User talk:Adam Cuerden/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

* Click here to leave me a new message

Contents 1 Meaningless: Microevolution Macroevolution 2 Hey Adam, 3 Copyedits to W.S. Gilbert 4 Sapphire Necklace 5 Re: The Sapphire Necklace on wikipedia 6 Banksia integrifolia 7 G&S 8 WSG 9 context 10 Sviatoslav I of Kiev - FA 11 Mirette (opera) 12 Agrippa (opera) 13 Re: Talk:Evolution 14 Barnstarred thanks 15 IC 16 Marriage 17 Images for Geisha, etc. 18 W.S. Gilbert 19 In recognition (and thank you too...) 20 W.S. Gilbert 21 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau 22 Barnstars 23 Gilbert 24 New stuff 25 Single quotes, double quotes and italics 26 Charity; Jane Annie 27 Re: Sea urchin colors 28 Princess Ida 29 Jane Annie 30 Sullivan 31 Assistance needed 32 The list 33 Request for comment 34 Cite templates 35 Crowther 36 Creation-evolution controversy 37 References in Charles Darwin 38 Woflberry 39 Shakespeare citation 40 Trial by Jury 41 Holding everyone to objective criteria 42 Agrippina 43 H.M.S. Pinafore 44 "POV dispute" 45 Darwin 46 Congratulations, Adam 47 Cox's Sandpiper 48 Opera composer of the month template 49 re: Château de Louveciennes 50 Operas premiered in England ~1800 to 1900 that need images 51 Christmas 52 ROH and Wiener Staatsoper 53 Gilbert & Sullivan 54 Roman-Spartan War 55 Planet 56 Recreating Creationist Orchard 57 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Caspian expeditions of the Rus 58 Project page 'To do' box setup 59 Your message 60 Misleading Citation 61 Evolution--reproductive success 62 Special bio-thanks 63 Roman-Spartan War 64 Introductory section of evolution 65 Brantinghame Hall 66 Mikker vs. FAC 67 Help! 68 Which of the Fact vs. Theory options? 69 Proposed lead 70 Darwin (some more) 71 Rewording of Intro Evo. 72 The Foresters 73 Barnstar 74 Unfair 75 Roman-Spartan War 76 dwarves 77 Evolution award 78 evolution and creationism table 79 Lead 80 Roman-Spartan War 81 Speciation definition 82 Someone trying to hijack WikiProject Gender Studies... 83 Edits to Intelligent Design 84 I guess I am still wet behind the ears 85 Your edit to Evolution 86 Fork 87 Happy New Year 88 Rock Trial 89 Charles Darwin's Works 90 Gene flow 91 Gene lead 92 Talk:Evolution/Gene flow 93 Gilbert and Sullivan 94 You like? 95 A further problem on Project gender studies 96 Creation article 97 Ping! GA in the pipeline alert! 98 AfD issues 99 Boyd Neel 100 Creationist Orchard 101 Sorry to hear you're ill 102 evolution, G&S 103 Pictures 104 Peer review 105 AfDs 106 G&S 107 New with question 108 Mutation rates 109 ID around the world 110 Genesis 111 Article help 112 W. S. Gilbert 113 Charles Darwin 114 User:Estuary 115 Larson 116 Your RFA 117 Major-General's Song 118 Your blog 119 Request for comment 120 You've come a long way, baby... 121 Patience (opera) 122 Objective ministries 123 Sviatoslav image 124 Please see my response to your substantive points at: 125 Pirates 126 Evolution 127 Neon 128 Recent AFD 129 Just letting you know: moved/shortened your RfC. 130 You're a sysop! 131 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrorism in Kazakhstan 132 Brantinghame Hall 133 Healing temples move 134 Classical homeopathy 135 Talk:Creation science#Lead Section 136 Neon ctd. 137 Natural selection 138 re: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (2nd) 139 About Sock puppet case 190.53.15.171 140 War against homeopathy 141 Fetus image 142 Brantinghame Edit conflicts 143 Vithoulkas 144 Sweethearts (play) 145 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Vithoulkas 146 Reply request

[edit] Meaningless: Microevolution Macroevolution

You might wish to tell UC Berkeley that they are describing relatively useless terms http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IVADefinition.shtml http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml . Also Indiana University http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/ev.tr.pr.pdf Dan Watts 23:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I said relatively ueless: There's a full spectrum between them, so they're only really useful at early teaching stages. It's the equivilent of looking at assembler computer code and an Operating system: You could look at both, but there's a full spectrum between them, and the operating system is, in the end, just a complicated final product of all the code. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you rather use the terms "Special Theory" and "General Theory" as referenced in http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2001/cm0605.pdf? It is stated that almost all discussion of evolution is usually concerning the "General Theory" but when referencing overwhelming evidence it is almost entirely evidence supporting the "Special Theory." The kicker is: the inference that must be made is that the observed speciation (through information loss) is enough to generate genera, families, and phyla. Quite a leap of faith. Dan Watts 01:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the examples in Mendel's theory. Almost all of the observed cases of speciation, the overwhelming evidence (with the exception of plants which apparently, perhaps amazingly, tolerate polyploidy) still seem to fit squarely within the information loss mechanism. -- True, there are hypothesized polyploid speciation of insects, but evidence, observed evidence, is not so distributed. As you mentioned, an animal which got a polyploid genetic setup would likely not survive. As the medical literature shows, aneuploidy gives rise to Turner, cri du chat, Down, Edwards etc. syndromes. (see the article) The likelihood of any gene-increasing mutation in animals being beneficial seems so slight as to be non-existant. And as is stated in [1]:

The enormous reproduction level of bacteria ... does not occur due to a rapid depletion of available food and moisture, and also an accumulation of toxic metabolic waste products in the animal's environment. Yet, the sheer number of bacteria produced should eventually result in mutations that will enable them to overcome even these problems. Evolution predicts that the organisms will eventually evolve so that their own waste products were not toxic. They might be expected to evolve selective membranes, toxic neutralizers or another means to protect themselves against the poisons. If bacteria have existed on earth for two-billion or more years-longer than most every other living thing-plenty of time should have been available for the necessary mutations to have occurred. As zoologist Grasse (1977, p. 87) notes, the question of why they did not evolve these innovations poses a major problem for evolution:

Bacteria, . . . are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants. This is why they give rise to an infinite variety of species, called strains, which can be revealed by breeding or tests. Like Erophila verna, bacteria. . .exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago! ....[T]he mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.

Dan Watts 03:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Adam,

Thanks for the FPC. I just wish I was notified about it. I found out while I was browsing the page to... self-nominate the same pic!! Now that's a coincidence! Thank you for your kind words. There seems to be some misunderstanding regarding this picture being controversial (while it is not). I've tried to clear it out. Hope they understand. I'm also going to post a notification at Talk:Macedonia (terminology) and related notice-boards. Again, thanks. •NikoSilver• 11:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No bother - it really is a good idea, IMO. And, frankly, if they don't like it, I'd like to see them do better. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha! You can say that again! Also, the pic was the result of a debate of some 5-6 users of different ethnicities that lasted for months! If they do make a better one, I'd sure like to see it pass from the same croud's critique! •NikoSilver• 20:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedits to W.S. Gilbert

Hi. Our paths have crossed twice, once on the Boisseau arbitration pages, and now in connection with a copyedit to W.S. Gilbert (Gilbert & Sullivan being one of my interests, although I haven't contributed to those articles here because they are already in pretty reasonable shape). I think that from a grammatical/logical point of view, "Gilbert insisted that his actors knew their words perfectly and obeyed his stage directions" is confusing, because it suggests that Gilbert was insisting that his actors historically knew, i.e. did know their words, rather than that his actors must (looking forward) know their words, etc., which I believe is what is meant here. A grammar/style/usage expert, possibly User:Geogre, might be in a position to remember the technical name for this usage, and I find my proposed rewording to be a bit more idiomatic. I won't revert or make an issue of it, but it will be of interest whether anyone else expresses a view. Good luck with the article. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I still think that "he insisted that they obey" reads more idiomatically: at that time he was insisting that they (then) obey, not that they (in the past) obeyed. As I suggested, running it by one of our copyediting experts might make the most sense; I am good with it either way. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sapphire Necklace

Look at the most recent edit. I think you'll want to edit it. -- Ssilvers 21:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: The Sapphire Necklace on wikipedia

Hi Mr. Ceurden. I got your message. The opera you mention is in fact real. I am on eof the unfortunate souls who bought a cassette tape of the performance from Scott Ferrell in 2000. The only reason I thought it should be included was because I felt sorry for him. Based on from what I remember, he was talking about it almost nonstop and when it was over, I tried to be supportive and bought his tape. It was horrible. It was hard to hear and the singers you could hear were not very good. If you see fit to have it removed, then I cant stop you. I just wanted to be helpful. If its a citation query, ask Scott. I don't have his address but you seem to know who he is so maybe he can help you if you ask him.Boomdeehay 01:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banksia integrifolia

Thanks for your help with this. I haven't forgotten my promise to deal with the redundancy in the opening sentence ("Banksia integrifolia... is a species... in the... genus Banksia.") I've tried a number of times to fix it, but I keep making the opening paragraph worse not better. Any suggestions? Hesperian 00:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, not really. It's too long, and its all about the distribution. Ideally, the opening sentence should be specially crafted for the benefit of people who only want a one-sentence definition. So something like

"Banksia integrifolia, commonly known as Coast Banksia, is a species of tree that grows along the east coast of Australia."

I'd be happy with this; the problem for me is crafting the remainder of the paragraph around that. Hesperian 00:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've resolved this now. What do you think? Hesperian 01:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] G&S

Yes, delete all references to amateur groups. Instead, we list the link to the archive's list of amateur groups. -- Ssilvers 16:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WSG

I think my edit exactly meets the case. It does not say "a bit", and it says that they had quarreled and does not say that they reconciled. You do not need to beat the point to death. I think it is crystal clear, but if you feel strongly, go ahead and add "and never reconciled." I think it's the other way around, i.e., if they *had* reconciled you would need to say so.

Also, I added a bit to the Brantinghame Hall stub, including some links to relevant websites and cats. -- Ssilvers 03:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Crowther disagrees with Stedman: He thinks the "Broken Hearts" joke was very, very hurtful to G and was the beginning of all later unpleasantness. He has said so in various recent speeches. Feel free to ask him about it. -- Ssilvers 05:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Also BTW, I thought you did a nice job with Mr. Goldbury at the QWERT. Regards, Ssilvers

[edit] context

Has it not occurred to you that it might be an idea to start an article such as The Realm of Joy with "The Realm of Joy is a seven act grand opera by W. S. Gilbert ..." (or similar)? I was very tempted to mark the article {{db-context}} for sheer careless editing on your part. -- RHaworth 15:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I added an intro for you, Adam. Regards, -- Ssilvers 16:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sviatoslav I of Kiev - FA

That's the idea... I put it up for peer review yesterday and am currently working on a popular culture section, which I oculd use help on. I'd like to put it up for FA ASAP. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sviatoslav_I_of_Kiev. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mirette (opera)

Yes, it's me. Uncle Cliffy is my alias. Glad to see you about, Adam. Any feedback, etc. re: the Mirette page is welcome. Uncle C

[edit] Agrippa (opera)

Hi Adam,

I really appreciate your efforts, but unfortunately the "Roles" section looks exactly the same to me. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 03:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you just did, that aligned it! Straight, corresponding columns now! Thanks! --Fsotrain⁰⁹ 03:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yay! Looks good to me. If I had a bit more technical-oomph and know-how I'd try to get the fix for that problem put into the main WP CSS. Mak (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Talk:Evolution

I just added it to the end of the most recent archive. Was there somewhere else I should have put it? — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to change any links to it as you wish. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstarred thanks

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For the brilliant citing work at W.S. Gilbert, and also for being so wonderfully helpful over at Agrippina. Cheers, Moreschi 09:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'd prefer it to go below the line for "Context and Analysis". Looking at it now on Firefox (I originally put it up while on IE), it looks a lot less crummy, but still not ideal. Any ideas as to how to fix it? Cheers, Moreschi 14:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. Sorry if I was a bit idiotic. You might like to put the barnstar on your userpage: that's what's usually done with the things. Richly deserved! Cheers, Moreschi 15:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IC

re: rvt. I thought Kitzmiller vs. Dover Board of Education said they were?) -- yup, you are correct! •Jim62sch• 14:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marriage

Have you tried Template:Combi yet? See an example at Politics of Israel. I'd just go ahead and do it - but I'm clearly way behind you on this one :-) --Siobhan Hansa 20:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Good efforts. I think it looks better than with the two side-by-side. Sorry the combi template didn't work for you. --Siobhan Hansa 21:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images for Geisha, etc.

Awesome images, Adam. I added the images also to some of the biographies for the composers and authors. -- Ssilvers 22:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I sent you some e-mail. Please take a look. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 23:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] W.S. Gilbert

Nice work! I didn't realise until right now that it was the featured article; I was wondering why so many vandals were hitting it. Hopefully some day all Wikipedia articles will be up to its standard ... :) Antandrus (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In recognition (and thank you too...)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Awarded to Adam for his absolutely outstanding contributions to W. S. Gilbert. Did you know that, to date you have edited that article 299 TIMES! For the full log take a look at all this... :) Well done mate!  Glen  03:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] W.S. Gilbert

You're welcome. Thank YOU for your encouragement. Xiner 03:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Jean-Thierry Boisseau and other users affiliated with Musik Fabrik are banned from editing any article dealing with artists or projects listed in their sales catalog. Further, they may not add any such artist or project to any article. There is no restriction on making suggestions or participating in discussions on talk pages. Jean-Thierry Boisseau is placed on probation. He may be banned from any article or talk page which he disrupts. Any bans imposed under this decision may be enforced by blocking the offender for a period of up to a week. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jean-Thierry_Boisseau#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 06:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstars

Thanks for sending one my way! Congrats on yours. You've certainly put in a great deal of excellent work on Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers 18:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gilbert

Yeah, it's looked good. It got a bit scary an hour ago - 3 reverts needed in 9 minutes, but one was, I think, just a test, and Test4 sorted the other one out. There have been far better edits than at Concerto delle donne, which attracted a lot of well-meaning foolishness. Congrats on the your work again on this - it's a fine article that well deserves the Wikimmortality of the Main Page.

All I can say with the Arbitration is - great. The ArbCom coin came down on the side of the good guys. It also rid us of a particularly disruptive troll, which makes the air cleaner. Wonderful! Cheers, Moreschi 20:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New stuff

I added your new userbox to my user page. Also, I added the new Belle image on Nellie Stewart's and Edna May's bio pages. Thanks! -- Ssilvers 05:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Single quotes, double quotes and italics

Thanks wik for a style explanation. Yeah in British subject pages ‘single quotes’ are used while in US “double quotes”. The use of jargon or technical phrases such as stagecraft is italicised and does not demand single/double quotes. Thanks for promting a interest in finding this out for us both. Jed keenan 13:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope this guy knows what he's talking about. -- Ssilvers 22:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charity; Jane Annie

I'm eagerly awaiting you synopsis of Act II. -- Ssilvers 22:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

IMO, you should put something of reasonably together and make it beautiful later. Right now, we've got an article sitting there, and a reader would have to click on an external link to understand the plot. Also, please look at Jane Annie's synopis, when you get a chance, and see if you can figure it out. I can't follow the synopsis, and Scott says it's the best he can do. Are you celebrating Thanksgiving, or following British holidays? -- Ssilvers 04:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Your industry is excellent. I made some copy edits to Act III and also restored a couple of sentences to Critical Reception and the intro that you had cut, but I tried to fit it in logically. See what you think. -- Ssilvers 17:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Mrs. Van Brugh is reading letters at the opening of Act IV, the last one of which is:

"Honoured Madam,

We shall feel greatly flattered and obliged if you will kindly afford us a sitting for your photograph at the earliest convenience.

We are, Honoured Madam,

With much esteem,

Most respectfully yours,

Scumley & Ripp"

To which she replies "When these people address me, I am degraded indeed."

I'm reading this as a dodgy newspaper, or possibly semi-pornographic photographers....

I doubt the latter. Perhaps, like the Duchess in The Gondoliers, she is earning a living by endorsing "somebody's soap", i.e., advertising, and she feels degraded that she must make her living by these endorsements? The name "Scumley and Ripp" indicates that they are scum and ripoff artists of some kind, not pornographers, but it could be some kind of blackmail scam. Or, maybe it's just for a news item connected with her charitable work? Any other clues? -- Ssilvers 21:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Please check to see if my newest changes to Act II and Act III are correct. -- Ssilvers 22:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Good edits. Who are Mrs. vB's two husbands? I still don't get that: Which was the legitimate one, and when do we know this info? -- Ssilvers 22:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That's much better, except for the phrase "hadn't been part of a bigamy". Do you mean "her actions hadn't amounted to bigamy"? BTW, is she saying there was no sex until the first one died? Was there a second marriage, or did she just move in? -- Ssilvers 23:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Sea urchin colors

I considered that; my assessment of the edit as potentially suspicious was based in part on looking at the user's other edits. But it was relatively harmless, which is why I didn't call it vandalism.--EveRickert 17:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Princess Ida

Someone changed a name in the historical casting. Is this right? I don't have access to R&W, but it is hard to believe that Marc could have made a mistake of this kind. -- Ssilvers 23:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Marc replied to my e-mail confirming that Henry Herbert is correct, and his Who's Who page is consistent. Good job. -- Ssilvers 05:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jane Annie

I guessed at a few more copy edits and requested a few more clarifications using your tag. It's definite more understandable than before. -- Ssilvers 06:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you please look at my new edits and the "Clarify" tags? Thanks! -- Ssilvers 19:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Better now. Just one last question. See the new "clarifyme" tag. Oh! another thing: Are the press students older Uni students, or students from a local boys' boarding school? If the former, is it OK for Miss Simms to be allowing the girls to have a mixer with these older university men? -- Ssilvers 20:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Where are the "press students" from, then? They are referred to as "men" not "boys". -- Ssilvers 21:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sullivan

If you really want to do the citation exercise on Sullivan, you need Jacobs. I don't have it, but it's the seminal work on Sullivan. -- Ssilvers 17:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Uni library? Public library? If not, post to SavoyNet asking if someone near Edinburgh can lend you one. -- Ssilvers 19:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: "[The tags] are useful indications of where cites are needed...."

I added some cites, mostly to the Turnbull article. You won't have any trouble remembering where to add more cites once you get a copy of Jacobs. -- Ssilvers 21:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assistance needed

Hey Adam - Samsara is becoming painful aggressive over at the Talk:Evolution#sprotected page and your assistance would be appreciated. I don't want to make a big deal out of this - maybe a comment from you would help. standonbible^Talk! 07:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The list

I've made some changes. I won't necessarily call them improvements, but I think they're heading in the right direction. I've left comments on the talk page. Cheers. --Folantin 11:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

Yo, Adam. I wondered if you could possibly spare some of your precious time to comment at the WP:GA/R for Agrippina. If you could, this would be great. Cheers, Moreschi 13:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cite templates

There is a whole bunch of citation templates (category:Citation templates). The one you are looking for is {{cite encyclopedia}}. And don't be sorry. If you don't bug me, who will? :) I hope (ha!) to take a better look at the list this evening. Renata 14:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I am late, as always. The templates are good for several reasons: one, they are consistent, two, if someone makes adjustments in the future, they will be reflected automatically, three, I believe your problems are just nitpicks. I believe templates look much cleaner and more organized. You should put there more info: publisher, location, chapters, etc. As for lead you can add major points of opera history: why does it start in 1600's? who were really really important people? were there any major shifts and changes in opera genre? etc. Or some summary/statistics of people: their nationalities, styles, etc. Background stuff. Renata 04:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I could write a whole book on that. Too much, I suspect, for one lead. See Opera instead. Moreschi 10:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't ask the whole book. I am asking for max 10 sentences giving some background info. Is it that hard? And, no, objections have not been met: lead is still miserable. An example of good (maybe even too long) lead is List of calypso-like genres. The other half of references (theones with the lists) are still not properly formated. Citation templates are not utilized to their fulliest abilities. I wish I could find some descent period of time to help you out with those darn templates, but that ain't gonna happen any time soon :( Renata 17:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crowther

Sent me some minor corrections for the WSG article that you will see. -- Ssilvers 18:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creation-evolution controversy

I've probably got a little too much to do, with not enough time to help much. But Creation-evolution controversy is one of the pages I keep an eye on, so will do what I can. --Michael Johnson 23:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References in Charles Darwin

I replied to your comment on the talk page. As a second thought, if you can put a {{cite needed}} after every sentence that you feel needs to have a citation, that would really help us. Also see the two previous FA nominations for further ideas. Best, Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Adam, thanks for the effort. The tags are getting a bit excessive now. I'll create a temporary fork of the article in my userspace and revert your changes in the main space - this is a frequently viewed article and should not contain such masses of tags. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Woflberry

I've posted on the talk page. That stuff you cut...urrrgghh! Cheers, Moreschi 10:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just commented with an example of yet another nasty. Seriously, the stench emanating from the marketing/OR/POV there is so bad you just have to get out the gas masks.

For the list? Hmmm. I kind of feel as though you want a concise history of opera, go to Opera. The problem is that no way are you going to fit operatic history into a paragraph or two. To be honest, I can't see a problem. WP:WIAFL says "concise". Our lead is concise. So...what's the big deal? Cheers, Moreschi 10:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespeare citation

Why then do you not think that this much more important and equally tendentious point does not need citation out of interest? "Shakespeare is believed to have produced most of his work between 1586 and 1612, although the exact dates and chronology of the plays attributed to him are often uncertain"? MarkThomas 12:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The central problem is that in the case of Shakespeare nearly all "scholarship" about his early life and much of his later life as well is based on "traditions", "beliefs", "historical research about people and places he might have had something to do with" etc, etc, etc. Therefore all the cites in the world will only refer to these guesswork sources. How valuable is that to the casual WP reader? The traditions about Shakespeare are very well entrenched and widely regarded. Would it not be better to simply make a general statement about this core problem in Shakespeare studies and then say in effect "all the following may or may not be true and has been believed for centuries..."? MarkThomas 13:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trial by Jury

Take a look at the new edit. Are all the G&S operas on your watchlist? -- Ssilvers 23:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: "Found a cite by Gilbert on Sullivan when recovering.... Think we should add it to Arthur Sullivan too?" Sorry, I don't follow. What cite? Regards, -- Ssilvers 16:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Gilbert wrote in 2004, "....my distinguished collaborator...." Adam, this is a good cite for the proposition that G&S buried the hatchet and that they were not enemies at the end, but I don't think it has much other value. -- Ssilvers 22:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holding everyone to objective criteria

Hi Adam, I noticed what you said about List of major opera composers over on Moreschi's talk page. I really don't think it would be appropriate to include a history of opera or the story of the origins of opera in the lead there. That's not what the list is about as the title states quite explicitly. We already have perfectly good articles on those subjects and a link to the main Opera page is quite adequate. The lead must be concise. I don't think we should have to try to please every whim of any reviewer who happens to be passing by. Featured list (as well as GA and FA) reviewers should be held to the same assessment criteria when making their judgements as the editors are when creating their articles. Otherwise the whole system will break down in a welter of subjectivity. AFAIK our list meets the required criteria and should be passed accordingly. Cheers. --Folantin 08:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should. Although I'm not sure how the system operates. Does the moderator consider the discussion as a whole, relating the points made to the relevant criteria (in other words, the same process as Articles for Deletion), or does a single veto by any user for any reason put the candidate on hold? --Folantin 13:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the moderator is Rune Welsh? Also, do you know if those particular templates are obligatory? I have a message ready to send to the moderator. Cheers. --Folantin 11:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. I've asked. --Folantin 12:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agrippina

Adam, I feel like I was sort of a dick to you here, and I apologize. Mak (talk) 05:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well then, sorry I brought it up :| I think you made a mistake on the opera project page, I just reverted since I wasn't sure what your intent was. Congrats all 'round for the FAL! Mak (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, sorry, I left this message before I found out about that wierd glitch. Sorry to leave all these irrelevant messages on your talk page. Mak (talk) 05:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] H.M.S. Pinafore

Take a look at the last few edits.  ??? -- Ssilvers 05:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "POV dispute"

If there is really a POV dispute, there should be some kind of dispute going on. As far as I can see, there isn't anybody who is disputing the aims you and the other editors are setting out. You might try the {{NPOV}} tag instead. That may be closer to the boilerplate you are looking for. --ScienceApologist 13:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right, they made the two templates the same (when did that happen?)

Maybe {{POV-check}} would be better? --ScienceApologist 13:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that the changes that will be made will be mostly additions rather than editorial tweaking. I think that the article is fairly close to NPOV as it currently stands, it just needs a bit more explanation as to scientific consensus. We can probably get away with not tagging the article. --ScienceApologist 15:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darwin

Thanks for your kind words. I hope you get better soon. As for me, all my books shall be in boxes at least until tomorrow, so no more references until I get them back. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pushing ahead. I've been slogging thro the references reading about Darwin slogging away, and a bit slow in revamping the engagement/illness/natsel section: see my talk for thoughts on marriage/children. Hope initial development of the theory's clearer now, reservations about the armadillo pic: check the voyage section. .. dave souza, talk 22:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Checklist still mentioned, will add this link. To cook some eats then bed, will look at Development tomorrow. ta, .. dave souza, talk 23:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations, Adam

List of major opera composers is now a featured list.--Folantin 22:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. How the shrill cries of gender bias seem like a distant memory...Cheers, Moreschi 11:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cox's Sandpiper

Hi. Thanks for your thoughts on how this article could be improved. I've tried to address several of these - could you take a look and let me know if you think I've dealt with your points adequately, and if not, give me some more pointers as to what you think is needed. I wasn't too sure what to do for the remaining tagged problems; if you could give me a little more detail on what you think could be improved, that'd be appreciated. Many thanks SP-KP 17:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opera composer of the month template

Hi Adam, I think you responded to my point about not being able to correct the opera composer of the month template, but then your comment disappeared from the opera project talk page. Perhaps you might like to have another go? Best as ever. - Kleinzach 19:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, but I am a bit confused. You altered the script or whatever and I was able to edit the text for this month, so it seemed fine. But is there a problem? - Kleinzach 23:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now, but I tend to agree that a userpage version might not be a good thing. I don't know if it would encourage any more contributions. - Kleinzach 23:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Château de Louveciennes

Hi! I noticed this article had been waiting for GA quite some time, and a s I'm interested in architecture, had a look. It seems a little under-cited: Could you have a look, perchance? Given it's relatively short, it might not be too hard to push it the last bit of a way. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - you see, I nominated a few articles at GAC in early November, and none of them have passed. You're right this one is short and under-cited. After looking at the GAs in architecture and the criteria I thought they had chances. I'm not sure when I can expand and add cites to them, but I intend to and appreciate your comments. Regards, DVD+ R/W 05:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operas premiered in England ~1800 to 1900 that need images

The only important one that comes to mind immediately is Weber's Oberon - London, 12 April 1826. There are also all the Gilbert and Sullivan ones but no doubt you have thought of those already. We certainly need more illustrations with the articles. Maybe this is a good topic for the project talk page? - Kleinzach 11:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christmas

I didn't want to trouble you with a non-science topic, but yes...please help! Just fighting off POV warriors and vandals yesterday left me exhausted : ) Doc Tropics 16:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Replied on my talkpage, thanks for your help. A group of editors ranging from pagans to agnostics to Christians have been working together to improve the article. As usual, it's the fundies and IP's that "know" the "truth" and continually bombard the page with dreck. I've been trying hard to include all useful contributions while weeding out the POV nonsense, but I could use some help : ) Doc Tropics 17:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just a quick note of thanks for all your recent activites; you do good work and your efforts are appreciated : ) Doc Tropics 23:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ping! replied on my talkpage. Doc Tropics 05:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ROH and Wiener Staatsoper

OK, chapter and verse about performances of The Yeomen of the Guard at the Royal Opera House and the Vienna Staatsoper, please.--GuillaumeTell 22:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, ENO. They do G&S (so does Opera North and SO and WNO), but the Royal Opera doesn't. The Merry Widow has been presented by at least two, and probably more, of the major international opera companies, and none of them have done any G&S. I do know what I'm talking about. --GuillaumeTell 22:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll spell it out for you. There are a number of opera companies around the world that are regarded as major international houses - the Met, the Royal Opera, the Paris Opera, the Vienna State Opera, probably the major companies in Munich, Chicago, San Francisco, maybe one or two others. The Merry Widow is sometimes performed by several of them. G&S isn't. That's all I'm saying. Best. --GuillaumeTell 23:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gilbert & Sullivan

Adam, I don't understand. Why are you now saying that we should link to amateur G&S groups' webpages? Have you listened to this university group's MP3s? Are they the only examples of G&S music that should be linked to in the G&S article? This seems inconsistent with our very clear consensus in the past to not include amateur group's websites. Besides, shouldn't this go in the Pirates article, if anywhere? See my comments on the G&S article talk page. -- Ssilvers 20:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Check out the new links I added. Some are to commercial sites, but they have free samples. Are these helpful? -- Ssilvers 21:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman-Spartan War

Is it alright if you extend the GA deadline becuase I am currently moving houses and I want have full access to the internet until Wednesday. Thanks for your offer of help fpr the article I'll contact you for help later. :) Kyriakos 00:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Planet

No problem - with the sheer volume of vandalism and nonsense edits, a lot of stuff slips through. It's crazy how people seem to have nothing better to do with their time than to muck up Wikipedia pages... --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recreating Creationist Orchard

Although this article meets all of wikipedia's requirements for an article (except maybe verifiability), I realize that there is a train in motion (that I believe is attributed to negativity towards creationism, even though wikipedia is NPOV, and the poor start of the article) and nothing I do is going to stop it. After giving the appropriate verifiable sources and making it "more encyclopedic". How do I create an article for it? I can guarantee that I will get ridiculed if I edit everything and post it back in the same location, regardless of whether the article is perfect or not. Something people seem to forget: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. It is perfectly fine to have an article on the "creationist orchard", "fixity of the species", and "baraminology" so long as the are legitimate articles and not little stubs. Pbarnes 17:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Caspian expeditions of the Rus

You may be interested in this FAC. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project page 'To do' box setup

Hi Adam, I have been trying to set up a second 'to do' box on the Opera Project page (as discussed recently), but have been having some diffiulties. Do you know how to set up two boxes with different text? My experiments are at User:Kleinzach/Laboratory and include a Template:OperaWIP.

I realize that I could simply add to the text in the other box, but ideally I'd prefer to have a different box in a contrasting colour to make it stand out more. Best. - Kleinzach 11:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem, these things are tricky. Let me know if you come across someone who understands them. Best. Kleinzach 18:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good - especially having a dedicated box for Composer(s) of the month. One problem however is the wording of the new box. Subprojects is ambiguous (re existing G&S sub project) which is why I suggested 'Work in Progress' on the Talk Page. Also I think the quaver is kitsch! We are a performing arts project not a music one! Have a good Sunday. - Kleinzach 08:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It's OK. I found the template and fixed the wording myself. - Kleinzach 12:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. - Kleinzach 13:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

Hi! I saw you left a talk page message so others will watch also. [2] That is very helpful. Keeping an eye on the user might be helpful but no one is expected to to that really. Rather just try and notice if the user (or a similar one that might be them) is brought up for discussion on WP:AN, WP:AN/I, or other boards and comment as appropriate. Keeping an eye for this stuff is very helpful but do not let it take you too far from writing articles, something you do very well. And lastly, thank you so very much for your kind words and vote. :-) [3] Take care, --FloNight 17:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading Citation

In the creationist orchard you and other believe I am misciting a certain passage. The sentence is

In the years following Darwin, many creationist attempted to reconcile the thing Darwin could not

and the citation is

Darwin could not see how these observations could be explained by the prevailing view of his time: that each species had been independently created, with the species that were best suited to each location being created at each particular site.

I added the citation because it explains that Darwin could not reconcile the religious belief of fixity of the species and his scientific observations. How is this a wrong use or misleading? Pbarnes 21:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution--reproductive success

I have a question. After I left my last comment over at Evolution:Talk, I got to thinking about this... in fact, differing rates of reproduction in the organisms that carry different variations would be natural selection, which is just one (albeit the main) force in evolution. Founder effect and genetic drift for example, don't really involve differing rates of reproductive success. Am I correct? If that's the case, then it's a bit misleading to say in the intro either that "evolution refers to changes in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation as a result of genetic variations and differing rates of reproductive success in the organisms that carry them" (my version) or "evolution refers to changes in inherited traits of a population from generation to generation due to some of these traits providing advantages for the organism that increase their relative reproductive success compared to the other possibilities" (Adam's version). Wouldn't it be better just to say "evolution refers to changes in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation" (period) and then perhaps add another couple of snetences describing some of the main ways that those changes can occur... e.g., natural selection, genetic drift, etc. Or since it's just the introduction, have a sentence that explains natural selection as the primary cause of evolution, with other phenomena to be explained below.--EveRickert 03:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Very good start. Sure, let's start a subpage if you think that's a good idea (i'm still relatively new to Wiki conventions on such things). I have two real-life articles due this week, and have been procrastinating on them, so I am grounded until they are done. I'll check back in a few days, when they're out of the way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EveRickert (talk • contribs) 05:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Special bio-thanks

Still a bit of grind to go, but many thanks for rousing me from complacency about Charles Darwin and for all the work you've put in:

		The Life Sciences Barnstar
		Awarded to Adam Cuerden for outstanding work in inspiring improvements to the chas darwin biography! dave souza, talk 21:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman-Spartan War

Your "on hold" for this article's GA status has expired. It is now time to either pass or fail the article. Thank you. Diez2 22:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introductory section of evolution

Sorry I did not mean to sound harsh. I think it is a huge improvement over the previous version. I am just suggesting that the formatting be changed slightly to make it more welcoming. otherwise we will get a nice

tag slapped on it.--Filll 01:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brantinghame Hall

Just a reminder that you had intended to do a synopsis for this. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 21:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mikker vs. FAC

I'm concerned that if we try to satisfy all of Mikker's demands before the FAC, someone at the FAC will come up with the exact opposite demands. It can be much better to allow people to butt heads with each other at the FAC. Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help!

It's cast list woes again, I'm afraid. Would you mind checking out Orfeo ed Euridice? It's all lined up O.K - mostly - but the header "Character" is in a funny place, and I'd like it to be up a bit lined up with "Voice" rather than "part". If you could help out, that would be great. Cheers, Moreschi 19:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for being a pain but there's just one more thing: when I want to write "Alto castrato" instead of just "castrato" it won't let me. I don't suppose you could fix this as well? Cheers, Moreschi 10:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Which of the Fact vs. Theory options?

As you probably realize, I suggested several options. Which do you think I should pursue?--Filll 04:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I am working on producing a separate page that both can reference. I unfortunately immediately came under attack for deletion. I need some assistance otherwise we will clog up the articles with too much detail. The draft of the article is at Evolution as theory and fact.--Filll 05:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

With minimal effort I was able to find about another 15 or so publications that focus on exactly the same point as Gould's. None of these really explain it quite as well as I think we do, I think. Also since it is such a common theme in biology and evolution and so often misunderstood, it is worth examining carefully. Plus if we do it in a separate article, we can save space in the main articles.--Filll 06:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed lead

I don't mind. I was confused when I thought you liked the original very technical version, which I suspect some people prefer. I actually would favor a basic abstract and introduction model, or executive summary and introduction model, rather than the "lead" method that Wikipedia uses. I think that eventually several should be presented and then each be commented on/debated/voted on etc. I just want to make sure in my entry in these proposals, that I do not make any horrendous misstatements or mistakes, given that I am not a biologist.--Filll 04:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darwin (some more)

Howdy Adam, Dave tells me you can perhaps help me: any idea why this didn't work? Mikker ^(...) 20:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, firstly, I think it looks nice at Saffron (which isn't an argument, it's a statement of fact about my aesthetic preferences) and, secondly, I think the ref section is somewhat too long, columns would help the reader IMO. That said, I don't feel particularly strongly about it so if you want to keep it as is, no problem. Mikker ^(...) 03:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Why exactly *do* we have a further reading section? Doesn't seem particularly useful to me to be honest - any half-smart person would simply mine our refs. And no, I don't think external links in cols would look nice. But anyhow. Issue dropped. Mikker ^(...) 04:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly support deleting further reading, as I've said. (Honestly, I think that section ought to be deprecated Wikipedia-wide - but it's particularly unnecessary in a well-reffed article like Darwin). If you can then figure out why in the world the code I copied doesn't want to work at Darwin AND you think having two cols is ok, then go for it.

OH... P.s. what did you think of my changes to the first sentence? I put something up on talk (under "FAC") about it. Mikker ^(...) 15:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewording of Intro Evo.

Just trying to think in terms of simplification, thus making me dangerous in content area. However, thanks for considering my input and the kindness of reworking it for improvement. This is the first time I have made a suggestion that anyone has even remotely considered its inclusion. Makes me feel considerably better about the entire Wiki process. The Intro, is without question the hardest thing to write for any topic, so I appreciate the challenge and your courage. I suspect we could attack many of the following sections and reconstruct them in a more logical and readable form. In fact, the "meat" of the article would likely be much easier to clarify ... certainly you would have fewer objections to your suggestions. If you get a chance puruse the Intro article, we tried to provide a less technical version without misleading the audience. If you see areas for improvement, your skills would be appreciated. Also, If you know of any "general public" literature to add. list them on the discussion page. Best of luck with your efforts on turning the course of the Titanic. --Random Replicator 20:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Agh. I can't keep up with you guys. Where are we now?--EveRickert 22:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Foresters

Thanks for the pointer to the G&S site. The editing of poor Tennyson's text didn't help at the London box office, alas. If you knew what iron restraint it took not to quote that fairy doggerel quoted on the website and in Arthur Jacobs' biography. Priceless! Do please polish what I've put up if you can bring yourself to. Tim riley 11:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The Foresters may not be up to much, but the Contrabandista is a delight. Look out for 'From rock to rock.' I hope you enjoy the CD.

[edit] Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For painstaking and diligent efforts in improving the Evolution Lead

[edit] Unfair

I might be unfair, but I am just realizing more and more clearly what the problem is. I have now watched SlRubenstein and Axel147 and a few others turn a short clearly stated argument in a proposed section into an incomprehensible confused mess. I have read evolution's most famous popularizers. I have looked at the history of the "fact and theory" sections of both the evolution and Creation-evolution controversy articles. Most of what has been written on this issue is awful, frankly. And the creationists are able to exploit that like crazy. I had always wondered why this was such a big issue, and now I am seeing that it is not just dogmatic confused creationists. It is dogmatic confused evolution scientists too. I see what has happened. Very clearly. I am from physics and mathematics. In mathematics and physics we have very clear precise reasoning. We have to. We are trained to. If a student is not careful and precise, they do not make it. "Natural selection" takes place and those unclear imprecise thinkers are weeded out. Biology and other fields do not necessarily select for the same things in their training. I know this since I have graded their papers and sat in class with them. This is not to say that they are not smart. They just do not think the same way. They are careless in their arguments. They are glib. This still works for them, but it does not work when you are trying to present a united front against some group bent on the destruction of the field. Do you know I have had creationists tell me that evolution scientists are in a cult? That evolution scientists are satan worshippers or doing satan's bidding? That evolution scientists are satanic demons? Do you know that creationists have told me that evolution scientists are infidels and blasphemers? That evolution should be excluded from schools? That evolution science should not be researched? that evolution scientists should be jailed or even executed? Now it is easy to just say that creationists are fundamentalist kooks. But they have won the battle in the public arena handily in the USA. By far. Many many more people in the public believe in creationism than in evolution. You cannot make a vague handwaving argument in that case. You will convince no one, especially the creationists. Evolution science is on a train ride to hell, taking the rest of science with it. --Filll 12:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman-Spartan War

Please could you consider visiting this article - I failed it for GA status partly on your comments but am being persecuted by another user because of this. Could you visit this talk page and give your opinion? Thanks, Jhamez84 21:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dwarves

i noticed one of your posts concerning dwaves -

from dwarf talk page:

Vandalism??? I may be being unduly suspicious, but I have remioved the bolded line in the following:

The dwarves had first been created and had quickened in Ymir’s flesh, and were then maggots; but now, by the decision of the gods, they got the understanding and likeness of men, but still had to dwell in the earth and in rocks. Many of the dwarves were said to be 'filthy' living in their own excrement, and hence smelling awful. Modsogner was one dwarf and Durin another.

We've had so many one-line edits of this sort that have proven to be vandalism that I think we have to be cautious. I have, however, put a message for the user in his talk page, and hope I am mistaken. Adam Cuerden 13:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

...this is quite possibly not vandalism, but unless you want to read the poetic/elder edda (all them norse stories), you cant be sure. as far as i remember ymir was the giant of which the world was made after death (slain by thor at oden's command)...so maybe revise your choice? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.84.132.193 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution award

		The Evolution Award
		The purple plush Tiktaalik is hereby awarded to Adam Cuerden for raising the Charles Darwin biography to FA status. Thanks, dave souza, talk 18:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] evolution and creationism table

Thanks for your suggestions. I obviously need to have references and citations for a lot more points. I also am thinking about having this be a main part of some improved articles dealing with the creationism-evolution contoversy, so we can move more of that material out of the evolution article itself and just have links to a more extended discussion of these sorts of points. Comments?--Filll 21:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

I notice User:Roland Deschain appears to not be in favor of a more accesible lead. I sent him a message but he didnt respond. Comments?--Filll 21:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman-Spartan War

Seeing as you were involved in the articles's GA, I nominated the article for FA if you would like to go and leave a comment. Kyriakos 07:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speciation definition

I noticed in Talk a complaint about a definition lacking so I quickly vomited Mayr's definition. Your are right if you don't know who Mayr is then it just sticks out there with no reasoning. I often just vomit content and let others edit. Sorry!!GetAgrippa 21:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Someone trying to hijack WikiProject Gender Studies...

An anonymous user has edited Wikipedia:WikiProject_Gender_Studies and has edited its aims so that it reads (the following quote is taken from the talk page):

* Correct articles where the term 'gender' is overused, used incorrectly, or used pejoratively to pander to (what Christina Hoff-Sommers, Wendy McElroy and other more moderate feminists call) a "gender-feminist" POV.

• Correct articles where the term "gender" is used (without reference to NPOV dictionaries and other NPOV sources) to replace the term 'sex' as a ploy to pander to "gender"-feminist POV. Correct the usages so that the proper definition is used without regard to UNTESTED and often invalid 'gender theories', so distinctions can be made between 'gender' and 'sex', and so that the usage reflects some sort of NPOV take on a highly loaded term. Just because some widely criticized academic fields have used totalitarian tactics to force 'gender' and censor the usage of 'sex', in US humanities programs is no indication of the validity of this politically-loaded term. Consult NPOV sources such as dictionaries, opponents of "gender"-feminists and NPOV mass media sources to balance 'gender' POV with 'sex' POV.
• Correct articles where the term 'gender' is being used gynocentrically as a front for 'oppression'-feminist political, legal or cultural power plays. For example, in feminism (Status) there is no mention that for the male 'gender', military mortality is 98% compared to 2% for the female 'gender' (in Iraq)...but other forms of far less serious female "gender" oppression are implicated (covertly and most disengenously) as having something to do with the gender "oppression" of women. This kind of blatant, gynocentric "gender" bias is no less POV than the other forms listed here.

Said user has further edited the talk page suggesting that (the following quote is taken from the talk page):

I suspect this project was created to pander to the points of view of misandric, gender-ginning, 'patriarchal oppression' feminists (please see Women's studies, misandry and feminism ) who use the term 'gender' as a cunning, covert, and blatantly gynocentric weapon of war. Many other more moderate feminists and non-feminists have challenged these blatantly gynocentric, and often misandric "gender feminist" ideologies. I insist on a non-sexist, non-'genderist', non-reverse sexist project...otherwise this project is just the usual type of cunning totalitarian tactic we see so much in other politically correct channels. To revert the above content just because none of the orginal authors of this project page like it is a POV stunt to have ones cake and eat it too. I am going to reinsert the content. I insist that before it is reverted again good NPOV reasons be provided. My aim here is some kind of GENUINE non-sexist, non-reverse sexist, and non-'genderist' NPOV...as may be shown well in Sexism (drop in editor) 00:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The idea that the term gender (that is, the idea that at least some of the differences between the roles of men and women in society) is socially constructed, yet 'sex' (i.e. that any differences between men and women are essentially biological), at the very least, looks like misogyny|misoginist]] POV bias of the worst kind. Any assistance arguing against the point would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers, - AmishThrasher 08:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Intelligent Design

Hi, Adam,

I hated like anything to revert the edits you made to the Intelligant Design article (especially since I agree with them), but the language was loaded enough to give NPOV absolute fits. Is it possible to restate the paragrasphs in line with NPOV? Thanks. :) Justin Eiler 03:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Crap. I'm a dope. I read the material quoted from the referred site as the actual text being added to the article. Sorry about that, I'll put it back--and I promise not to revert anymore until I'm properly caffeinated. Justin Eiler 03:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I guess I am still wet behind the ears

If you look at Support for evolution you will see what I mean.--Filll 16:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Evolution

Your recent edit to Evolution (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 19:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

While your edit was certainly not vandalism, this section was rewritten less than a week ago apropos of discussion and consensus, and a wholesale rewrite really ought to be discussed on the talk page first. N6 19:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see you are already engaged in discussion there. I don't know how I missed that! N6 19:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fork

You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Misunderstandings about evolution--Filll 23:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy New Year

Tim riley added some nice articles re: Sullivan works, and I've continued to do work on some bios and other articles. Just a reminder that you were planning to do the synopsis on Brantinghame Hall. Hope your holidays were great! -- Ssilvers 21:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rock Trial

This article has been proposed for deletion. You can vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock Trial. I believe that this is not notable. -- Ssilvers 22:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Darwin's Works

At Talk:Charles Darwin#Works the suggestion's been made of splitting off the list of Works: I've commented there since I'm coming round to the idea – any comments? ... dave souza, talk 19:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gene flow

Thanks for editing the Gene flow section in the Evolution article. I at one time joined Gene flow with population structure but it was moved. I agree that the HGT and Hybridization should be in the Gene flow section. I haven't read your edits yet-family matters came up. I will start adding references once it takes shape. The evolution article has undergone drastic change and I am glad it is shortening, however I have some concern too much information is being removed and essential terminology has been removed. GetAgrippa 19:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gene lead

Thanks for the note, I've made some changes and responded on the blog. TimVickers 20:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Genes in viruses can be in RNA, coding regions are defined by base sequence, not bound proteins and the definition does not adequately explain the first sentence, which is left standing on its own. I've tried to clarify the idea of genes carrying information. TimVickers 21:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, I have not posted anything unscientific. Please show me what I posted that was false.

Can I post a real picture of embryos instead or besides the false ones that are up there now?

[edit] Talk:Evolution/Gene flow

FYI, I moved the content that was at evolution/gene flow to Talk:Evolution/Gene flow. We don't have subpages in articlespace, so what you actually created was not a subpage of evolution but a separate article. Work and draft pages should always be subpages of talk: (or in userspace), otherwise the fake subpage will get search-indexed, appear in Special:Random, etc. Good to see this content getting a rewrite though. Opabinia regalis 02:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Are we doing anything with this article? I like it, but I think it's missing stuff (like viruses as a vector for gene flow). Orangemarlin 23:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gilbert and Sullivan

Please see the G&S page. I think the new stuff should be deleted. What do you think? -- Ssilvers 17:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, if you think these references belong in the G&S article, would you kindly clean up the paragraph? As it stands, the paragraph is just a random collection of unrelated references stuck into the article without any unifying principle. -- Ssilvers 18:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the Evolution article is looking really good! Congrats! -- Ssilvers 17:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You like?

Heh heh. Fear not, Adam, G&S make an appearance anyway. Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Where does that come from? Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A further problem on Project gender studies

Hi sorry to bother you but we're having the same problem at Project Gender Studies that we had over christmas. An IP User has been altering our aims and objectives needlesssly and without explanation. I've made an offical request for semi-protection on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection--Cailil 05:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creation article

You cut a paragraph from the Creationist/Evolution controversy article. I don't have an argument with that. However, I did harvardize some references, and these references may no longer be used in the article. As such, I propose that we at least flag them for deletion, if we do not delete them outright. E.g., Anderson 2001, Bergman 2004, Long 2004, Spetner 2000 are no longer relied upon as a reference. I'll flag them for now and leav it to your discression to delete them (or move them to the discussion).

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation-evolution_controversy&diff=102260399&oldid=102260171

StudyAndBeWise 20:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and just moved them to the topic you created on the discussion page. I am trying to keep the article smaller, and if these references are never used again, I don't want them lingering. StudyAndBeWise 20:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ping! GA in the pipeline alert!

Hi, Adam. I've been working on Orfeo ed Euridice and I think it's close to being ready for GA, but I was wondering whether you could spare 5 minutes to run your eagle eye over it and see whether there's anything particularly nasty that needs fixing. No more Agrippina-esque wikidramas, please God... Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 17:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And some spammy mail. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD issues

• Check out Savoy Company.

If you have a chance, take a look at the AfDs for:

• Sinfonicron
• Wobbly Dog Productions
• Penn Singers -- This one had been AfD'd previously.
• Empire Lyric Players

and

• Montreal West Operatic Society.

What do you think of Cornell Savoyards article? -- Ssilvers 21:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boyd Neel

Sometime D'Oyly Carte Conductor. SSilvers and self seek your expertise. I pillaged a piece from a 1972 issue of The Gramophone which SS has much enhanced, and would like to enhance more but doesn't know how. Nor do I. Do you know how to put a photo in the article? (SS has referenced it at the bottom, but neither he nor I know how to upload images to WP and give the proper copyright info.)Tim riley 21:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creationist Orchard

You supported the deletion of the article creationist orchard. Would you mind reviewing the related content which was added to article common descent under the section Common descent and Creationism? Pbarnes 01:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry to hear you're ill

Hope you get well soon.Trishm 09:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] evolution, G&S

Thanks for taking my comments on evolution on board. It's a tricky balance, but important. I'm a G&S fan too! Poujeaux 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

So sorry to hear you've been ill. I hope you are restored to mid-season form. Thank you very much for your guidance on adding pictures, and I'm sorry for being vague in my description of what I had in mind. (I cobbled together a short piece on a tangentially D'Oyly Carte conductor, Boyd Neel, and SSilvers, my Wiki guardian angel, suggested adding a pic, but neither of us knew how). Tim riley 18:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Adam. To explain further: I'm afraid that Tim and I are both rather technologically challenged. If you look at the bottom of the Boyd Neel article, you'll see that I referenced an image from the internet. We want to put that image into the article. Can you help us, or give us the "Images for dummies" instructions? I have no idea how to upload it to WP and give it all the copyright information, etc. Thanks! -- Ssilvers 18:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

I've requested a peer review for Agrippina (opera) at Wikipedia:Peer review/Agrippina (opera): all opinions welcome and requested. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 16:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfDs

It's normal to title new AfDs XXX (second nomination), or something of the sort. Not only does it make it apparent to other editors that there was a previous nom, but it also prevents links from going to the wrong place. Do you have any objections to changing it to the normal format? Guettarda 20:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...I spoke too quickly - looks like I don't know how to do this properly. Oh well, unless someone else complains, it might as well stay as it is. Guettarda 20:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Could call it a copyvio or plagiarism (from this, which is quoting ReMine 1990) - whichever you prefer. The linked website appears to plagiarise ReMine and Woods et al. Whatever it is, it's far too close to stand in the article. Guettarda 21:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I think a merge request would have been better suited to what you are proposing. AfD often ends up with "merge" as an outcome, but it isn't designed to handle merges. Guettarda 21:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes you need to publicise things like this. There is a WP:RM, although that is unlikely to bring a lot of traffic. Some people might get mad at you, but Talk:Evolution, Talk:ID and Talk:Creationism are probaby good places to get feedback in a case like this. Guettarda 22:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] G&S

The G&S article is a Featured Article on Italian Wikipedia: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_e_Sullivan

Can we copy anything from the Italian WP for our article? It seems like, at a minimum, there are a few photos that can be copied, either for the G&S article, or for the author's or composer's articles? -- Ssilvers 02:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please go ahead and copy over the images that you think are useful in any of the other articles. -- Ssilvers 04:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New with question

Hi Mr. Cuerden,

I have just begun on Wikipedia. I noted in the Evolution talk section that the people who can edit the page seem to give more attention to "grammar" and "feel" than to supporting statements with citations.

This did not seem right for a true scientific artical in which Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. I read about the five pillars and the other Ideals of Wikipedia. I agree that they are a great foundation.

I would rather help than add to that problem some seem to have of focusing on beliefs rather than acting as an resource encyclopedia.

Do you have any suggestions for me?

Thanks for reading this,

HFAS

[edit] Mutation rates

Mutation rates vary enormously amongst varying genomes and species and has been problematic in devising molecular clocks such that a relaxed approach is often taken nowdays. I think that is one of the most interesting questions in evolutionary biology: Why some genome sequence is prone to change and why some organisms are hypervariable or resistant to change? I find induced mutagenesis interesting because that brings in a new dimension of the environment directly promoting genetic change and evolution. GetAgrippa 13:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ID around the world

In that case the article should state that with a reference (that ID is a pheonomena mostly limited to English-speaking Western countries).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this will be useful: Talk:Poland#Polish_government_vs._Evolutionism_dispute for another sentence. I expected most countries all around the world at least debated this - it would be interesting to have notes on major countries (France, Germany, Spain, Italy, etc.).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genesis

Yes, if that's what you thought the problem was, i didn't see it--& of course the Creation story is the classic example of the 2 narratives. When I first came to WP, I thought I'd work on evolution, but quickly learned I would mostly edit in circles. I commend your endurance. DGG 05:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article help

Hi Adam,

Sorry I haven't been around the Evolution article for awhile; that one is so active I find it impossible to keep up given the amount of time I am able to contribute. It's like I go away for two days and there's 2 hours worth of new reading on the Talk page! I haven't been too active in any particular article since then, but I have taken an interest in Conservation biology and I am trying to get a few more good editors involved, as well. I realied I don't actually know what field of biology you focus in, or whether you know anything about this topic, but thought I'd ask--or maybe you know of some editors who do.

There was some discussion about 6-8 months ago on needed improvements to the article, but for awhile now it has just been two editors, myself and another, and I think neither one of us has the expertise to substantively improve the article beyond a certain point. Also, there is disagreement on a few things, and without more qualified editors involved, it may become difficult to resolve some of the disagreements, and there is a risk that it may start to look like one or the other of us is trying to own the article. I think it is just a situation with too few cooks, and I would like to see more qualified editors join in for awhile.

If this is a topic of interest to you, I hope you can find some time to work on it a little.--EveRickert 21:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!--EveRickert 21:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] W. S. Gilbert

Please check the latest edit to the talk page. I don't agree. We should reference the current version, no? Please fix it if you agree. -- Ssilvers 20:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Darwin

Good point about going for 19 April, as the 125th anniversary of his death for Main Page request. Do you think it's worth trying to make improvents as requested at Talk:Charles Darwin#Opening sentence and as discussed at Talk:Charles Darwin#The variation of domestic plants and animals? I'm struggling a bit with some other things at the moment, but could try some things out before April. Not sure if it would actually be possible to achieve an improvement, and presumably we have to be cautious about deviating from an approved standard, so to speak. .. dave souza, talk 22:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ouch! Guess I talked myself into that one, will sleep on it. As long as you're happy, .. dave souza, talk 22:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hope you're getting better. As you'll have noted, I've split the list of works off to a new article, and substituted a brief homily mentioning the works we've got articles about, though not Variation because unsure of what to say. Have had a bit of a struggle finding references covering all of the points, ended up using a couple of obituaries which mention most of the works, though not the barnacles and worms: think it's worth adding in this timeline which lists more works but lacks nice adjectives? If need be could always find a whole lot of pages in Desmond and Moore, but don't want to go berserk here. .. dave souza, talk 16:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Estuary

Might be an idea for you to check this :) Seems like our friend Mr Estuary thought it would be cool to go around putting indefblock templates on all our userpages. I wouldn't worry too much about it now, he's indef blocked himself! RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Larson

I just spent a while looking at the talk page trying to figure out what was going on. I gave up trying just a little while before you emailed me :) I'll give it another try after work...I have to go to the department's weekly seminar in a while, which means I have to get some coffee so I can stay awake through a talk on cell signaling in plants...like I really care about that - I'm an ecologist, for god's sake! :) Guettarda 21:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I should care - I had a question on cell signaling in my intro botany class this week, and "I don't care" just isn't a good answer when you're the one teaching the class. Guettarda 21:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Pro-animal??! That's a mortal insult. Animals are important - as pollinators, seed dispersers and herbovores - but my username is a plant genus! No, I'm just not too thrilled with molecular biology, gene microarray, protein assays... Guettarda 00:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Um... I'm a little doggy... are you saying I'm not useful because I dont pollinate, disperse seeds or eat grass? I'm.... a useless blot on the planet? *whimpers pitifully* KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No, dogs disperse seeds - they eat fruit, swallow it whole, disperse the seeds. Burrs get stuck in their fur, get moved around... Guettarda 02:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW [4] Guettarda 17:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your RFA

Hi Adam,

Just read your comment about edit summaries in your RFA. I thought you might like to know that in your my preferences, you can set up an automatic prompt for adding an edit summary. Check the Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary box under the Editing tab. You'll soon do it without thinking... I'm sure someone will point it out to you in the RFA! Good luck. The Rambling Man 16:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Better habit with regards to answering questions - it's far better to say "I will do so in the future" first. It isn't necessary to explain why you don't, but if you choose to, make it clear up front that you will do so in the future. For a lot of people, saying you will do so (and, of course, actually doing so) is good enough. Guettarda 16:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, BTW - with regards to self-promotion, too many people see modesty as weakness or being unconvinced (a very American viewpoint)...which is why it's good to have someone nominate you for adminship (though I realise it's a bit late to say that now). Guettarda 16:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Guettarda is correct about how people see modesty (especially in America, Land of the Me and Home of Bravado). I don't see it that way, but then I'm not pumped up on testosterone and apple pie.  ;) •Jim62sch• 19:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well, not like I can do anything. I'm just not willing to puff up myself that much, so I'll have to stand on what merits I have. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be doing quite well. I must admit that I'm a bit surprised by the "oppose" and "neutral" votes -- seems like opposition for opposition's sake to me. One of the votes, "I don't find it funny so it must be disrepectful" was simply bizarre. •Jim62sch• 21:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• You seem to have fogotten to accept your RfA. Cbrown1023 talk 18:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  Since its a self-nom, accepting would be a little silly. I have seen self-noms formally accept but I really don't see how it is necessary. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Nor do I see the point, other than a desire to see all procedures followed whether logically necessary or not (in this case, not). •Jim62sch• 22:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've seen people opposes users just because they forgot it. It is a formatility that should be followed. Cbrown1023 talk 23:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major-General's Song

Is the newest edit OK? It looks a little suspicious to me. -- Ssilvers 04:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your blog

Enjoyed reading your Baraminology entry. Actually, well done with just the right amount of dismissive sarcasm. Anyways, you read this garbage, and you wonder if they're really not testing out a new comedy sketch!!!! But for the first time, I now know what they're trying to do. And it's also good to know that they're the good old fashioned racists. Orangemarlin 15:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Blog? Where do I find a link to this? Anyway, back to business – this History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth is the best overview I've found, though essentially it's an evangelical Catholic blog article based on a book by a protestant evangelical. However, it seemed to me to be fully consistent with the various other histories I've come across. Do you have any problems with it being used as a source? ... dave souza, talk 15:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ta for the links, mmm Richard Thompson – saw an MGBGT on the road today.. bit unkind about the baraminnies, judging by article 1. Have been reminded of A Handbook on the History of Modern Science, further useful info about the earlier controversies and political/religious tensions which led into the evolution argument of that time – in my opinion it's remarkable how much of ID / creationism is a rehash of ideas and arguments from about the start of the nineteenth century. .. dave souza, talk 22:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, have you got a wiki as well? ... dave souza, talk 00:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

“

Should I open a request for comment about Creation-evolutio controversy

”

Yes, please do Adam. You're not contributing, your deleting, and without backing up your own opinions with references. Please do. StudyAndBeWise 05:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You've come a long way, baby...

Hello Adam :-) I looked for the date that I welcomed you and could not believe that it's been almost a full year. (...Again, welcome! FloNight talk 21:59, 7 March 2006). Time sure does fly when you're having fun! Like I said on your RFA, I'm very pleased with your work here and know you will do great with the tools. Take care, FloNight 23:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patience (opera)

What do you think of the edit that someone made to this article yesterday about Wilde? -- Ssilvers 05:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Objective ministries

Regarding this edit, I'm pretty sure they are a parody site. You may want to cite AIG or ICR instead. JoshuaZ 17:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is run by the same people who run the less subtle parody of Landover Baptist (that's why Objective Ministries spends so much time attacking Landover and demanding it be shut down as blasphemy by the evil atheists). The parody is sublte but it comes through if one looks at the general pattern, see for example |here where some self-identifies as a "Game Theoretician". . Similarly, here they tell kids that if they meet an atheist they should tell their parants and pastor right away and that "Very advanced witnessing techniques are needed for these grouches. Let the adults handle them." Similarly, in the "Creation Science Fun Facts" they include the statement that Adam was missing a rib and describe Neanderthals as "Flood-cloud-related-rickets" which is a combination of the creationist claim that Neanderthals were normal people with rickets and the general phenomenon of using the presence of more water in the atmosphere(in some form or another) pre-Flood as an explanation of many different things. Finally, they claim specifically that the Bombardier beetle was made to be a refutation of evolution. For a really humorous set see the Malls Of The Damned. One of the real kicker's is their page about using Halloween to witness which includes the suggestion to dress up as various Biblical figures and recommends saying something like "BOO! I'm John the Baptist, and these are my many exciting exploits..." Finally, I don't think anyone would think that this page is anything less than a joke. The relevant Wikipedia article is OBJECTIVE: Ministries(which unfortunately appears to not meet WP:WEB, I may have to AFD it) is. JoshuaZ 19:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Also the Divine Org Chart here JoshuaZ 19:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, see the song lyrics here and here. JoshuaZ 19:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sviatoslav image

Sorry, my mistake. I replaced the tag with fairuse and I believe the rationale is convincing. If you agree please delist the image from copyvio list where you placed it. Also, as a courtesy, in not clear-cut cases of blatant copyvios it is nice to contact the uploaded as the problem may be easily fixed before listing the image at the copyvio page. TIA, --Irpen 21:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please see my response to your substantive points at:

Talk:Creation-evolution_controversy#Request_for_Comment.

I will not resond to your other accusations as they are patently false. StudyAndBeWise 02:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pirates

An anonymous editor added a section called "Errors in the script". I have modified it somewhat to take out some inaccuracies and called it "Anomalies" in the script. Is it worth keeping? I am not sure that it adds to the reader's overall understanding of the opera. Please let me know what you think. If you think it should be deleted, go ahead. -- Ssilvers 05:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If you think it's not a plus for the article, please delete it, but if you do think it is generally a plus, please do what you can to fix it up. Also, does it belong where it is now, or someplace else? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 06:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. For the song page, if you're not sure, you could use a few ^{[citation needed]} tags. Best wishes, -- Ssilvers 06:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution

Hi Adam, I've added some comments at Talk:Evolution#Recent_move. Look forward to hearing from you. Thanks, --Rebroad 13:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neon

I added the few citations to the article, I hope it will satisfy your requirements. Tarret 21:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent AFD

You did not give a reason for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darwinian Fundamentalism. Please come and do so. -- saberwyn 08:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oops... I am ashamed *hangs head*. Just a word to the wise, I find it better to write up the discussion page first, and then list it in the daylog. Listing it a minute earlier isn't going to make it go away any faster. -- saberwyn 08:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just letting you know: moved/shortened your RfC.

The RfC page isn't really a place to air lengthy grievances against other users, and the Sciences RfC has subtopics that break the RfCs down by category. I tidied up your long RfC and put it under "Biology" (which is where evolution-related RfCs should go); your long explanation of the situation is still in the history and I don't think it would be out of place on the appropriate talk page -- just not on the RfC page itself. Cheers! --MattShepherd 18:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

And I see it's already there. So anyone visiting from the RfC will get your side of things even without it being copied onto the RfC page. All's good! --MattShepherd 18:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You're a sysop!

=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Good luck with the tools... The Rambling Man 17:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! Guettarda 18:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Weel done! Orrabest wi yer promotion tae janny! ... :) .... dave souza, talk 20:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Adam. Be wise and thoughtful. "May all good fortune prosper you!" (The Mikado, Act I) -- Ssilvers 20:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Congrats and good luck! Goes off to add another one to his pet admin list :) Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 14:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. And do I now need you to treat you with some level of respect?  :) Orangemarlin 15:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Treat him with respect? No - now you get to tell him to clean up your mess ;) Think janitor, not manager (only janitors have master keys that let them into every room in the building) - power, yes, but power because it's their job to empty the garbage. Guettarda 16:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That you're a sysop speaks volumes. Good lord, wikipedia is going down the drain.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.215.40.207 (talk) 13:37, March 3, 2007

Adam, please note the following with the above comment: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (2nd) Orangemarlin 17:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I also will belatedly add my congratulations here.--Filll 21:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrorism in Kazakhstan

Your deletion of Terrorism in Kazakhstan was incorrect as there were four delete votes and eight keep votes meaning 66% of the votes were in favor of keeping the article. Undelete the article. KazakhPol 19:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second... let me get this straight... you knew the consensus was against deletion but deleted the article anyway? Am I misunderstanding you? KazakhPol 19:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I have a bit of a cold, and made the mistake of scanning instead of counting it, and somehow thought there was a slight consensus for delete, that the title and so on pushed over the edge. Sorry. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand. No harm done. Regards, KazakhPol 19:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brantinghame Hall

I began the plot summary, completing Act I. Can you try to make some progress on it? If we just do this one task, the article will stand all right on its own. -- Ssilvers 20:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Healing temples move

I think 'Sleep temples' is the best catch all name and I'll make sure there are redirects from the other potential names. The article isn't the clearest around (not my work) and if it gets developed later into more specific articles they can always take over the redirects and this can be the generic main article. If that all makes sense... Thanks for helping with the move Madmedea 10:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Classical homeopathy

Yes it probably is a good idea to delete this article, it's so messed up. BTW I am not a troll or indeed a semi-troll but a good editor of many valuable articles. Get your facts right young man before you go round calling people trolls. Peter morrell 18:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

my ONLY contributions about evolution have been on natural selection talk page and those of Michael Johnson where we had a very amicable exchange of views which he decided to terminate yesterday. So it is not "lots of evolution talk pages," as you calimed. Just because someone questions the established dogma does make them a troll does it? or well maybe that is what a troll really is...? I don't really know what trolls or or where they live; maybe you can tell me? True scientists are supposed to question things, rather than base their views on a form of brainwashing with the views of the 'mother church.' Sadly, this latter description is a more accurate account of most 'science believers' and even of many so-called scientists who enjoy spouting their dogmas rather than doing a bit of freethinking. I prefer to think for myself, sorry if that offends. But hey it's OK I am harmless really. what's your view of natural selection, then? thank you Peter morrell 20:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

maybe I did attack the fellow badly you make me think about this maybe I should apologise do you think? I am happy to do so if you think it is helpful. They screwed up the Samuel Hahnemann article by deleting 4/5 of it...and I had worked hard on it...and they found that good fun and a good laugh! I thought my comments at the time seemed justified. thank you Peter morrell 21:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks OK I will give it a go, regards Peter morrell 08:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks Adam, I posted an apology to User_talk:Pernambuco so hopefully that will suffice. Meanwhile I read the wiki article about trolls and have decided I am not one! you may be relieved to know this? regarding natural selection, then I would be happy to dialogue with you about this subject but get the feeling you are probably unwilling to do so. When I get time, not sure yet when, I will be sending to the natural selection talk page a referenced outline of why NS is considered partly as an empirically observed mechanism or process (by some) and why it is regarded by others merely as a hypothesis, concept or theory. Maybe when that appears you will consider debating this topic. thanks for the advice about the apology. best regards Peter morrell 10:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

as for what you said about me that's OK am not overly bothered but thanks anyway for saying sorry; bearing a grudge is a waste of good energy; but I'd be happy at some point maybe to discuss my misgivings about the Darwinian stuff, it's up to you. thanks Peter morrell 12:44, 5 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 17:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neon ctd.

I added the few citations hope its better now. Tarret 21:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Natural selection

Thanks Adam, I suppose my main issue is please point to the hard evidence that NS is a real thing and not just a theory. I think it is largely cooked up in the sense that people 'go fishing' for evidence to support a theory and do not see nature as it is, but see it very largely through the lens of a theory. This evidence arising from 'expectation of proof' is highly dubious in my view as it seems like evidence found to 'pin against' someone suspected of murder, rather than some incontrovertible evidence found without solicitation or expectation that merely proves pretty unambiguously who the murderer is. Do you follow? and please think about the subtle difference between those two grades of evidence. One would be regarded as good evidence in a court of law, and the other pretty shaky. thanks Peter morrell 08:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (2nd)

Hi Adam, your comment on this case, "I suppose someone sets a block or other punishment on one/both of them as they see fit, and put that in Conclusions?" is right on the money. Despite the official-looking nature of the page, it seems that pretty much anyone can make comments on the cases. Of course, only sysops can make blocks, and for whatever reason SSP gets barely any admin attention, which is why I said that if you don't take action I'm not sure who will. Your reluctance to make a block in a case where you're personally involved makes sense though, and maybe the thing to do is to post to ANI--you might get more of a response than my post did. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, I hope the ANI post draws a response. By the way, is there any chance you could look at a few of the other cases on SSP? Some of them seem pretty obvious to me, like Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Winkers6767, another case where one of the accounts basically admits to the sockpuppetry. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on that. I read it a little differently than you did, though--I thought Winkers6767 was directing his comment at RJASE1, in much the same way as I might say "Haha! You can't stop me, Adam Cuerden!" --Akhilleus (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Sock puppet case 190.53.15.171

Hi, I'm not too sure what the conclusion was. You said 'clear sockpuppetry', what does that mean? And, you said you were 'inclined' to block them, does that mean that no blocks were made?
LaNicoya 22:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the reply. IMO seeing as the users first attempts were to vandalize pages and throughout their 'contributions' have brought nothing but reverts, numerous personal attacks and not following rules, they should be blocked.
LaNicoya 09:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] War against homeopathy

Hi Adam, I see you're engaged in some kind of campaign to purge WP of articles about homeopathy. I suppose that's your right, but would you mind putting in a tiny bit of effort to check whether the articles you are proposing for deletion might actually have some value? For example, Vithoulkas and Sankaran are without question the two most important homeopathic practitioners in the world today and a simple Google search would have confirmed that. I used to be an active editor, but I don't have time for it these days, so it's a little distressing to find that someone's going around trying to delete a whole string of articles just because the editor doesn't have a clue what they're about. Unfortunately I just don't have the time to chase after you and undo the damage. Thanks for your attention. --Lee Hunter 19:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fetus image

You came to Talk:fetus during a RfC on the image. I followed the advice of a number of editors and I have created Image:Image-Lifesize8weekfetus-edit.JPG to include a more neutral scale and remove the controversial hand. Again, this isn't a real fetus, but would you support my edit until an even better image comes along? For reference, [[here is the disputed image. If interested, please reply at Talk:Fetus. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 00:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brantinghame Edit conflicts

Oops! Sorry, didn't mean to step on your edits. BTW, maybe the "Let us Pray" thing should go up into the intro. I don't think it needs its own heading. -- Ssilvers 00:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vithoulkas

Obviously Adam, you're prejudiced against Homeopathy. If you'd knen anything about the subject, you wouldnt suggest to delete Vithoulkas homepage. Get informed.

Who is this, and why does noone want to provide information on why Vithoulkas is notable? Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Adam, you have already been provided more than ample resources to prove that Vithoulkas is notable. As I pointed on the AFD page, one only has to use Google to learn that Vithoulkas is the most notable living homeopath and has been for the last thirty years or more. The article itself points to a huge collection of sources. Look up Vithoulkas in Google Scholar. Look for his name on any site that discusses homeopathy. He is nothing less than the most prominent homeopath of the last forty years, and this fact is self-evident from the existing article. As one example, I pointed you to the Swedish parliament's Right Living award page, which in itself would make him notable (although it would actually count as one of his lesser achievements). To suggest that Vithoulkas is not notable in the face of a vast array of information to the contrary borders on malicious editing. --Lee Hunter 20:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sweethearts (play)

I put together an article for this play. Please take a look when you have a moment. Thanks! -- Ssilvers 19:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Vithoulkas

You've just closed this AfD speedily as a copyvio. Can I ask what it is a copyvio of? An earlier check only gave Wikipedia and mirror sites on the text. Nuttah68 00:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In the face of overwhelming evidence of the notability of Vithoulkas you have abused the process to delete this article. You should be ashamed. --Lee Hunter 00:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Funnily enough, it was that evidence that caused it to be deleted: It turned out to be the same as one of the sources asserting notability. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply request

Adam, I am still waiting for a reply from you; are you well again now or what? thank you Peter morrell 17:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)