverse" ''(sic)''" Happy reading! ;) <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 05:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::You do realize that I was being sarcastic. The video was a line in the water with waves moving out from the line. It was something, but the video was very shaky, the line indistinctive, and it could be explained by any number of usual suspect phenomena. Please don't give me a 24 hour block for spamming your talk page!!!! ] 06:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Wait a minute, now I'm going to have to start an ANI because you are spamming my page. Could you have found a worse website? I mean if you're going to start a conspiracy theory, at least buy a decent web designing program, or think differently and get Mac. That was just horrible. I'm sending you a bill for my keyboard, because I just tossed my dinner on it. You're just a terrible admin for doing that to an innocent person like me. AAAAAAAAAAwwwwwwwwwwww. ] 07:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, I understood you were being sarcastic, and was responding in kind. You ask "Could you have found a worse website?"; indeed, I can: the same website, in 2004: (Warning: Contains images of three-breasted Sasquatch and Bigfoot wearing tampons). You ''did'' ask, OM. Enjoy! ;) <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 07:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sorry, but you know that kind of thing just isn't acceptable around here. You're going to have to supply another source if you want to comply with ]. Best, --] 17:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Shira, please tell me that you're being funny and not serious. ] 20:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::He is: ] is only a guideline, anyway! ;) So did you check out the above site? It's incredible! :) <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 20:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I love dry sense of humor, but that was so dry, I believe I saw a duststorm float by. ] 23:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Jesus Christ as myth== | ==Jesus Christ as myth== | ||
| Changing the phrasing of a title is not "massive". People do it all the time. Since the actual debate was taking place on the ] page I explained it there. Do you think you could discuss matters in a less, shall we say, melodramatic fashion. ] 07:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | Changing the phrasing of a title is not "massive". People do it all the time. Since the actual debate was taking place on the ] page I explained it there. Do you think you could discuss matters in a less, shall we say, melodramatic fashion. ] 07:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :What you are doing is underhanded. If that's melodramatic, how about you try putting your arms around consensus, and maybe we won't. Please don't post your attacks on my page. ] 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | :What you are doing is underhanded. If that's melodramatic, how about you try putting your arms around consensus, and maybe we won't. Please don't post your attacks on my page. ] 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==My RFA== | |||
| {| class="messagebox {{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|small|standard}}-talk" | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| |You supported my candidacy in my recently completed ]. The debated ended 40/4/1 and I'm now an administrator. I'd just like to say thanks for taking the time to consider me, and thanks for the confidence in me. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified. | |||
| '''Regards, ]''' | |||
| |} | |||
| == ] article == | == ] article == | ||
| Line 509: | Line 201: | ||
| ::I must confess I don't know very much about the details of ID as the Discovery Institute promulgates it. However, I have this vague recollection that a few federal judges thought this particular distinction didn't really make a difference, so I imagine the point could be argued either way. I agree sourcing isn't adequate. Feel free to add a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag and/or some counter-argements, although no more space for that than the original paragraph, please. Best, --] 23:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | ::I must confess I don't know very much about the details of ID as the Discovery Institute promulgates it. However, I have this vague recollection that a few federal judges thought this particular distinction didn't really make a difference, so I imagine the point could be argued either way. I agree sourcing isn't adequate. Feel free to add a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag and/or some counter-argements, although no more space for that than the original paragraph, please. Best, --] 23:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == ] == | |||
| I think this belongs under Category:Dinosaur, because you know that everything in the museum is accurate and useful to the education of all of us. I saw your edits there, and obviously you agree. ] 20:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd suggest ], but I note ] is already a subcategory of the former, so I'm satisfied. :) <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 20:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Your ] nomination of ]== | |||
| The article ] you nominated as a ] has been placed on hold.] It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See ] for things needed to be addressed. Good luck, --] 22:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello, I currently have lots of free time since I've just finished writing my thesis, but that'll end soon. Anyway, having checked the MOS again, you're right, it's not clear. They say "spell out units" and then "use standard abbreviation". Regarding this, I guess it is alright to keep the article the way it is. Greetings, --] 02:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Hi== | |||
| Thanks for the kind words, it's good to know that people actually read this stuff! Any comments or suggestions on the ] would be appreciated. Thanks again. ] 23:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Those breaks are just so people don't have to scroll so far when adding new comments, don't worry about them, formatting can always be adjusted later. ] 14:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Jesus myth == | == Jesus myth == | ||
| Line 533: | Line 208: | ||
| :Hey slr, no way did you let me down. The attacks on numerous articles seems to have subsided, so I have time to work on more fun projects--I got some others to do the heavy lifting on the Jesus/myth articles. Frankly, I'm rather stupid about the whole Jesus thing, but I know when I'm reading POV stuff. I did read the EVO/DEVO article that you had suggested a few weeks ago. I found out that I knew nothing, and spent more time clicking on wikilinks reading up on other stuff. I was going to thank you for "wasting" about 3 good hours of my day while I learned some fascinating stuff. In fact, because of the links, I ended up at the ] article, which I found to be a travesty. I've worked on it on and off, but I need to focus on it. I figure I've done some things to get it started, and the smart biologists around here will get on board. ] 16:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | :Hey slr, no way did you let me down. The attacks on numerous articles seems to have subsided, so I have time to work on more fun projects--I got some others to do the heavy lifting on the Jesus/myth articles. Frankly, I'm rather stupid about the whole Jesus thing, but I know when I'm reading POV stuff. I did read the EVO/DEVO article that you had suggested a few weeks ago. I found out that I knew nothing, and spent more time clicking on wikilinks reading up on other stuff. I was going to thank you for "wasting" about 3 good hours of my day while I learned some fascinating stuff. In fact, because of the links, I ended up at the ] article, which I found to be a travesty. I've worked on it on and off, but I need to focus on it. I figure I've done some things to get it started, and the smart biologists around here will get on board. ] 16:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==Real Life== | |||
| Sorry for my absence, I can see you've been hard at work. RL was more hectic than usual this week and didn't leave me with time or energy for WP. Fortunately I'm about to clear the last hurdle; my brother-in-law is staying with us (along with his 4 kids) while his wife is out of town, but they'll be headed home tomorrow. You have no idea how much I look forward to that! They're a nice family, but I'm used to peace and quiet (and a lot more time for WP). I'll get back to editing/vandalizing and otherwise annoying you ASAP. BTW - I sent you an email over a week ago, did you not get it? Nothing important, just the usual (jokes and insults). ] <font color ="green">]</font > 16:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | ==]== | ||
| Please click on the wikilink above! When we've finished with ] we need to sort out why Misplaced Pages seems to think all persection by Christians is "historical". I tin Gay-rights and pro-choice groups would like to know this interesting fact! ] 19:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | Please click on the wikilink above! When we've finished with ] we need to sort out why Misplaced Pages seems to think all persection by Christians is "historical". I tin Gay-rights and pro-choice groups would like to know this interesting fact! ] 19:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == Your ] nomination of ]== | |||
| The article ] you nominated as a ] has passed ], see ] for eventual comments about the article. Congratulations! It's pretty well researched and has definite FA potential. Hope you find time to keep working on it. Greetings, --] 20:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Evolution == | |||
| I am concerned that you implied that I did not edit the appropriate ] section before removing the image. If you believe the image should stay, please tell me (1) why you think squares are a good representation of life forms, and (2) why a single arrow is a good representation of many generations of reproduction. Thank you. ] 06:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Do whatever you want. ] 06:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:01, 4 June 2007
|
 Archives |
Barnstar
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For being bold and because I can't believe you haven't got one yet! Sophia 16:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC) |
You are AWESOME!!!
|
The E=mc² Barnstar | |
You might not know me, but I know you. I've seen you editing articles about evolution, and I just wanted to say thank you so much for contributing so much to Evolution articles and reverting vandalism and original research, among other things. I love you! Keep up the good fight! Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 17:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
|
A little something for you
|
The Undeniable Mechanism Award | |
| For arguing the undeniable mechanism, upholding intellectual rigour, and expanding evolution topics, it is my pleasure to pin this badge upon your most evolved chest. |
evo-devo
Now that things seem to be stabilizing at the Evolution article, would you consider looking at and working on the evo-devo article? As you mentioned, at one point, this is an important growing area. I did some work on it a while ago an exhausted my relevant knowledge, but it still seems like the length and quality of the article do not match its importance. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Gulp. What am I going to get myself into? LOL. I'll check it out! Orangemarlin 18:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't want you to over-commit!! I just know this article deserves to be better than it is. You can start by looking at one editor;s suggestions here and also I have a comment in the section of talk that follows (on, concerning the tendency to microevolution). Slrubenstein | Talk 15:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Biology
A very worthy goal. Once I've got Evolution through to FA I will certainly try to help! TimVickers 01:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Also a worthy goal. I've actually quit editing that article after you showed up. You've really improved it and ought to be commended. I figured I'd manipulate you over to Biology, get you started, then I'd go find another article. LOL. Orangemarlin 01:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
You fiend! I'm on to your evil scheme now! TimVickers 22:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
NT literalism
I ought to have gotten back to you sooner, but I didn't have the time at the moment and then it slipped my mind until a recent essay was posted on my talk page. Have a look at this. Astonishing.
First let me say that you responded to a much stronger statement than the one I actually made. By "credible" I meant that the NT places Jesus in a cultural setting we can identify and which we know really existed, which is much more than we can say for the presentation of the ark story in the OT. While I do of course believe he really lived, that isn't what I was saying to CS just then. My point to him was that it's possible to believe in Jesus without abandoning the facts and reason.
Your objections go wrong from the very first, I think. We have a considerable amount of evidence that Jesus lived. While a secular scholar might discard the miracle stories of the Gospels and other NT material, there's no reason to not treat them as we would any other historical documents. The earliest material, the first of the Pauline epistles, was written within a decade or two of the events and thus well within the living memory of those who ought to have known if it was false. The picture we get from all this of Jesus is astonishingly consistent for a fictional character created over the decades-long period in which the NT was composed, by people not in direct contact with each other. It's less astonishing if Jesus is a real person. The NT at least as reliable as other such material where the existence of the people described is not seriously questioned.
For people of that era, we most often have to rely on indirect sources. Consider: of contemporary written material we have practically nothing. Yes, we have some philosophers, poets, and historians; all those whose work medieval scribes thought worth recopying. But what of the vast amount of official records and paperwork which a government as extensive as the Roman Empire would have required? Practically nothing except for an accidental survival here and there. It was written on papyrus, which needs the aridity of the Egyptian desert to survive for that long, but this is exactly the kind of material used to record someone like Jesus in his interactions with the authorities. In general, the only way we know of anyone from that time whose name was not preserved in a recopied manuscript is if it was literally carved in stone, or stamped in metal. Even for Emperors we often have to rely on their coinage for information.
If it's "telling" that there is no direct evidence of him, it's even moreso that there was no direct contradiction of him either. For all those who objected to Christianity and sincerely wished it would go away, the one objection never raised to it is that its founding figure never lived. It seems likely he was well-known in Jewish circles, but no one ever claimed he was well-known outside that context until his cult became widespread. Until then he was a Jewish preacher of the type the literati of Rome would have taken no notice whatsoever. How many of the rabbis of the time described in the Talmud can be independently verified? I do not doubt there are a great many people of the time, more important than Jesus to their contemporaries, of whom we now have no record.
It has proven hazardous to rely on the absence of evidence to debunk anything, the NT not excepted. Just one example among several: It was once a current opinion in some circles that the Gospels were fictionalized to the point where Pontius Pilate was made up out of whole cloth. (I suppose they ascribed his appearance in Josephus to later Christian tampering.) Then his name was found carved in a dedicatory inscription at Caesarea Maritima. Events like this, which happen from time to time, are one reason why I'm never too worried about current opinion in archaeology that seems to contradict a Christian historical claim. They're almost always based on an absence than something concrete, and are not infrequently disproved over time.
I think mentioned Socrates. It's really amazing that his existence is never questioned, and yet there is even less evidence for him than for Jesus. Again, there is no direct evidence for him, and he wrote nothing himself. What we do know of him comes from three main sources: two of his disciples, Plato and Xenophon, and several playwrights, particularly Aristophanes. The former idealize him out of all recognition and use him as a mouthpiece for their own ideas; the second parodies him. From all of these we get such dramatically divergent accounts that he might as well have been a standard fictional character to whom it was convenient to attach stories, or attribute dialogue.
The treatment the Jews have received at the hands of the Christians over the years is tragic no matter what the underlying truths. I really think it was always more the irrational fear of the "other" than anything else. No matter where they lived, faithful Jews were always an identifiable group distinct from the general population. In general, I don't see that any religion has been a cause of violence as often as it seems. I think it most often is used to justify violence that people want to carry out regardless, but want to appear morally upright when doing it. This is much easier if you can make people believe that God wants you to. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Jesus the mythical article
I love this place. Having a full time job positively counts against you - huh? Sophia 13:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- I give up -[REDACTED] will always have crap religious articles. Sophia 15:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- You're right of course but I needed someone to let off steam to! I just haven't the time to pursue at the moment as I am snowed under, so I will just have to pick up the threads when I can and hope my worst fears have not been realised. Sophia 19:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Noah's Ark
I just noticed your edit summary. Armenia is certainly a country, and as far as I'm aware Mount Ararat straddles the border between it and Turkey. --Gene_poole 05:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Right, I know that. I meant that Ararat exists in Turkey, at least the part of concern with Noah's Ark. I know why it was changed however, because I'm not going to assume good faith--someone cares about the official name of where it's located. There's not a lot of room in edit summaries. I was more concerned about the POV edits however. Orangemarlin 05:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Jesus myth
Hi. Well, all I have are personal opinions, for what they are worth. I spent a few minutes looking over the edit history and it is not clear to me what the main points of contention are - if you could spell it out for me maybe I could give better feedback. From what I reviewed I saw four main issues.
- process. I agree that someone should not make major changes to an article without discussion, in principle.
- does it matter whether Jesus was a real person? NOR is our savior, here. The question is not does any or all editors think that it matters whether Jesus was a mythical being that some people believe acted in history, or a real person around whom a large body of mythology has been developed. The question is, what do the major scholars writing on the issue think? My own understanding is that most believe he probably existed but that what we call Christianity was based as much or more on the incorporation of wide-spread near-eastern myths, than that guys actual life and acts. Maybe I am wrong. That doesn't matter - the point is, whatever it is that the main sources (scholars) the article draws on claims, ought to be in the article. If the major proponents of this approach are divided, the article should say so.
- should the article state that these scholars are skeptics who espouse a naturalist view? Well, I do not find that objectionable because I assume that people who are skeptics and espouse a naturalist view are proud of the fact. That said, I would again appeal to NOR. I think the issue is this: what are the assumptions and methods used by these scholars? The answer should come from the books and articles used as sources themselves. Most ggood historians, especially when writing on the Bible, try to summarize their assumptions and methods and it is good to educate readers about this.
- was the Talmudic Yeshu Jesus? I happen to believe that he was, but in a non-historic (i.e. mythic i.e. the Rabbis were constructing their own myth to counter the Christian myth) way. But again, NOR - it doesn't matter what I think. There are some scholars who have made just this argument, such as Jeffrey Rubenstein (no relation). However, this is contested and there is no I repeat no proof that Yeshu = Jesus.
So, is this what you were looking for? If not, please let me know and tell me more what you think the real issue is. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 09:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
myth
if you can specifiy a few particular edits, perhaps I can comment more specifically - or provide me with two clearly distinct versions to compare. --Slrubenstein | Talk 15:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
An example of what I find so disturbing about the religious right
Just watch this one: --Filll 17:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Frankly, I don't get what's going on or what it's intended to mean, but it reminds me of some of the sequences from W.R.: Mysteries of the Organism. Well, as long as she's enjoying herself....... dave souza, talk 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Jesus myth
Instead of blanket reverting me under factually inaccurate labels you could move yourself to explaining your objections on the article talk page. Str1977 08:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh you mean to gain consensus? Explain actions? Like you and your friends did with the article? You're right, I should spend 15 more seconds explaining myself than you did. Orangemarlin 08:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I hope you are enjoying your condescension. In any case, I have explained all my edits in edit summaries and on the talk page - explain meaning more than just throwing around acronyms. And note: I have no friends working on the article, the one coming closest is Sophia, which with I do not share a POV, and Paul B. I am not friends with Jbolden, if you are referring to him. Str1977 09:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I actually don't care who are your friends or not. You could say you're friends with the Pope and how am I ever going to believe you one way or another. The fact is that the article got completely destroyed, and it was done in an underhanded way. I have no clue if you were part of the group that did it, but all I see are POV edits from you and the others. I do not condescend. Do not state what you "think" I am doing. I am matter-of-fact about this. I see POV, OR, and other issues, and I revert. It truly appears to me that you are destroying the article. If you are not, then why so much own research in it? Orangemarlin 09:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry to butt in guys but having worked with both of you I know that if we can just cool down, identify the real wild card here (jbolden) and backtrack to a place we all recognise, that we now have the sort of people around to build a good article. Yep Str has a POV but so do I and I know from working with him in the past that he is knowledgeable and fair in a dispute. Str was in no way part of the little huddle that had a "good idea" one day to mess things up and I personally was relieved to see him arrive as I knew we would then have discussions that were not "mickey mouse". I respect you both immensely and would love it if we could all work together constructively. Sophia 12:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am still completely puzzled about what happened to the article and what the sides are. I wish we could roll things back to how they were.--Filll 13:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry to butt in guys but having worked with both of you I know that if we can just cool down, identify the real wild card here (jbolden) and backtrack to a place we all recognise, that we now have the sort of people around to build a good article. Yep Str has a POV but so do I and I know from working with him in the past that he is knowledgeable and fair in a dispute. Str was in no way part of the little huddle that had a "good idea" one day to mess things up and I personally was relieved to see him arrive as I knew we would then have discussions that were not "mickey mouse". I respect you both immensely and would love it if we could all work together constructively. Sophia 12:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I actually don't care who are your friends or not. You could say you're friends with the Pope and how am I ever going to believe you one way or another. The fact is that the article got completely destroyed, and it was done in an underhanded way. I have no clue if you were part of the group that did it, but all I see are POV edits from you and the others. I do not condescend. Do not state what you "think" I am doing. I am matter-of-fact about this. I see POV, OR, and other issues, and I revert. It truly appears to me that you are destroying the article. If you are not, then why so much own research in it? Orangemarlin 09:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Orange,
- I did not call YOU names but commented on what I think unacceptable behaviour. You may disagree but it is not name-calling.
- You didn't call me either .... and that was actually what I complain about. That you didn't tell me your concerns.
- I am sorry, but I cannot accept your explanation that I was "caught in the cross-fire": I did not edit based Jbolden's version - he was reverted quite independent of me and my edits - you did revert only my edits. And even if your explanation were true (I guess you reverted me without lookin under the impression that I upheld Jbolden) simply repeated unexplained reverting is not solution to this. :If you do "not read edits" than you should not revert them. "Yet, you continued to edit them without either listening to or maybe accepting our concerns with the base article." Not at all - I discussed several items on the talk page and got a go ahead. You reverted me asking where this was discussed but when I pointed it out to you, you didn't react (except by reverting).
- Nor can I accept the reasoning that I was editing based on a disputed version (untrue, except from jbolden's perspective) and that was reason enough to revert me. If I revert someone on another page I must ensure that later valid edits do not get lost. And if I don't deem them valid, I must explain my case.
- I also object to your deeming me guilty by association. I had contacts with Dbachman before (I can't remember where) but not on this article.
- I will not get involved much on Noah's Ark but must say that article's are always subject to change, categories included. That's what the disclaimer on the edit page says. But never mind. I agree that the Ark is a mythological ship under a certain definition of mythology (with which I disagree but which happens to be accepted). The treasure ship however doesn't seem to fit that word under any accepted definition.
- I copied your talk page content to the article talk page to get the discussion going. Had you only replied to me or would others not have ignored the issue, thinking jbolden the only issue worth rising, it wouldn't have come to this.
- I am willing to let bygones be bygones and hope for peace. Could you please indicate on the talk page which of the several version is acceptable to you so that I can work on it. Str1977 06:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I understand your metaphor quite well and do not assume violence. Metaphors are metaphors, after all. I will have a look into the new situation tomorrow. Str1977 22:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Jesus Christ as myth
Changing the phrasing of a title is not "massive". People do it all the time. Since the actual debate was taking place on the Jesus-myth hypothesis page I explained it there. Do you think you could discuss matters in a less, shall we say, melodramatic fashion. Paul B 07:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- What you are doing is underhanded. If that's melodramatic, how about you try putting your arms around consensus, and maybe we won't. Please don't post your attacks on my page. Orangemarlin 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
God article
Reverted your removal of the paragraph on Intelligent design and tweaked it slightly to address the issue your edit summary raised. The paragraph still isn't ideally worded, but the topic is clearly relevant to the article and I believe the language should be improved by editing and sourcing rather than simply deleting. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Except for the fact that ID does not "prove" the existence of G_d, I guess I don't care. The editor of that point, as I recall, has been just this short of spamming a bunch of articles with what I believe are POV statements. I guess that was my point with this editor. But your edits look fine, as they usually do!!! Orangemarlin 19:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I must confess I don't know very much about the details of ID as the Discovery Institute promulgates it. However, I have this vague recollection that a few federal judges thought this particular distinction didn't really make a difference, so I imagine the point could be argued either way. I agree sourcing isn't adequate. Feel free to add a {{fact}} tag and/or some counter-argements, although no more space for that than the original paragraph, please. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Jesus myth
I hope I didn't let you down - the edit history just confused me. Maybe you wanted to avoid naming names but if there is still a problem there and you can direct me to the two versions that represent the conflict, perhaps I can still help? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hey slr, no way did you let me down. The attacks on numerous articles seems to have subsided, so I have time to work on more fun projects--I got some others to do the heavy lifting on the Jesus/myth articles. Frankly, I'm rather stupid about the whole Jesus thing, but I know when I'm reading POV stuff. I did read the EVO/DEVO article that you had suggested a few weeks ago. I found out that I knew nothing, and spent more time clicking on wikilinks reading up on other stuff. I was going to thank you for "wasting" about 3 good hours of my day while I learned some fascinating stuff. In fact, because of the links, I ended up at the Biology article, which I found to be a travesty. I've worked on it on and off, but I need to focus on it. I figure I've done some things to get it started, and the smart biologists around here will get on board. Orangemarlin 16:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Persecution by Christians
Please click on the wikilink above! When we've finished with The Mythical-Hypothetical-Loonie Jesus Theory we need to sort out why Misplaced Pages seems to think all persection by Christians is "historical". I tin Gay-rights and pro-choice groups would like to know this interesting fact! Sophia 19:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)