Misplaced Pages

So the outcome was not entirely negative, although I was disappointed by the admin's rather cavalier approach evidenced by the response to my enquiry:

.... why did you discount the votes of, say, User:GregorB or User:Canon? They are not new users, nor did I solicit them. I presume by Tim Shell you mean Tim Smith? ...... --Michael C. Price 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

to which I received this rather off-hand reply:

User:GregorB offered a very brief comment not supported by policy. User:Canon did take the time to offer analysis at DRV, but he had been among the first voters at the AfD to offer a mere "Keep" without explanation; therefore, I assumed he had been solicited by someone. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

which didn't fill me with confidence about Wiki-"due process".

Anyway, my grumpiness aside, the Mega Society article, is presently under userfied open-development at User:MichaelCPrice/mega, and will reappear at some point, when (hopefully) some of the ill-feeling evidenced during the debate has cooled. I am very heartened by the article's continued development, and by the development of associated articles. Thanks for everyone's help!

--Michael C. Price 14:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Notability of Civiq Society

Hi. I saw that you removed the notability tag in the Civiq Society article. I have contended the notability of this society in its talk page (please read it), supporting the view of the editor that originally added the tag. My opinion about this is flexible, (if there are lists of Pokémon characters and X-files episodes, maybe high IQ societies deverve their place in the encyclopedia). However, I still feel somewhat uncomfortable about this article. My question is: what distinguishes Civiq Society from

   * Cerebrals    * Colloquy    * Elateneo/s Society    * ePiq
   * Giga    * Glia    * HELLIQ    * HPS    * IQuadrivium
   * ISI-S    * ISPE    * Mega Society    * Mega International
   * Mysterium    * OATH    * OLYMPIQ    * PARS    * PGS
   * Pi Society    * Sigma    * Superdotados Intelectuales
   * TNS    * TOPS    * Ultranet    * Vinci    * Club Telegenio
   * Mega Foundation    * WIN    * MILENIJA    * StrictIQ Society
   * Vertex

that makes the Civiq Society deserve its inclusion in the encyclopedia in a whole sepparate article, while all the other societies are (deservedly?) "ignored", except for the small mention in the High IQ society article? As I explained in the talk page of the Civiq Society, the societies with a whole article Prometheus Society, Intertel (group), Triple Nine Society, and International Society for Philosophical Enquiry partially share these two characteristics: they have been quoted by external sources (such as newspapers) and they have more members (perhaps from many more countries). All of them are more than 20 years old. Even the new, (and less notable?), International High IQ Society has supposedly much more members. When reading the article, I noticed that besides the "Background section", the article apparently doesn't add new information beyond what it's already stated in general in High IQ society. This gives the impression that the article could potentially be merely advertising or self-congratulatory material. This is a harsh opinion, I know, but I think that this article should be improved, or it should be reduced, or it should be deleted. If it remains like it is today, the notability tag shouldn't be removed. This is just my opinion, of course, but I wanted to share it with you, who probably knows more about the subject. In any case, I would like to mention that I had felt curiosity about several high IQ societies and high iq tests in the past, and despite the fact that I often looked for information about these subjects in the net, I had never visited their website and I didn't remember the name of their society when I read the article. Perhaps an interesting suggestion could be to write or to expand the list of the high IQ societies in high IQ society with a few more details for every "minor" society, (the kind of details that are mentioned in the Civiq Society article). Respectfully, Another Wikipedian 04:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I agree with you. I belong to all the societies above with the exception of TNS and have worked on all the web pages. I started working on the web pages because of the "perceived" attack against the HiIQ community. I don't think there is anyone available to fix the Civiq page at this moment and personally I have no objection to it's deletion if it does not get improved. I think your last suggestion of improving the gateway page is interesting. Perhaps under the category Hi IQ societies, we could have "stubs"? A small blurb about the so-called "non-notables" this may be appealing to all. On another note, as you may or may not know, I am the one who added "pantomath" to the polymath page, I saw you were involved in some of those discussions.Tstrobaugh 20:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_Secondary_school

Acreditation isn't working on Template:Infobox_Secondary_school check out Lansdale_Catholic_High_School. Thanks for any help.Tstrobaugh 00:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tstrobaugh. Many thanks for your notice. I indeed made an error on the accreditation parameter when converting the template. There was a pipe missing (argh!), which I fixed. Apologies. I adjusted the call on the Lansdale article accordingly. Cheers! --Ligulem 08:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Carole D'Andrea

/Carole D'Andrea

Invite

--evrik 19:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Philly meetup

Hi! There will be a Misplaced Pages Meetup in Philadelphia on 4 November. If you're interested in coming, RSVP by editing Misplaced Pages:Meetup/Philadelphia 2 to reflect the likelihood of your being able to attend. If you have any questions, feel free to ask CComMack's. Hopefully, we'll all see you (and each other) on the 4th! --evrik 19:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Pennsylvania's 56th Representative District

Please use the move function, instead of copy-and-paste, when renaming a page. This avoids splitting the page history in several places. -- ReyBrujo 05:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Got it.Tstrobaugh 05:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:International High IQ Society

Hi there. As long as a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion is going on, the AfD tag must not be removed. At present, there is such a discussion going on here. Only when it closes do we remove the AfD tag. Heimstern Läufer 01:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Philadelphia Meetup 3

FYI. We we're planning a Philadelphia area Misplaced Pages meetup. See Misplaced Pages:Meetup/Philadelphia 3 --ike9898 15:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Lisa Nowak - Shipman

Heya, I put my thoughts on the talk page. Gwen Gale 17:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

High Schools

Did you see this? Category:Roman Catholic secondary schools in Philadelphia --evrik  13:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Category:Roman Catholic secondary schools in Philadelphia is a subset

Category:High schools in Pennsylvania, so there should be no problem there. Yes, Category:Roman Catholic secondary schools in Philadelphia isn't completely correct. I was thinking of making a name change nomination to Category:Roman Catholic secondary schools in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. --evrik  17:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Not being coy. It was perfectly appropriate to create the sub-category as there were enough schools to fill it, and they were not included in Category:High schools in Philadelphia. There is no need to undo anything. I don't seem to understand what the difficulty you're having is. Please refr to Misplaced Pages:Classification and Misplaced Pages:Categorization. --evrik  18:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Before you start an edit war, why don't you list this at: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Pennsylvania? --evrik  18:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Please stop edit warring and take this discusion up before making wholsale chnages. --evrik  18:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism, edit warring and potential 3 RR warning I am going to put everything back the way it was beforee you started making changes this morning. After that, if you haven't already done so, I will post a discussion at WPP:PA. --evrik  18:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I made a posting here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pennsylvania#Category:High_schools_in_Pennsylvania. --evrik  19:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Block

Hi Tstrobaugh, you have been reported for 3RR violation on West Philadelphia Catholic High School, and I have blocked you for 24 hours. Please take the time off to review our WP:3RR policy. You seem to be a good editor, so I am sure you can make some adjustments and continue to edit productively and collaboratively within the system. Please email me or any other admin if you have any questions or comments. Thanks for your undestanding, Crum375 00:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Tstrobaugh (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Misplaced Pages:Blocking_policy#When_blocking_may_not_be_used

Decline reason:

It appears that you violated WP:3RR. As such, the block is legitimate. — Yamla 18:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Misplaced Pages Meetup

Sunday March 4, 2007
5pm
Independence Brew Pub

RSVP

(view/edit this template)

Wallace W. Rhodes

Actually, I thought the reasons for the creation of the article were ancillary to the subject's lack of notability. I apologize if my prod reason was unclear on that. Since you removed the prod, I will take the article to a formal AFD later today. Cheers, Skinwalker 15:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't think you had an agenda. The Rhodes article was created by banned User:Paul Hartal, presumably in order to bolster his list of "notable" alumni from Columbia Pacific University. He made many more articles of this type, most of which have been deleted as non-notable. The deletion prod is used to mark abandoned and/or uncontroversially nonnotable articles for deletion, hence, I assumed that it was appropriate for the Rhodes article based on this user's past performance. Articles whose notability is contested are taken to WP:AFD for a full debate over their merits. I added the bit about moving to AFD since this is the usual step after the prod is removed. I'll let the Rhodes article sit for a few days - please try and come up with some notable references. Cheers, Skinwalker 16:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pennsylvania State Chess Federation

An editor has nominated Pennsylvania State Chess Federation, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Iowa State Chess Association and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 21:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Plexiglass

Your change to acrylic glass on (the soon to be deleted) Overclockersclub is fine, but plexiglass is absolutely acceptable as a word, regardless of being derived from a genericized trademark. Deiz talk 15:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The American Heritage Dictionary lists Plexiglas and cites the variant plexiglass as having been used in The LA Times, while Princeton University's WordNet is also happy with it. I would find it hard to believe you've never seen or heard plexiglass used generically on TV or in other media. Trademarks do not have to be "lost" to become genericized, simply used commonly by people to refer to a given type of product or service which has usually gained a dominant share within its market. You can read more at Genericized trademark. Nice one, Deiz talk 02:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Is plexiglass used as a generic term to describe acrylic glass and similar materials? Yes. Beyond that, I think I'm done here. Deiz talk 14:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Philadelphia Invite

You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Misplaced Pages Meetup
Sunday July 8, 2007
Time: 5:00 pm
Location: It will be in Center City, Philadelphia at 112 North 9th Street Philadelphia, PA 19107.
Tel: (215) 829-8939

Tagging votes to be disregarded

Do NOT put tags on votes trying to claim that they should be disregarded and then citing just somebody's essay. The votes were valid, and if you (and the person who wrote that non-guideline personal rant web page) disagree, tough. DreamGuy 21:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleting talk page comments

While deleting talk page comments to hide something is frowned upon, any user may delete comments from his or her talk page without repercussion. The edits are still in the history so they can be still used for reference if they are out line. —Ocatecir 19:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

You both are in violation of the 3RR rule. I am going to give you a chance to avoid being blocked by asking you not to make any edits to that page for 24 hours and to discuss any further edits on the talk page before making them If you can't come to a conclusion start an RFC to get some outside opinions, do NOT engage in edit wars. — Ocatecir 23:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Plexiglas

The use of a trade name as a generic or familiar term is quite common, see Kleenex, Scotch tape, etc. I work in the aviation industry and I can assure you that plexiglas, plexiglass and any variation thereof has long since passed into the common aviation lexicon. FWIW, lighten up on your tone, this is supposed to be a fun thing, IMHO. Bzuk 17:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC).

Plexiglass (sic)

Copyedit form my talk page" Sorry you don't like my tone. You reverted without discussing the issue on the talk page . On my page you said:"I work in the aviation industry and I can assure you that plexiglas, plexiglass and any variation thereof has long since passed into the common aviation lexicon". I read this as you assuring me that the "aviation industry" is incorrectly using the trademark Plexiglas® and on what authority I'm not sure. My edit summary said "plexiglass" is not a word. Even without WP:COPYVIO and Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(trademarks) there is simply Misplaced Pages:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Pay_attention_to_spelling. If you can find a dictionary that includes "plexiglass" then I will get into why it is trademark violation, but for now it is simply a spelling error.Tstrobaugh 17:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually if you're interested in these planes there is a history to how Rohm and Haas initiated the acrylic cockpits. See:, I'm not opposed to using Plexiglas® where appropriate.Tstrobaugh 17:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. To explain my first edit, since I was the primary author of the piece, I reverted with an explanation in the edit commentary mainly because I did not believe that the one word edit required a longer or more thorough explanation in the discussion page. However, I can see that you have a real interest in the subject/issue and I appreciate your efforts to maintain the correct use of a type of material/process. As for the use of the word "plexiglass" (sic) in various aviation and other sources, a quick check by Google will pull up a variety of dictionary definitions or dictionaries that include the word in that and other variations. I presently work as the Executive Director of the Manitoba Aviation Council, an umbrella organization of aviation interests including fabricators and repair facilities. Without doing a scientific study or intensive survey of my members, I can safely reiterate that the word, term, process and official/technical designation, trade name and such are now all irretrievably intertwined. After reading your explanation, I have endeavoured to maintain the original meaning of the word in the article but since I am an aviation writer by trade, it was inevitable that colloquial and commonplace nomenclature has seeped into my vocabulary over the years.

This is not capricious, but now you have tweaked my interest, just how did "plexiglass (sic)" creep into modern usage? I will also follow up on the development of acrylic glass in aircraft canopies. My background is mainly in aviation (flying, piloting, related history) but I am interested in background on aerospace fabrication and construction. FWIW Bzuk 18:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC).

I assume you are an engineer, or at least an "engineer type", do you read Dilbert? That's how, stupidity. Did you ever play the game Chinese_whispers? Ever see what's on Snopes? As relating to trademarks, ever order a Rum and Coke (or do you say Pepsi, or the generic "cola")? There is a Saturday Night Live bit about "no Coke, Pepsi". People are lazy, they don't care about accuracy, why should they really? However as an engineer I'm sure you pride yourself on accuracy. Again Plexiglas® is currently a trademark, See and . Trademarks are lost due to court cases, see aspirin for the famous aspirin case.Tstrobaugh 18:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Remember, I am not disagreeing with you, merely pointing out that the word has somewhat morphed into a colloquial form. Granted all of the following dictionary definitions are derived from the "non-standard" variety, online references and the like, however, here goes:

Dictionary definitions: www.thefreedictionary.com/plexiglass, dict.die.net/plexiglass/ , www.answers.com/topic/plexiglas-plexiglass, www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/p/p0374200.html ,www.rplastics.com/plexintro.html, dict.die.net/molly-guard/ , medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/plexiform, FWIW Bzuk 18:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC).

I suppose I should have said "legitimate" dictionary, with the internet now you can find anything, whether true or not. I was thinking more like Merriam-Webster or OED, I know you won't find it any paper dictionary. Although I do see they are starting to list it as a trademark (improperly spelled) in Bartleby (here they are quoting the LA Times misuse of the term as a source?) similar to die. So now I might have to qualify my claim with an explanation of what a Reliable Source is.Tstrobaugh 18:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I enjoyed that, BTW, I am a professional librarian, and entered the aviation world through a very unusual route. I have spent a lifetime, "faking" it with sundry aviation technical and professional types. FWIW Bzuk 19:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC).

Wikimedia Pennsylvania

Hello there!

I'm writing to inform you that we are now forming the first local Wikimedia Chapter in the United States: Wikimedia Pennsylvania. Our goals are to perform outreach and fundraising activities on behalf of the various Wikimedia projects. If you're interested in being a part of the chapter, or just want to know more, you can:

• Contact us on IRC at #wikimedia-pa
• Join our mailing list
• Visit our blog at http://wmfpa.blogspot.com

Thanks and I hope you join up! Cbrown1023 talk 04:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Intertel.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Intertel.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Misplaced Pages:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog) 13:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 19:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Oldest Cathedral?

• I'm not sure I understand "The Basilica of the National Shrine of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, also called the Baltimore Basilica, was the first Roman Catholic cathedral built in the United States," (1806-1821) The St. Louis Cathedral Archdiocese_of_New_Orleans#Landmarks was built in 1718. Any help appreciated. Thanks.Tstrobaugh 21:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Louisiana was not admitted to the union until 1812. A similar example would be the Cathedral-Basilica of St. Augustine, built 1793-97. So, while the Baltimore Basillica is not the oldest cathedral in the United States, it was "the first Roman Catholic cathedral built in the United States." --Jdurbach 15:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Robert E. Eberly

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of Robert E. Eberly, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.as.utexas.edu/mcdonald/het/het-eberly.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 15:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Leta Stetter Hollingworth

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Leta Stetter Hollingworth, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.nebraskahistory.org/lib-arch/research/manuscripts/family/hollingworth.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 20:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Intelligent Design Creationism"

Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, by Robert T. Pennock (Editor). So it is not "a new term invented for this article". Hrafn_Stalk 17:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Amazon.com Sales Rank: #485,881 in Books" This does not indicate that term Intelligent Design is known popularly by the POV term "Intelligent Design Creationism". It is clearly POV. What is the Author's intent? Is it your contention that most people say "Intelligent Design Creationism" or do just people with a POV say it? If it is your contention that it is known by the general population as "Intelligent Design Creationism" then I will withhold my edits. So far I only see that it is your contention that this author and yourself hold this view. Tstrobaugh 21:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Philly meetup #5

Please look at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/Philadelphia 5 and give your input about the next meet-up. Thank you.
This automated notice was delivered to you because you are on the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Philadelphia/Philadelphia meet-up invite list. BrownBot 22:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Paste of your material

As you have suggested, I am pasting this pointless disruptive thread on your talk page. Please do not pollute the talk pages of the articles with silly discussions which appear to be in violation of WP:POINT and appear to be part of disruptive editing. Thank you for your kind attention.--Filll 20:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think if you want to quote the court on this matter a better section is Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science#4._Whether_ID_is_Science. However I still don't believe that citation supports "The consensus of the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science," That citation supports the Judge's belief, don't you have any citations that support the assertation in the article?Tstrobaugh 17:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The citation supports a judicial finding based upon evidence presented at trial ) -- not a mere belief. Hrafn_Stalk 15:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

A "judicial finding" is indeed an opinion or "belief" of the Judge and the Judge only. See Scopes Trial. If you have the citation for the opinion or belief of an "expert witness" that says "The consensus of the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science", then please use that. A better solution would be to cite the actual "consensus of the scientific community" not somebody's opinion on what the "consensus of the scientific community" is.Tstrobaugh 17:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

A "better solution" is for you to read WP:V, instead of indulging in this inane nit-picking: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth." We have a verifiable citation to a WP:RS in the Jones Dover Decision. If that is not good enough for you, then read WP:NPOVFAQ#Making necessary assumptions -- which clearly allows the use of the citations in List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design as additional support, without having to list them all again here -- which is why I included it below. Hrafn_Stalk 14:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the correct place to find copious citations on this matter is in the article intelligent design itself. I would also direct you to level of support for evolution which has large number of references demonstrating what the consensus scientific opinion is of intelligent design. However, in each subsiduary daughter article like this one, you are going to insist that the same references and citations be repeated over and over? Please. This article is about an aspect of intelligent design, not intelligent design. If someone wants to know about intelligent design, they would just go to that article, right?--Filll 17:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Which of my concerns does your answer address?Tstrobaugh 17:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If you cannot understand that, perhaps you should not be editing Misplaced Pages articles. How does my statement showing that this is inappropriate for this article not seem clear to you?--Filll 15:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

From the second reference, "Before discussing Defendants’ claims about evolution, we initially note that an overwhelming number of scientists, as reflected by every scientific association that has spoken on the matter, have rejected the ID proponents’ challenge to evolution. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ expert in biology, Dr. Miller, a widely-recognized biology professor at Brown University who has written university-level and highschool biology textbooks used prominently throughout the nation, provided unrebutted testimony that evolution, including common descent and natural selection, is “overwhelmingly accepted” by the scientific community and that every major scientific association agrees." Also, does the third reference in the article not clearly address your concern? 59.92.46.188 10:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design Hrafn_Stalk 11:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what any of you are talking about. My concern is with one citation only. The one I pointed to above when I said "this matter ". I don't know how 59.92.46.188 can talk about a second reference. If Hrafn thinks that the link he inserted solves the problem then put that in the reference. It is the citation that I am disagreeing with, not the premise.Tstrobaugh 14:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC) This argument has been identified by one or more editors as constituting an arbitrary demand for a shrubbery. Please resolve this by clarifying the basis for the objection in canonical policy. Expanding the requirement to include chopping down the tallest tree in the forest WITH A HERRING may be met with additional mockery and scorn. – ornis⚙ 14:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you implying that i have not been "Be civil, Keep your cool, assume good faith, avoid personal attacks."?Tstrobaugh 15:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You are wasting people's time with nonsense questions. It is obvious from intelligent design we can bury you in citations. And you want to push this issue? This article is not about intelligent design, if you had not noticed.--Filll 15:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You keep threatening to fix the citation that I have a concern with. Go ahead and do it, what's the problem?Tstrobaugh 15:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be more of a troll than an editor. Hmm...want me to investigate down that avenue a bit further?--Filll 15:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Investigate to your hearts content, now that you have made a personal attack, I guess you missed ""Be civil, Keep your cool, assume good faith, avoid personal attacks.""Tstrobaugh 15:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? you reverted after all this discussion of all the wonderful citations that are available? That's just obstinate. What is your reason for not putting a correct citation in?Tstrobaugh 15:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The citation IS correct. It is WP:V & WP:RS. That you don't like it is your problem. That there are hundreds of citations in other articles that add further weight to it is not a problem under WP:NPOVFAQ#Making necessary assumptions. So either come up with a real complaint or go bother somebody else. Hrafn_Stalk 16:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't realize this was "YOUR" article. The header on the main page says "Welcome to Misplaced Pages,

the 💕 that anyone can edit." Please excuse my idealistic urge to make it better.Tstrobaugh 16:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well please excuse us for regarding your demands as unsupported, unreasonable and unhelpful.  – ornis⚙ 16:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Which of these, as you say, "demands" are "unsupported, unreasonable and unhelpful". "I think if you want to quote the court on this matter a better section is Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science#4._Whether_ID_is_Science. However I still don't believe that citation supports "The consensus of the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science," That citation supports the Judge's belief, don't you have any citations that support the assertation in the article?"Tstrobaugh 16:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Asked and answered, long since. Hrafn_Stalk 17:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding your two cents. Do you think that is furthering the discussion? How could my question already be answered? He just made his comment. I'm questioning his comment. If you have an answer please post it, or just keep silent if all you have is a retort, it's really not helping.Tstrobaugh 17:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent>It has long since been corrected. Many more references are available. You are engaging in a violation of WP:POINT now so it is best to move along before you suffer consequences.--Filll 17:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because you assert something doesn't make it true. Please explain how I am in violation of WP:POINT, in your humble opinion. And also please enumerate the consequences. I am editing in good faith and responding truthfully to all comments, which is more than I can say for others.Tstrobaugh 17:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest that questions about the nature of ID be discussed at Talk:Intelligent Design? Anyone wishing to know more about the status of Intelligent design would refer to that page, so Irreducible complexity is not the best place to raise such issues. Sheffield Steel_stalk 17:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, I agree. I do not disagree with any of the assertions, as I've repeatedly stated. Only the one citation. Leave the assertion (as I have on all my edits) and put a correct citation in. How clear can I be?Tstrobaugh 18:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at the page and the references. If this continues, then I am warning that the consequences will not necessarily be to your liking. Just a word to the wise.--Filll 18:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your veiled threats entail, please eloborate. What exactly do you think I'm doing wrong. Disagreeing with you? Responding to your comments?Tstrobaugh 14:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You raised your objection. It was dealt with. Now, I suggest that everyone DNFTT.--Filll 15:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Good advice, I pray that you are able to follow it, I hope that you yourself can stop flaming me. eg. "If you cannot understand that, perhaps you should not be editing Misplaced Pages articles", "You are wasting people's time with nonsense questions", "You appear to be more of a troll than an editor", "now so it is best to move along before you suffer consequences", "I am warning that the consequences will not necessarily be to your liking. Just a word to the wise".Tstrobaugh 18:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see Filll added sources to the line we we're discussing (The consensus of the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science,). I don't know what all that backtalk was about now. Can we delete the inadequate source "Kitzmiller v. Dover page 82-3"? Theres really no point to it now, with all the other sources. Then my proposals would be complete. Thanks for your efforts.Tstrobaugh 17:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Kitzmiller needs to stay, sorry. Odd nature 19:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you expressed that. Could you tell me why? Do you think it provides support for "The consensus of the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science"? If so could you explain why, because I don't see it.Tstrobaugh 19:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the link is to page 82, but page 83 contains:

"we initially note that an overwhelming number of scientists, as reflected by every scientific association that has spoken on the matter, have rejected the ID proponents’ challenge to evolution. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ expert in biology, Dr. Miller, a widely-recognized biology professor at Brown University who has written university-level and highschool biology textbooks used prominently throughout the nation, provided unrebutted testimony that evolution, including common descent and natural selection, is “overwhelmingly accepted” by the scientific community and that every major scientific association agrees."

Because Misplaced Pages's standard is verifiability, and we do not engage in original research, the important thing is to find reliable sources which attest specifically that scientific concensus is against ID being science; not to attempt to 'prove' it ourselves by assembling statistics. The Kitzmiller verdict is one such source. TSP 20:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)