User talk:BiologicalMe

Welcome...

Hello, BiologicalMe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.  Again, welcome! Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Image collage not working

Hi, I see that you have been trying to add a collage of biological images, but it has been deleted from common.wikimedia.org because the sources of the images were not clearly used with permission. I haven't seen the image, so I can't guess whether these were your own images or not. If they were you own so that there is no copyright violation, let me know on my talk page and I'll see if I can help. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Curious

as to where you found that youtube link you posted at AFD, cheers Flat Out let's discuss it

While Hovind has been in jail awaiting trail, he's been been making numerous phone calls to someone with a YouTube channel who has been recording and posting them. [1] They're amusing in small doses.BiologicalMe (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks mate, appreciate your response. Amen!! Flat Out let's discuss it 00:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kent Hovind, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NCSE. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kent Hovind may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• fl.us/ Escambia County, Florida Clerks Office] as Instrument #1998483189. Retrieved 2015-05-14.]</ref> Judges and the IRS did not appear to honor this as a legally relevant document in future

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kent Hovind may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• org/web/20010620193704/http://www.drdino.com/FAQs/FAQmisc4.jsp | archivedate= 2001-07-25}}</ref>} His dissertation says that the [[Serpent (Bible)|serpent]] taught evolution to [[Adam and Eve]].<

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kent Hovind may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• aic.htm |title=About Old Earth Ministries? |website= Old Earth Ministries |access-date=2015-05-21}}</ref> (renamed from [[Answers in Creation]]), writes that Hovind's articles about humans and

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Kent Hovind

Hello, thanks for the note on the new developments on Kent Hovind. I am reviewing the Court's orders issued today (Monday, May 18, 2015), and I'll have something for the article in a little while, unless someone else beats me to it.

The Order at entry 197 is indeed a judgment of acquittal on the criminal contempt count. The Court essentially pointed out that there was nothing in the forfeiture order that stated that Hovind was prohibited from doing what he did (filing the lis pendens action, for example). You can't be guilty of violating a court order if you did not disobey the order. And you can't disobey an order that does not actually order you to do something or not do something.

The Order at entry 198 grants the prosecutor's motion for dismissal without prejudice on the other three counts (the ones on which a mistrial occurred several weeks ago). This means that the government is free to go back to a Federal grand jury and ask the grand jury for a new indictment on those charges.

Stay tuned. Famspear (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, first: Here's the text of the Court's order at docket entry 197:

This case involves the criminal prosecution of Defendants Kent E. Hovind and Paul John Hansen on charges of mail fraud, conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and criminal contempt. A jury trial was held in March 2015. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Hovind guilty of one count of contempt in relation to a previous Order of the Court forfeiting his interest in certain real property, Doc. 212, United States v. Hovind, No. 3:06-cr-83/MCR (N.D. Fla. June 28, 2007) (“Forfeiture Order”).[footnote 1 not reproduced] The jury was unable to reach a unanimous agreement on the remaining charges against Hovind, and, accordingly, a mistrial was declared as to those counts. See Doc. 150. At the close of the Government’s case-in-chief, Hovind orally moved for a Judgment of Acquittal under Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, arguing among other things that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction for criminal contempt of the Forfeiture Order. The Court took the motion under advisement and requested briefing from the parties. Having fully and carefully considered the matter, the Court finds the motion is due to be granted.

This case is related to a prior criminal prosecution of Hovind and his wife, in which they were charged in a fifty-eight count indictment with tax crimes, structuring crimes, and obstruction, all related to their ownership and operation of a business in Pensacola known as Creation Science Evangelism Enterprises/Ministry (“Creation Science Evangelism”). Both defendants were convicted as charged, and Kent Hovind was sentenced to a 120 month prison term. The jury also forfeited $430,400 to the United States.

Based on the jury’s verdict and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982, which provides for the criminal forfeiture of property interests in certain instances, the Court entered an Order forfeiting the Hovinds’ interest in the $430,400 to the United States and a subsequent Order – referred to here as the “Forfeiture Order” – forfeiting their interests in ten parcels of real property in partial substitution of the $430,400 forfeiture judgment. The charges in the present case relate to Hovind’s fraudulent efforts to prevent the Government from disposing of nine of those ten parcels of property. Count Three of the Superseding Indictment specifically charged the following:

Between on or about May 22, 2013, and on or about May 29, 2013, in the Northern District of Florida and elsewhere, the defendant, Kent E. Hovind, did willfully and knowingly disobey and resist a lawful process, decree, and command of a court of the United States, that is,

[1] an Order Forfeiting Substitute Property dated June 28, 2007, forfeiting defendant Kent E. Hovind’s right, title, and interest in the pieces of real property identified therein [i.e., the “Forfeiture Order”], and

[2] the Order dated June 27, 2012, which enjoined Creation Science Evangelism, Creation Science Evangelism Foundation, 21 Cummings Road Trust, 400 Block Cummings Subdivision Trust, 5720 N. Palafox Trust, 5800 N. Palafox Trust, 29 Cummings Road Trust, and any agent or representative acting on their behalf, to take no further action to file or attempt to file any liens, notices, financing statements, and claims of whatever nature with the Clerk of Court in and for Escambia County, or attempt in any manner to cloud title on said properties without first obtaining the advice of a licensed Florida attorney or an Order from the Court. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 401(3).

Doc. 28, at 8-9. The Verdict Form required the jury to consider each Order separately, and in doing so, the jury found Hovind guilty of violating only the Forfeiture Order.

Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure directs the court, on a defendant’s motion, to “enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.”[footnote 2 not reproduced] Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a). In deciding a Rule 29(a) motion, the court “view[s] the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, with all reasonable inferences and credibility choices made in the government’s favor.” United States v. Holden, 2015 WL 542274 (11th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). “A jury’s verdict cannot be overturned if any reasonable construction of the evidence would have allowed the jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting United States v. Capers, 708 F.3d 1286, 1297 (11th Cir. 2013)).

Title 18 of the United States Code section 401 makes it a crime for anyone to disobey or resist a lawful order of a Court of the United States. See 18 U.S.C. § 401. For a defendant to be found guilty of criminal contempt, the Government must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(1) The court entered a lawful order of reasonable specificity;

(2) The defendant violated the order; and

(3) The violation was willful.

United States v. Bernadine, 237 F.3d 1279, 1282 (11th Cir. 2001). See also United States v. Maynard, 933 F.2d 918, 920 (11th Cir. 1991).

Hovind argues he is entitled to Judgment of Acquittal on Count Three because the Forfeiture Order merely forfeits his interest in the properties at issue and does not contain any language, much less clear and specific language, directing him to take or refrain from any action; thus, he cannot be guilty of willfully violating the Order by filing lis pendens on the properties.[footnote 3 not reproduced] In response, the Government argues there was substantial evidence at trial showing that Hovind engaged in a “systematic effort” to disobey and evade the Forfeiture Order, which is more than sufficient to support the jury’s guilty verdict.

In determining whether a court order meets the “reasonable specificity” element, the Court must evaluate the order in the context in which it was entered and the audience to which it was addressed. Bernadine, 237 F.3d at 1282 (internal marks omitted). An order meets the “reasonable specificity” requirement “only if it is clear, definite and unambiguous in requiring [or prohibiting] the action in question.” Id. (internal marks omitted). “The reasonableness of the specificity of an order is a question of fact . . . .” United States v. Turner, 812 F.2d 1552, 1565 (11th Cir. 1987). “Willfullness,” as used in the context of criminal context, is a “deliberate or intended violation” rather than one that is “accidental, inadvertent or negligent.” Bernadine, 237 F.3d at 1282 n.2 (quoting United States v. Baldwin, 770 F.2d 1550, 1558 (11th Cir. 1985)).

There is no question the Government presented substantial evidence at trial from which a reasonable jury could have found that Hovind caused lis pendens to be filed on several of the properties identified in the Forfeiture Order. The question though is whether Hovind’s conduct – particularly, the filing of the lis pendens – was clearly prohibited by the Forfeiture Order. The Forfeiture Order does not specifically prohibit Hovind from filing lis pendens against the forfeited properties; indeed, the Order does not prohibit any conduct at all. Instead, it simply forfeited the real property in partial substitution for the money forfeiture judgment. The Government has not cited any authority for the proposition that Hovind can be guilty of contempt for interfering with or evading an Order that did not speak directly to his conduct. Thus, the guilty verdict on Count Three cannot stand. See United States v. Petroski, 132 F.3d 1454 (5th Cir. 1997) (reversing criminal contempt conviction because written order directing the defendant, a plaintiff’s attorney, “not to . . . introduce any evidence regarding the financial status of the [d]efendant,” did not clearly and unambiguously specify that attorney could not introduce defendant’s payroll information, as opposed to evidence regarding its net worth); cf. In re Fischer, 501 B.R. 346, 350 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2013) (finding bank not liable for civil contempt where the order at issue did not impose any duties on the bank, stating, “[i]f the underlying order contains no operative commands, only abstract legal conclusions or compels no action then a finding of contempt is not warranted”).[footnote 4 not reproduced]

Accordingly, Kent E. Hovind’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal on Count Three of the Superseding Indictment (Doc. 154) is GRANTED. Judgment will be entered by separate Order.

DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of May, 2015.

--Docket entry 197, May 18, 2015, United States v. Kent E. Hovind and Paul John Hansen, case no. 3:14-cr-91/MCR, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola Div.) (italics not reproduced).

Essentially, there were two court orders discussed here. One was the forfeiture order, by which Hovind, etc., lost the properties. THAT order is the ONLY order that the jury found Hovind guilty of violating. What the Court has concluded is that there is nothing in the language of THAT PARTICULAR ORDER that prohibited Hovind from doing anything. Thus, the Court has rendered a judgment of acquittal on the criminal contempt charge.

Stay tuned. Famspear (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your extensive work on the Kent Hovind article! Famspear (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Anatomy Wikiproject!

Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Anatomy! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of anatomy articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are involved in editing anatomy articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:

• Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
• You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing anatomy articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
• We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
• We write for a general audience. Every reader should be able to understand anatomical articles, so when possible please write in a simple form—most readers do not understand anatomical jargon. See this essay for more details.

Feel free to contact us on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages! --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Robert Sungenis

The subject of the article has repeatedly removed referenced content about diploma mills without consensus which is why I added the COI template. Theroadislong (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The current article does not reflect that activity. As I read the template guidelines it should mark a problem rather than a potential problem. I probably should have let the discussion play out first. Live and learn. Sorry. BiologicalMe (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Wrongful reversion of edit on Kent Hovind

Kent Hovind is not a "tax protester", he is a CONVICTED tax evader. The evidence is cited on his Wikipedia page already, so why the reversion? VeroniqueBellamy (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)He's described as a tax protester by sources and used arguments supported by tax protesters. So yes, he is and should be correctly described as a tax protester. Ravensfire (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear VeroniqueBellamy: Editor BiologicalMe and editor Ravensfire are correct. These are technical legal terms. The correct term for Hovind is "tax protester." That's the term used by the courts. Hovind was never charged with tax evasion (26 USC section 7201). He was charged with willful failure to PAY tax, which is a separate crime. Please review the article. I'll explain more on your own talk page. Famspear (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While he was convicted of a tax crime that is colloquially referred to as tax evasion, technically, he was convicted of "willful failure to pay", not "evasion" which would involve additional elements. There has been extensive discussion of the wording of the lede (Talk:Kent Hovind/Archive 10#Kent Hovind opening paragraph suggestion). The discussion of his being a tax protester has come up several times (Talk:Kent Hovind/Archive 10#Working version of lede, Talk:Kent Hovind/Archive 11#Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2015, Talk:Kent Hovind/Archive 11#Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2015).

Additionally, please do not abuse the minor edit tag. If you are reverting another editor's changes (with the exception of blatantly obvious vandalism), the minor edit tag is wholly inappropriate. BiologicalMe (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

As an attorney and certified public accountant who has been studying U.S. Federal criminal tax law for years, the news media's incorrect use of the term "tax evasion" to mean "any tax crime" makes me feel frustrated. And, as a former member of the broadcast news media, the news media's incorrect use of the term "tax evasion" to mean "any tax crime" makes me feel, well, sort of embarrassed. (sigh....) Famspear (talk) 04:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I only learned the distinction because of my research on Kent Hovind (probably from you). Mind you, I have one undergraduate accounting course and a few online law courses (mostly for entertainment purposes) as a background. BiologicalMe (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if Hovind was inspired by Tax Avoiders. Ahhh, the power (and curse) of searching on Wikipedia. Ravensfire (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Rule 34 is porn. I wonder which number is video games. BiologicalMe (talk) 04:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The guy who designed a video game around the concept of taxation must be almost as twisted as I am. After sixteen years of representing taxpayers in dealings with the Internal Revenue Service, I still enjoy doing it. Famspear (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Copied from User Page

Hello, I saw that you wrote on the article talk page for the Atrioventricular Block that my partner and I have been working on editing. I know you had mentioned if we needed any advice or help that you might be available and I would like to send you the information we have comprised to add to the page and see if you wouldn't mind looking over it and possibly giving us feedback? I would really appreciate your expertise and am looking forward to your response. All of the information that is below is what I have added in addition to the article. Please let me know your thoughts. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (Under the category of Second-Degree AV Block): Mobitz I is characterized by a reversible block of the AV node. When the AV node is severely blocked, it fails to conduct an impulse. Mobitz I is a progressive failure. Some patients are asymptomatic; those who have symptoms respond to treatment effectively. There is low risk of the AV block leading to heart attack. Mobitz II is characterized by a failure of the His-Purkinje cells resulting in the lack of a supra ventricular impulse. These cardiac His-Purkinje cells are responsible for the rapid propagation in the heart. Mobitz II is caused by a sudden and unexpected failure of the His-Purkinje cells. The risks and possible effects of Mobitz II are much more severe than Mobitz I in that it can lead to severe heart attack.

(Under the category of Third-Degree AV Block): The heart’s electrical signals are slowed to a complete halt. This means that none of the the signals reach either the upper or lower chambers causing a complete blockage of the ventricles and can result in cardiac arrest. Third-degree atrioventricular block is the most severe of the types of heart ventricle blockages. Persons suffering from symptoms of third-degree heart block need emergency treatment including but not limited to a pacemaker.

In order to differentiate between the different degrees of the atrioventricular block (AV block), the First-Degree AV block occurs when an electrocardiogram (ECG) reads a PR interval that is more than 200 msec. This degree is typically asymptomatic and is only found through an ECG reading. Second-Degree AV block, although typically asymptomatic, has early signs that can be detected or are noticeable such as irregular heartbeat or a syncope. A Third-Degree AV block has noticeable symptoms that present themselves as more urgent such as: dizziness, fatigue, chest pain, pre syncope, or syncope.

Laboratory diagnosis for AV blocks include electrolyte, drug level and cardiac enzyme level tests. A clinical evaluation also looks at infection, myxedema, or connective tissue disease studies. In order to properly diagnose a patient with AV block, a electrocardiographic recording must be completed (ECG). Based on the P waves and QRS complexes that can be evaluated from these readings, that relationship will be the standardized test if an AV block is present or not. In order to identify this block based on the readings the following must occur: multiple ECG recordings, 24-hour Holter monitoring, and implant loop recordings. Other examinations for the detection of an AV block include electrophysiologic testing, echocardiography, and exercise.

Management includes a form of pharmacologic therapy that administers anticholinergic agents and is dependent upon the severity of a blockage. In severe cases or emergencies, atropine administration or isoproterenol infusion would allow for temporary relief if bradycardia is the cause for the blockage, but if His-Purkinje system is the result of the AV block then pharmacologic therapy is not recommended.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfigueroa12 (talk • contribs) 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I noticed your comments on my user page rather than my talk page last night. I feel terrible because it looks like this reply will be just too late for the course. What you wrote looked good in general. I only saw one outright error. The phrase, "This means that none of the the signals reach either the upper or lower chambers..", is inaccurate. A perfectly viable P wave from the atria (upper chambers) is not transmitted to the ventricles (lower chambers).

From a style standpoint, there were two things you could have done. The first is to link terms so that obscure terminology is available at a click. The second is more of a challenge--describe the terms in plain language within the article so that a user does not need to click. Some of the items discussed which have unambiguous links include:

• Anticholinergic
• Bradycardia
• Bundle of His
• Holter monitor
• Implantable loop recorder
• Purkinje fibers

Other terms that could be linked that are not as direct include:

• Antiarrhythmic agent as a link for "pharmacologic therapy"
• Electrical conduction system of the heart

One of the principals of Wikipedia linking is to "build the web" so that more detail is always a click away. This is balanced by the idea that you don't need to link to any page more than once.

As a truly minor note, there is a convention of Wikipedia to use a non-breaking space between a quantity and its units so that that will be on the same line. The preferred form in the editor is "200{{nbsp}}ms" which appears as "200 ms" on the resulting page.

Again, I am sincerely sorry if this reply is just too late. BiologicalMe (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Immunoglobulin G

The data added in this article was as told by my teacher during the class. There is no copyright issue regarding it. Please see through it once more and revert the change made by you... Uditkanojia (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for my edit for gut associated lymphoid tissues. for immunoglobulin g, the point is even if it may not come from a reliable source(i.e., TEACHER, in this case as u say), the information was correct. also, rhat was not a patented material. The information given was just to facilitate the students to learn more from a small text. please on your permission i would like ti add that matter again...Uditkanojia (talk) 05:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

New ligament discover

O.K. BiologicalMe, thanks you. It is nice to see you. Warm greetings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.38.233.173 (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

March 2019

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Creation–evolution controversy, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 21:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Parody religion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burden of proof (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Failure to read

BiolMe - Thank you for your recent comment. It is a minor edit; it just moved an important fact up in the paragraph, and was only 18 characters long. Tiptopper (talk)

Nope. Not even close to Help:Minor edits. The argument was not supported by using minor edit tag add it to my talk page any more than it belonged in a section called "Disambiguation link notification for May 1". BiologicalMe (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

BiolMe--Yup, this about captures it "A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions" Tiptopper (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Message to me from BiologicalMe

I got a message from BiologicalMe regarding my edit to the Kent Hovind Marriages page.

One of my contacts tipped me off to a recent posting there and I was moved to establish a Wikipedia account and response.

I am quite unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works and am not presently inclined to try and figure it out.

He/She did note that Wikipedia is not a debate venue.

I am more than willing to pursue any legitimate interests regarding the subjects I addressed, but BiologicalMe seemed to make it clear that the Wikipedia page is not the place for such an extended discussion and I do not find the place that user friendly in any case (at least not at my present level of expertise).

If you are interested in any of the details, feel free to engage on my website or FaceBook page at the following links:

http://kehvrlb.com/

https://www.facebook.com/groups/kenthovindsworstnightmare/

Or, you might suggest some other venue that might be mutually agreeable.

RLBaty (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation. My focus is assembling the best article on Kent Hovind that can be cobbled together from reliable sources. While your offer would allow me to dig deeper into details, I doubt I would pick up ones I could use. There is already a sizable disconnect between what I know and what is in the article because of the limitation of published sources. I won't say that I won't take you up on your offer, but for now, it is not where I plan to put my energy. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

My second response to BiologicalMe

You are not convincing to me that you have a serious interest in presenting information on Hovind's marital history while trying to impugn the legitimacy of my reporting which you seem to admit you have not even reviewed to any significant detail.

Here's a link to one of my posts to my Hovind FaceBook group where I link to numerous articles on the kehvrlb.com website which was referenced in the Wikipedia entry I was responding to, which Wikipedia reference hardly addressed the more serious matters you claim to have an interest in.

Besides the references to my articles on my page, it also references one of Peter J. Reilly's Forbes articles on the matter.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/kenthovindsworstnightmare/permalink/1336162413219551/

I can't make you take serious the readily available evidence of the legitimacy, legality of Kent's common-law marriage to Mary Tocco and the questions surrounding what may have become of it in light of his taking up with Cindi Lincoln (also without evidence of what legal or illegal arrangement they might have regarding that), but I am more than willing to dig into the details if you or one of your people really have a serious problem with the veracity, the credibility of my reporting on such things and want to "set the record straight" as to what we can tell from the public record at this time.

RLBaty (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I have not offered any opinions on the quality of your research. The sole issue is utility. It doesn't matter if your material is a good or better than any other source if the venue on which it is presented does meet the publication requirement. You could do research so good that it blows the journalistic standards of every major newspaper, magazine, and book publisher out of the water. If it hasn't been published in an appropriate medium, it does not meet Wikipedia's standard for reliable sources. I already have vast amounts of material that I cannot use because of that standard. That includes Peter J. Reilly. His articles (and I don't just read the ones that mention Kent Hovind) are published on the "sites" section of the Forbes website. The editorial standard is not met. The issue in either his or your case is that the venue fails the requirements, regardless of content. BiologicalMe (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

You are just another anonymous Internet spook to me, and I don't know why you are concerned with trying to explain Wikipedia standards to me.

If you have something substantive regarding what "we" know or might know about Hovind's relationship with certain women, let me know and we might negotiate how best to advance that discussion.

Otherwise, I have just posted a new article about the matter on my kehvrlb site at:

http://kehvrlb.com/wikipedia-the-hovind-marriages

As I indicated earlier, you can comment there or on my Hovind FaceBook page. Otherwise, I'll wait to see if the Wikipedia entry will have any further "edits" in an effort to try and "set the record straight" regarding Hovind's female relationships in recent years.

RLBaty (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Adrian Fey

Re. ——SN54129 14:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

And I feel like a dummy since the name was right there at the end of the block summary. BiologicalMe (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Charles H. Welch

Hi, sorry, but I've heard of neither Welch nor Unformed and Unfilled until you mentioned them. If I run across or gain access to anything that can improve sourcing, I will do so. Cheers, LovelyLillith (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

United States Poet Laureate

Thanks, BiologicalMe, for keeping a check on List of U.S. states' Poets Laureate and deleting my See also addition. Technically you are right that the link from the first paragraph is the same as that from my See also but the problem is that the link in the list is from Poet Laureate Consultant in Poetry to the Library of Congress which to a non-initiate means very little. Things would be much clearer if it were to be from United States Poet Laureate (which is actually the name of the article). Alternatively, you could include a hat note stating something like For Poets Laureate of the United States, see United States Poet Laureate. This would make it much easier for those (like me) searching for pertinent information.--Ipigott (talk) 14:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. The hatnote is an excellent suggestion. It is a better location and avoids a single entity "See also" section. BiologicalMe (talk) 14:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Adrian Fey et all

Hi, could please check Izuru Kamukura? As I stated elsewhere:

As admitted here, the user in question seems to have an addiction problem and I'm afraid new accounts may be created. Izuru Kamukura could be another one. It edited the Democratic socialism page and the pattern seems similar. Removing brackets or editing spelling in quotes when they should be copied exactly as they are; change -ise to -ize even when there's the use British English template and the whole page is written in British English spelling (labour, -ise, etc.); add (pictured above) in image's caption and edit it in an unnecessary way so as to add a dot at the end, etc. It's just one edit for now, but as having seen all of the edits at Social democracy, I've been accostumated to them, it seems to be the same pattern and so it looks suspictious to me. Let me know if this was helpful and if it matches.--Davide King (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm 90% sure it's still Symes2017 et all. Another thing is the same mistake. Compare an left-wing anti-Leninist and anti-Stalinist big tent (Social democracy) and a authoritarian Marxist–Leninist state (Democratic socialism). I hope something can be done about it to verify whether it's the same user because it already reverted and made most of the same mistakes again, notwithstanding the edit summary.--Davide King (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

With this, I'm even more suspicious, but I can't be 100% sure. I'm afraid Ivanvector may have to protect Democratic socialism just like Social democracy. Let me know if this was helpful.--Davide King (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King:, I looked over the edits, and found no smoking guns——no idiosyncratic phrases that suggest the same writer. I could draw some parallels, but not enough to be openly suspicious. I'm not an admin, so there's nothing I wold be able to do other than file another sockpuppet report, and so far I'm not very good at that. I'm not familiar enough with the Social democracy article to identify editors based on political opinions. The only reason I caught the socks was that I saw the same patterns of problematic editing on two pages on my watchlist which is a fairly random collection.

I would suggest the following: assume good faith, because if there is no bad behavior, that may be the best indication it is someone else. In that case, the worst thing that happens is that a formerly tendentious editor evades a block and becomes a good collaborative Wikipedian; that would be a win. (I'm not making light of block evasion, but considering the gain of a positive contributor more valuable.) Don't be confrontational because that could be biting a newcomer. As the editor contributes more, the odds of finding telltale signs increase, but I do not plan to pick through edits looking for signs unless there are troublesome behaviors. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, BiologicalMe. The thing is that I'm very familiar with the Social democracy article and the pattern seems clear (maybe Ivanvector can help). The fact that the user sent me that message and talked about a Wikipedia addiction; the long history of sockpuppetry; and now this newly created user start making edits with the same Social democracy pattern at Democratic socialism looks fishy to me, hence why I wrote this in the first place. But I don't disagree with anything you have said and I already knew all that. I kept some of the edits that were a improvement. I just think it may be the same user for the reasons outlined above. It was clearly said that the route back is via an appeal in six months; and continuing sockpuppetry, if true, certainly isn't a good way to re-start or a sign of good faith to have learnt.--Davide King (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

A wise Cardassian, Elim Garak, said, "I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences." The odds that a problematic editor would suddenly see the light and become a positive contributor with the sole exception of block evasion are remote, but not impossible. The odds of a new editor showing up on an article shortly after a problematic editor are remote, but not impossible. I'm not naive, but I want to keep the bar high rather than risk losing a potential editor. At this point, I cannot form an objective case that this is another sockpuppet. The timing is suspicious. A page move after 10 edits is unusual (I think). I don't see enough writing to get a sense of the style. I'm not without suspicion, but at this point, I don't think I could make a case which an uninvolved admin would accept. I may recheck at some time, especially if there is a request for unblock or new combative behaviors. If you spend too much time chasing socks, the socks are winning. BiologicalMe (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I feel you, I understand and respect that; I wish I'm wrong about it, but I'd lie if I said so and I'm really afraid that it's the same user. The writing/editing style is the same as the edits at Social democracy; and now it engages in edit war, despite me already accomodating correct edits but the user not doing the same (this is the thing that always happened at Social democracy; the user always reverted back to the favorite version while I made efforts to accomodate the edits and was better at putting them together without missing changes). Both users seems to have problems in using parethesis, brackets and dash, for who knows why; both edited quotes when they should be exactly as they're writting when we're reporting the actual quote; making changes to the images captions so as to add a dot at the end even when it's unnecessary or not an improvement; and just simply changing the wording or rephrasing it in a certain way (sometimes it's good, other times bad). I think Ivanvector could really help, but I didn't get a reply yet; and I don't know if a Check User or something is warrented, but it may end some doubts.--Davide King (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, I wish a had a clear answer. I haven't seen anything that has resolved the matter for me in either direction. The problem is turning the subjective, the intuitive things that tell you the two are the same, into the objective, specific features that anyone can see when pointed out. It is a bit of an introspective process turning gut feelings into a list of objective features. I don't want to list everything I look at when I start the process of deciding, because any "how to detect sockpuppetry" guide can be turned into a "how to avoid detection as a sockpuppet" handbook. Allow other editors to chime in, read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases, and when you think you have enough specific features (and the accompanying diffs), file at WP:SPI. I don't want you to waste a lot of effort arguing with a sock, but I don't have a magic bullet to rooting them out. BiologicalMe (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

BiologicalMe, I'm always more sure it may be the same user, writing because the consensus of reliable sources is that pseudoscience, by definition, is not equivalent to real science. They think alike and the blocked user made multiple edits at HIV/AIDS denialism and specifically called it pseudoscientific. Now it's also engaging in the same edit war, ignoring my advice to not edit until our discussion was over or a consensus was reached.--Davide King (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

ShutterWaves2017

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is not Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Fluorite, Terrace ledge kink model, Cubic crystal system, Lattice constant.

---

I got a message from BiologicalMe regarding my edits today on several articles/pages. His message sounds like this: “There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. BiologicalMe (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)” Would you provide me with more specifics so I can take appropriate measures to avoid getting in conflict with anyone in there? I am quite unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works and am willing to learn more about it. I really want to help with valid scientific information regarding various subjects I am very familiar with. Looking forward to learning about your verdict. Thank you.

Hi BiologicalMe, I received the following notice from you: The Plain and simple conflict of interest guide policy, again. Please review the conflict of interest of policy, especially Citing yourself, and the spam policy, especially Citation spam. Use Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Fluorite, Terrace ledge kink model, Cubic crystal system, Lattice constant for further discussion. BiologicalMe (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC).

I would like to get some clarifications about this citing yourself and spam policy. How do you deal with someone who wants to insert data into those Wikipedia pages missing scientific data by citing him/herself for such contribution, without breaching the citing yourself and spam policy? I have numerous crystallographic data that I obtained/verified/worked on over many years that I would like to insert into those pages that are missing such data. How do I insert my data in there without citing myself? To give validation to any data you have to provide references, right? Thanks for the help.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The translation was my own work

I translated the poem myself, so there should be no issue with rights--Frigorifico9 (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Chopsticks etiquette

Please stop removing the information I try to add in the article Chopsticks. It was in fact Yel D'ohan who wrote that information on English Wikipedia. If you think that information is unreliable, please discuss it with him. 90.226.9.16 (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

If you want to know why "eating with just one hand upon the table is perceived as rude" by Chinese traditional etiquette, please talk to Yel D'ohan (talk · contribs) and ask him for an explanation. It was he who wrote this strange information. 90.226.9.16 (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

If you don't want me to add the disputed information into the article Chopsticks, OK, I'll accept it, but pleast don't delete that information from the article Customs and etiquette in Chinese dining, just let it be. It is claimed the table manner to eat with just one hand upon the table (for example when not needing to hold the bowl) is rude according to traditional Chinese table etiquette, but I have disputed it because I think this claim is most likely nonfactual, and as long as it's marked as disputed it's not reasonable to delete it.

It was not I who wrote that information, but that user Yel D'ohan, who probably learnt from his parents that eating with just one hand upon the table is "bad table manners", but I don't agree with that. I don't think it is anything wrong with eating without both hands upon the table, at least not in exceptional cases when eating without holding the bowl, and besides that I think the perception that eating with just one hand on the table is "bad table manners" has been curtailed in modern time. So that is not any wrong or bad table manners, even though Yel D'ohan's parents are claiming that is "wrong and unproper behaviour". Yel D'ohan's as well as many other Chinese parents are just stupid liars. 90.226.9.16 (talk) 10:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Deletions from "Further reading" lists

Jessica Riskin, the author of a New York Review of Books review that you deleted from several "Further reading" lists today, has some insightful things to say about the relations of science, scientific method, innovation, economies, and the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on thinking about the earlier-mentioned. It might repay some readers' effort to read the book; the first step to that end is to bring the book to their attention.

Nihil novi (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Greenhorn - Kansas State Rock

Holy cow! You were right. We usually hear in Kansas that it is just limestone that is the Kansas state rock. But the statute specifically names the Greenhorn, but actually, it is the Fencepost limestone bed of the Greenhorn that is specifically intended. Thanks!

73-3701. Official state rock. Greenhorn limestone, a staple of the Kansas Flint Hills that is used in the construction of buildings throughout the state, is hereby designated as the official rock of the state of Kansas.

Hah, Hah! The statute places the Greenhorn in the Flint Hills! There is no Greenhorn in the Flint Hills. The Greenhorn is in the Smoky Hills. While the Fencepost limestone is iconic of Kansas, they may have been thinking of the Cottonwood Limestone, which is symbolic of the Flint Hills, and its much more widely used in construction.

IveGoneAway (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC) IveGoneAway (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)•

barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for your work expanding and developing Pseudolaw. Chetsford (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Templates

Thank you. Yes, I have seen in some articles the template missing, while they were mentioned in the template itslef, so I've addeed them, maybe I was not too careful about looking into the second part of some longer articles ;) noychoH (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I have checked all my edits, apart form those 2 spotted by you no other duplicates. noychoH (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)