User talk:Midnight Gardener

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ref formating

It isn't as hard as it looks if you do it in multiple steps. The first step is to put <ref> and </ref> around the link and see if that doesn't screw anything up. If there are no references on the page you may need to add a <references/> tag in the references section (which tells the software where to put all the references) Once that's set up, choose which template applies such as Template:Cite web, Template:Cite news, Template:Cite book(if you use web when you mean news or something like that no one is going to care). Paste that in between the ref markers and fill out the details.

That's the basic idea. The only thing to remember is that if you want to cite something multiple times the first time it shows up instead of writing <ref> put <ref name="some convenent name for the source"> This will tell the software on that page to treat anything of the form <nowiki><ref name="some convenent name for the source"/> (note the slash after the quotation mark) as additional links to the text. One minor note, you need the quotation marks here if there are any spaces in your name for the source. Also, don't be afraid to use preview, and if you mess up a few times, no big deal. Just revert it to a simple [url here] form. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, this is helpful. Angry Christian (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Material duplication on Expelled

D'oy, I didn't think to look for the New Scientist comments in the Screenings section. Reckon it's worth leaving the comments about the movie in the Reviews section, and moving the comments about the Q&A to the Screenings section?Sockatume (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I think you put the same (mostly) comments in the review section and that's where those should have been in the first place. So the end result is the article is better! And moving the Q&A questions to the screening section looks like a good idea however I just cleaned that section up and now we have 3 distinct "screening" sub-sections so we need use the top header section for more generic less dramatic screening info, you think? I wonder if this makes a bit of sense Angry Christian (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, we could use the top section for more general comments on the screenings. On the other hand, splitting material from a single review across multiple sections could get unduly complicated, and invite material duplication if someone spots part of an article in one section and thinks we've "missed a bit". 137.195.68.169 (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NCDave

Yeah, he's doing the same thing at greenhouse gases and maybe some of the other climate change pages. Guettarda (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I've been watching that. Angry Christian (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has a long history of this. That RFC, by the way, is also a good example of how not to conduct an RFC. Guettarda (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring over POV tags is not exactly a new behavior in this case. MastCell ^Talk 21:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a serial trouble maker. Angry Christian (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expelled article

Hello Angry Christian. Thank you for reverting my recent removal of the word alleged in the Expelled article so the article better conforms to the talk page. Could you show me where on the talk page it is discussed. As you know, that talk page is very long. Thanks. Have a great day. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the talk page is lengthy. Try here The distinction is some of what the producers call societal ills are not ills to everyone (not everyone think atheism is a societal ill and some people actually appreciate Planned Parenthood), so we used the term alleged. Angry Christian (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see I too questioned the wisdom of using "alleged". Angry Christian (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll add my own comments to that thread. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It appears that the removal of the word 'controversial' from the article was User:Ashmoo. Cheers.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh thanks for pointing that out and sorry for any confusion I caused. Angry Christian (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! At the rate the edits are piling up on that article it's no wonder! Best of luck with it!--Lepeu1999 (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, AC. I'm glad that some people can remain level-headed on emotionally charged issues. The article is in dire need of peer review. It will be very much improved if it opened with a description of what the movie claims before moving into the controversy and criticisms (and I believe you've suggested this). I might hold off on my major suggestions until after the review. Cheers. Judicata (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I swear this place is surreal sometimes. I looked at some of your edits, the irony is the article is in need of people like you who have a grasp on the english language and say more with less. You don't need anyone's permission to edit the article and everything does not have to be approved by committee. Jump in and help make it better, well if you have the stomach for it. It's amusing to watch though. Peer review with fresh eyes would be ideal. See you on the firing line! Angry Christian (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is my final warning to you and to all others participating on the Expelled Talk Page. The next time you disrupt the page by violating WP: Civility, discussing things not related to improving the article, reversing deletion of such comments, etc, you will be blocked. Nightscream (talk) 04:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the fuck are you talking about? Angry Christian (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for responding to my warnings in an uncivil and profane manner on your Talk Page and on mine.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

You're an admin right, so I'll ask you again. What the fuck are you talking about? Would you care to shed some light on "This is my final warning to you and to all others participating on the Expelled Talk Page. The next time you disrupt the page by violating WP: Civility, discussing things not related to improving the article, reversing deletion of such comments, etc, you will be blocked."

"Final warning"? What? Where was the first warning? Secondly, what the fuck did I say on the talk page that was uncivil in the first place? Do you always go around making threats to ban people without giving any details as to why? WTF? How long have you been an admin? What did I say on the talk page that lead you to put this warning on my talk page? Finally, if you think being expelled from the Expelled article is going to hurt my feelings you're sadly mistaken. It's actually kind of funny. Angry Christian (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Midnight Gardener (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

because I have yet to know why I was threatened in the first place. Holy cow man.

Decline reason:

Templated messages aren't threats. Even if you have been threatened, however, that is not a reason to unblock you. — Yamla (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

And why am I being blocked from ALL of wikipedia? WTF? How long have you been an admin? Seriously. Are you new? Angry Christian (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I get it. We get banned if we say "fuck" on our talk page? Angry Christian (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weird that an admin who has never given me any warning drops by and out of the blue gives me my last warning and has yet to provide any evidence that I had been uncivil. I love Wikipedia! The fact I have been advocating things in the article that this admin clearly does not agree with makes my banning even more interesting. I guess this makes me and NCDave blood brothers or something! Too funny. Angry Christian (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny...

I agree with your general stance.
I agree with the blocking admin on the edits needed in that article.
I agree with you that an uninvolved admin should have evaluated the situation.

He had posted warning on the article talk page, but blocks like this are better carried out by a third person. --Merzul (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Merzul, glad you have a sense of humor too. There is actually a policy that admins are supposed to follow when a block might be controversial. Obviosuly the admin in question and I have not seen eye to eye on the talk page of an extreemly controversial subject. According to that policy he should have mentioned his intent to block me the admin notification board to let the other admins know prior top blocking me. He did not do that. He also is obligated to provide me with some specifics which he did not do. And "Final warning" suggests a previous warning had been given. I would not be shocked if all my comments here get deleted and he uses WP:Soapbox as an excuse. Oh well, what are you gonna do. The only thing that bothers me is I cannot post anything on any of the admin boards to get a question or two answered and I cannot post on NCDave's talk page (he would appreciate the irony here I think). He also deleted my comments on the talk page yet he leaves dozens of actual viscous attacks done by others there, I attacked no one so this selective enforcement makes me smile too. I suspect the "batman" comment sent him over the top (I'm Batman). But we have one guy claiming he's a nuclear scientists and therefore evolution is wrong, another guy (who this Night dude is demonstrably sympathetic too) who claims he's a doctor and has proven evolution to be false, so I figured letting the cat out of the bag and admitting I'm batman was just as relevant (shhh mum's the word, my wife would kill me if she knew I was a crime fighter). The talk page is obviously not a place for people to claim they can/have proven evolution to be wrong nor is it a good place to appeal to one's own authority. But, in Nightguy's eyes I guess you can claim you're a nuclear scientist but claiming to be batman somehow violates some policy.

To be clear, I'm seeing this as idiotically funny and not ranting against admins or Wikipedia. Anyhow, here's to appreciating the occassional absurdity in life!Angry Christian (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing to do right now is to stay calm. When you know WP:CIVIL is the weapon, try to not give any ammunition. I know it's very hard to resist reacting when someone says they have disproved evolution, and it's particularly hard to remain calm when they expects one to bow down and worship because they know the word "enzyme". On the other hand, reacting by our own off-topic rants will just make us look bad as well. In the current climate, appearance is everything. Keep CIVIL, science articles need you. --Merzul (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't pour gasoline on the fire. Let's sort this out. It sounds like a mistake or overreaction to me.--Filll (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I and another admin (Dave souza) have asked the blocking admin to discuss this block on his talk page. Let us see if we can resolve this. It may take a little while, so I appreciate your patience. MastCell ^Talk 19:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. Note I have no intention of pouring gasoline or creating a ruckus. This is funny to me, certainly not worth warring over. I *do* think that as an admin Nightguy should follow policy in the future when he threatens to block someone and when he does in fact block someone to follow the rules but I'm not going to lead that charge. Whether he admits it or not he knows full well where he fucked up. Angry Christian (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I just noticed a formal discussion is going on regarding/reviewing my "blockage" here I have to say I'm a bit stunned and flattered. Apparently some folks here like me, or at least see me as a useful editor. Angry Christian (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just had to comment on this, the comment of you and NCDave being "blood brothers" was priceless. To think of you two in the same situation is great! Especially since the two of you never get along. Anyways... cheers! Saksjn (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple

That's not his job title, that's an honorific title. There's a difference I suggest people there learn. The reason I remove it is because the others that have honorific titles like Dawkins don't have them used at the article, giving Marks special treatment. If you're going to use honorific titles for one there you need to use them for all that have them in order to avoid favoring one side of the debate. Odd nature (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I follow your reasoning but when I look at his employment history on the Baylor website under the "Employment" header they clearly indicate that is his employment title. See here. So it appears this is not an honorific title. Would you mind checking it out? Thanks Angry Christian (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honesty

If you want to call me dishonest, at least have the basic courtesy addressing what I said. If you want to call me dishonest, please provide evidence. Personal attacks are not tolerable in any case, but I would be far less bothered if you actually connected your accusations with what I said. Please support or strike your attacks. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 06:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda I'll reply here and address your comments on the Expelled talk page when I get some time. Cheers! Angry Christian (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just replied on the talk page! Angry Christian (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar

I play a Fender Stratocastor squire on electric. And a Takamini on acoustic. Do you play as well? Saksjn (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I play a Gretsch Tennessee Rose (modern and not vintage) and a Fender Telecaster. I own a Fender Stratocaster but I haven't played it in years. It's pretty nice but doesn't have an ideal tone for the kind of music I play (ancient hillbilly). For acoustic I play a Guild Jumbo body and/or a Martin. I've never even looked at the articles here about those guitars, I should check it out and see if there is something I could add. Angry Christian (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question about your criticism of atheism comments

Stumbled across your page after reading the article about expelled. Just idle curiosity mostly. I don't want to out you or anything if you don't want to be, but the comments on the criticism of atheism talk page made me wonder about your user name. In what sense should I interpret your user name "Angry Christian"? are you an adherent of Christianity who is incensed, angry ABOUT Christianity, or perhaps your name is Christian, or something completely different altogether. I am thinking about it too much, probably. Your comments caught me off guard is all; not in a bad way though.--66.102.196.36 (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am neither a christian nor am I angry. Was just the goofiest thing I could think of when I chose a name. Angry Christian (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reparations

Infonation101 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hey man, I've been learning a lot about WP style editing since I've been on, and I'm trying to go back and make up for all the careless and stupid mistakes I made when I first came on to WP. I think it was my first week I posted a harassment template on your page for stuff that was going on in the Expelled discussion. Sorry bout that. Hope everything treats you well. Cheers. Infonation101 (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to remember when our path crossed and now I get it. That was then, this is now. I try not to take too much of this very seriously. I've been around a little longer and I'm still clumsy as hell so don't sweat it. Cheers! Angry Christian (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. One thing that I learned quickly is that the community is where the strength lies, and you seem to have been a good proponent there. There are some pages that are almost scary to get involved with (ie Expelled). Good luck in your editing. Infonation101 (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is I have many interests and hobbies that are rewarding but kinda boring to write about so I get involved in these insane articles whose talk pages are total carnage (like Expelled). It's getting old though because I'm quickly losing respect for several people who are on my side of the debate. That's an indication it's time to move on. We'll see. Angry Christian (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may be permited a moment of levity...

Bensteinian Rhapsody Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is hilarious. There are a few like these sprouting up all over the place. PZ had a few good ones linked at his blog the other day. AtBC had a bunch of good ones too. Angry Christian (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little something to keep you going...

...until the Ben Stein bobbles start to turn up for sale: Ben Stein Autographed 8 X 10. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thinking of me but no, I want a bobble head. Something that is really dumb. I'll set up an Ebay alert. Angry Christian (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your participation requested

(Cross-posted to several users' talk pages)

Your participation on User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing would be appreciated. Raul654 (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you happen to notice (re: "Expelled")...

...the reduced levels of protection on both Ben Stein and Expelled implemented today of all days? Odd, I must say. I would have figured one of the more prominent pro-science editors would have re-requested page protection by now, and I don't feel quite BOLD enough to do it on my own without some consensus. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, it's sunday evening and I just got your note. I see it's been addressed. Thanks for the heads up! Angry Christian (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed this. And I thought about asking for increased page protection, not reduced. I also did not want to ask for it unilaterally, so I asked some powers that be. I received no response. I had asked previously and been told that there was no problem there. Of course, for those who are not trying to put out the raging fire, there is no problem.--Filll (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without it we're just begging for edit wars (more edit wars that is). It's hard enough to have people with accounts to work together. At least we're not seeing the volume of drive-by's that we'd be seeing with anon-IPs. Angry Christian (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

After the discussion on ANI, there was a clear consensus to unblock you and I have implemented it. Cheers! henrik•talk 21:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I read the discussion and reasons why. How soon should I be able to edit again, currently I still can't. Should I sign out and sign back in or? Cheers! Angry Christian (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nightscream was wrong here. I hope he gets desysopped or at least reprimanded for this behavior. Notice two things. He blocks you, then immediately buts in some bullshit POV into the article--stuff that was eliminated weeks ago. Then he runs away and does not engage in conversation here or at the ANI.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OM, I appreciate your thoughts and I've been watching everything. I hear what you're saying but I'm not personally going to go there. The most frustrating piece is when someone is blocked you cannot even write to administrative/complaint pages. That's what's clearly wrong. Had others not noticed I had been shit canned I would have languished until the block expired. In short all you can do is put that silly "please let me out of jail" on your talk page and not bring the issue to a broader audience. That is not a good Wiki policy. Yeah there are several thinsg wrong with this picture but for now I'm happy to be out of jail. Cheers! Angry Christian (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classic mistake: unblock the user, but forget to clear the autoblock. Removed one autoblock, try editing now? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Many thanks. I did look for an autoblock, but didn't find any. Obviously I did it wrong :) henrik•talk 21:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeehaw I'm back in business, thanks! Angry Christian (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to have you back. I notice you are now very cautious about off-topic discussion. Rest assured that providing background information and sharing your experience about matters relevant to how one should interpret information in sources is definitely not off-topic information, but very useful contributions. On the other hand, the subsequent rant (not by you) about what constitutes fair-use... I personally don't see the relevance, it's not up to use to decide the legitimacy of the complaint. --Merzul (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merzel, actually I am just tired and things are getting super nutty in there, even for a whack job like me. I'll dive in more tomorrow. In fact I have plans to see the movie tomorrow afternoon. Cheers! Angry Christian (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian, please accept my apology for not making my warnings more clear, a point that was raised on the Noticeboard. I thought that three warnings on the article Talk Page and a fourth on some of the editors personal Talk Pages was sufficient, but one or two of the others on the noticeboard pointed out that it's not easier for everyone to see them on an article Talk Page, especially one with such heavy traffic as the Expelled one. Nonetheless, even if I erred in this regard, you didn't have to leaves such a profane message on my Talk Page. I'm sorry I did not exercise as much care as I should have, but if in the future you feel that I'm not fulfilling my duties as I should, just let me know. And thanks for participating in the discussion I initiated on the Expelled Talk Page. :-)

Nightscream I appreciate the note, I'm not worried about any of this - as far as I'm concerned it's done and over. Cheers Angry Christian (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nightscream (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an apology. You're apologizing for not making your warnings more clear? Huh? A real apology would be, "I fucked up in blocking you. I was wrong. I will resign my adminship because I cannot be trusted with the tools. I am asking for your forgiveness." Now there's a real apology, not veiled personal attacks ("you didn't have to leaves (sic) a profane message."). Profane? Fundies. What can you do?OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

angrychristian wrote "You'd do well to join the dicussion on the talk page. To me you seem to be playing a game with us and I'd love to be proven wrong." Hmmm. I'm not sure what you mean by plaing a game with 'us'. (Who is 'us'?) Anyway, I couldn't help but notice the very slanted pov in the Expelled article. If you take the time to review the articles relating to other documentaries such as Sicko by Michael Moore or An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore, you'll notice VERY different and more neutral pov. Anyway, I don't play games, but try to balance very slanted pov.Veritas399 (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)veritas399[reply]

If you read the review of Sicko and Inc Truth and compare those to the reviews for Expellefd you'll notice a huge difference there. Most reviewers are saying Ben Stein makes Michael Moore look fair and balanced. But the Expelled article could use some improvement. Angry Christian (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question

{{helpme}} How can I request a peer review for an article? Angry Christian (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:PR for the nomination procedure:

Nomination procedure

Anyone can request peer review. Users submitting new requests are encouraged to review an article from those already listed, and encourage reviewers by replying promptly and appreciatively to comments.

To add a nomination:

Add {{subst:PR}} to the top of the article's talk page and save it, creating a peer review notice to notify other editors of the review.
Within the notice, click where instructed to open a new peer review discussion page. If there is no such link in the notice, see this.
Complete the new page as instructed. Remember to note the kind of comments/contributions you want, and/or the sections of the article you think need reviewing. You may also add a topic parameter to the {{Peer review page|topic= X}} template to help reviewers find your article. The possible topic parameters (X in the template) are:
X = arts · langlit (language & literature) · philrelig (philosphy & religion) · everydaylife · socsci (social sciences & society) · geography · history · engtech (engineering & technology) · natsci (natural sciences & mathematics). If no topic is chosen, the article is listed with "General" topics.
Save the page with the four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your request to sign it. Your peer review will be listed automatically on this page within an hour.
Consult the volunteers list for assistance. An excellent way to get reviews is to review a few other requests without responses and ask for reviews in return.

Your review may be more successful if you politely request feedback on the discussion pages of related articles; send messages to Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a related field; and also request peer review at appropriate Wikiprojects. Please do not spam many users or projects with identical requests. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Angry Christian (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You Deserve This

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		Your outstanding comments on Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed have been important in the development of what will be another great WP article. InfoNation¹⁰¹ \| talk \| 02:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously dude, thanks for keeping your cool. Good job in there. InfoNation¹⁰¹ | talk | 02:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man. Angry Christian (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're becoming quite the editor. Keep it up and I'm sure you will receive a lot more of these. InfoNation¹⁰¹ | talk | 02:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To you, does it seem the talk page is getting really off topic for Expelled? I've been trying to follow what's going on, but more additions pop up then I can read. BTW, you're doing well keeping everything cool in there. Thanks for putting in that effort. InfoNation¹⁰¹ | talk | 19:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of issues - 1) there are so many conversations on the talk page I can only pay attention to a couple. I can't wrap my arms around the whole article so I take it one slice at a time. 2) This is a very weird article to edit. As Felonious Monk, Dave souza and others have pointed out it's more than a single movie, this ties in with the whole ID movement. So on one hand we're talking about a movie, on the other we're talking about a movement. That complicates matters and makes it ripe for disagreements. The fact that the movie is such a lying sack of empty claims even makes it that much more challenging. Saying "Ben Stein is a lying sack of shit" is not exactly NPOV, but all the reliable sources pretty much say that, both those involved in the "debate" and the mainstream media. For example as of yesterday Stein is still claiming Sternberg was fired from his "job", look at Sternberg's website Sternberg himself shows he is still a volunteer at the Smithsonian, so does the Smithsonian website. And Sternberg was NEVER a Smithsonian employee, he never had a job there. Writing an article about a serial liar is not easy. So...It's a complicated subject that doesn't lend itself well to easy editing. That said I don't think the article is awful or anything and I think for the most part the disagreements between editors is not something we cannot overcome. And I'm talking about the reasonable well intentioned editors, not the wingnuts. I have no idea if this answers your question :-) Angry Christian (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, that answers my question. It is the wingnuts that seem to be loading the page full of everything else and what not. If they just took 10 minutes to read the archives and previous posts so much discussion would be gotten rid of. Also, I'm a hard core creationist (in whatever form you would like to interpret that), but for crying out loud I go to church to learn about that, and to school to learn the rest. I wish I could start a "creationists - shut your mouth and listen" movement. Ben Stein has only added to why creationists or IDists are pissed on. There are plenty of evolutionists that have religion, and plenty of creationists that embrace science. We're all just trying to figure this out, but some seem to forget that. So they go and make a movie about how they are suppressed and hated. Stein was an activist for many years and he knows how heated some debates can get, but for some reason he decides to ignore that when it comes to his belief in God. Sorry. Little rant. It's just bothering me how people move further and further into their personal corner instead of trying to understand what the other party believes. Cheers. InfoNation¹⁰¹ | talk | 19:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you and you bring up a good point, not all creationists are anti-science and for that matter many many Christians are opposed to the ID movement and claims. Next time a religionist goes on about why we should teach ID in science class and not stifle free speech ask them if they also feel we should teach evolution in bible study :-) I'm with you, the best place to learn about creation is in church and science class is the best place to learn science. There has been some discussion about the Wedge Document. If you have not read it yet, and the DIs response, you might find it to be pretty interesting. Angry Christian (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. The Wedge Document, I believe, was created by people that are very unsure of their own faith so they feel that they have to push it on other people. The United States was not founded upon Christian ideals. The Forefathers were Deists who believed in Natural right, but the IDists would deny that to the end so I don't find a reason to tell anyone. Now I feel like starting a forum to bring together all the religious people that disagree with the whole ID movement. I think that there has been too much regression, and not enough mutual understanding. That really needs to be brought back before any progress can be made on the front. Question about your addition from unanimous to largely. It looks like it was changed back almost immediately, but from your stats 89% criticize the movie. To me it seems that your edit was more appropriate, but I don't figure it would do any good to bring it up on the talk page. InfoNation¹⁰¹ | talk | 20:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You and I are on the same page with this stuff for sure. "unanimous to largely" I don't think I made that edit, I saw two others making/reverting that one. The 89% thing (now 90%) on the talk page is in relation to the number of negative reviews collection at Rotten Tomatoes [1] When I wrote it there was 29 reviews and today there are 30 so I updated the numbers on the talk page. So far 90% are clearly negative (27 our ot 30). Angry Christian (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what I did. Someone reverted back to your edit and I saw your name. Just didn't put two and two together. Well, I'll dive in and see if there is anything I can do. It's almost to the point that we should make a FAQ page for Expelled, and require that everyone who hasn't been there before read it before they post. Maybe that would help out with so many redundant posts. Cheers. InfoNation¹⁰¹ | talk | 20:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I'm headed out the door, and only had time to skim the start of what you said. The only useful thing I have to add is that I'm a he :) - Guettarda is the name of my favourite genus of trees (I'm a plant geek). But I will be back this evening. Guettarda (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, dude! I raise palm trees from seed, we'll have to chat sometime. Angry Christian (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to barge in but I also grow palms from seed and I'd love to hear what region you are in and what kinds you've got going. And many articles could benefit from seed and seedling pics if you have a camera.Mmcknight4 (talk) 05:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barging in is good. I'm in zone 8 and I grow (common names) Chinese Windmills, California palm, Pindo palm, Mediterranean palm , and Sabal Texana and Minor to name a few. Med palm is the one that will grow multiple trunks (very slowly) I also have some Mexican Blue palms in pots which are iffy in zone 8 and I have several Brazillian Wine palms in 45 gallon pots (that need to go in the ground within the next 2 years). You're growing those for your grandkids because they are extreemly slow growing (and rare). They can bring $10,000 (or 4 times that amount) when they reach a height of 15-20 feet or so. The oldest one in my area is only 13 years old. Windmill palms grow very fast once they're established (1-1.5 feet per year). They're naitive to the Himalayas so they can take cold and they like water. The California palms grow extreemly fast from seed. Trouble is often when you buy a California palm chances are you're buying a Mexican palm which do great in Mexico (or California) but the fronds will burn/die when it freezes)though the trunk will still live. They are very ugly in zone 8. Good point about taking some photos and adding them to the articles. Maybe I can do that this week. Angry Christian (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Becomes something of an addiction, doesn't it? The ones you mention are Trachycarpus fortunei, Washingtonia filifera, Butia capitata, Chamaerops, Sabal minor, Brahea armata and, I think Moriche Palm is the Brazilian Wine Palm though some call B. capitata by that common name (which is the inherent problem with using them as titles here). Almost all could use aerial root (if any), trunk, crown, entire plant, petiole, leaf, flower and fruit pics. Are you ordering seed or collecting it? And are you familiar with the Point of Inquiry podcast? Take it easy.Mmcknight4 (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addiction? Last year I had close to 250 trees, straps, seedlings. I realized it's a Chilean Wine palm and not Brazillian, I had been reading a travel brochure earlier and when I typed that out something seemed funny. Anyhow, I have questions for you and pics to post. I'll get back in a bit. Angry Christian (talk) 02:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can relate - if I had the space, I would be growing palms. Instead I'm forced to put together virtual collections :) Guettarda (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmcknight4, I figured out how to upload pictures so when I get time I'll figure out the formatting and start adding some to articles. I recently took some fantastic photos of 15 or so Windmill flowers just prior to blooming. I'm not familiar with the podcast you mentioned, what's the scoop? Most of my palms flower each year but they have yet to be pollinated so I still order seeds online which I've had mixed results with. My Med palm is flowering now and I think I can get some good shots of that soon. What zone are you in and what do you grow? Guettarda, what zone are you in and what do you grow other than guettarda? Love the link and I wish I could grow stuff that tropical in my yard. I'd be happy if I could keep a Queen or Bismark in my yard but they simply cannot tollerate the cold here. Angry Christian (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as uploading pics go, I'm not sure if to commons or directly to wikipedia is preferred, nor do I know which of the "best practices" licenses is actually the best practice. I would have guessed that a public domain choice would be best but I thought I came across a conversation suggesting the "GNU Free Documentation license" might be more helpful somehow. I cant say for sure. Im in Tampa where we get a below-freezing night every other year, give or take, so I'm in the same boat as you, restricted to what the climate will support, having, of course, a little more latitude in choice. Ive got a couple Livistona species, Queens, Bismarckias, Foxtails, Phoenix reclinata, Phoenix canariensis, Phoenix roebelenii‎, Rhapis excelsa, Paurotis palm, Adonidias, Alexander palms, both Washingtonias in some numbers and a handful of exotic stuff which I only have a few of. That said, I'm only a couple years in so maybe 40 - 60 percent have only given me two to four undivided eophyll straps. Some of the earlier stuff is starting to produce pinnately divided leaves with 4 - 8 pinnae; many are just sprouting. Basically a shitload of seedlings in various stages of youth. And there are, unfortunately, plenty that are so picky that I cant keep them alive here. Ive gotten seeds online which wouldnt sprout so I ultimately started finding reproducing plants in the landscape and collecting by hand. The podcast I mentioned is an offshoot of the Center for Inquiry and centers on, what seems to be the core of your editing interests, the "clash" of science and religion, or, perhaps, reason and unreason. The usual suspects: Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris, Dennett, lots of evolutionary scientist, astrophysicists, etc, just what you would think. Even Behe came on for an interview to do the old "x is so complicated it could not possibly blah, blah". When my dad was in Libya for his co-op back in the day he said when he told his arab counterparts he wasn't a believer they said "Then who makes the rain?". And when I look at Wiki talk pages for this stuff, the discussions with these characters seems so painful I'm not at all tempted to join. I cant tell whether I should advise you to spare yourself the headache or congratulate your patience. Since I'm ranting anyway, I'll say that podcasts seem underutilized by many. They arent all a couple guys in the garage or whatever talking about pop culture. There are some very interesting free podcasts which I subscribe to and listen to most of. NPR has a podcast called Intelligence Squared featuring Oxford style debates, the stated purpose of which is something along the lines of "raising the level of public debate about the most important issues". Titles include "Is America too damn religious?", "Is spreading democracy in the middle east a bad idea?" "Is aid to Africa doing more harm than good?" "Is Russia becoming our enemy again?" "Better more surveillance than another 9/11" "Should we welcome undocumented immigrants?" "Global warming is not a crisis" "Is it time to end affirmative action?" "Should America be the world's policeman?". The speakers for each side are always very good; i recommend it. There's one called Astronomy cast which is usually pretty interesting. This [2] was one of my tougher days, squirrels, I think. Each little white stick is a shoot, I lost a couple hundred. To add insult to injury something came and ate the peanut-butter of the trap but didn't set it off. I figured you would be sympathetic. Mmcknight4 (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome!

		The Holy Shit You Are Awesome Award
		The Holy Shit You Are Awesome Award is presented to Angry Christian for his amazing talk page comments, his openness to discussion, and commitment to improving articles. Merzul (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope you keep your friendly editing style and awesome spontaneity as you continue on Wikipedia. You see, there are two completely orthogonal aspects to a person's editing of Wikipedia:

Motives, ranging from being article-driven to agenda-driven.
Style, ranging from combative to collaborative.

Most editors move along these axes, and don't fall into one set type, but very roughly we have these stereotypical categories:

Blatant trolls: agenda-driven and combative. These need to be banned on sight, and usually are.
Civil POV-pushers: agenda-driven but collaborative. These guys will insist and insist on the same changes, always politely, always nicely, but articles suffer because of them. Wikipedia has no good way of dealing with these guys.

NS

E-mail me. Jim62sch^dissera! 18:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defenders of the Wiki: article-driven and combative. They have the best intentions for Wikipedia, but they turn the Wiki into a battleground, so I have mixed feelings about them, and when you happen to disagree with them, it's not fun. And finally,
Exemplary Wikipedians: article-driven and collaborative, which is where we find people like you.

Best wishes, Merzul (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly, Merzul. Angry Christian (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comments

I apologize for my impertinence and overreaction as well. When I first saw the contentious debate on the page I thought it would be interesting to join in, but after second thought I realized the possible ramification of being embroided into this kind of scuffle. =P Happy editing! Chimeric Glider (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and no worries at all. Yeah I've experienced root canals that more less painful than that talk page at times :-) Angry Christian (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - Expelled talk page.

I tend to get heated when it comes to controversial issues. If your comment really was sincere and not sarcasm, I apologize for reacting the way I did. And I realize it made me look like a huge prick. Thanks Joe3472 (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry my friend. I did not intend to sound pissy and you seemed sincere in asking why we would put this in the article so instead of trying to be sarcastic I tried to illustrate all the reasons I thought it would/could belong in the article. Perhaps in my attempt to not to sound sarcastic I came off quite the opposite. That's the limitation of using text as a medium to have a discussion. I am far more coherent over beer or coffee as typing my ideas is not my strong suit. :-) Angry Christian (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Username

Hello Angry Christian! I was wondering if you could give us the story behind your username--if there is one. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is not much of one. I saw the name in use on a blog I read every now and then and thought it was amusing. Not very original, huh? I've had 4 or 5 people ask me about it lately and I've actually been thinking about changing it to something else. I haven't figured out how to do that yet. I was thinking "Ben Stein's Liver" but I doubt I'd be away with it :-) Maybe "Word Mangler" I'll come up with something soon. Angry Christian (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested, see Wikipedia:Changing username. Guettarda (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes very interested, thanks! Angry Christian (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, AC. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 06:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just requested it be changed to "Midnight Gardener" which actually has a story to it. Angry Christian (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem my transformation is nealy complete! Midnight Gardener (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Gardener? Hmm... not bad... they should put you on some username suggestions panel. Angry Christian was quite nice to begin with. This one sounds less uhm angry ;) Still, very nice, congratulations, Merzul (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted Infidel Castro but that one was taken, or it was red and could not be used. I actually have some friends and we call ourselves "midnight gardeners" so this one makes sense, at least to me :-) Midnight Gardener (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Stien's Liver would have been rather amusing. Sweet new name! Saksjn (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wise choice. The old name caused some confusion, at least to me. Nick Graves (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nice name Midnight Gardener. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should have given us a transition period during which you called yourself "Angry Gardener". Or possibly "Midnight Christian"...Doc Tropics 06:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Ben Stein's Liver almost got the nod. :-) Midnight Gardener (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Thanks Talk for doing the heavy lifting."

I hadn't realised that I'd earned this nickname. Am I really that loquacious? I wonder if it is possible to have "Talk" as an official nick -- would certainly confuse the natives (so I suspect not). ;| Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too funny. Good lord man if I could get a dime for every typo/error I make I'd retire in a year! :-) Angry Christian (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if anyone changes their ~~nice~~ nic to "talk" it should probably be me :-) Angry Christian (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better to change your "nice" to talk than your 'nasty' I suppose. ;) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy shit, see what I mean? Angry Christian (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is wikipedia devoted to debunking "Expelled" and doing so without a mere mention of the numerous sardonic and anti-religious statements made by proponents for the Theory of Evolution? Tricked into the interviews or not, Dawkins and his like-thinkers spoke from the heart; attacking the belief in God, which was held by "childish" people such as the likes of Sir Isaac Newton and Galileo. For me personally, I have no problem accepting "Natural Selection", but the challenge has always been who was the "Uncaused Cause"? If not who, but "proteins on crystals"? Fine, but who provided the crystals and the proteins? Wotring3 (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"but who provided the crystals and the proteins?" According to leading ID theorist Michael Behe those could have been put there by space aliens. I have my doubts. Angry Christian (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I have the same doubts, which leads us back to the "Ultimate" question that theologians, philosophers and scientists have wrestled with since we started writing on animals skins or chiseling on cave walls, "How in the world, or - more precisely - in the universe did we get here?" The issue of ID is not about proselytizing "Right-winged" Christians in public schools. It's about considering all possibilities concerning our existence and purpose. If we merely are born, live and die, then why in the world should we allow defective humans to exist? Why not kill our weak and old as the rest of the animal kingdom does? Why not pursue Eugenics as Sanger suggested or more horrifically as Hitler did? It sure would help with the overpopulation issues and the planet's limited resources such as food, water and oil. My hypothesis is that a "Creator" imbued me with a set of "Moral Absolutes". The same Creator that Jefferson spoke of in the Declaration of Independence and the same one that Newton and Galileo and others articulated. Absent the restrictions placed on us by the Creator to not steal, not kill, not covet, etc why else would should I abhor cleansing the species of undesirables? Natural Selection? AMEN! Wotring3 (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again and just to be clear, I have no desire whatsoever to indulge in this conversation. Cheers! Midnight Gardener (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not go debating evolution vs. ID here, we won't get any where. I don't think any of us are really going to be convinced one way or another. Thankfully most of us have "agreed to disagree" and moved on to writing articles. Saksjn (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved a most interesting perspective to here Midnight Gardener (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will honor your last request with one last thought for you to disregard or ponder. People like you cause me to grieve the fact that I ever served our country with honor. I'm so lucky that I spent more time sweating for leftists like you and didn't have to bleed as much as some of my good and now fallen comrades. Send this back to my webpage, but any written response from you is a perceived invitation to continue a discussion with you in the hopes that you'll become a patriotic American after getting to know me better. I'm guessing you don't know any soldiers or veterans.Wotring3 (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]