User talk:Filll/Archive 17

Respect to contributors

Hi Filll. Would you have time to discuss what you said here? I think that if you look at the contribution history of many of the Arbitration Committee members, I think you will find that they are as committed to building an encyclopedia as anyone else. Paul August, Kirill Lokshin, and Charles Matthews, among others. Your point about protecting the NPOV of the encyclopedia misses the point that there are good ways to help achieve NPOV and bad ways to achieve NPOV. The content of the encyclopedia must be produced by editors working with other editors on a level playing field. If an admin disagrees as an editor with what is happening at a particular article, then they should edit the article and discuss with the other editors, but they should not use their admin tools. Admin tools are not meant to be used in content disputes, but should be used to prevent disruptive behaviour (warnings and blockings for vandalism, trolling, incivility, personal attacks; page protection during edit wars; judging consensus in discussions such as page moves and XfD; deletion when that is required; and so on). ArbCom (and other editors) know from experience that if you go down the route you propose (ie. play hardball and aggressively block argumentative people with the "wrong" POV), that leads to more disruption in the long run. I'm glad you removed the strong language you were using, as that was in itself showing disrespect on your part. Also, not all articles have problems on the scale of the ones that you are referring to - the entire culture of Wikipedia shouldn't be changed to protect those articles. Instead, more attention at those articles is what is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I decided that my original post did not describe what I wanted it to describe very accurately and was much too negative. However, I want to get across that this case has sent possibly unintended signals.

I am sure you have heard the expression "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely". The reason that is such a famous saying is that it does have some element of truth in it. Editors have some minimal power. And admins are more powerful, and some like Adam might have abused some of their power, intentionally or otherwise. Arbcom members are still more powerful.

And some messages by these people, again intentionally or not, are being sent out in the context of this case with potentially far-reaching consequences. I want people to consider what these consequences might be. Because I know from past experience that powerful people can get so wrapped up in the exercise of their power that sometimes they are willing to engage in destructive behavior towards the very enterprise they are involved in, just to demonstrate that they have power.

I know the Arbcom has power. I know they have all contributed. I know you have power. I know you have contributed. I know on the totem pole of power, I am a lowly "dog" to those on Arbcom and also to you as well. I acknowledge this freely. But I also see troubling signs, just as I have in other enterprises where authority figures wanted to show how tough and strong they were, and so caused terrible damage just to prove to everyone they were tough and strong. Just something to think about...--Filll (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that administrators should be very cautious about using their tools on articles they are involved with, but in this case I think it is clear that the rules are not clear enough or widely understood. I have been told repeatedly that this is incorrect, but by my observation, it appears that not all administrators agree with this view.

In any case, several other things have been revealed by this case. A lot of interesting signals were sent, including not following set procedures, a lack of warnings, voting commencement within 12 hours, calling established editors nasty names, more concern for someone with 12 edits than someone with thousands of edits, a frantic effort to establish some new principles and to get serious or tough with people who edit controversial articles and so on. If I did comparable things, I would be shown the door extremely rapidly, and we both know it.

These signals amount to some powerful messages to the editors on Wikipedia. Basically, the messages I see are summarily negative, and essentially constitute a discouragement of the efforts of established editors and administrators. Are these the kind of messages that the senior levels of Wikipedia want to send? Sure looks like it to me, whether they are intended or not. Just something to consider...--Filll (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking an interesting experiment might be for all editors and administrators dealing with contentious articles to stop reverting vandalism and POV edits for a set period, say a few months. No one who has less than 1000 edits should be cautioned or warned or stopped from doing anything they want whatsoever. If they want to delete most of the articles, they should be allowed and even encouraged. If they want to replace articles with a stream of profanities, no one should stop them or revert their efforts. Vandalism should be celebrated. Those who have a record of more than 1000 edits should be immediately blocked for doing anything to improve an article or to revert vandalism. All trolls and sock puppets and destructive disruptive editors should be unblocked and invited back for this period, and their efforts to edit unimpeded. Anyone who is perceived as introducing peer-reviewed references should be immediately blocked. Anyone who wants to rely on anything but blogs and self-published material would be immediately blocked. Lets advertise that destructive and POV edits are now welcome and encouraged for a limited time only on Wikipedia as a test. It would probably bring in more editors and new editors. Lets try to discourage people who have a lot of edits, especially those who have produced GAs and FAs and made a lot of edits if at all possible for the duration of the test since they are not important and not respected and unwanted in general. If they stop editing Wikipedia forever, so much the better since they just are causing problems anyway, since a drive for quality is really at odds with more important goals for Wikipedia according to what I perceive.

Then at the end of this period, let's have an outside panel evaluate a handful of heavily edited controversial articles before and after the test. Let's see if we believe that our policy of discouraging people from introducing POV edits and vandalism is productive, or not.

I think it would be a fascinating test. What do you think? It would sure bring in lots of new editors and lots of edits. It would create a lot of publicity for Wikipedia. And it might get rid of some pesky long term editors who are doing nothing but causing problems with their anal retentive reliance on maintaining articles in the face of overwhelming efforts by conspiracy theorists, and vandals, and extremists and people with assorted fringe beliefs. After all, these longterm editors feel like they WP:OWN the articles and appear to be unwanted here. Right? (I realize this is quite sarcastic, but I want to emphasize the impression that this case is creating. I am of course making a tongue-in-cheek suggestion here and should not be taken seriously). --Filll (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are some other suggestions:

• Remove all administrative tools from all admins for 6 months and observe what happens.
• Block all users who have been on Wikipedia for more than 6 months and have more than 1000 edits. If any of them attempt to come back as sock puppets block them on sight. Observe what happens.
• Change the rules on NPOV so that POV articles only are acceptable. Observe what happens.
• Unblock all blocked users, and block all current users. Observe what happens.
• Remove the tools from all admins, and give them to all currently blocked users. Invite the blocked users back to get revenge etc. Observe what happens.

I think these all would be interesting sociological experiments. I am not sure that Wikipedia would survive, but it would be very interesting.--Filll (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: I am being sarcastic here. I just want to emphasize that my encounter with this case has put a very bad taste in my mouth, and I have seen several other editors and administrators express similar sentiments. I have also heard similar comments, and worse, from other editors and administrators in private communications.--04:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the sarcasm is making a point, but it makes it difficult to see exactly what you are saying. Do you think you could make the points seriously without the sarcasm, to avoid misunderstandings? For what it is worth, I disagree with the way Charles (Matthews) responded by filing an arbitration case (but that was his choice) and I disagree with the way UninvitedCompany started the Proposed decision page so quickly, but that doesn't invalidate what they are saying. And to address (for now) just one of your many points, "I know you have contributed. I know on the totem pole of power, I am a lowly "dog" to those on Arbcom and also to you as well" - you have this completely wrong (about me anyway, and I suspect about most members of the ArbCom as well). I personally genuinely do try and treat all contributors on the same level, and look at what they are saying, not who they are. That's why I came to your talk page to talk to you about this, because I've been looking at what you are saying, not who you are. Carcharoth (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well with a little less sarcasm, I am not the only one who has said this. If you look, several other editors and administrators have said similar things. I am sure you noticed, but if you didn't you might want to check again. Bad messages are being sent. And whether you recognize it or not, you and others have contributed to the bad messages being sent. Sorry, I mean no disrespect, but that is what is going on. Bad messages are being sent. Do not shoot me as the messenger please, but bad messages are being sent.

I would not be surprised if Adam stops editing. I am wondering if I should stop editing. I am wondering if it is worth reverting vandalism or trying to stop POV edits. It seems to just make people angry and what is the point? They want to introduce extreme POV, and if they cannot, they get angry. And having people angry is viewed as more damaging to Wikipedia than having articles that meet some "quality standard". This seems to be the message (unintended or not).

I know this is maybe a painful message to get, and I apologize. but you have to consider exactly how you want to set the balance between these contradictory goals. You cannot avoid stepping on the toes of the fringe elements if you do not give their views the attention the fringe elements feel their ideas deserve on Wikipedia. It is impossible by definition. Sorry.

One of the complaints from outside of Wikipedia is the presence of nonsense and false information and crazy fringe biases that creep into the articles. However, to stop this makes some people extremely angry. And so, since some feel that we should not anger people like those found on Wikipedia Review, maybe that should be the goal of Wikipedia; namely, minimize the amount of anger of any potential editor, especially those with crazy ideas they want to promote, or flakes, or cranks. And if quality suffers, well so be it, but at least we do not offend fringe editors and people with extreme POV. Because believe me, it is almost impossible to slow down these people with extreme or fringe ideas without getting them upset. It just cannot be done.

Maybe Adam went overboard. Maybe he screwed up. I can believe that. And I also believe there might be another side to the story that seems to be almost completely ignored by some people who want to see Adam and people like him fry. I also believe that the guidelines here were not completely clear or not completely understood. I know that is a painful thing to reject and one you want to summarily reject. But that is my impression. Sorry.

I was dealing with Mathew Hoffman, and believe me, if he was allowed to do whatever he wanted, he would have destroyed that article's balance and integrity and any relation to NPOV. I guarantee it. I know this sounds offensive, and I do not mean any disrespect to Mathew Hoffman. I am sure he is a nice guy. His views are just not mainstream views, as near as I could determine. And I have dealt with hundreds like him, and I doubt that if he stays on Wikipedia for 6 months or a year, his views are likely to change. Sorry, that is just my intuition and impression. I would love to be proven wrong, but I just view that as a low probability event. My apologies if this offends you.

Let's let Mathew Hoffman edit unimpeded and see what the result is. Let's compare before and after, by letting some panel of outside experts review the results. I would be willing to wager a substantial amount that it would not be a positive outcome. Again, I would love to be proven wrong. But I think it is quite unlikely.

If you want to turn Wikipedia articles on intelligent design and creationism and evolution and similar topics into basically versions of Jack Chick tracts, fair enough. At least it will not hurt the feelings of assorted fundamentalist extremists of one stripe (it might hurt the feelings of other fundamentalist extremists of other varieties, of course, but that is not my problem).

We can do the same thing on cold fusion and alien abduction and Kennedy assassination and phrenology and homeopathy and holocaust denial and so on. Lets avoid hurting the feelings of anyone who has the most extreme non-mainstream views and let them introduce whatever they want into an article, at will. And let's see what the outside world thinks. I wish I could say this would result in very balanced articles that were well received by the outside world, and compared favorably with articles from Encyclopedia Britannica. However, I have very severe doubts, I am very sorry to say.

The result of such an exercise, I suspect, would be that the jokes about how unreliable Wikipedia is would get much more common and much more shrill. But at least we wouldn't hurt the feelings of the poor oppressed fringe elements, and people with views that Big Science ignores "unfairly".

I am sorry if this hurts your feelings or offends you. I just want you to understand that those of you who are in the power structure of Wikipedia need to support good faith efforts to try to maintain the integrity and balance of the project, even if these efforts might sometimes not follow what some envision as the proper procedures always. Mentoring and warnings and suggestions are valuable, Summary execution or threats thereof are not.

Declaring war on people who are only trying to improve Wikipedia is really discouraging. And when I compare the efforts of someone like Mathew Hoffman, or someone like Whig, or any number of others that have come up in this case, and the efforts of someone like Adam, I think there is a world of difference. For arbcomm and others in the power structure to not see the difference is very telling, and very discouraging. So be it.

You just might not want to hear the message and might want to punish me for delivering it. I would ask you not to. I mean no disrespect. If you want me to fold my tent and leave Wikipedia for expressing my views, then I will accept that.--Filll (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The whole point is that you and MatthewHoffman can express your views. That is what talk pages are for. But Hoffman got blocked (the 72-hour block and indefinite block) for trying to discuss things on talk pages. Has that ever happened to you? It is clear that Hoffman had some points to raise that should have been, and were, discussed. Arbcom and many other editors are aware of extremists and POV pushers, but Hoffman doesn't come anywhere close, at least not yet, and may never do so if he is given the chance to develop. He certainly is not what he was accused of, not based on his contributions to that date. You seem to want to rush to judgment too quickly when you see a threat. Adam has had chances to defend himself, and lots of evidence has been presented. Neither of these opportunites were presented to Hoffman. I respect your right to air your views, but I honestly think you are over-reacting in this particular case. Addressing some more of your points: "I am not the only one who has said this" - this argument sounds familiar, it is used daily by POV-pushers - it is what you are saying, not how many are saying it (up to a point) that matters. As for "trying to stop POV edits" - yes, you should do that, as an editor. It is not the role of administrators to defend NPOV using their admin tools. It has to be clear that an editor is being a POV pusher, and if it is unclear, discussion, requests for comment, referring to past discussions, and editing to change when there is consensus to do so, are better remedies than blocking, unless there is widespread consensus outside the other article editors that disruption is occurring. Otherwise articles become frozen and difficult to edit, and nothing changes except uncontroversial aspects of the article. Are you saying that the articles you name are all perfect and well-referenced and balanced? If so, nominate them for featured article status. If not, work with the editors to improve the article. If disruptive editors appear, try discussion and then ask others if these editors are being disruptive, and take things from there. Getting angry and walking away won't solve anything. Carcharoth (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(I am going to be sarcastic again, sorry) For example, I am not reverting this. Why don't we keep it, so it won't hurt the editor's feelings? How long do you think Wikipedia would last if that was our goal?--Filll (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be better if we discussed a different edit. You know as well as I do that that edit is vandalism. Carcharoth (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Respect to contributers

Well Mathew Hoffman is free to edit. And I notice he has been quite productive. And so I guess that is a fair trade; get rid of Adam and get Mathew Hoffman instead.--Filll (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

An alternative view is that Adam took an incorrect approach that led to Hoffman leaving (or going inactive until the case is over), and that the arbitration committee may desysop Adam for this and other things uncovered during the arbitration case. Net result: we lose Adam's future admin actions, we lose Hoffman's future edits, we keep Adam's future edits. Unless Adam over-reacts and walks away. I hope Adam stays and edits regardless of the final outcome. Carcharoth (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with much here. But is far too dangerous to say more. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Filll, it's fully appreciated that two arbcom cases happening at once is stressful, and I agree with your support for the editors involved, but unfortunately your civility is becoming an issue, quite unnecessarily. I sometimes find it useful to compose edits in a text editor, then look them over carefully and ruthlessly copyedit them before posting. You've got good points to make, and putting them politely and concisely will make them much more effectively. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 16:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus?

Are you upset that I used the word Jesus or that I critisized his comments? I'm happy to remove the word if you find it offensive.It's not a big deal to say it here in London but I'm aware that other cultures use words differently. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at this situation a bit objectively. Previously there was an exchange above that was something like

As I am sure you know, the English you use day to day is very different than the English I use. The expressions and l'argot and phrases and idiom and meanings of the words in the UK and the USA are quite different. In fact, some English films almost require subtitles here since we cannot understand the penumbrations and shades of hermeneutics implied by assorted constructions common in English usage in the UK. For your amusement, you are invited to consult List of words having different meanings in British and American English and American and British English differences, for example. Cheers...--Filll (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Bigot of course isn't on the list though. I'm pretty sure it's an insult both here and over the pond,...

So the word bigot, which I gave a definition for from the dictionary, you were sure was an insult, even when directed at some group in general, and no person in particular was identified. And you were sure that the meanings of words like "bigot" are the same in the UK and in the US, and you are sure you know what I meant and that it was offensive. However, NOW you claim that taking the Lord's name in vain is not offensive and you had no idea that it is offensive anywhere since it is not offensive in London. Do you think that sounds like a very compelling argument? Hmmm...--Filll (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm an atheist and most people in Britian are iether atheists or at least non practising christians. I "take the Lords name in vain" all the time in speech as do most people I know. I did not mean it to be offensive, and I removed the comment as soon as I became aware that you found it so. My comment above about you using the word bigot was because you were stating that you were taking the higher ground. In fact you have repeatedly resorted to personal attacks (quite deliberately) and I note that you do not take action afterwards to rectify any offense caused. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

How is calling someone anonymous a bigot a personal attack? Please explain it. I am obviously so stupid I do not understand. --Filll (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I never said it was a personal attack, I said it wasn't a word I would expect somone who set themself up as taking some sort of moral high ground would use. But you have made personal attacks, well actually personal attacks is too strong an expression, you've certainly made comments that are entirely unhelpful to the debate on the evidence talk page. I'm not blaiming you for this, I know you are upset and most people say things when they are upset that they wouldn't when the are calm. What I am surpised at is that you don't seem to take any action to rectify things once you have calmed down. Surely you can't be upset for days on end? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess you are unable or unwilling to describe to someone who is moronic as me how stating that some vague group in the ether are "bigots" constitutes a personal attack on someone. Oh well. I was hoping to learn something. Well where are my other terrible personal attacks? I would love to see where I called anyone personally some bad thing or cursed at them or engaged in some other profanity, especially directed at someone personally, and not just their reasoning, their statements or their comments. If I did, I will apologize. However I do try to avoid that. And I think I am mostly successful. However, obviously using the word BIGOT is the most heinous thing anyone can do, and is much worse than engaging in profanity of the worst kind. Right? --Filll (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you read my reply above? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Filll, take the time to look over your own posts and delete anything that looks in the teeniest bit uncivil, making minimum changes to keep the overall sense, and I think you'll find that the posts look and work a lot better. I'd cut that whole definition bit altogether, if I was you. A worthwhile exercise, in my opinion. .. dave souza, talk 17:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Do it carefully though. If someone has actually replied to one of your comments it may be better to strike it through ot at least put (comment removed by Filll) so that thier reply isn't up in the air so to speak.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be unfortunate.--Filll (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have lots I want to write in response, but it is clearly too dangerous to do so. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder...

I saw your reply that has a lot of good points but also a less than subtle prod. I don't think this will have the desired effect and in fact it might prolong this argument even more. I think there is enough support for your position that you do not need to repeat your points more. David D. (Talk) 04:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, i just saw that Amaltheus replied to you. To be fair I think he makes some good points too. I think your frustration with POV pushers has now made you more short with people who make valid comments. Previously you would have had a lot more patience for users like Amaltheus. Remember how you were? Don't let the creationsists change your interactions with others who are making a legitimate effort, even if you disagree with them. For those of us that have worked with you for a while, we know you are one of the good guys, but biting editors like Amaltheus is not going to let your other peers see you in that light, and that would be a shame. David D. (Talk) 04:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It might prolong it. And I did repeat. However, sometimes on these articles where cranks of assorted types show up, I do repeat myself. Because they just do not get it, and probably never will. Maybe I should not have done it. Maybe I will remove it. Oh well.--Filll (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the horse has bolted here. I'm not trying to chide you, well I am, I suppose, but only in a friendly way. David D. (Talk) 05:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh well. He is angry and spewing. But to be honest, I think he would be anyway. He is just angry angry and frankly, a crank.--Filll (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Filll, in my opinion you're both pretty angry and it will help matters greatly if you now withdraw completely anything you've written which can be read as implying a personal attack, starting with the above post which you should strike out. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution . . dave souza, talk 12:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about ID

Hi, Filll. Did you overlook my question about Fitzmiller at talk:intelligent design? --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That is my personal opinion, based on the evidence that I have seen and read and heard. It is not the position of Wikipedia of course. Wikipedia has no position except NPOV. Of course if someone prominent said it, we might consider adding it to the article, or then again, maybe we wouldnt to avoid being offensive.--Filll (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Email

FYI if you want the email at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch/Evidence to show up formatted, you can use <pre> ... </pre> instead of <nowiki> ... </nowiki>. --B (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try it although I do not know how important this is. U have a huge amount more to post.--Filll (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Sorry, I over-wrote your comment. You can revert me if you wish. :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Walt Brown

You previously expressed an interest in finding sources to substantiate notability of this article. As my notability-template on it is being repeatedly deleted by a creationist troll on spurious grounds, I'm likely to nominate it for AfD soon, to get a non-revertable resolution on the issue. Just thought I'd give you a heads-up, before I do anything irreversible. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. For ready service above and beyond the call

		The Original Barnstar
		For outstadning performance on Walt Brown (creationist) TableManners U·T·C 06:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Homemade brownies

To Filll, for furthering humanity's understanding of evolution

• Thanks for all of your hard work! Awadewit | talk 02:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not mentioning names; since everyone's concerns should carry equal merit. But Fill, did you notice; who added their support? To me, that was more important than possibly making FA. Certainly without it, it would be meaningless. I agree with Awadewit, and second her commentary here; having your support and guidance is the only way I would have every considered writing anything on Wikipedia. I also feel that introduction level articles add a new and positive dimension to Wikipedia.--Random Replicator (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

FA Count

There are clearly two opposes that were "spam". I looked at the contribution page and noted well over 50 "votes" since their brief drop in on us. One of these makes the same statement on every thing they oppose. I'm calling them "Drive Bye Shootings". How can you critique 3 articles in 12 minutes. It may have hurt us some by setting a negative tone from the start. Dismissing those, there are 3 opposes / 1 temp oppose (what-ever that means) and 9 supports. The last two were very complimentary and came out of no where. How long do they keep the process open? On a personal note, perhaps we did not go into this as featured; but as a result of constructive criticism I think it has emerged as such. I thought it great since the first week ... which is exactly why I do not oppose/support on FA pages. --Random Replicator (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Add one more oppose to that #. I've incorporated list after list of other's ideas and now am accused of ownership and close-mindedness. The initial criticism to their proposal did not merit the accusations of gang-mentality and hostility; that may be an example of a self fulfilling prophecy. --Random Replicator (talk) 16:10, 12 January

2008 (UTC)

I suspect you are correct. All I can do is apologize and withdraw my comments. However, as I review what lead me to make them, I do not think I was unprovoked.--Filll (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• These things happen. I once got into "shouting match" over dashes at FAC. :( It can be stressful. I've noticed that the initial votes do indeed set the tone for the rest of the discussion, but I have also noticed that Raul (I don't know about Sandy) tends to leave contentious FACs open for a while (sometimes for up to six weeks) to let the editors try and resolve the issues. In my opinion, that is a good idea. Back in September, I calculated how long each of my FAC nominations had taken. Here were the results: Out of my 9 FACs (at the time), 6 achieved FA status in fewer than 10 days (1 took 13 days). The two notable exceptions dragged on for around 20 days - both of these had descended into unfortunate spats. None of these were controversial articles, however. Those always seems to go on for longer. Lucky you. :) Awadewit | talk 22:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ferrylodge comments

"Again Ferrylodge? You know darn well you are not supposed to get in trouble by being difficult and editing against consensus and engaging in contentitious edits and making insults. I would suggest that we should go to Arbcomm enforcement and expand the terms of the Arbcomm decision. The articles on which he is restricted should include all political articles and their talk pages and all abortion and reproduction articles and their talk pages. If he so much as offers a hint of dispute, block or ban him. That would slow him down a bit."

Please? He just wont stop. It's driving me crazy. See his work on Mitt Romney and Fetus. Turtlescrubber (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

We need to find an admin that will do something about this. Clearly.--Filll (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Creation Research Society

Please consider striking the final comment you left on the talk page. As recent experience has shown, explosive remarks just gouge a lot of potholes, redirecting editors into wasting valuable time in the blame games, and inevitably, too many somebodies end up pulled off task patching up a big mess. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was concerned only about the last sentence, the rest didn't concern me.Professor marginalia (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I was asked there to defend a fellow editor, but I have removed my response. And if there is trouble on that article, I will direct it your way. In fact, why do you not take over maintenance of that article and protect it for us? It will save us the trouble. Show us how a different approach is better.--Filll (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I see that you refactored your comment that I objected to and I appreciate that. For the record, I am a strong believer in NPOV, and have been an editor in good standing since at least 2004 (and an IP editor before that). I have edited in many areas of Wikipedia, many of which have been controversial, and have been through dispute resolution short of Arbitration before, but I was not found to have been wrong by my peers in the first RfC, and the second one is still contested as you may know. I do not want to have further conflicts with you, if it is helpful for us to avoid one another, then I am willing to do that. I do not know what resolution is most appropriate and mutually satisfactory but I hope we can work something out. —Whig (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am prepared to throw homeopathy in the trash and let you and your friends edit it unfettered. And see what the result is. Maybe you are right. Maybe we are all jerks and you are a brilliant editor and a great genius. Let's see. Shut me up.--Filll (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not want to shut you up. I want you to be able to edit Wikipedia constructively. If you feel that you would not want to be involved in Homeopathy article(s), that is your own decision, however it is not my article nor does it belong to any one POV. —Whig (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well why not take me up on my challenge and show you can manage it in a more constructive productive manner?--Filll (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I have been discouraged from editing the Homeopathy article space for the present moment. If I do so, it will be because I need to, pursuant to WP:IAR. However, I have not edited disruptively, apart from exceeding three reverts by one time on one occasion to maintain an NPOV tag on the article. In other words, I (and other editors) have been literally prevented from editing. If you would like to petition someone for the removal of any editing restrictions that have been imposed for my own protection, and certify that I will be safe to edit without being blocked for doing so, then perhaps we may have a constructive discussion about how I can contribute. —Whig (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

We can put a version of the homeopathy article in a sandbox for you to edit at your leisure; that should certainly be permissable under any circumstances. You can invite your friends there to the sandbox to help you, whoever you want. Or we can get the restrictions removed from you to edit homeopathy at will as part of the test, if others agree. Or we can find another similar article for you to edit. And then we can try it. We can even try to get blocked editors unblocked for this purpose and let you all edit unrestricted and see what happens.--Filll (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a possibility I had considered and attempted at one time, but my sandbox version got deleted very quickly and it was made clear that any deviation from the (in my opinion, non-neutral) POV presented in the present article would not be permissible in any fork even in user space. It may not be a good solution for a number of reasons, some of which I may not have considered. In any case, I am not seeking to have my own sandbox, but to edit like anyone else. —Whig (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to evolution

I was completely surprised that some of the discussion went oddly side-ways. Filll (talk · contribs), I hope that you are not chased away from your incredible work on this article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it is not easy here. A lot of people want to be bullies and throw tantrums. And we are not allowed to call them on it. After a while, I get tired of being told that those who are productive here count for nothing, and people who are only here to fight but produce nothing are worth more than people who produce. --Filll (talk) 03:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Quotation

What does this quotation mean to you? I am puzzled about that. TableManners ^U·T·C 05:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is fairly obvious. Most creationists and intelligent design supporters are "lying for Jesus" (or Allah in a growing number of cases). Some are confused enough or deluded enough to believe it or think what they are saying is reasonable. But I suspect most try very hard to avoid being rational and logical and reasonable, to try to mislead the public.--Filll (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I get it now. It was not so obvious to me. I wasn't sure if you were justifying lies of creationists, or the lies of the cabel (e.g., that every "creationist POV pusher" on WP is a patent sockpuppet of Conservative at CP, just because they all "quack like a duck" in the hive mind of the cabel.) Certainly, the creationists aren't the only ones practicing deceit, and followers of Jesus or Allah are certainly still only human--"There is no one righteous, not even one." But fighting fire with fire, as I now see you're point, may not be the wisest choice. TableManners^U·T·C 15:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course all people fall short. However, I do not believe that the science side and evolution supporters, demonstrate the same level of deceit, by any measure, as the creationist side. If you think they do, give me an example. I would just point you to the quote mining examples as a start.--Filll (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You could be right at the (largely self appointed) leadership level. TableManners^U·T·C 15:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you deserve what leadership you are willing to accept -- and the pro-creation masses seem quite content to allow this "largely self appointed" leadership to speak on their behalf. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. In other words, if the leadership side of the evolution POV were frank in their own doubts, critiques, etc., and did not have the hair on the back of their necks stand up at the sound of any "ignorant" critic, the blind may not be so easily led by (again, largely self appointed) one eyed kings. You have the same thing happening in other areas, e.g., certain conspiracy theories that are knee jerk rejected by the mainstream media are consequently more accepted by certain critical thinkers. TableManners^U·T·C 15:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent>No one who subscribes to evolution denies that it is like all scientific theories; it is still changing as more information surfaces. There are of course still open problems in evolution; that is what makes it an exciting area of research. Where do the scientific leaders in evolution deny any of this? Where has one scientific leader of evolution been involved in quote mining or otherwise caught in a similar lie?--Filll (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have answers to your questions, but what takes place in peer reviewed scientific journals and research laboratories is different than what takes place in the public view (sound bites, quips, and so on). Blame the mass media and mass media mentality. TableManners^U·T·C 15:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just look at the agenda of creationists. It is pure poison to science, and will end up with us back in the Bronze Age. The Muslims pushed the same creationist approach in their society 1000 years ago, when the Muslims were the most advanced in science, mathematics, medicine, navigation etc. on earth. And within a handful of years after adapting a "creationist" style approach, the most advanced society on earth went into a Dark Age, from which they have not yet emerged, 1000 years later (See Incoherence of the Philosophers). If you want to live in a Dark Age, or sit in a cave banging rocks together, be my guest. But do not presume that if you want to force a Dark Age on others, with supreme arrogance and conceit, that people might not resist you. --Filll (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I might add, if you want to subscribe to creationist reasoning, be prepared to either (1) go back to biblical law, with stonings etc and law handed out by religious leaders or (2) empty all the jails and fire all the police, because the answer to any evidence of wrongdoing like fingerprints or DNA evidence, will always be, a miracle or the supernatural placed the evidence there, and my client is innocent.--Filll (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Tablemanners: "the leadership side of the evolution POV" are "frank in their own doubts, critiques, etc" -- and as a result have their comments misrepresented and quote mined by creationists. A classic example of this is the misrepresentation of Stephen Jay Gould's opinions. The reason for this is that these "doubts, critiques, etc" only call for the refinement of evolutionary theory, and creationists want its wholesale overthrow -- so when "the leadership side of the evolution POV" don't give them this, they dishonestly manufacture it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, getting back to the quotation, when I first read it, it sounded like something Mark Twain would write. So I found the Mark Twain quote and put it on my user page. TableManners^U·T·C 03:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

“ For the history of our race, and each individual's experience, are sewn thick with evidences that a truth is not hard to kill, and that a lie well told is immortal. - ^{Twain, Mark, 1882 Advice to Youth} ”

Nice sidestep. ;) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not much in the mood for arguing about evolution. TableManners^U·T·C 04:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I could have sworn that the central theme of this argument was honesty, not (who's right about) evolution. Although not completely unrelated, being honest and being right are two quite different things. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, then rewind a bit to the a lie well told is immortal quote. TableManners^U·T·C 16:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

All this agile sidestepping -- maybe you should take up line dancing. The specific topic, before your repeated sideways departures was creationists' dishonesty. Rewind a bit further. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not much into dancing either. I asked a question about a quote that to me sounded like something Mark Twain would have said, but is attributed to Martin Luther. It appears you're trying to express yourself with innuendo or sarcasm, but I am afriad it is going over my head. If you're not, my apologies, but if you are, could you be less coy? Do you not see what appears, at least initially, at least to me, to be satirical expression in the Luther quote similar to what you would expect from Twain? The attribution to Martin Luther is dubious at best, and appears to be an unintended parody of the quote mine mentioned above--Though this is probably not Filll's fault, I see the quote is used at and may have been lifted from any of sundry atheist websites. But even if Luther wrote this, it still sounds, to me, like something that Twain would have written. TableManners^U·T·C 16:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, then it must have been some other 'Tablemanners' who brought up the subject, that I alluded to above, in this comment. Will the real Tablemanners please stand up! And I will respectfully disagree with your claim that you're "not much into dancing", as you seem to spend a great deal of time dancing around issues. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that we were having a friendly discussion, not a grilling. Maybe we can take this off wiki. Is there a blog or bulletin board you like to grill? Regarding the comment you cited, I think the problem is we have a different idea of leadership. I guess that to you, everyday scientists doing science are evolutionary leaders. If they were leaders, I would no doubt agree with you that the scientists were forthright. But they are not leaders. They are workers, too busy to participate in the evangelical shenanigans of the evolutionary bulldogs. However, the leaders I was talking about were the likes of the rancorous Kwok, who has recently stooped to making public threats against, as far as I can tell, at least two of his intellectual opponents' livelihoods. Add to this Kwok's compatriots and minions. And don't forget smarmy and nasally Ira Flatow and his ilk, who conspicuously refuse to objectively discuss intelligent design e.g., with intelligent design advocates. Note that Ira Flatow seems to have been reading (maybe even contributing to) some wikipedia articles.[1] These sorts of leaders hurt the cause of science and through their behavior push less than scientifically literate but otherwise commonsensical masses to believe that "both sides should be taught." Kwok, Myers, et al. precipitate the "teach the controversy" reaction they deserve. TableManners^U·T·C 05:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

<unident>You know it's odd. I explicitly cite a major evolutionary figure, Stephen Jay Gould, and TM tells me that no, the real "leaders" are such minor figures as blogger-professor PZ Myers, Amazon-reviewer Kwok and some radio/TV journalist I'd never even heard of. Then, instead of actually providing evidence how even these minor figures are not "frank in their own doubts, critiques, etc.", he instead piles irrelevant, ad hominem and/or fallacious vitriol on them. It would seem that he is hell-bent on proving the Luther quote indicative of (at least one thread of) Christianity: dishonest, mean-spirited demonisers of their opponents. Perfect Right Wing Authoritarians, but hardly the followers that Jesus was hoping for. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Goodness. Who is Stephen Jay Gould? Isn't he, like, dead? TableManners^U·T·C 08:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Another evassive non sequitor. The fact that Gould is deceased is irrelevant. What is relevant is that he was "frank in [his] doubts, critiques, etc" and was grossly misrepresented by creationists for his pains. Your thesis is a dead duck, and your dodging the issue simply makes a laughingstock of youself. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sick 'Em

Whatever. From what I gather, Gould's opinions on evolution were not taken seriously by evolutionary biologists. He was another limelight seeking bulldog whose opposition against creationism earned him quiet tolerance among more earnest biologists. A bulldog by any other name is still a bulldog, even if it is a sometimes kinder, gentler, and pot smoking bulldog. Considering that evolutionary biologists did not take his confused ideas seriously, is it really any wonder that his intellectual opponents "misrepresented" his viewpoints? But he's dead. May the great flying spaghetti monster bless his soul, and protect and comfort the books that surrounded him when he died. TableManners^U·T·C 17:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the archetypal religious right/RWA response: a fallacious, ad hominem non sequitor. Dishonest, meaningless and nasty. Not so much "lying for Jesus" as "lying and hating for Jesus". And a "gentle bulldog" is an oxymoron (rendering the whole rant even more meaningless). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I listen regularly to Family Radio, a "Christian" evangelical station with a bit of an offbeat bent. And I also discuss evolution and religion with fundamentalists and evangelicals of various stripes. What is amazing to me is how common the statement from fundamentalists is that "love thy neighbor as thyself" appears no place in the bible and was never said by Jesus. They tell me it makes no sense since God wants us to hate most people, clearly, from the bible. And so... by their fruits ye shall know them, I guess.--Filll (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Martin Luther did not write it. Maybe this is all an example of centuries of malicious misattribution. which is possible. However, Luther is clearly the author of On Jews and their Lies which was quoted extensively as Hitler as his justification for the Holocaust. Luther was also the author of several other outrageous polemics, advocating the execution of Galileo for suggesting that the earth revolved around the sun, for example. So I would not put it past Luther, would you?--Filll (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

According to 20/20 tonight, 80% of the Danish are Lutherans, and Denmark is the happiest country in the world. There is a strong correlation between Lutheranism and happiness. I am not sure what percentage of the Danes are Jews (obviously less than 20%), but I understand that the population was very sympathetic during the great war.

But doesn't it seem strange that Luther was supposedly so concerned about Jews lying, but also, according to the quote you found, okay with Lutherans Christians lying. Seems odd to me. Luther was an enigma, if the quotation you found is true. TableManners^U·T·C

I also note that there is a difference between Jews Lying and Lying for Jesus. I have heard similar things in many discussions with evangelicals and fundamentalists, that only like Jews because they think keeping Jews in Israel will lead to Armageddon and the return of Jesus.--Filll (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course you do realize that modern Lutheranism has little to do with Luther. And that over 80% of Danes subscribe to evolution [2]. Right?--Filll (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. There is a strong correlation between subscribing to evolution and happiness. In fact, Denmark is ranked number two for subscribing to evolution and number 1 for happiness. You should write 20/20, as they did not juxtapose those two statistics. I'd wait before adding this to Benefits of subscribing to evolution, though. See WP:NOR. TableManners^U·T·C 18:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are a couple of great Martin Luther quotes:

"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spritual things, but--more frequently than not --struggles against the Divine Word...."

"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God."

--Filll (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I notice TM has no problem editing articles to introduce a creationist slant however. --Filll (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Got a diff you'd like to discuss? TableManners^U·T·C 16:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Life (that's his name)

This guy, Pro-Life, seems notable enough. However, I did not get a chance to verify and wikify. Could you take a look at it? Thanks. TableManners^C·U·T 07:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

According to current interpretation of WP:NOTE TM is probably right. Which leads me to the conclusion that the bar is being set too low if a single (and rather silly) stunt can turn an otherwise insignificant politician into a "notable" one. I think a more skeptical look as to what constitutes "significant coverage" is warranted. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard of him, but that means little. He certainly is only marginally notable at best. I am a retentionist but I would feel better if there was more material in his bio here. I notice he himself or someone who probably is him has edited his own biography, so I wonder how reliable it really is. TM, why do you not do some real work and do the research and see what else you can find out about this guy?--Filll (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am working on it, but did not want to do it in a vacuum. TableManners^C·U·T 06:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Pre-Adamites

Oh, what now? I believe humans existed before the so-called time of Adam, but presumably I'm not a pre-Adamite, since I don't believe in Adam. The distinction should be made clear. Evercat (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

We are here to write an encyclopedia. Not belabor the English over obvious points to the extent that the article is an unreadable mess. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not that obvious. It doesn't take much violence to the English language to take the belief "that humans existed before Adam" to mean a total rejection of Adam's existence. If humans exist before Adam, and Adam is supposed to be the first human, then Adam can't exist. QED. Evercat (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(Now, admittedly I stepped out onto a philosophical limb by assuming that names like Adam cease to refer to anything if nothing matches the normal description of Adam, but I was just making a point... :-) Evercat (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but this is just confused, and example of why differing hermeneutics among sects lead to hatred and violence. But a good example nonetheless.--Filll (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not an argument I would defend, but I can see people thinking along these lines. Evercat (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok so you think it is reasonable to suggest that people who say "there were men before Adam" believe that Adam did not exist? And how many angels did you say could dance on the head of a pin?--Filll (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not an argument I would defend. Evercat (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, one final thing for you to consider, though I'm sure you're as bored of this as I am: the opening sentence of the article could easily be taken to mean that the existence of Adam is a real fact which everyone must accept, and only the prior existence of humans is a "religious view". By explicitly making the existence of Adam part of the "religious view" this chance for misinterpretation is removed.

To give you a similar example, Dawkins sometimes cheekily says that creationists "believe that the world was created after the domestication of the dog." And this actually makes a sort of sense if you know the correct dates for the domestication. Likewise, some creationist might say of evolutionists, "Those guys? They're Pre-Adamists - they believe that humans existed before Adam, the first human!" When I made my edit, I wanted to rule out evolutionists (or at least, the non-religious ones who don't believe in Adam) being called Pre-Adamists. Evercat (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

I have not asked you to step away. I asked you to retract a single baiting sentence, one that boomarangs and nullifies the good points which preceded it. It's an incoherent argument which begins with advice to another to "relax" and finishes it by giving the guy a parting punch to remember you by. In such cases, it's good advice to withdraw the parting punch, and keep the rest. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In any case, it is yours to deal with. Good luck.--Filll (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Newsweek (be quick please)

Please quickly see [3] and [4] - since this is probably dubious from a copyright point of view I need to delete them quickly. Evercat (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please note when you've seen these so I can delete them? Thanks. Evercat (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am looking at them. The international article is clearly written differently than the US article. Even the English is not American English.--Filll (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You would agree it confirms I was not doing "original research" when I changed the quote. I am going to assume you have saved the scans to your machine by now and it's safe for me to delete them. Evercat (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

One final point

I am now through with the whole level of support for evolution thing. I would just like to note the following - you repeatedly accused me of original research, yet not one of my edits ever introduced original research into an article. Not one. Go ahead, try and find one. This is the closest you'll come.

As for talk pages, sure. I'm entitled to make whatever points I like on talk pages. Try and understand the distinction. It is articles that may not contain original research.

Thank you and goodbye. Evercat (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I mis-represented the original concern badly. I will assume good faith and a lack of understanding of the overwhelming science. Perhaps they just assume that it is like Global Warming and still an idea in flux. Maybe requesting a list of specific opposing science views that they are aware of might provide greater clarity to what Dweller is seeking. I reluctant to dismiss outright since I &^$% - up the thread to begin with. Maybe they mis-understand the strength of the theory and with a little gentle guidance may grasp the idea that there is no debate in science. Now that I actually understand the concern -- I think --- I doubt I would agree to including alternative arguments when there are not any. We will see.--Random Replicator (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly why the 99.9% figure should be in there.--Filll (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Point well taken. I still hope to get through FA without this becoming an Equal time to all sides issue; I'm thinking its a misconception not an agenda. I requested further clarification on the talk page, so before I give up on finding resolution to another oppose; I'll wait for the dust to settle. They may actually agree with the counter-points. If the points don't get too confusing ... sex again ... that was just cruel. --Random Replicator (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

sv40

I misread the link when I deleted it. Good thing you were paying attention. Boston2austin (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Unscientific image Tightlacing

Two unscientific sketches from 1884: A, the natural position of internal organs. B, when deformed by tight lacing. In this way the liver and the stomach have been forced downward, as seen in the cut.

Should anything be done about the unscientific image at tightlacing? TableManners^C·U·T 05:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

We could always use it as a precedent for likewise labelling all creationist images as explicitly "unscientific". ;) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand the concern.--Filll (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume that it really is unscientific, and so I wonder why we need it in the article (which is not about unscientific images). TableManners^C·U·T 14:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well at least in my opinion, I think it gives some valuable information. But if you are concerned, why do you not search for a free image that is scientific that you can replace it with eventually?--Filll (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'll likely raise the issue at the article. TableManners^C·U·T 14:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi

See my last post at RR's talk page (and let's keep discussion centralised there) but based on your last comment to me and that section at Evolution, I suspect I've unwittingly said something that's led everyone to misunderstand what I'm after. --Dweller (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I can well imagine the difficulty in arriving at that section. --Dweller (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC comment

I'm not sure what you mean by scrubbed, or which discussion of controversy has been reduced, but in any case I'm not so sure I like my genuine intentions and considerable effort being traduced as "trouble you caused".

I spend a lot of time at FAC helping articles get to FA and am prepared to go to great lengths with nominators to help them achieve that. Look at the work I put in today over at the Alpha Kappa Alpha article and FAC, for example, or recently with Birmingham campaign. This is not troublemaking. It's doing what we all should be doing - working for the enhancement of the project.

I have no axe to grind here - for comparison, in all honesty, I couldn't care less about some sorority with a silly name - except that I care about Wikipedia.

I'm sorry that I couldn't support what is otherwise an excellent article, but I have a genuine concern, one based firmly on WP:WIAFA and if the experts don't like that, well, I'm sorry about that too. But I'm not causing trouble and categorising my work as such is frankly offensive. --Dweller (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am just observing the situation. Now a long time ago, we had a section like the one you wanted; maybe 6 months ago. This was removed because dozens of people said we should. So we did.

We did have some references to the controversy in a few places with links after that. I thought that was an appropriate level of discussion. It was integrated in with the text, which is according to WP:MOS as you know.

However, by you agitating over and over and over for more, against the wishes of 50 or 100 or even more other editors, this caused the mood to change I notice. In this environment, a single editor cannot dictate to many others in most cases. And this would appear to be one of those cases.

In fact, even the minimal amount we had was removed, the opposite of what you were promoting, and basically a backlash. I do not favor this either; I would have preferred the compromise you were fighting against. But I personally cannot dictate terms to many others either. This is how compromise works.

The lesson is, that sometimes when you want to push against consensus in an aggressive fashion, the results can be somewhat unpredictable. Will it ever go the way you want? I doubt it, but maybe. Will it ever go back to the compromise I favor? I do not know, but maybe. There is something interesting in group dynamics going on here. Just an observation.--Filll (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

A Scientific Law cannot be an Observation

Hi. Just ran across this remarkable statement in the talk section of 'Scientific Law': 'No you are incorrect, according to my reading on this issue at the National Academy of Sciences. A law is not an observation. Sorry.--Filll'

You forgot to tell us what you read from the National Academy of Sciences that caused you to conclude this. Do you still have the reference? Thanks! (Oh, I offered you 47 geological laws in the Talk section, though there are thousands more.)

Geologist (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I am not sure I remember what I read, since that was probably about a year ago, right?§ However, the National Academy of Sciences has several volumes on the nature of science, creationism, evolution etc. They just have a new one out and I have read some of that. They describe what a scientific fact is, and a scientific theory, according to them at least. I do not remember where I read about a scientific law in there, but I guess I did read it. Of course, a scientific law can summarize a bunch of observations, and be some sort of inferred pattern drawn from the observations, so obviously scientific laws can be based on observations, but a single observation probably is not a scientific law, would you say? I will look around and see what I can find. Thanks for the examples. I will look at them.--Filll (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The initial comment made by an anonymous individual stated 'Laws are empirical facts (observations) and are always true to the error of measurement'; to which you replied,

'No you are incorrect, according to my reading on this issue at the National Academy of Sciences. A law is not an observation. Sorry.-'

This paragraph by an anonymous person was a criticism of your second paragraph, which then read

'The concept of a scientific law is closely related to the concept of a scientific theory. Generally, scientific laws are taken to be proven to a degree somewhat beyond a scientific theory that is still under investigation. The word "theory" may sometimes continue to be applied to a law well after the stage in history in which such a principle becomes taken as law among experts in a particular field. Also, some principles that are taken as scientific laws may not even be specifically termed "laws" in every reference to that principle. An example of this is illustrated in referring to the law of gravity, often simply referred to as "gravity", and sometimes also still called the "theory of gravity".'

All of the individual's criticism was correct. Perhaps you should correct your response. Most people have, over the past 150 years, created laws by induction, from 'significant' observations. The person who commented was attempting to correct your statement that 'a scientific law is closely related to the concept of a scientific theory', which it is not. (Popper attempted to prove such inductive reasoning valueless by drawing the generalization that a specific bird dies young from one observation. This was a hollow criticism by Popper, and I assume that's not what you are making above.)

Bridgman classed objective information into observations and measurements, and from logic we know that an equivalence class of observations is always associated with an equivalance relation. By an observation, he or she, and I, clearly mean an equivalence class of observations or an equivalence relation. His criticism is spot on, though I should loosen his definition of a 'law' a bit.

'...but a single observation probably is not a scientific law, would you say?' It's hard to see a pattern from one observation, but it has been done. I'm not referring to Popper's last Enu.

A paper (which I haven't read since the late 60s) both dated the rocks and measured the orientation of their magnetic domains during a deep sea drilling project at the time. The results were displayed on a map of the sea floor that showed magnetic stripes of alternating orientation becoming younger toward the mid-oceanic ridge. From one observation of this map displaying empirical data, one could draw the conclusion that this ocean grew by sea-floor spreading. You may argue that this paper proposed the theory of sea-floor spreading, but one could just as easily label this one empirical observation, at the time, a 'law'. The latter is more attractive when these data are incorporated as several of the axioms in the much broader theory of plate tectonics.

§Perhaps you should have referenced it at the time. Though papers from the NAS are as fine as any, they were written (I believe) to draw attention to topics of a scientific nature the President of the United States and its Congress should be made aware of. It may not be the best practice to rely upon authority rather than history when writing articles. The AAAS, the publisher's of 'Science', are more responsible for keeping scientific methodology acceptable; and they have written several articles & pamphlets on what science is. You should note that the IUGC, the International Union of Geological Sciences has a world-wide committee of the best geologists from most every country currently working on an acceptable classification of metamorphic rocks. Almost every other sentence in its dozen or so papers on this subject is wrong, badly wrong. This is because, like 'scientific law', the fundaments of any subject is most difficult, and few have given it the intense, historical scrutiny it requires.

Geologist (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.

• However, I think we both know that this is a topic that is probably not well established, and is argued over by philosophers of science and others.

The philosophy of science is, but the history of science and even its methodology has a clear consensus. 'Scientific Law' belongs to the latter two and (IMO) hasn't changed much since Francis Bacon and William Whewell. Talk with some historians here on its meaning. Geologist (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Although some people are enamored with Popper, most of his colleagues do not hold him in such high esteem. Having read some of his material, I think he is a bit of a buffoon, who just needlessly obfuscates things.

Everyone I know loves him. I didn't know him personally. However, I've read his 'Logik der Forschung' at least twice. I found his discussion of a line from Poincaré very valuable; but the rest I can't agree with. Geologist (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Claiming the AAAS publications are better than the NAS publications is a bit ...well... that is interesting. Not sure I buy it in all cases.

No one would do that. Geologist (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• When I wrote that article and paragraph, I was new on WP and was a bit sloppy about references and arguments. Sure I should have cited it; I had WP:RS references for that paragraph and claim. I now doubt the claims of those references are uniformly accepted, and I think that the question of what a scientific law is is far more contentious, and something I should have dug into deeper.

No one disagrees about 'scientific laws': the facts are in the literature. There are, however, many kinds. Geologist (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I doubt that Vine and Mathews' observation is uniformly regarded, or could be regarded, as a "scientific law".

Nor I, for the explanation was clear. However, you asked. Geologist (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I find it strange that you want to divide data into "measurements" and "observations". Empirical data is either quantitative or qualitative. Measurements are quantitative data. Empirical data can be observational, or the results of experiments. There are experimental sciences, and observational sciences. However, there is an overlap and some sciences have both observational and experimental components. Some like to distinguish between historical data and historical sciences, and "real time" data, or current data and "real time" sciences and data. However, people who make this last distinction are usually promoting pseudoscience of some form or other.

I couldn't understand any of this paragraph, but the last sentence. However, I can't count the number of paragraphs I've seen personal insults phrased in this manner, the writer cleverly thinking they have avoided libel. Geologist (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I do not put much stock into things that geologists do and say, frankly, particularly as icons of scientific practice. And I will note that Vine and Mathews were not geologists. And neither was Wegner.

Yes, they keep coming up with these pesky predictions of doom. Perhaps your bias explains some of the problems with 'Scientific Laws'. My biases I made clear in my biography. Should you? Geologist (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I want to go back and "correct" my comments from a year ago. They are a record of where I was and what I was thinking about a year ago. And they should be taken in that spirit. I am not involved with the scientific law article at the moment; maybe I will get involved later. At the moment, my plate is full and I will be engaging with other articles for the most part. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Your striking error is only an inch away. Sorry, I didn't see any difference between then and now. Isn't an egalitarian encyclopedia wonderful. 'Scientific Law' reads wonderfully, by the way; you will, I'm sure keep it just as it is.

Thank you. I hadn't meant to correct you publically, just clarify the discussion in 'Scientific Law's Talk. However, I brought the discussion here so as not to point out embarrasing errors publically.

However, when people begin insulting me personally, I know they feel against the wall. I'm not competitive, and I don't feel qualified to write articles. Old scientists don't agree with 'the consensus', and consequently don't write encyclopedias (teachers are an exception, for they must teach the consensus). I have noticed, however, that (like contributors to most articles) you don't just ignore just geologists but anyone who attempts to point you in the right direction. One remark John Kemeny made, when I was at Dartmouth, was that a teacher needs two principal qualifications: first, to know what he's talking about, and second, to know some more.

Among the biases on your biography page, you might include response by personal insult, claiming to have written something different, claiming another to have written something different, and generalizing a personal attack in the hope of avoiding libel. No need to thank me. Geologist (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Final Version

Freely edit the User:Dweller/evol#Final Version. Don't be shy. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You've been quite on this one. I wasn't going to be happy until the number was back. That number was/is a very significant component to the article; which hit me somewhere in your commentaries along the way.--Random Replicator (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It just is valuable for kids to realize that even though half the people in their community feel that evolution is wrong, that most scientists disagree.--Filll (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't jump to conclusions

Please don't assume I'm on some particular side, just because I've disagreed with you somewhere. It's not helpful to productive discussion. I disagree with your comments because I think you've made some errors, as I pointed out. This doesn't mean we have to disagree on everything else, always, from now on. Friday (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Mathew 7:16.--Filll (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we pretend we've said nothing to each other ever, and start over? I'm really struggling to see why we appear to be in such disagreement.. I strongly suspect we're mainly coming from the same place, here. Friday (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. But you have to be aware when you pick a fight, someone might actually fight back instead of letting you kick the crap out of them with impunity. I reserve the right to defend myself. If you do not like that, sorry. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You think I picked a fight? I said you were off base, and I pointed out how, out of your 5 bullet points, one of them was legit, the rest were not. Did I make en error? Do you see how the things you said the article claimed, in some cases, did not match what the article really says? I can spell it out more, if you wish. You said the article asserted that evolution caused the Holocaust. The actual words in the article are "The film also implies that Darwin's theory of evolution was responsible for the Holocaust..." Do you see the difference? Same deal with "Stating blindly that intelligent design is separate from creationism" - the actual article says "However, advocates of intelligent design argue that it is a legitimate scientific theory and is distinct from the concept of creationism." There may well be problems with the article, but some of the problems you pointed to aren't really in there. Friday (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If there are two sides, and you just present one, you are giving undue weight to the side you present. This is contrary to NPOV.--Filll (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, sure, but I don't see how this is relevant to this discussion..? Friday (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You just do not want to let it drop, even when I give you a way out, do you? My goodness. I see why you have made only 1 mainspace edit out of every 7 edits, and have put most of your edits on policy pages and not on doing any real work. Just not really interested in building an encyclopedia are you? You are a professional malcontent and a professional agitator. Very good. I see now. Use your head a little please before you type such nonsense.--Filll (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I resent that- I'm a volunteer malcontent, thankyouverymuch. :) Friday (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, for what it's worth, I agree that the Conservapedia article would be better if it just said "some scientists", not "some atheist scientists". I probably misinterpreted your objection of "labeling scientists as atheists"- I thought you were suggesting that the article implied "scientists are atheists", which it doesn't. So, I think you had a legitimate gripe in 2 of your bullet points, not just 1. Friday (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I'm sorry for personalising the issues involved over the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed article. I know that you're acting in good faith and trying to pursue NPOV, and I hope that you recognise the same of me.

Intelligent people can disagree in good faith about how the NPOV policy should be interpreted and applied to controversial issues. I've done my best to help with the article as far as I can, but I'm going to disengage from the whole thing, since my input evidently isn't wanted or needed.

Re my editcount, you can see from my userpage that I have created or substantially edited several articles, mostly on political matters. I admit, though, that I do tend to be something of a policy addict, and this is probably a flaw. But I have done substantial amounts of mainspace work.

I'm not a scientist, and the whole creation vs. evolution thing is really somewhat over my head. So it was probably a mistake for me to get involved in the first place. But I hope you understand that I was trying to help. Walton^One 22:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That is fine, but you have to realize that for scientists, the entire thing is nonsense, and extremely frustrating. People make the dumbest possible statements, and then defend them to the death with lies.--Filll (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand that. Everyone finds it frustrating if, on a subject in which they have expertise, they see someone making a claim which they believe to be completely misleading, nonsensical, or inconsistent with the evidence. The trouble is, if such claims are published in reliable independent sources, in writing articles we can't just ignore them or attempt to discredit them; all we can do is cite the other side of the argument as well. I edit mainly political articles, and have a strong political viewpoint, so I'm used to having to set aside my own opinion in favour of NPOV. I understand the rules for science articles are a bit different, and I've heard of the long-running debate of NPOV v. SPOV, and the eternal question of how much weight we should give to non-scientists' published views on scientific issues. I don't really know how to handle such things, hence why it was a mistake for me to get involved in this particular debate.

I should also make clear that, although I edit on Conservapedia, I am not a supporter of intelligent design, nor am I a religious fundamentalist. Indeed, Conservapedia's rules often frustrate me (just as Wikipedia's rules do, but for different reasons). But I don't see anything wrong with editing both encyclopedias and trying to make them both as good as possible, insofar as I can. Walton^One 08:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

On science and fringe theories

Hey, I saw your note on the arbitration page. I agree that people pushing fringe nonsense on Wikipedia is a problem. However, there's something you should know- you yourself are probably sometimes making this problem worse rather than better. You probably think "hell no, I do the opposite". Well, your combative tendencies are likely to chase away otherwise useful contributors. You proved difficult to work with, in my opinion, just yesterday, and looking around, I see that this is far from the only time this has been an issue. I honestly appreciate what you're trying to do, but I think you'd be much more effective at it if you treated other editors as colleagues to be collaborated with, rather than enemies to be defeated. By all means, go ahead and shun the nonsense-merchants, if it comes to that, but please take care not to poison our editing environment. Friday (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If I chase away WP:FRINGE elements, that is not the worst crime imaginable. It is not my goal, but frankly if you are trying to maintain some toehold for science in the articles on creationism and the creation-evolution controversy, one cannot be gentle or there will be no science in Wikipedia. Period. It will collapse into a pile of woo. We deal with people with 10 or 20 or 100 sock puppets. We deal with organized campaigns of meat puppets. Our adversaries spend several million dollars a year to push nonsense and create a theocracy in the United States. For some examples, take a look at [5]. On these articles we deal with one or two new sock puppets or other POV warriors every day. It consumes endless amounts of time and energy to slow them down. And in my opinion, and that of the entire scientific community, they should be slowed down, and if they are driven off in the process, well that is just too bad, isnt it? These people are the closest thing to unadulterated evil walking the earth, and I do not feel too bad about exposing them and their agendas.--Filll (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

We can create an inhospitable environment for kooks and POV pushers, without creating an inhospitable environment for reasonable editors. It's against the "wiki way", but I'd rather see the articles protected most of the time, than see us chasing off whoever dares to try to contribute. (When push comes to shove, having high quality content is, of course, more important than following the "wiki way".) Maybe there are other ways to deal with this too. Anyway, I just wanted to express my concerns, because despite our disagreement, I can see that you're clearly trying to do the right thing. I have reservations about some of your methods, because I see that you've sometimes made an unfriendly environment for reasonable editors, not just kooks. Friday (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we view things differently. Let me follow you around and find some article in which you are an expert, and then declare that some right wing blog or left wing blog has the right version of the same topic, and everything you have written here on the subject is completely wrong and a load of crap and that you are a jerk and biased and not following the rules. And see how you like it. Let me attack you over and over and over and see how you like it. Let me back a few crazy POV FRINGE elements that are opposing you on some issue. Oh yes, that might give you a taste of reality. So I am sorry if you are offended, but if you kick me in the nuts, and I am going to protect myself. Sorry if that offends you.--Filll (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You appear to take things very personally- and that's part of the problem. Wikipedia needs defenders, certainly, but we can fend off problem editors without becoming problem editors ourselves. It may not be easy, but it's what we should strive to do. Friday (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem editors are in the eye of the beholder. I view you as a problem editor, at least on that article. And I suspect I am not alone.--Filll (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If this is true, don't you think it's appropriate to tell me why you came to this conclusion?!? Editors must give each other useful feedback- that's how the system works. So far you've mostly given me insults, assumptions that I'm pushing some agenda, and statements that you don't like my edit count. These are not reasonable ways to disagree. When I've tried to keep us on topic, you've wandered off into irrelevancies. Until you fill me in, the best I can come up with is that you see me a problem because I disagreed with you. This is exactly the kind of unhelpful attitude I was talking about. I appreciate that you've had to deal with problematic editors, but don't you think it's possible this has tainted your perceptions, and now you're seeing enemies where they don't exist? Is there any way I can convince you to tone it back a notch or two? Friday (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Look I can spend 10 hours blasting the hell out of you and showing you how wrong you are. But that is a waste of time. You took the side of another editor pushing a POV approach to an article on Wikipedia, and made basically silly arguments why Conservapedia is less POV than Wikipedia. Even Raul agreed with me. I think that should be enough and I do not care to try to teach you what NPOV means, at least in this area on WP.--Filll (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Oh oh, you two are entering the Wiki vortex of lameness. I've seen both of you around Wikipedia and both of you are really good editors. All I can suggest is to avoid assuming too much about the other editor; especially motivations. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Creationism subpage

Hey Filll - I took a look at your anticreationism subpage and I must say that I liked it. Quite intriguing. I didn't agree, but I liked it. It was more philosophical than anything else, and that's what our personal positions about these sorts of things ought to be. What's your opinion of my philosophical basis for my position? "Didn't agree but sounds reasonable"? "Didn't agree and sounds dopey"? "Strongly disagree and advocate immediate removal of editor to a mental institution"? Just fishing for feedback. standonbible^(Talk)_{Assume good faith and stay neutral!} 19:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As I have said many times, I have no problem with someone who wants to hold these views. I do have a problem with someone who wants to impose them on others, particularly by force, as many in the "Christian" or "Muslim" communities seem to want to do, sometimes at odds with the tenets of their own faiths (The golden rule, or examples about Pharisees, or the Koranic "no compulsion in religion" etc).

The age of the earth is consistent across 100s of different dating techniques. But a simple one that people have trouble with is counting coral rings back millions of years, like tree rings. If the earth is young in spite of this, we are lead inexorably to the philosophical morass of the omphalos hypothesis.

The arguments about information are silly because they are invariably made by people who have not studied information theory, or applied mathematics, or numerical analysis, or even know what information is. Did you know that it is common in numerical analysis to use techniques that are essentially evolution to solve all kinds of important problems? Even google uses something that is akin to evolution to find websites for you. This is just an argument put forward by people who know very little I am afraid.

People who claim that the universe cannot be the product of chance know almost no science. All our understanding of the sciences is replete with stochastic processes of various sorts. Even the colors around us are because of "random" events. This is just nonsense spewed by people who have no idea what science is, or nature is or what they are observing with their own eyes.

To have to debate with people who know very little about this just is silly after a while. You are free to deny the mountains of evidence. But do not force others to deny the evidence as well.

On the existence of a higher power; one might exist, and we might even have evidence for one eventually. But it will not be through the juvenile attempts of something like the Discovery Institute.--Filll (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The odd thing is not those who know nothing about science. Medical doctors who profess creationist beliefs but battle ‘new’ bacteria, viruses, prions, etc. always amaze me. Of all the sciences, I believe poll numbers show the greatest proportion of creationists can be found amongst the medical professions. It is very strange. Keep up the good fight Filll. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I'm surprised, I thought you were better informed on the "mountains of evidence" than that. :) Yes, marine biologists discovered that coral contains growth rings, like those of a tree. A study by the Australian Institute of Marine Science around 1985 found a connection between coral growth rates and seasonal freshwater run-off or floods from nearby land.

From strongly correlated historical records of river run-off and flooding, the researchers determined that the coral colony in question had taken only 118 years to grow 1.8 m (6 ft). This gave them a new method for determining the age of all reefs that make up Australia's Great Barrier Reef. Based on this methodology, the outer barrier reefs (those furthest from the Australian coast and in the deepest water), which are about 55 m (180 ft) thick, would be less than 3,700 years old - not millions of years old as has been believed.

Then in 2001, researchers drilling into Australia's Great Barrier Reef debunked the accepted view that the reef is at least 20 million years old, saying that sediments recovered from the boreholes suggest the reef started to form about 600,000 years ago. The researchers now suspect that reefs worldwide may all date back to a "global reef initiation event" (LOL). They surmise that as water flooded into the oceans from melting glaciers, rising sea levels provided an opportunity for substantial upwards coral growth.

If the previously-accepted age of 20 million years can so readily be trimmed by 97%, can the present estimate of 600,000 years be considered any more reliable?

Though their age estimate is questionable, the "global reef initiation event" idea certainly seems to have merit. If there were, say, a global flood of some sort... well, as the Earth began to stabilize afterwards, coral reefs fringing the new land masses would have begun to appear. The spectacularly tall growth of many coral formations around the world would then fit rather nicely with creationist dates for the Ice Age and a subsequent rise in sea level.

But I'm just speculating, of course. :) Goo2you (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

First, let me state that you are free to believe any nonsense and pseudoscience you like. However, you are not allowed to try to impose your ignorance by force on others. Do you understand that?

But let me ask, do you believe that this mechanism operates worldwide for every set of coral rings everywhere on the planet? And that it is just some sort of miracle (or the work of the devil) that the radioactive dates for the coral layers agree with the dates from rings? And what about the radioactive dates agreeing with dendochronologies? And what about layers of snow? And benthic sediments? And their agreement with other dating techniques? And racemization dating techniques? And magnetization dating techniques? And techniques based on comparing Vine and Mathews stripes with other remnant magnetization dates and radioactive dates? And agreement with other sedminentation rates? And limnological measurements? Why would literally 100s of techniques of dating, all based on different physics and chemistry, all agree? Maybe some conspiracy of evil atheists? Tens of thousands of people secretly working for the devil? Omphalos theory anyone?

Look, go ahead and believe what you want. I know you will anyway. But if you want to attack others and impose your "breathtakingly inane" ignorant views on others in a jack-booted, anti-science fascist manner by force, then there will be trouble. So, consider yourself warned.--Filll (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"Attack others and impose your... views on others in a jack-booted, anti-science fascist manner"? Isn't that what "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" is about? :)

I guess I really am dense - I didn't see any actual answer to the information I provided on coral rings above. Why exactly should I respond to you in detail if you can't respond to one or two simple things I gently nudge you with first? :) Goo2you (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually if you look into the cases we know about, nothing happened to any of them that was unusual or harsh, especially compared to what happened to Christine Comer, who even personally believes in intelligent design, but the thugs associated with intelligent design and creationism eliminated her anyway. Isn't that nice? I will not bother responding to tons of nonsense that makes zero sense. There is a reason over 99.99% of all scientists dismiss this stuff as nonsense, You are free to believe it if you want, but it is just horse manure.--Filll (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Goo2you, regarding your comment above starting with "I guess I really am dense", must agree with you in that given no detailed answer to your bizarre assertions, you shouldn't respond to Filll. While I look forward to not hearing from you, it's interesting to note that the article you link states that "The Reef Research Centre, a Cooperative Research Centre, has found coral 'skeleton' deposits that date back half a million years.[19]The GBRMPA considers the earliest evidence to suggest complete reef structures to have been 600,000 years ago.[20]" so no doubt you'll want to rush to put forward any reliable sources you have for your assertions on the talk page of that article. Can't guarantee they'll be welcome, .. dave souza, talk 22:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Y'all have fun! :) Goo2you (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

dubious

It started out as a general statement to draw attention to the controversy that the book created. Then somewhere along the way there was a need for more detail to be more accurate which lead to a need to more detail ... I'm thinking delete the passage completely. It was just stuck in there between Coronas any way. We added the section that follows recently and it more than does the job don't ya think I really don't want any more raging debates! --Random Replicator (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

We have to remember what the purpose of this article is. There are thousands of other articles here to explore the important details. This article is to get beginners up to speed so they can read those other articles.--Filll (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've chewed my tongue off and its laying on the floor --- but I will heed your advice and hope that Wassupwestcoast will do the same. --Random Replicator (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see also

Please see Constructive criticism to the Introduction to evolution article. TableManners^C·U·T 05:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to Philcha on Talk:Evolution

I know you deal with a lot of idiots, and I am grateful for you acting as a "creationist crap filter" on so many article and keeping their antics to a minimum, but Philcha appears to be a serious editor with no ideological axe to grind. Your response seemed pretty disproportionate and needlessly insulting, maybe you could modify it a little? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Tim Vickers (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Signatories

1. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Endorse: Gamers of the system - it's time to go... Shot info (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Filll (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Time to stop this gaming of the system. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Endorse. Horologium (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Endorse. Skinwalker (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Neıl ☎ 00:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Works for me. •Jim62sch• 00:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Absolutely. BLACKKITE 01:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Enough is enough. An arbcom case and an RfC are already in progress, so what the heck could the purpose of this be other than to harass? Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Endorse. Vexatious litigation here needs to end. It is an extreme abuse of the system made by tendentious editors. -- Fyslee / talk 03:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
12. I don't know anything about Abridged, but I've seen enough on Whig to convince me that it's time for a ban. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Endorse ban on Whig only, though for rather more reasons than the above. I'll open an RfC on him. - I've given evidence on the talk page, most notably, he was warned for forcing out offense not that long ago in the other RfC. Adam Cuerden^talk 05:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Comment: Whig and Abridged don't deserve to be banned for going through official channels. I don't agree with the timing of this RFC but that should not get them banned. It maybe a convenient way to remove one side of the homeopath POV but no matter how frustrating you find them this is not the right way to do it. David D. (Talk) 04:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

1. David D. I have no objections to Peter Morrell, even though Peter has had some administrative actions against him and Peter has the opposite POV than Adam and I do on homeopathy. The difference is, Peter is productive, and Peter has made an effort to work with others and to understand and accomodate WP:NPOV requirements.
2. This has nothing to do with POV. It does not really have that much to do with civility, since Peter is not always civil. It has everything to do with disruption, and disruption by unproductive elements. I am far more willing to tolerate disruption from productive editors than unproductive editors.--Filll (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Comment: I've expressed my disagreement with the proposed ban of Abridged, repetitively, on the talk page of the RFC. I am in complete agreement with David D. Lara❤Love 05:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Endorse a ban of Whig and Abridged to end the disruptive sniping and biting of someone who is already being dealt with by the arbcom. Their action with this filing is no more civil than poking a caged animal with a stick. The only question for me is how long is an appropriate period.FeloniousMonk (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Per FM, I endorse the idea of a ban. The question would be - for how long? Guettarda (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Selective endorse with a view to Filll's comments regarding to whom it should apply. Orderinchaos 23:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)