User talk:Eperotao

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

ID[edit]

The point is to report both points of view around the topic of evolution. ID folks criticize evolution saying it has limitations and ID fixes those limitations. evolutionist say evolution is just fine. The way NPOV policy works is that for an article such as Intelligent Design, evolution must be decribed from both points of view. We don't weigh in to say which side is right, we're just supposed to report it. FuelWagon 07:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

npov[edit]

"the only way to fix the problem is to let only IDers speak," No, that's the antithesis of NPOV. NPOV says that for any given topic, you must report the different points of view from notable sources about that topic. that's what my ID page is trying to do, list the sources/people from different sides, list the various topics, then list the different points of view about that topic. So, intelligent design argues hat evolution is insufficient and evolutionsists think evolution is just fine. For the topic of "evolution", you have two points of view: "insufficient" from ID'ers and "just fine" from evolutionists. NPOV says to report both points of view on the topic, not just one. FuelWagon 13:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I gather this discussion should be elsewhere, but here it is now...so I'll answer here. Okay, in that case, I think this sentence or one like it should guide the construction of your outline: "Intelligent design argues that evolution is insufficient and evolutionists think evolution is just fine." This sentence is clear and concise and I finally get what you want to say.
I don't know all the particulars of the Intelligent Design arguments, but I know a lot about evolution and here's what I think.
I suggest that a 50,000 foot level of the evolution POV would simply say that (1) ID is irrelevant to evolutionary biology and (2) evolution is not a flawed theory as ID avers. And the speakers would be evolutionary biologists. They should be allowed to speak for themselves. As the evolution section is now, it addresses a major issue within evolutionary biology (what is the source of large variations in phenotype) that is peripheral to the question of whether ID has anything scientific to contribute more generally. In addition, the speakers are an IDer and a nonbiologist and have muddled the issue.
I would let the evolutionary biologist(s) say something like: (1) ID is an untestable hypothesis because it invokes the participation of an entity about which we have no physical evidence. Because of that we cannot say anything about any Intelligent Beings, etc. The whole point of science is to confine ourselves to what we can observe and measure. It is a very limited endeavor in that respect. That standard argument. (2) Evolutionary biology is a highly successful theory that explains both the facts as we observe them--that organisms have changed and become more complex over geologic time scales (fossil record), that organisms are related to one another by common descent (fossil record, comparative anatomy and embryology, confirmed independently by modern molecular biology)--and also provides a whole encyclopedia of mechanisms by which this change and descent may have occurred, one of which is natural selection. Evolution is one of the most robust theories in science and constitutes the Grand Unified Theory that physicists wish they had. (Dawkins says this in a radio interview someone sent me.)
I think that covers most of what the evolutionary biologists should say. So then the entry would need an intelligent biologist or two saying it. If you agree with any of this, would you like me to look for quotes? Eperotao 17:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


signing[edit]

Oh, and it's useful if you sign your posts by putting four tildes at the end. wikipedia will convert them into your username and the time you saved the post. FuelWagon 13:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I will play in the sandbox another day and teach myself to converse properly. Eperotao 17:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Rosalind Franklin[edit]

I have replied to your comments regarding this article. Alun 07:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue I - March 2007[edit]

The inaugural March 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 04:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

history of biology[edit]

Esperotao, you might be interested to know that history of biology is a featured article candidate: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of biology.--ragesoss 20:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue II - May 2007[edit]

The May 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 06:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue III - September 2007[edit]

The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 01:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue IV - May 2008[edit]

A new May 2008 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is hot off the virtual presses. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue V - January 2009[edit]

It's here at long last! The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is ready, with exciting news about Darwin Day 2009. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse --ragesoss (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

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 Button sig.png 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) 20:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

gene theory[edit]

I think the reason we seldom hear "gene theory" these days is that everyone assumes it is just a fact that genes are the basis of inheritance in living organisms. There was a time in the past when there were debates about "gene theory", for example see this: The Embryological Origins of the Gene Theory. --JWSchmidt (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ernst W. Mayr is a famous historian of biology. His book "The Growth of Biological Thought" contains a 30 page chapter called "Theories of the gene" which describes the struggle of biologists to understand and accept the fundamental importance of genes....something that we now take for granted. Some modern genetics textbooks still discuss the "chromosome theory" (example) and historically the "beads on a string" model of genes on chromosomes allowed "gene theory" to be part of "chromosome theory". I'm not defending the use of the term "gene theory" in Wikipedia, I was just replying to your question about gene theory: "In what medium was this theory first presented and in what year?". --JWSchmidt (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi JW. I am familiar with Mayr's The Growth of Biological Thought; it is on my shelf, too, and I have referred to it extensively when writing. I'm glad we are on the same wavelength. :) And thanks for the reference to the Suzuki, Lewontin, et all online genetics primer. I like it.
I understand that you are taking my question literally, and I would be glad to see it answered. But, still. I fear I have not made myself clear. I do know about the chromosomal theory of inheritance (and Sutton and Boveri) and would be glad to see it discussed either in a section on the history of genetics or similar. That idea was central to our understanding of inheritance, since the obvious physical behavior of the chromosomes during cell division provided important insights into the patterns that Mendel had demonstrated.
But the chromosomal theory of inheritance bares no resemblance to what is being passed off as "the" Gene Theory--which appears to be a mishmash of correct and incorrect ideas about modern genetics. I don't think a list of key concepts is a theory. Of course, there is a body of work about heredity that relates to genes! And it might have been nice if somebody with clout, like Morgan or Crick, had formulated a Gene Theory at some point for us to refer to. For evolution, we can cite Darwin and Mayr. For the cell theory, we cite Schleiden, Schwann, and Virchow. So I was somewhat rhetorically asking for an authority who has formally stated a Gene Theory and had that statement formally accepted by the biological community. I think there could be a theory of the gene, but that's a job for working geneticists to sort out, not Wikipedians and high school teachers. (I first encountered "the gene theory" recently while editing a chapter of a (semi) "open source" textbook written by a teacher, who had apparently lifted the idea and wording from this article, as well as much else.)
Just by the by, I also notice some confusion about what Crick's Central Dogma means and meant. I would be happy to work on clarifying that in the Biology entry at some point, as it makes for an edifying discussion, I think. (As you probably know, Crick apparently regarded the dogmatic way it was taught as an amusing irony.) But I guess I want to make sure I'm not wading into a thicket of reversions and that others here are working in the same general direction. "Biology" does seem rather neglected. I'm a somewhat on again off again Wikipedian, so I am not up on Wiki politics, generally, or specifically for this entry. But if it has no parents I might be interested in adopting it or co-adopting it. If you would like to know my credentials, I'm happy to share those.
Not to go on forever, but I read your very nice user page and liked the discussion of Scientology. Would it be useful to have separate entries in a case like that? A sort of sandbox where each side can do their worst? Then there could be a very short, restricted entry that refers to the two longer, more-passionate entries. Maybe it's too much to expect Wikipedia to be like the Britannica on some topics.

PS. What is the etiquette for this discussion? Do I post on your talk page or continue on mine?? Cheers, Eperotao (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

  • about "etiquette for discussion" there seems to be two schools of thought, one of which likes to keep both sides of a discussion on one user's talk page while the other "school" does not mind bouncing back and forth between more than one page. Since I have a long watch list, I'm not likely to notice discussion comments unless they are on my talk page!
  • "a mishmash of correct and incorrect ideas" <-- That is a nice summary of Wikipedia. I think it is useful for Wikipedians to stay fairly close to what has been previously published by "experts". In the case of using the phrase "gene theory" at the Biology page, we could look at several modern general biology textbooks and see what terminology they use to discuss genes. I suspect that most of them do not use the term "gene theory", so I would say Wikipedia should also not use the term "gene theory". There are some general biology textbooks listed in the "references" and "further reading" sections of the Biology page and I'd be willing to say that Wikipedia should be satisfied to use the terminology that is used by those books in their discussions of genes. If we placed a table on the Talk:Biology page showing which general biology textbooks use the phrase "gene theory" that might settle any argument about using the phrase "gene theory" on the Biology page.
  • "rather neglected...interested in adopting it" <-- Since Wikipedia pages are usually constructed and maintained by casual editing, there are often dramatic improvements in quality when one person takes the time to "adopt" a page and systematically improve it. In this age of specialization there does not seem to be many people who are willing to take on the task of caring for pages that cover such a broad subject.
  • "separate entries in a case like Scientology" <-- there are other wikis that have different policies, such as being sympathetic to each topic covered, but at Wikipedia the pushiest group of editors usually gets to dominate the page and "set the tone", positive or negative, for each topic. It is a problem at Wikipedia when sympathetic and antagonistic editors split into partisan armies and battle against each other so much that the argument over-shadows the task of providing interested neutral parties with a clear and simple encyclopedia article saying what the topic is about. In my case, I usually watch such conflicts from a distance since I want to have fun while editing Wikipedia, not fight. --JWSchmidt (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Karl Auerbach.png[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Karl Auerbach.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NW (Talk) 00:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

How can I delete pages/images?[edit]

{{helpme}} I am having a hard time getting an image to come out the right size in the article. I want to delete previous efforts to upload the image, both the image and the new pages I created. I don't see how to undo my own crummy work. Eperotao (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You will want to check out WP:DELETION, which has all the information on the subject. In short, you can't delete pages or files, only admins can do that. If you're practicing a lot, you should try using the sandbox, or even creating a subpage in your userspace to test out formatting so as not to disturb. Don't forget, it's a wiki, so you can always undo any change you make! Hope that helps, lemme know if you're looking for more. ~ Amory (usertalkcontribs) 15:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: A cookie for you![edit]

You're most certainly welcome Eperotao! Thanks for the cookie, the kind words, and the note of appreciation. Have yourself a great day, stay well, and happy editing! :)  -- WikHead (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited InterWorking Labs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Network flow (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 13:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Chris Wellens[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Chris Wellens has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --IShadowed 23:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I am not seeing what the specific objections to this article are. I would be happy to copyedit or improve in some way (or argue) if there were some specific criticism I could address. In any case, I'm going to take it down for now.Eperotao (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library![edit]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
WorldDigitalLibraryLogo2.png
Hi Eperotao! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editors are welcome! (But being multilingual is not a requirement.) Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS[edit]

Please use secondary sources rather than primary source per the above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)