User talk:Misteror

Welcome!

Hello, Misteror, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links to help you get started:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 15:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Username change

Your request has been fulfilled. Regards — Dan | talk 16:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acid Jazz

Hi. You made some pretty dramatic edits to the various Acid Jazz articles - you will see some have been reverted. It's usually good practice to discuss major changes - especially to the top of an article on its talk pages. I don't want to discourage you, but on Wikipedia, the onus is on the editor ADDING the material to substantiate his or her changes and you're not doing this. That includes providing the correct source/s - that's why unsourced statements will be reverted at a stroke. The best thing is to make changes - then have a breather - let other editors consider your changes and add to the debate. I'm not saying this article can't be improved, but I've spent a long time merging old Acid Jazz articles, separating the music genre - and yes it is jazz - from the label article. I won't revert any more today, simply becasue I haven't got time, but you'll also find that you might get blocked if you make multiple reverts yourself - so suggest some areas for discussion (on the article talk page) that you want to change, and have a look at some of the Wikipedia articles on sources and so on. At present this page is not correctly formatted for refs - I'll have a look at that when I've time. I just don't want you too waste too much of yours because I know how frustrating it is. Regards. Escaper7 10:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

Any reason you nominated the article as "biased"? It's been peer-reviewed multiple times. I've removed the tag. --Hojimachong^talk 17:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

Hi there. Just wondering if you could add something to Evolution's talk page to explain why you think it's biased. Otherwise you might wind up being mistaken for just another creationist crank! Cheers, --Plumbago 17:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Hypothesis

Hello. I removed your recent addition to the Scientific hypothesis page. The paragraph, dealing with the notion that science is a paradoxical "belief" system substituted for religion, was more of a philosophical debate than an encyclopedic contribution. It also provided no references, although the content seems misplaced in any event. Best, Gerta 00:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

evolution of the eye

sorry to contradict you, it's not "personal analysis" adding precision to the asseverations in this site. naming theories as theories, not disguising them as truths

"EVOLUTION OF THE EYE"?? or theory of evolution (eye)

MAY I ASK YOU TO NOT STATE THEORIES (not tested -out of scientific range of perception and analysis-) AS TRUTHS ...

ONE THING evolution is a fact, truth well known by anyone with or without scientific background (i do have it, if this made any difference.. it shouldn't) but another things totally different are theories of evolution

may i quote from scientific method

"The essential elements[9][10][11] of a scientific method[12] are iterations[13], recursions[14], interleavings, and orderings of the following:

   * Characterizations (observations[15] , definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)
   * Hypotheses[16] [17] (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)[18]
   * Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction[19] from the hypothesis or theory)
   * Experiments[20] (tests of all of the above)"

evolution is testable: within the human range of analysis: many years

theory of evolution: they need some millions of years for carrying out a test to have an idea if it's any close to a truth

to ease you let me explain myself i do not mind about moving wikipedia from evolutionst to creationst, to me that debate is silly. there is actually no dichotomy between evolution and creation, because there can be as many theories as scientifics want to formulate (using all other facts they can find for supporting their claims). as just very similiar to novelist writing novels. creation is simpler, doesn't need large books of theories. it is based upon belief, then they do not compete between each other, they are based upon different bases

pls have a look at Epistemology, Criteria of truth, scientific method, Creation-evolution_controversy, among others for your reference when it comes to stating theories as truths

regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misteror (talk • contribs) 13:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a confused statement. You have to learn to sign your edits. Take a look at evolution as theory and fact. There are facts of evolution, and there are theories of evolution. However, you are incorrect in claiming that the observations of evolution that took place millions of years ago are "theory", and in your use of the word "theory". We use the scientific meaning of the word "theory" when we refer to the "theory of evolution", not the everyday meaning of the word "theory". Please try to learn something about what you are arguing for before you continue.--Filll 13:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unified Modeling Language

Hi, sorry I referted your two edits to the UML page. I think I understand you want to make a point in this article. The easiest way to do so is to find a notable scientist to do it for your. In other words, find a quote in a notable source and add it in the right please. Good luck. If you have any questions let me know or make a remarkt on the UML talk page.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]