User talk:Filll

Given the level of dysfunction that has come to prevail on Wikipedia, the most appropriate course for a principled scientist is to withdraw from the project.

The bureaucracy should either take corrective steps to fix this situation, or else suffer the eventual loss of huge amounts of valuable talent and volunteered resources.

If you agree with this statement, post it to your pages, and pass it on. (discuss this here)

Archives

Barnstars Humor
Mainpage ToDo
Staging Area
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Fact, theory and a new journal

This article is likely to interest you, found via the links shown at Talk:evolution.... dave souza, talk 00:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution resource

Just wanted to share this link, it's for the new "big" textbook on Evolution. Amazingly, most of the figures from the book are available free of charge on the web page, so it's a really useful resource. It may be a useful external link on some articles. I've added it to a few, maybe you can see further uses.

http://www.evolution-textbook.org/

I also messaged Dave Souza and Adam Cuerden. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC) diff=187720119&oldid=187578481 :)] David D. (Talk) 17:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expert withdrawal

I'm not sure what you want to be shown, but the Ilena/Fyslee Arbcom has multiple, blatant examples by multiple editors. What do you want to be shown? Editors arguing that it is harassment to point out their improper behavior because others have similar behavior? Editors arguing that they should be allowed to harass editors accused of misbehavior? Editors repeatedly gaming the system? It's all in the arbcom. Worse, it's all still being done by editors that were part of that arbcom. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

response

I wrote on my talk page why a factually written, neutral plot summary is needed. After that, an analysis of the film can be done (of which I'll let others do most of the work). For theatrical films, the plot section isn't constantly interrupted by commentary about how the scene had bloopers, is stupid or unrealistic. The commentary is always later. Fairchoice (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the plot section should be short and just include a few known facts like who is being interviewed. I see the butchering of the plot section or not having one as an attack on the film industry, even if not the intention. If you make a film, you should be given the courtesy of a WP plot section if there is an article in WP. If you want to know my agenda, it is not pro or anti intelligent design. It is fair treatment of the film and entertainment industry. Having a simple plot section is one way to show this. Why I am compared to Profg, I haven't the foggiest clue. It's an insult. Fairchoice (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]