User talk:Filll

Archives

Barnstars
Mainpage
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Information

Articles planned

Norman H. Horowitz Caltech biology professor

Projects underway

Objections to evolution drafts
- falsifiability
- Evolution as theory and fact rewrite
- evolution as religion draft
- Level of support for creationism Name controversy
- History of evolution additions
Evolution Discussions

Articles in need of help

Pain scale, Dol, Dolorimeter, Stress (medicine), Post traumatic stress disorder, Hans Selye

A war on science

Hi, just noticed your comment at Talk:Creation-evolution controversy#Johnson in A War on Science: have you any links to the Regents Lecture right after he published his book "Darwin on Trial"? My curiosity is piqued, though I've not really got the time to get really expert on the ghastly subject. While the BBC documentary didn't hammer home Johnson as a liar, to me that brief section is shockingly candid in setting out the aim to subvert science. But no doubt you chappies hear that sort of thing all the time – I'm not sure if I've ever met a creationist, thought when two Jehovah's Witnesses came to the door I shocked them by not slamming the door on their toes, and instead asked what they thought about evolution. We had a nice chat, and they didn't seem very sure though one of them thought human's weren't descended from lesser creatures. The other pointed out that science didn't explain where it all came from, then when asked if he knew where God came from he amiably acknowledged the point that it was the same problem moved back one, and they parted amicably. They just didn't seem very clued up about it, but to be fair the sort of behaviour you seem to have come across would not get them far in Scotland. However no doubt creationists are about somewhere, trying to subvert science.. . dave souza, talk 21:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look here for Regents Lecture:

Darwinism on Trial. Address at University of California, Irvine, 1992--Filll 03:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the monkey song, at 2 minutes into A War on Science someone says "the monkey song, I don't know what else to call it" and as a school bus goes along a country road, children's voices sing "I'm no kin to a monkey on a rope, a monkey's no kin to me tada da" etc. A catchy piece of daft propaganda. .. dave souza, talk 00:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I was from the UK, I would not be too smug. Look at Truth in Science for example.--Filll 03:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Dave should meet Dr. Monty White; the UK's version of Ken Ham. [1] The zealots are global. --Random Replicator 15:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answers in Genesis started in Queensland, Australia. George McCready Price was Canadian. And so on...--Filll 15:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, to clarify I didn't mean to imply they're entirely absent here – the Time ed supp reports there's even one lecturing at Glasgow uni, and UK unis are starting to introduce compulsory lectures on creationism and intelligent design into zoology and genetics courses. And we're getting a Ken Ham tour round Scottish cities, but don't think I'll be going along. There's a modern church hall / cafe / bookshop in Greenock, and a while ago I admired but failed to purchase for our boy a "how the dinosaurs fitted on the ark" children's book. However, if I remember your account correctly, having a work colleague go in the huff because you're insufficiently creationist would be considered astonishing anywhere I've worked. Mind you, there haven't even been open conflicts about more serious religious issues, such as Rangers FC versus Celtic FC. Is Glasgow the only city where the Orangemen wear blue? ... dave souza, talk 16:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what "having a work colleague go in the huff because you're insufficiently creationist" means. Isn't English wonderful? So many regionalisms.--Filll 16:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, just a vague memory of you telling the tale of some female at work getting upset at you and refusing to speak to you after you'd defended evolution, or something along those lines. If my memory's at fault, my apologies. Don't know if you read the LA Times, but this article from Feb 12th caught my eye, and wow that's scary. Puts me in mind to try looking for some local creationists to chat to, but not sure where I'd find any around here. Terribly un-British to discuss religion. ... dave souza, talk 21:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An absolutely amazing webpage

"Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution, ignorance is", John Stear, No Answers in Genesis

--Filll 21:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to drive yourself crazy reading this garbage. But of course I read it. Orangemarlin 22:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just about died laughing reading it. But it is like crack or crystal meth. It will rot your brain.--Filll 22:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the whole website is very well done. I just don't get Creationists. Orangemarlin 23:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The truth about Genesis and the origin of life

You have to read this one:

[2]

--Filll 03:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict thesis

I'm not a philosopher (and I really don't play one on TV). You're the scientist, so what is this about? Is this a crazy article, or is it really a philosophy? Orangemarlin 17:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not philosopher either, and there is an awful lot of this kind of stuff here, that is for sure. Seems like too much to me.--Filll 17:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creation according to Genesis

Huh???? I was just walking through Wikipedia, trying to confirm whether I really believe that this encyclopedia is Christian biased, and I'm beginning to be convinced. This article is a travesty! It's not encylopedic, it's unbalanced, and it doesn't even pretend to bring in a literal viewpoint of Genesis. This is frustrating. Orangemarlin 17:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing discussion

You have to go see this section and read all the links. Incredible!--Filll 01:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baraminology

Ye might like this Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now with a sequel. I've also used my research on this to update the article, using only things they say themselves. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help required on Edison

We have a big vandalism problem at Edison.--Filll 19:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page is currently semi-protected, so you're seeing a problem with a user that is already autoconfirmed (i.e., has an account that is at least four days old). The best thing to would be to is politely tell the user that he/she is editing nonconstructively; you may use lower levels of warning templates if you wish, then progressing to higher ones. I see that the issue is somewhat resolved... good luck working on the article, then :) Gracenotes^T § 20:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, it's possible that you know all or most of this, but I hope that this helps in some way, at least. Gracenotes^T § 20:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the physics rewrite...

Just FYI, since you've been concerned with non-expert perceptions of articles in the past, a smart non-physicist has offered some comments on the current state of the rewrite at Talk:Physics/wip. Opabinia regalis 03:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there...treasure ships were real

These religious fundies say the darnest things. :) I'm not sure your controversy over the Zheng He treasure fleet is. There are numerous documentation that the treasure ships were up to and over 350-400 feet. Discuss.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Treasure_ship#Factual_dispute

Here is a Natl Geographic documentary that deals with the facts of the Zheng He Fleet, and the unsubstantiated idea proposed by Gavin Menze's 1421 idea. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOXeWmQz8DU&mode=related&search=

-intranetusa

Treasure ships were real, so what's your counterpoint?

Yes, considering they found massive dry docks and massive rudder posts, along with the historical textual evidence (in China, India, and the Arabian ports the fleet visited), yes I can say the treasure ships were real Btw, they found the rotted parts of a gigantic wooden palace-barge built by a Roman emperor. So what's so hard to believe about treasure ships? The evidence is there.

-intranetusa

We will never be able to show this conclusively for sure. But the largest Roman ship we have recovered is a good 25% shorter than the 450 foot treasure ships (and barely half the length of the putative 600 foot treasure ships), and it is not clear that this roman ship was used to make a long voyage in the open ocean. Take a look at some of the big wooden ships at List of world's largest wooden ships.--Filll 00:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"But the largest Roman ship we have recovered is a good 25% shorter than the 450 foot treasure ships (and barely half the length of the putative 600 foot treasure ships), and it is not clear that this roman ship was used to make a long voyage in the open ocean. Take "

Yes, but the treasure ships were built in the 15th century. Also, The largest Roman ship was "supposedly" the Caligula's palace barge, which was just suppose to float on a lake. Ocean going vessels such as treasure ships certainly could have been bigger, with a steeper draft. Yes, I've already looked at that wiki topic. That was one of the topics where I responded to your post. What I find funny about the article is that they lumped Treasure ships with Noah's ark, Syracusa, and Isis - when Isis, Syracusa, and Noah's ark have no shred of physical evidence whatsoever except "testimony."

-intranetusa

PS: Even if we dispute the size of the treasure ships, at least it is confirmed that Zheng He did make diplomatic journeys all the way to eastern Africa.

We have no reason to believe that the Zeng He treasure ships were any more real than any other purported ships for which people make claims of immense size. There are some documents with doubtful measurements that refer to the Zeng He ships, but many of the claims about the Zeng He expeditions are very hard to swallow, frankly. They might be true, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as they say. Where is the clear physical evidence that is unequivocal and beyond dispute in the case of the Zeng He treasure ships? It really does not exist. There are no physical hulls that still exist. At least the Caligula palace barge and other large ships were dug up out of the mud, so we know they existed. In the case of the Zeng He treasure ships, a few timbers found in the mud and some claims that mud flats contained dry docks of immense size at one time really do not cut it. Show me a long keel. Show me a buried hull. Show me something more substantial, and you might have a case. Without physical evidence, it is very hard to say anything conclusive that supports these incredible sizes. I am not even sure how well confirmed the diplomatic journeys are, or on the size of the expedition. This might have happened, but it is tough to give it much credence with our evidence at this time, as near as I can tell. Sorry.--Filll 18:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous sources, ranging from the National Geographic to the History Channel to USNews to the Economist, all featured articles regarding the treasure ships of Zheng He (size ~400). There is no treasure ship remains because the treasure ships were ordered to be burned. However, they did find massive dry docks that would've been used to create ships of immense size, and a 12 or 15+ foot stern post rudder. However, you're still correct that we have no direct physical evidence of the ship's size, so the size is still up for debate.

"I am not even sure how well confirmed the diplomatic journeys are, or on the size of the expedition. "

The diplomatic journeys themselves are well confirmed by direct and indirect evidence. Ranging from historical documents (from the kingdoms of India, Arabia, etc) to Ming porcelain & other goods. Also, I'm sure you've already seen the Ming painting of the man with the giraffe from Africa... Intranetusa (Talk) ?, March 2007 (UTC)

PS: Here's an interesting article (skeptical, neutral viewpoint): http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sultan/archeology2.html

But we get back to the fact that it is not verifiable. Unless the Chinese had some miracle materials (and verifiability doesn't do so well with miracles), it is just not possible to build wooden ships over a certain size. The problem is that there is just no evidence available, even written ones. Every culture brags about having the best and the biggest, but we need to see it. I think this is a myth, but I don't have any proof either. But my job is not to prove the negative (that they never existed), the burden of proof lies with those that think they existed. Orangemarlin 05:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

" it is just not possible to build wooden ships over a certain size." They addressed this point with features such as separate bulkheads.

"Every culture brags about having the best and the biggest" Not exactly. The treasure ships are actually not very well known and the claim that the Ming treasure ships are 400+ ft are Ming historical records.

"The problem is that there is just no evidence available, even written ones. " Actually, there are plenty of written evidence. Just do a quick google search and you'll get millions of hits. The problem is that there is no direct physical evidence. Intranetusa (Talk) 20:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely correct. It is hard to know how to evaluate these claims with no good direct physical evidence. So it is somewhat of an interesting mystery. However, our more modern and well-documented experiences with large wooden ships gives us a bit of pause with these claims of incredibly large ancient wooden vessels. That does not mean they did not exist, and that the claims in the documents are not correct. However, it does mean that the claims have to be ascribed a lower reliability than if we had better evidence. And for me, I would have to rate the probability of these incredibly large wooden treasure ships as quite low.--Filll 20:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The measurements come from Ming dynasty historical documents.

Actually, some time ago a mast was discovered in the ancient Nanjing shipyards (where Zheng He's ships were built) which was consistent with the stated sizes of the Treasure Ships. However conclusive physical evidence, in the form of a sunken ship etc, is, as you say, lacking. --Sumple (Talk) 00:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not able to find any material about a large mast recovered from archaeology from the Zeng He shipyards. However, I am not particularly convinced that a tall mast would necessarily prove that there were 450+ foot long 9 masted treasure ships being constructed for deep ocean expeditions (some have even suggested that there were treasure ships that were 600 feet long). A calmer analysis is provided by the article at [3] which relies heavily on assorted Chinese sources and scholarship. It appears more likely that any larger ships were more like barges for river travel only. It also appears that the length of the shipyards do not suggest long ships, but facilities for constructing many shorter vessels side-by-side.--Filll 20:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(cross-posted from User talk:Intranetusa)

Hi, the info comes from Ray Huang's Macrohistory of China. On checking it up, it wasn't a mast, but the rudder. In the Chinese version, the sentences are on pp 185-186. He also mentions that the largest boats were 440 feet long and 186 feet wide, and the smaller ones were 370 feet long and 150 feet wide. He mentions that these giant ships are found in books but not in physical specimens.

IMO, Ray Huang is sufficiently established as an authority on Ming-dynasty China for referencing. But if you are planning to reference this, the (original) English version might be more suitable. Citation: China: A Macro History. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1988. 277 pp. ISBN 0-87332-452-8. --Sumple (Talk) 02:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, --Sumple (Talk) 00:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you review

I see you are also interested in Natan Slifkin. Please review these articles, because I have run up against an intransigent editor:

Perhaps you could also review the changes the same editor has made to Natan Slifkin. He does not come from the Jewish perspective, and he seems to be following me around and looking for ways to harass me.

Now here is an amazing coincidence. I see that you had planned to start an article on the Caltech biologist Norman Horowitz. I started one several weeks ago! He was one of my Dad's favorite teachers. I met him as a child. I was planning to add an additional paragraph and some references about his work on sidophores, but you are probably much more knowledegeable about that. --Metzenberg 04:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at your Norman Horowitz article. I did not get much beyond the information collection stage, so I might not be able to add much. I will look at your other articles too and see what I can do, but it can be very difficult to deal with a disruptive editor I am afraid.--Filll 20:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really need your help here. ZayZayEM is engaging in troll-like behavior, such as making edits on the very materials I am editing, removing materials immediately after I add them, and so forth. It is a harassment pattern that extends across multiple articles. The main articles involved are:

* Jewish reactions to intelligent design

* Jewish opposition to evolution

* Natan Slifkin

It is bizarre behavior, because I can see no reason why he is even interested in this material. As you and I both know, it is material you have to really understand well to edit. Over the last week, I have substantially rearranged all the materials on Judaism and evolution in an effort to clean up the main Judaism and Evolution page first of all, so that it can be turned into a page that is not dominated by issues (such as the Slifkin affair) that would have undue weight. ZayZayEM has simply made it impossible for me to work. He has followed me from one article to another, demanding arbitrary changes. many of his edits, and his changes, show that he knows very little about the subject, which as you and I both know, is quite abstruse at times. --Metzenberg 16:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit

Filll, this one is a real irritation: Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit. Consist of a lengthy discussion of the "God Delusion". Basically a series of book reviews hand picked to condemn Dawkins. But the part that really got me was the side article created on H. Allen Orr. A brief statement of who he is then an epistle on his "book review" of the God Delusion.

It is an encyclopedia not a forum for exposing your world views... the primary contributor seems to have forgotten this: BNeal, I stumbled across this on a discussion page

"Hi Pastordavid. Re your 747 vote, you might want to know that I am a strong theist (and run John Polkinghorne's web presence) and the reason I think the 747 Gambit should be kept is that it is a very bad argument which has been rightly criticized by notable commentators, even some sympathetic to Dawkins. The people who want it deleted are Dawkins supporters who want to shield their Guru from criticism. If that encourages you to change your vote I'd be very grateful, though of course it's your decision. NBeale 00:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)"

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pastordavid"

Thought you might be interested.

The evolution intro is withstanding the test of time ... I assume a hallmark of a solid article. Some rather big guns have protected it ... so it must be passing muster.

I have been following some of your “discussions” … you are ruthlessly efficient with the written word. It is like reading a good book. You have become somewhat legendary among my 'gifted' students who pop in and out on the evolution page. --Random Replicator 22:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I have not been as active lately. I think Dawkins is a bit too aggressive for my taste, but they sure do like to attack him. I think his views should be presented fairly, at a minimum. Glad to hear your students like to see me rip one or two of these luddites and flat-earthers a new one from time to time. Some of these guys definitely deserve it.--Filll 00:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fill please note this: The 747 Myth. Orangemarlin 23:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution Controversy

Your input would be appreciated at Talk:Evolution#Controversy (2) and Talk:Evolution/WIP. Thanks! Gnixon 18:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite of Genetics

I noticed you had a lot of criticisms of the Genetics article. I've rewritten it, let me know what you think. I also rewrote the history section of the article. -Madeleine 23:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help with EB?

Hi Filll,

How've you been? We haven't crossed paths lately. :( You especially might be interested in the equipartition theorem article that I've been fixing up the past few days.

I have a more important favor to ask of you, though. I've been working pretty diligently on the Encyclopædia Britannica article, which is now a featured article candidate. It's received a few excellent reviews, but overall surprisingly little attention. Could you maybe look it over and think up ways of improving it? Thanks muchly! :) Willow 22:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am reading through it and I see a few places where I might have a suggestion or two for you :). A list will be forthcoming.--Filll 00:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Filll, you're great! :) I've got to run now, though, so don't be surprised if I don't answer right away. Talk to you soon, Willow 01:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still working on it!--Filll 19:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refeature Evolution

Do you think Evolution is ready to be re-featured? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would check with User:Silence.--Filll 19:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An outrageous set of religious videos

Just take a look at [4].--Filll 14:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO! I especially enjoyed the bit that compared Merv Griffin to Pol Pot. Thanks for posting that link! PS - I'm glad to hear that you stepped away from the article Black people...I'm afraid it's a lost cause. Besides, kicking ass on neo-Nazis is even more entertaining : ) Doc Tropics 17:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complexity

Hi there. There is a lot written on this topic, which is why I think Silence's resistance to discussing it is unwise. However, I'm trying to stick to the peer-reviewed sources and academic reviews, otherwise we could have a lot of dubious stuff added to the article. TimVickers 22:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An example of what I find so disturbing about the religious right

Just watch this one: [5]--Filll 17:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I remember why I stopped going to church. Wikidan829 17:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Intelligent Design

I'll work on the article, but I think you need to pick up Chapman's book, 40 days and 40 nights about the Kitzmiller case. I think you'll find more references to this issue. Orangemarlin 01:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution FAC

As a contributor the the FAR discussion, your input to this FA nomination would be much appreciated. Thanks. TimVickers 19:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of participants in the creation-evolution controversy

This article became totally polluted and still needs to be worked on and watched.--Filll 15:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gnomes

	Gnomes, unite!
File:P1000744.jpg	Hello, Filll! You are invited to participate in Gnome Week, a mass article cleanup drive between June 21 and June 28, 2007.
	This week, backlogs will be cleared. Articles will be polished. Typos will be fixed. Bad prose will be edited. Unreferenced articles will be sourced. No article will be safe from our reach! The more people who participate, the better Wikipedia will become as a result.
	I would love it if you would participate! - Orangemarlin
Edit message

I am chipping away at a few of these articles. Some of them are in awful shape and have been in awful shape for several years.--Filll 14:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few articles I hopefully have helped include Adjaran, Anastenaria, Ackley, Iowa, Giant Drop (drop tower), Sauerkraut Days (disambiguation), Sauerkraut Days, Henderson, Minnesota, List of Iowa railroads, Fifty50, Parcent, Alive Bible Club, Hans Ragnemalm, Finnish language, Sinitta, Atkinson index, bolster, Chiastic structure, Dalida, Sir J.J. Institute of Applied Art, Saint Irene etc.--Filll 16:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, about Rapid-Decay theory and Baraminology...

I haven't been following Creationism pages that closely, but I was under the impression that all articles already in Category:Creation Science wern't supposed to also be in Category:Pseudoscience because of redundancy, since the Creation Science category itself is in Category:Pseudoscience. Just wondering if something has changed is all. Homestarmy 18:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I will follow consensus, whatever that is. Point me to the place where this was decided.--Filll 18:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is "Creation Science" supposed to mean? Wikidan829 18:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well creation science is a type of pseudoscience where supposedly scientific methods are used to "prove" the literal truth of the bible, including the formation of the earth in 4004 BC.--Filll 18:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I suppose God put light in motion to deceive us into thinking the universe is really millions of years old too ;) Wikidan829 18:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Filll, think about it, there's a whole slew of editors who watch the pages you added the pseudoscience category to, and a great many of them who would agree that all Creation Science and most anything it is related to would be categorized as pseudoscience, so why wasn't the category already on those pages? The person removing the category on Baraminology for example seemed to think it was redundant too [6] because Creation Science is already in a sub-cat, but i'm not that familiar with how category policy works, the person who removed the category seemed to of left a reason for it on This talk page, it might of been some reorganization thing from the looks of it. Homestarmy 19:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are some of the topics in both the creation science category and the pseudophysics category, which is a subcategory of the pseudoscience category?--Filll 19:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I don't know much about how Category policy works concerning this, (The only thing I absolutly remember is that articles aren't really supposed to have any categories in them who's placement on an article is disputed, but as you may of noticed, some categories seem mysteriously immune to that part of the guideline) i'm just saying what I know :/. Offhand, maybe pseudophysics isn't as disorganized as the pseudoscience category was, or maybe nobody is taking care of the pseudophysics category as much. Homestarmy 19:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Hi,

Though I totally understand your frustration regarding the creationist viewpoint and intellectual cheating, edits like this one aren't really in keeping with the civility policy or the 'no using talk pages for a forum' either. We'll have to keep destroying the creationist arguments with reliable sources rather than wit.

WLU 15:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EMSP

Filll, I'd suggest not bothering with him anymore -- trying to reason with him is like trying to perform dentistry on a chicken. Jim62sch 22:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have come to the same conclusion. He does not make any sense. Oh well.--Filll 22:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionism

I'm surprised I didn't see your name in these edits. This article is a travesty of POV. Orangemarlin 16:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a piece of slop. I started editing, but it needs almost a complete rewrite. Jim62sch 22:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have chopped away at it some, but every time I look at it, it looks worse than before. I do not know how this piece of trash grew right under our noses. Now it is a huge mess and has to be cleaned up. Ugh.--Filll 20:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how we all missed it either, but we did. I'm not so sure we wouldn't be better off reverting back to this version [7] Jim62sch 20:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, how do we catch this crap in the future? I found it completely by chance, but that's not going to help. It was an old article too. Orangemarlin 01:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teach Both Theories

Teach Both Theories--Filll 21:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love it!!!! Orangemarlin 23:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

You've started a lot of articles, some of which deserve to be GA's. Maybe one or two an FA. One thing frustrates me about your articles is that you don't use standard wiki referencing. Go to WP:CITET, and give it a read. It's kind of difficult at first, but now I have all the coding memorized. It standardizes everything, makes it easy to click on links, and gets rid of odd numbering, where a reference will have a reference within it. I want to tackle some of your articles, but that's a lot of work, so i would like you to start out clean. Just a suggestion. At least I'm not asking you to say only 2% of mainstream scientists believe in the tooth fairy. Orangemarlin 23:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I keep meaning to learn about Harvard referencing or some other method of referencing. I will get around to it, I promise. For the moment, I am just making articles, or moving some very crude stubs towards real articles. I do mean to go back and push a few of these towards GA or FA status at some point, however. --Filll 23:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need assistance

I am looking for help!
Ask your question below. You can also check Help:Contents and the FAQ, or ask at the Help desk or the Teahouse.
Users who monitor the category Wikipedians looking for help and those in Wikipedia's Live Help have been alerted and will assist you shortly. You can also join the chat room to receive live Wikipedia-related help there. You'll be receiving help soon, so don't worry.
Note to helpers: Once you have offered help, please nullify the template using {{Tl}} or similar, replace with {{Help me-helped}}, or where {{Help me|question}} was used, use {{Tlp}}/{{Tnull}}

User Yqbd might need a block for violating the 3RR rule. He has been uncivil, and has just deleted any warning on his page and copied them back on my page, as can be seen above. He has been warned a total of 7 times on his talk page, several times in the edit summaries of various pages, as well as on talk pages of the articles in question. I do not think he is understanding the consequences of such aggressive behavior. Thank you.--Filll 15:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx! trcole123 15:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yqbd was blocked for 12 hours at 17:23 for a 3RR violation at another article. In the future, you should consider reporting 3RR violations yourself, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Remember that the fourth revert must occur after a clear 3RR warning. (It doesn't matter how much earlier, or even if for another article. And if the user has a 3RR block on his/her record, as Yqbd now has, then you can simply assume the user was warned prior to that block.)

Regarding removal of warnings from user talk pages - this is acceptable, per Wikipedia:User page#Removal of warnings; please do not repost warnings should a user delete them. Keep in mind that removal is considered to be acknowledgment that the warning has been read. The warning is still visible via the history of the user talk page, which is where administrators always look, so deletion does not actual hide anything. (And I suggest that you delete the bogus warnings that Yqbd posted on your user talk page, with an edit summary to that effect; they're confusing to others who don't take the time to research the matter fully, which you don't want to make casual readers do when they arrive here for other reasons.)

I'm going to leave the "help me" up because an administrator might want to add to the block of Yqbd based on incivility. In general, you can report egregious acts of incivility at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what do ya need help with, Filll? --A legend 23:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]