User talk:JF Mephisto/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Contents |
Welcome
Hello, JF Mephisto/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 14:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Not an admin...
Regarding this edit [1] please do not add the semi-protection/protection tags to articles when they are not protected. Any level of protection requires an administrator's touch. Representing yourself as an admin is unacceptable and can lead to blocks. If you feel that a page needs to be protected please go through the proper channels to do so. Batman2005 19:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I apologise, I wasn't aware that normal users couldn't semi-protect pages. Also, I haven't attempted to present myself as an admin - if you look at the discussion page for the article to which I applied the tag, I make it obvious that I'm not an administrator (by talking about referring someone else to an administrator). JF Mephisto 22:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- I understand, please note that I wasn't implying that you were posing as an admin, I was simply trying to cover all bases just in case you had been trying to do so. Happy editing. Batman2005 22:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Cheers. I'll make sure I brush up on exactly what tags can be applied to pages by normal users and under what circumstances. I have to admit I didn't read the relevant guidance. Thanks for your understanding. JF Mephisto 21:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
-
"Besides, evolution is an absolute, observable fact"
I know we are not supposed to use article talk as a discussion forum so I thought I'd ask you this here. I'm wondering what you base the above statement on.
Yes, I agree that the evolution of traits of a species is an "absolute, observable fact"...but as for the question of speciation by mutation and natural selection - is that an "absolute, observable fact"? I've heard others say this and I'm wondering what this refers to. Thanks for your time. - AbstractClass 20:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- I was referring to the emergence of new species under the princple of natural selection, not simply minor genetic variations which do not produce what we might call a seperate species. Contrary to what creationists claim, there is no real difference, i.e., 'evolution within a species' and 'evolution from one species to another' - it's simply that one leads to the other after a certain amount of time and isolation. Neither has only one been observed and not the other. Generally speaking the emergence of new species is not observable because, especially with more complex animals (most vertebrates, etc.), it takes time and seperation of populations. But with less complex animals it has been observed. There is an example of that, the Hawthorn fly, in the evolution article, and should be more in the speciation article. There's another very small list at TalkOrigins. The peppered moth is a very popular example. For an extremely exhaustive amount - though you'll have to have decent scientific knowledge - you can google 'speciation' at Google Scholar. It's worth remembering that in science, 'fact' means 'something for which there is such a degree of evidence that it is no longer reasonable to doubt' or something along those lines. It's not the same as a mathematical 'fact' - a proof. In science, it's a fact that the earth orbits the sun because there's absolutely no reason to suspect otherwise and no evidence to the contrary. It's the same for evolution, both as 'traits' (though a more correct idea might be genetic differences which don't always result in phenotype changes) and as speciation - the emergence of new species. Hope that helps. Remember, TalkOrigins is your friend. JF Mephisto 21:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- you and I have a dispute on another topic, so let me assure you that I am not here to hound you :) I just came by because (while I have made 100's if not 1000's of edits) I don't know that much about "the community" and I thought perhaps there was a way to contact you more directly here. But since I encountered yet another example of sloppy thinking, figured I'd point it out. Observing the emergence of a new species is not at all proof that there is no Creator, nor is it even proof of natural selection. I, a complete and 100% atheist, can't understand why you don't see that. Anyway, peace and love, hope we don't cross paths again. GoodGuy
-
-
-
-
- Well, first, I'd never said that the existence of a new species was proof against the existence of a creator. I don't know what your basis is for accusing me otherwise, and I also find it hard to accept you're "100% atheist" when you immediately jump to that false evolution-or-belief dichotomy and capitalise the word 'creator.' Second, I didn't state that the existence of new species alone proved natural selection, but I did say that species did exist which demonstrably did arise under the pressure of natural selection (e.g., the peppered moth): I was referring to the emergence of new species under the princple of natural selection [from my reply to AbstractClass]. Genetic drift can also account for the existence of new species. This is all very elementary stuff, and I doubt we'd have an issue if you hadn't already thrown a hissy fit in the Mark Malloch Brown article. Perhaps you would take better time to read what I write and refrain from mischaracterising it in the future: I'm sure that will clear up any lasting confusion. JF Mephisto 19:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
Northern Ireland
You forgot to put mediation notices on the named parties' talk pages. Don't worry - I did it a few minutes ago. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! JF Mephisto 19:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
...
Kindly take your patronising tone somewhere else and read this policy before you go on some unreferenced rant on my talk page! - chsf, 2234h, 2006-10-09
- You're reading something into my tone that simply wasn't there. I asked a simple question and made a simple request, I assumed no intentions bad or otherwise. Please don't remove my messages from your talk page when they do not violate any Wikipedia policies. JF Mephisto 20:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have surveyed a few biographical articles and I acknowledge that the date format seems to be an established policy, although as far as I can see it has not been written down anywhere. And your question might have been simple, but your request was far from that, it was at best ambiguous - especially when you consider that a) you are a Briton and b) you did not disclose any information on the discussed subject. And thus I returned one action that was considered hostile with another one. - chsf, 23:11, 9 October 2006 (CET)
- So, by your own admission, you assumed bad faith - my "action" wasn't hostile. I hardly see what difference my being a Briton makes, my problem wasn't with the format of the date being MM/DD/YY, but with it being in a format which is completely alien to Wikipedia biographical articles, usually in which the full name of the month is given, preceded by the day as a number. It's not written down anywhere as far as I'm aware, but has become convention in most articles due to the ease of reading it and the fact that it wont set off any disputes between those in North America (and a few other places) who use MM/DD and those in most of the rest of the world who use DD/MM. If you'd read my original comments when I made the edit and on your userpage, I think it would have been apparent why I changed the date. I think you're the one who has violated this policy. JF Mephisto 21:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have surveyed a few biographical articles and I acknowledge that the date format seems to be an established policy, although as far as I can see it has not been written down anywhere. And your question might have been simple, but your request was far from that, it was at best ambiguous - especially when you consider that a) you are a Briton and b) you did not disclose any information on the discussed subject. And thus I returned one action that was considered hostile with another one. - chsf, 23:11, 9 October 2006 (CET)
Request for Mediation
 |
A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Northern Ireland.
|
