User talk:Watchout4snakes!

Debut

My band, "The Party Freaks", had our first debut on December 31, 2008. We preformed two songs, "Jesus Freak" and "He (God) loves us". Anyway, I just thought you's like to know. The K.O. King (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Your Cousin

A long time ago you said you would ask your cousin if he would know any ways to get my C.D. out there. Have you seen him recently? If you did meet him but didn't remember to ask him that's o.k. The K.O. King (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I also though I'd tell you my band's name has been changed to The Endtime Warriors. I would like to give our C.D. when it comes out but I don't know how to get it to you. I don't want to ask for your home address because everyone on this site could see it and I wouldn't want to make you uncomfortable. If you know a way I can send you my C.D. pleas don't hesitate to tell me. If you don't want the C.D. you can tell me that too it won't hurt my feelings. Also, there is a Christian group that is called Blue Eyes Soul if you can find out about them (they are very hard to find) you should try (they were at Kingsfest). The K.O. King (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't mean to interject. Watchout, if you put your e-mail address in your options menu, KO should be able to e-mail you.--Jedi Kasra (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Evolution

Hello Watchout4snakes! , it appears that you are editing the articles on horse and polar bear to remove mentions of the term evolution and replaced them with terminology such as adapt. I will not go into an edit war over these, however if you have problems with the terminology as a whole they should be taken up on administrator boards to determine policy as opposed to minor edits in every article regarding animals.

On a personal note I am a Christian and editor on this site, but try to keep a NPOV on articles and use scientific consensus when necessary. Attempting to win a battle of terminology on Wikipedia as an individual editor is difficult on a per-article basis and your approach would be more constructive if you participated in administrator discussions about standards for how to deal with biology and its environmental adaptions. While I do not put 100% in all matters of popular science, an encyclopedia should reflect the most evidenced and cited theories and facts and only give mention to minority opposition when necessary.

For example Global Warming should not be cited in every animal article where a species is endangered as even though the majority of scientists do believe the earth as a whole is getting warmer, the science is newer, there are more detractors, and there are many theories to its cause as opposed to evolution which has a more substantial consensus. In case of the polar bear article, it deserves an entire section as the polar bear is one of the main points of study, however it would be canvasing if it were mentioned for every species in the world.

In The article luck, behavioral fallacy and social science are the focus of the article, with a section on religion and subsections for major religions that cite directly from holy texts. While the article is far from perfect, it is mostly rooted in the main points of larger more substantial articles ( statistics, gambling, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. ) and is a good example of how to layout an article.

Cheers BaShildy (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Wookieepedia?

I apologize for the late response. Yes, I do have an account on the Wook, under the same username. I actually spend most of my free time there. Did you have a question about the site?--Jedi Kasra (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)