User talk:Filll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives /Barnstars /Mainpage Archive /Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8

Contents 1 Information 1.1 Articles planned 1.2 Projects underway 1.3 Articles in need of help 2 Amazing website 3 Using a video game as your main reference 4 Natural selection 5 A war on science 6 Baraminology 7 An absolutely amazing webpage 8 Kandice Pelletier 9 The truth about Genesis and the origin of life 10 Conflict thesis 11 Creation according to Genesis 12 Aw thank you! 13 Hi 14 Your edits to Judaism and evolution 15 Amazing discussion 16 Ottoman gun 17 Your input is requested at this AfD 18 Evrik 19 Baraminology 20 Oddly enough... 21 An RfC brought up by User:Lukas19 et al. 22 Curious about editing discussions 23 Unintelligent design 24 Organizing the Evolution and Creationism articles 25 Races 25.1 The uncomfortable truth 26 Adam Cuerden vandalism 27 See you later 28 Just a little self-tooting my horn 29 Where have you been? 30 Remember User:VacuousPoet 31 Talk:Creation science#Lead Section 32 Help on Angioplasty 33 Filll... They hurt my feelings! 34 Take a look at this 35 Deathstar 36 ID/"Deathstar" 37 Fetus Soaps 38 For creationists who want to have an uncritical place to write 39 Illustration of mutations 40 Help required on Edison 41 Noah's Ark#WorldWideFlood link 42 On the physics rewrite... 43 Edit to level of support for evolution article 44 Not Again!!!! 45 Hello there...treasure ships were real 46 Treasure ships were real, so what's your counterpoint? 47 Could you review 48 Missing fun 49 Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit 50 Evolution Controversy 51 Rewrite of Genetics 52 Intro to Evo 53 Forbidden City 54 He might be back 55 Help with EB? 56 Refeature Evolution

[edit] Information

[edit] Articles planned

• Norman H. Horowitz Caltech biology professor

[edit] 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

[edit] Articles in need of help

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

[edit] Amazing website

Advances of the ancient world

[edit] Using a video game as your main reference

Abus Gun, and I suspect several other contributions by the main editor, draw on video games as their main sources of information and reference. Is this reasonable or advisable?--Filll 15:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Natural selection

... is the current science collaboration of the month and will hopefully be substantively improved in the near future, so if you want to write about evolution and take a break from arguing over the title for the level of support article, you should stop by. Opabinia regalis 03:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

Look here for Regents Lecture:

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Baraminology

Er, Filll, I wasn't suggesting Baraminology be deleted completely, just merged (as it is already, in fact), with Created kind, so that we aren't reduplicating a lot of effort on two articles that heavily overlap. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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

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)

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

[edit] Kandice Pelletier

I see you've noticed the "little" debate going on :P. Care to offer your opinion on the talk page? I don't care if you agree or disagree with me, I would just like an independent opinion! -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 22:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Filll 22:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

See, reading those websites did drive you crazy. Now you're editing beauty pageants. It's sad to see what they did to you. Orangemarlin 22:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The truth about Genesis and the origin of life

You have to read this one:

• [2]

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

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Aw thank you!

Thank you so much! You don't know how badly I needed that. Wow! Have you seen this? I really feel I'm going loopy. Another thing is User:PageantUpdater/Evrik conflict which I'm using to try and calm myself down by objectively documenting the entire crazy episode. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 23:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I saw. It seems sort of nuts to me.--Filll 23:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

I'm just thinking that I need to cool down a little, so needing to do a little more than editing history related articles, because with those last days happenings in those articles I'm fealing I'll kick some butts if I don't cool down. So, if you think any article need improvement (content based, as I can't be of any help in grammar). I'm a scientist and can help on biology, biostatistics, environment. You sound to be interested on evolutionary stuff, so maybe you would know. Fad (ix) 02:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, mutation needs to be cleaned up and made more accessible. I also think the same is true of gene and genetics and also gene. I also think that introduction to genetics needs work. I would also ask User:Opabinia regalis for her opinion and a few others perhaps. They might see your request on my page and respond. What articles have you edited that are driving you nuts? --Filll 03:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the mutation article. I also found Cyanobacteria article to not be on such a good shape either. Fad (ix) 21:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As for your question, lets just say they're nationalist driven articles. Not science related. Fad (ix) 21:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to help out with black people and eventually I gave up. Just too many angry people with too many conflicting agendas.--Filll 02:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Judaism and evolution

Hi, I've been working on Articles missing a category possibly due to vandalism; I noticed that you deleted categories from the article Judaism and evolution without listing a reason in your edit summary. I re-added the categories, but please feel free to edit those categories if necessary and provide a rational in your edit summary or on the talk page. Thanks, -sthomson06 (Talk) 21:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to mention that I'm assuming you deleted them accidentally! Let me know. -sthomson06 (Talk) 21:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I had no idea I had removed a category from Judaism and evolution. It was obviously some sort of mistake and I apologize. I am glad you caught that! --Filll 02:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This is odd. I went over to look at the article, and I found that I had edited it and left a comment. I don't recall ever seeing this article. Orangemarlin 03:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No problemo, Filll. I'm just trying to be thorough. I run into this problem sometimes with newer Wikipedians, but you are obviously not a newcomer! Happy editing, -sthomson06 (Talk) 04:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amazing discussion

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

[edit] Ottoman gun

The article is not clear, but this is real world, adapted for a game. They did use such very wide bore inaccurate guns. 05:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it might have some element of truth in it. I believe it might be named after a town in Turkey. However, the references are fairly scanty and I could not find much. However, I do not know what should be done; if it should be left alone or deleted. I looked for more material to improve it but so far I have not been successful.--Filll 13:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your input is requested at this AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Level of support for evolution--Filll 19:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evrik

Would you care to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Evrik and leave a comment if you feel it is appropriate? Thank you. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 23:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you possibly be able to "certify" the RFC...? I'm not exactly sure what the process is but I'm worried it will be deleted... -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 08:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baraminology

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

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)

[edit] Oddly enough...

I think I might need your help in understanding something science related. I'm in a discussion on Talk:Christianity with someone, and we're going all philosophical with what to "know" something means, and it would probably impact the wording in several important places in the article. My question is, someone else is saying that because Christians don't know "scientific" truths when it comes to our beliefs, and therefore because we know only "religious" truths, that rather than say that Christians know anything, that we just believe or have faith that something is true. (Which, in context with the article, would probably just implicitly read "blind faith", since of course the article isn't arguing or showing support for what we know or anything) My problem is that from all my silent background watching of the Evolution talk page, it has always seemed to me that science isn't about truth at all, and that's not a bad thing. Rather, it has always seemed to me people say it helps to find models which will work out to be correct when applied to our observations. Is this accurate? Homestarmy 14:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are absolutely correct! I am glad that we managed to make that clear. Science is not about truth or proving anything really. Science is about providing a compact temporary explanation for data. This explanation of course is expected to change later. I might come to the page and see what the excitement is about.--Filll 15:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yay! I have to admit, sometimes I think I know too much and jump into these big hard discussions and then end up wrong much later :/. This stuff gets terribly complicated....Homestarmy 18:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An RfC brought up by User:Lukas19 et al.

Hello, sorry to disturb but I thought you might be interested in commenting on this rfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/LSLM·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC) (sorry I put that on your user page, thanks for moving it ·Maunus· ·ƛ·)

[edit] Curious about editing discussions

Would there ever be any value to having a room or two to discuss editing on Skypecast? It is free of course.--Filll 22:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps editing discussions should be conducted in the open.DGG 05:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course they should be done in the open. I am not suggesting a closed session. There might be a value to discussions in real time, however. And it is a trivial matter to record the discussions and then have them universally available to anyone on the internet.--Filll 15:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unintelligent design

• [3]

I'm still laughing. And I never knew the rabbit digestive process. That isn't Unintelligent Design, that's downright Daft Design!!!! This section is always a wealth of good information. Orangemarlin 15:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organizing the Evolution and Creationism articles

Every day, I seem to find a new article (not new in the sense of being written, but new for me to read) in some wikilink from one of the multitude of articles. And some of the articles are beginning to sound a lot alike. For example today I ran across Politics of creationism. Frankly, some of these articles are forking in repetitive ways. What do you think about setting up a Wikiproject on Evolution and Creationism to begin to get this field of articles under control. Even the Creationist articles belong in this discussion, because first, there is a need to keep those articles intellectually honest and NPOV, and second, because much of the Evolution article is written with Creationist arguments in mind (sad, but take a long read when you get a chance, because it almost sounds defensive). I'm not much into the science of evolution, because it really isn't my interest. However, I am very passionate about the politics and social ramifications of Creationism and Evolution, so I know I'd participate. The Wikiproject could set the rules of engagement. I participate infrequently on a Wikiproject with respect to the NHL. We make decisions on what to include and not include on various team pages, and everything else. Believe it or not, the passion there is not so different from the religion vs. science stuff here. What do you think? Orangemarlin 15:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. For my own amusement, I started a list to try to organize all the articles I was finding at Talk:Evolution/controversyarticles. This list is not even close to complete. I think that it is sort of surprising we do not yet have a Wikiproject set up. I am not sure how to set one up, but we definitely should.--Filll 16:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if controversyarticles is a bit too tough for this project. Orangemarlin 19:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You mean just too ambitious? I do not understand what you mean. Do you have a headset? We should meet at in a skypecast and discuss it.--Filll 20:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of discussion that should be held in real time in the regular space, so people have at least a little chance to think before replying. If we ever to go to a Skype conference, we will need a moderator. I've been in many phone conferences, and they fail completely if the matters are too contentious. I do not know if this has ever been discussed before in WP, and I think you should ask at the village pump. There has recently been a discussion of the proper role of IRC there--which is similar---anyone can in principle join, but few do. Remember also that some of the people who would want to contribute are in Australia, and most of us work or go to school. the regular mode lets everyone participate when they can. DGG 20:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that everyone should have access to it. However, I have tried the IRC here and found it particularly unhelpful, although it potentially could be very useful. Also, having a discussion in IRC, or by email with one or two others, or by phone, or jointly editing some article by email or in a sandbox before presenting it to the wider body of Wikipedia is perfectly reasonable and normal, and is obviously part of standard Wikipedia practice, as near as I can determine. Having a Skypecast, or Skype conference, or doing something similar using MSN messenger or Yahoo! messenger or AIM or any similar technology is just an extension of the email and IRC discussions already taking place. I would gladly ask about it at the Village Pump, but I fail to see how this violates any "rules" or standards on WP.--Filll 20:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment on Orangemarlin mentioning Politics of creationism as an example that some of the articles are beginning to sound a lot alike. This article was recently created by extracting content from the Creation-evolution controversy article, hence maintaining an equilibrium in content that sound a lot alike. It provides an entry specifically for the political issues instead of mixing that with the documentation of the philosophical controversy. However, I think it might be timely to discuss (on either of the entries talk pages) how to split the roles between Creation and evolution in public education and Politics of creationism. Terjen 05:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Races

Filll,

while I agree (completely) with your point on Talk:Black People, I do not agree with the WP:Point you are making with the link. I think it is needlessly inflammatory, and suggest you delete it. Jd2718 17:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The uncomfortable truth

Why hide this? Inflammatory? Yes. True? Unfortunately such attitudes exist. And the efforts of some of the editors on the black people article over the last year or so have encouraged this sort of stuff. I think we should acknowledge it exists, but instead focus on the most accurate current modern most accepted scientific views, instead of out of date, controversial discredited material. I know that black people really badly want to believe that they are a separate species or race and superior to other races, but unfortunately science does not support this view, and this view really encourages the absolute worst extrapolations, like the chart I displayed. You want to deny that such things exist? You want to deny that these nonscientific attitudes can be exploited to support the worst possible conclusions? Hmm...--18:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Because it is easier to edit, and to change and improve things when no one is up in arms. It's always going to be a struggle. Pissing people off isn't going to make it easier. On the contrary.

Did I deny that the image exists? No. But you've implied that here. I'm getting off your talk page. But do be careful what lines you choose to cross. Jd2718 18:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have followed the page at all for the last few months, or looked at the history, you will know that someone is ALWAYS pissed off on that page. They are so angry that they have driven away most other editors. Huge amounts of valuable material have been flushed down the toilet. You are free to try to "improve" the article, if you want. I do not know what your own personal views are or what your agenda might be. I might cross a line or two with my POV. I find that about 50% of the editors on that page also cross one or more lines, depending on your own personal POV. I would far rather that science and reason and tolerance be used as guides for editing the article, but unfortunately, past experience indicates to me that this is not the case for the black people article. It is mainly a platform for people to push very narrow angry objectives, in many cases. So be it. I have mostly distanced myself from that article and the editors on that page.--Filll 19:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

And I thought Evolution was bad. Orangemarlin 21:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Cuerden vandalism

Please see the creation-evolution controversy article, and weigh in on his removal of the section on falsifiability. Thanks. StudyAndBeWise 05:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have briefly glanced at it. I am very sorry that somehow this seems to be getting blown out of proportion. I am confused about what is going on. I am not sure what I can do to calm things down.--Filll 13:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Good question - when I tried to explain to SABW that this was not vandalism, s/he pretty much had a melt down, unfortunately. Guettarda 13:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm... not sure myself, to be honest. I moved a section to the talk page for editing and fixing up, because it was pulling down the rest of the article, particularly by gross misrepresentation of Karl Popper's views on evolution, done by OR-ish implication. SABW threw a fit over this. Mind ye, they did seem to be having rather extreme views towards suggestions even before then, and the rearrangement of the article, with splits off of some parts into sub-articles, probably didn't help. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Filll, I don't want you to take my side or even participate in the dispute. Rather, I want you to offer your opinion on the falsifiability section that Adam had cut as being unfair to science. Do you agree totally, partially, not at all? StudyAndBeWise 02:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See you later

I am on strike (for the arbitrary and underdiscussed and overbold forks of the creation-evolution controversy article. StudyAndBeWise 03:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I really wish you wouldnt StudyAndBeWise. You have made incredible contributions and I am sorry I have not been around to mediate this dispute, since I have been involved in real life stuff. I think it is really a tempest in a teapot and that if we can all discuss it it will evaporate. Would you be open to discussing it in a conference call? In a skypecast? I would be glad to try to help sort this out.--Filll 14:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a little self-tooting my horn

I was allowed to stand with the obnoxious paparazzi ("Who do you photograph for?" "Wikipedia." "Oh, Wikipedia...do you have some kind of card or anything?" "Not really...." "Okay, go ahead.") and photograph Angela Bassett and her husband Courtney Vance - I am pretty happy about the results, and had to share them. Check out their pages. Dave --DavidShankBone 01:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. I think that being photographer for Wikipedia gives you a lot more credibility than most other media, frankly. However, that is my own biased opinion.--Filll 02:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where have you been?

I haven't seen you out and about the various Evolution and Creation articles. Given up? Orangemarlin 22:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No I havent given up. Just slowed down a bit and been exploring skypecasts and some other things online. --Filll 04:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Good to hear. Guettarda 07:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is good to hear. I was worried that the endless edits and battles have worn you out. Orangemarlin 14:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remember User:VacuousPoet

See User:StudyAndBeWise. We were flamboozled. Orangemarlin 16:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (2nd). You should read it. Orangemarlin 17:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow. Well at first he was being productive and I appreciate his efforts. Even if a person is really a wild-eyed creationist, they can still contribute to the work. I would rather them help rather than just get into fights with everyone and try to impede the work. I guess it just goes to show that you never quite know who is here. He did seem to get into an awfully big fight with Adam over what seemed very minor to me. So is he blocked? What is the status?--Filll 19:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

How many times has he shown up? I'm getting tired of it. It's hard to assume good faith, when it gets abused over and over.Orangemarlin 00:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys if you're feelings are hurt. Due to the anonymous nature of wikipedia, either one of you could be wild eye creationists, or you could be the same person, or even high school drop-outs who are self-educated.

In any event, OrangeMarlin, you should be nicer to those vile pseudo-scientific creationists, you might have helped a few of them become contributors. Adam is a wild eye pseudo-religious evolutionist, in my considered opinion, based on his pattern of edits to the creation-evolution controversy article, and one who actively seeks to flavor the the article pro-evoluiton. Due to the sympathy he receives, he pretty much has free reign.

You two (filll and orange) are evolutionists who do not contribute much to the benefit of the creation side, but you do (at least Filll) contribute and endeavor to find good NPOV RS (aside from talkorgins:). Filll went above and beyond the call of duty more than a dozen times that I've seen....I am particularly impressed with his intellectual honesty regarding sources. I tried to contribute without regard to who it would benefit, and it worked fairly well, until Adam came along. I did protest from time to time on other articles regarding balance and NPOV, but I did not go in wild eyed and without information and start making changes (as Adam did on the creation-evolution controversy). My edits will stand scrutiny (but please do scrutinize them), and if or when they do not, it will be human error and not conscious bias that is at fault.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by VacuousPoet (talk • contribs).

VacuousPoet. Once again, despite several conversations with you, you miss the point. Although your alter-ego, StudyAndBeWise, did some nice edits, it's still a sockpuppet of a banned user, VacuousPoet. If you read the User Talk page of your sockpuppeteer self, you'd see that an admin gave you a chance, despite some commentary from me. Apparently, you chose to continue along your merry way of avoid bans. Well, until you come forward, apologize to everyone in a sincere manner, I will use every resource I can to make certain that you do not evade bans. As for my being nice, I am nice to every user who does not attempt to avoid bans, who does not act in a troll-like manner, and who attempts to be Civil and use NPOV. As for your vendetta against Adam, give it up. He's a great contributor to this encyclopedia and knows about what he speaks. Finally, my life is a lot more fulfilling than you'll ever know. Don't presume to know me, because you haven't got a clue. I save lives. I served my country. I probably pay more in taxes in a month than you earn in a decade. I have probably lost more knowledge of science than you have ever gained. People like Filll and Adam are intelligent, and perceptive people. You are so arrogant that you think you can continue to play little games with Wikipedia. You accuse us of the MUD, but in fact you live a life like you were some Soviet spy trying to break into the CIA. Do you enjoy that? Grow up VP, that's all I can say. Orangemarlin 05:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't know if any of you two know what a Multi-user Dungeon is, but you're in one. While you are mostly nice to like minded MUD-participants, there is a real world out there...take more wiki-breaks. Your real world friends and family need you, and if you don't have any available, new friends and family await you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.215.40.207 (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

VacuousPoet, it would be nice if you would try to behave in a civil manner. For example, please sign your posts. In general, I have no problems with creationists (and neither does OrangeMarlin or most others here) until they start to engage in certain unproductive and antisocial behaviors. Anyone who has been working on the evolution and creationism articles for any length of time starts to build friendly relationships with others who are reasonable and productive, including those on the opposing side. I am sure everyone was glad to have you here as StudyandBeWise and have you contribute. It is a welcome change from what we see from most creationists, unfortunately. It might be a MUD, but that is not particularly relevant. What is relevant is that we have a set of rules that are mutually agreed upon, that we are using to attempt to write a free encyclopedia. This is an exciting and historic enterprise and a potentially very valuable contribution to human knowledge. You can disparage it all you want, and you can storm off in a huff because something did not go your way. Believe me, OrangeMarlin and I and many others here have also been blocked in many instances from doing what we thought was best. If you believe that we are in some sort of secret cabal and always get our way, you are sadly mistaken. Just take a look at the histories of many articles we have worked on, our reverted edits, our deleted articles, etc. I will point out that both OrangeMarlin and myself have repeatedly extended the hand of friendship and assistance to various creationists or biblical literalists or intelligent design supporters and attempted to try to help them become productive contributors. We do not summarily dismiss anyone here because everyone can potentially contribute. I wish we could convince more creationists and others to work on some half-finished articles like religious perspectives on dinosasurs. It is only when an editor starts to be more of a liability than a benefit that we reluctantly join with the community to censure a troublemaker. So on your way out the door, if that is where you are headed, please do not go out of your way to kick the rest of us in the shins. That just confirms some of the worst impressions we had of you from your previous incarnation as VacuousPoet before you reformed yourself temporarily as StudyAndBeWise.--Filll 17:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You wrote the following on the SSP page regarding VacuousPoet:

I am undecided as to what his fate should be. I do agree with your previous statement that, at the minimum, he should apologize for disruptive editing which he conducted as VacuousPoet and possibly as kdbuffalo. I am certainly willing to go along with whatever the community feels is the appropriate response, however. I am not arguing that his helpful edits should outweigh his repeatedly disruptive behaviors. The point is, other creationists can be productive without engaging in such tactics; why should he get a pass? After all, this is not some forum to judge the correctness of his or our personal views, but to write an encyclopedia, and in that respect, he has been a negative influence.--Filll 22:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC) I didn't want to continue the conversation there, but I think you're missing the point. I'm taking a strict interpretation of the law--avoid a ban by creating a sockpuppet, the sockpuppet gets banned. I really don't care about anything else at that time, even he made some useful edits. If he wants to participate in this community, then participate honestly, don't try to play games. At the minimum, he should stay away for a long time. I wouldn't believe an apology from him under any condition. Orangemarlin 04:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are taking a strict interpretation of the law/rules. I will point out that I said, "I am willing to go along with whatever the community feels is the appropriate response". If people decide to ban him, then so be it. I have no objection to that.--Filll 14:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Creation science#Lead Section

This article has become a jumble of arguments and counterarguments. The Lead Section was reading very poorly to me. I made an attempt at cleaning it up, so if you could give it a read, make your comments, and then I can replace the original lead, I'd appreciate it. Orangemarlin 17:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help on Angioplasty

I usually stay away from articles that I actually know something about, because the writing ends up being filled with POV. As you know, I'm a Cardiologist. I went to get some information about Angioplasty, and I found a poorly written article that was, in essence, an advertisement for certain companies. I've cleaned it up, but I realized that I could be writing way over someone's head, and it does not make sense. I've only completed about 1/2 of the article (and if you want to contribute, be my guest), but please read it, and make any clean-up that makes it clearer to you. This was hard to write. Orangemarlin 00:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I am the same way. I stay away from stuff I know too much about. I am even half afraid that there might be articles here about me and my friends and colleagues. I am not sure what I would think to see an article about myself here. I might feel inclined to edit an article about me, but then is that too POV? I am sure I wouldn't be comfortable with it no matter what. So I studiously avoid areas in which I really know too much. I will look and see if I can understand angioplasty, which I know almost nothing about.--Filll 20:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Cough, cough. Uh, so there's an article about you on here? Do tell? Orangemarlin 16:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I would not be surprised. I just do not want to know. Would you want to see an article about you on here?--Filll 20:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Filll... They hurt my feelings!

They took my plea for simplification to mean I tolerate mis-information. What I was trying to say is “accuracy to the point of minutia is incompatible with clarity.” How many times do you think they have 'edited' the introduction? If stability is the hallmark of a good Wiki entry then evolution is a failure. I like the idea of an abstract, setting up the article itself. At least a 'lead sentence' that lets the readers know what they are in for.

Our contribution was a simpler explanation of evolution. It was not intended to be a summary of the introduction of the main entry as they seem to imply. I can't go back in there ... they chew me up every time.

Did you catch the edits by Fubar Obfusco on the Intro to Evo, I thought he did a nice job rewriting for clarity.

Also, what is it with creationist and grammar? Do you think God is bitter over being represented by bad spellers?

Evolution is false. It is not true. God created the world and everything in it. NOt millions of years of mere chance of evolution!! Jesus Christ the Lord created the world!!!Not sumthing of mere chance!! rv rv rv--Random Replicator 00:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry they hurt your feelings. I think you and I agree completely on this topic. I have pounded away on it over and over since at least November or so, and sometimes I make some headway, but then it just drifts back to being incomprehensible again. I will not give up however. I have had them kick me in the shins plenty but I know I am on the side of reason here; it does us no good to just write dense impenetratable stuff that only experts can read. After all this is an encyclopedia written for the average internet user. It is not a graduate textbook. It is not a contest to show how smart we are. I have no problems with the body of the articles being incredibly dense, but I would like at least a sentence or two at the start of each article that most people can understand without a dictionary at their side, or without having to dig through two or three levels of wikilinks. I agree with you that our contribution (mainly due to you by the way) is supposed to be a separate article in its own right, not just an introduction to the main article. It does not let them off the hook and allow them to write an incomprehensible main evolution article. Misinformation is one thing, and we should not allow that, but vague statements are permissible when just giving a broad overview of a topic, as far as I am concerned. I do love that great "creationist" quote you have there. These guys are a laugh riot.--Filll 01:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is going to my quote page. Too funny Orangemarlin 01:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I do hope that my work is keeping everything as simple as possible. Gett on at me if I ever slip into over technicality. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Take a look at this

Another character who claims to be the 2nd coming. He has his followers tattoo the number "666" on themselves:

• [4]

Here is our article on WP: Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda.--Filll 19:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deathstar

Everyone should read the Deathstar talk page. I was laughing so hard I was crying. I really do not know what to say. I suggest that everyone read this absolutely amazing document.--Filll 21:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Evolution looks positively amateur in comparison. I'm embarrassed to have been involved with the article. Orangemarlin 02:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it is all pretty funny. Interesting for sure. I got a great laugh out of Deathstar.--Filll 18:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ID/"Deathstar"

One user says: “The Death Star providing 1e38-1e39 joules of energy isn't verifiable through official literature ...” Another says that “Saxton calculates 1.2e39 Joules. It is based on a number of bits, such as apparent speed of debris, what he estimates the size of Alderaan to be, and the momentum imparted by a beam of light. It is Wong who cites 1e38J, based on apparent kinetic energy of the debris. The methodologies are actually noticably different between the two pages, as are the results” Yet a nother user says “You are all completely berserk” So who's correct here? ;-) ... Kenosis 00:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is great material.--Filll 01:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

People should also read Triclavianism.--Filll 01:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't that article be deleted, merged, or something? Orangemarlin 02:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Which one? Death Star? Triclavianism? Or both?--Filll 17:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The one on nails. It's just a huge quote. The Deathstar one is humorous, though very annoying. If only one of the Creationist types would spend that much energy on RPOD. Orangemarlin 17:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it is a huge quote. I think it needs to be fleshed out considerably. I suspect there might be more material to add since this is the sort of "angels dancing on the head of a pin" type of argument that religious types LOVE to get involved with. I am going to try to encourage some of our creationist friends to work on that article and make it more scholarly and complete. This is a much better use of their energies and talents than just annoying the piss out of us on scientific articles. It is pretty funny though. I had never heard of triclavianism. Just typical nonsense. Do they not realize how stupid this makes them look? --Filll 18:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fetus Soaps

If you want to get a gift for that person who has everything, why not consider a nice fetus soap or fetus broach to wear? [5]--Filll 18:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You have too much time on your hands. Shouldn't you be inventing a new branch of differential mathematics or something? Orangemarlin 18:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually am working on some rough notes for some lectures that might turn into a book, developing a new technique for wireless transmission and reception, and working out algorithms for deep space exploration. I am not really spending my whole life looking for fetus broaches. I just ran into them and thought others might get a smile out of them. --Filll 18:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You did succeed in the smile thing. I'm pretty certain that I won't be reading your book on wireless transmissions.  :) Orangemarlin 20:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The strange thing is, most people are not really interested in page after page of equations. I just have to accept that.--Filll 20:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For creationists who want to have an uncritical place to write

• [6]

--Filll 22:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You know what's funny is that I think Wikipedia is hotbed of conservative, Christian, and politically correct thinking. I'm not sure why these conservatives need a website, but I guess they can then put out articles that have absolutely no meaning at all. But I didn't know Evolution was a political way of thinking. There are biology professors that I know who are absolutely behind Evolution, and are politically behind Bush (except for all that Christian stuff he spouts). Orangemarlin 19:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

They want the ability to just put out meaningless nonsense and have no one challenge it for what it really is.--Filll 15:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Illustration of mutations

Little gem I found. Not sure where the best place for it would be. I'm going to tentatively put it in mutation, but there is no reason it couldn't go in more than one article. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have often remarked that mutation needs help. I think this would be a valuable contribution there.--Filll 15:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help required on Edison

{{helpme}}

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

• 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)
  • 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)

[edit] Noah's Ark#WorldWideFlood link

Haven't seen you around a lot, but I'm having quite a bit of fun goofing with the dogma of one of the Creationist subsets, Flood Geology. Your help, wit, logic and sarcasm is most welcomed, and, frankly, I have more fun when you're helping out. Can you set aside that book on differential mathematics (or whatever it is), and have some good old-fashioned fun?  :) Orangemarlin 19:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. I have been off in other parts of the cyber world, so I have neglected Wikipedia a bit, or at least slowed down my work here. However, I do intend to be back in greater force!--Filll 15:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Edit to level of support for evolution article

You cannot believe this one. Orangemarlin 14:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Three times? I mean, the article is not perfect. I would revise it a fair amount myself. But to drag out the same tired arguments again and again? I wonder if this is another sock puppet.--Filll 15:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. I have issue with that article that appear to be distinct from those raised by SA, for example. Anyway, prod'ing the article is silly. Guettarda 17:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not Again!!!!

Check out this dif Who????. You want to take a bet on whom this may be?Orangemarlin 17:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

He sure fits all the patterns. The mis-spellings. The same claims that "I am not a Christian but...". And so on.--Filll 18:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

"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)

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)

" 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)

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)

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)

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 [7] 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)

(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)

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

[edit] 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:

• Jewish reactions to intelligent design
• Jewish opposition to evolution

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Missing fun

You have not been participating in the newest Creationists who have run amok in the Evolution and Intelligent design articles. We need your helpOrangemarlin 00:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow, are they at it again? The same ones or new creationists?--Filll 00:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Get back here. There are a number of articles being assaulted by the creationist crowds, including sockpuppets of Raspor. HELP!!!!!! Orangemarlin 05:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] Evolution Controversy

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Intro to Evo

Your help would be greatly appreciated on the Introduction to Evolution Article. --Random Replicator 23:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forbidden City

Hey, thanks for your help with Forbidden City. I have moved over what I have written so far, which covers the contents of the previous version of the article. I still have to do the "Collections" part to do with the Museum. If you have time, please take a look at the article and make any changes you think appropriate. I think the image placement still needs work, and some of the sections are probably a bit too long. --Sumple (Talk) 02:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] He might be back

I don't know, but the IP address and the writing style is reminding me of someone. diff —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orangemarlin (talk • contribs) 21:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

I wish you were still around to help me with the Creationist types. Help when you get a chance. Orangemarlin 02:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow. They are sure upset but I am not even sure what they are upset about. Wow what a bunch of whining.--Filll 00:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've given up on the articles. There seems to be one or two Creationist POV'ers who are causing trouble. You're not around to help, and there seems to be spotty attendance from the traditional "cabal" of rational science types to manage the articles. I just don't have the patience to manage these articles, and it worries me that Wikipedia articles, often being the top response in any Google search, and the POV-pushing from the Creationists is so harsh these days that I'm almost certain that these articles will soon say, "Evolution is merely a theory and not very well done one at that." Orangemarlin 02:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't give up! It is bad, but this is probably just a momentary thing with others busy. Sometimes other events intrude and make things a bit tough to be as well monitored as they deserve. Sometimes a wikibreak is just what is needed...I do have a question for you I will email.--Filll 19:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand. Still, I was going at alone with certain editors. Check out Evolution, Intelligent Design, Creation-evolution controversy, this edit, and other items. I just gave up at this point. An editor filed an ANI against me because I called him/her a whiny Creationist (which ranks about 200th on the level of stuff I've read criticizing editors). I'm so tired of this garbage. Orangemarlin 20:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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

[edit] Refeature Evolution

Do you think Evolution is ready to be re-featured? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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