User talk:Filll/Archive 10

Take a look at this

Another character who claims to be the 2nd coming. He has his followers tattoo the number "666" on themselves:

• [1]

Here is our article on WP: Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda.--Filll 19:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser

You may want to comment here. I'm going to a little later on. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ImprobabilityDrive Orangemarlin 17:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI [2] Guettarda 14:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Britannica.jpg

Hello, Filll. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Britannica.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Filll/EBcomments. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 07:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Encarta visual browser.jpg

Hello, Filll. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Encarta visual browser.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Filll/EBcomments. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of humanity (2nd nomination)

You recently commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of Humanity, which closed with no consensus. The article has been re-nominated for deletion, and you may care to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of humanity (2nd nomination). --Akhilleus (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Article for deletion help needed

Please see [3]--Filll 13:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You...

...seem to have a serious attitude problem. Know-it-all comments like "people who don't understand science" are extremely inflammatory. Do not talk down at people. I'm thick skins so it doesn't bother me personally, but seriously, with somebody with as many contributions and experience as you, you should really know better. I'm merely trying to clarify where some people would get confused over such a statement, and help the article out, not argue with you. What you fail to understand is that religious folk say "all evolution is bad", and they don't even really know what they are saying. If this wasn't true, then the whole discussion on the talk page wouldn't even exist. Just tone down on the inflammatory comments. Since you probably didn't read WP:NPA after seeing your recent comments. Comment on content, not on the contributor. This is policy. Wikidan829 17:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What contributor did I address personally? Who did I attack? How did I attack them? By claiming they did not understand science? I notice you made a comment like

they don't even really know what they are saying'

That seems to be just as negative as anything I typed, if not far worse. So just try not to get yourself so upset, Mr. "Thick Skin". Arguing repeatedly about nonsense that has been discussed over and over and over on these talk pages and long settled just becomes tedious. Maybe you might enjoy looking at the page archives.--Filll 17:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You took "they" out of context there. When I said "religious folk", I was speaking on huge broad terms of people that exist far outside the Wikipedia community. If you somehow want to twist my statement to take a plural word like they and change it to something personal like he or she, have at it.

You directly told me that I made "nonsense" comments back on the talk page, and again here. That is a direct personal attack. That was your first 3 questions. According to policy, saying that "a contributor does not understand science" is a personal attack. It serves nothing but to intimidate, and talk down contributors to attempt to make them believe that they are not intelligent enough to partake in such a conversation. It basically says "I'm right, you're wrong, and you're an idiot, so why bother talking with someone like me?" Wikidan829 17:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, "they don't even really know what they are saying" merely means that they do not have the right definition of the word in their minds. It's hardly an attack on anyone. Wikidan829 17:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. I am cautioning you to just relax and not escalate this into some sort of ugly episode. Because believe me, it can and will if you pursue this. I apologized, and you seem to want to pursue some sort of agenda. Leave me out of it.--Filll 17:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You want another apology? Fine, you got it. Feel good. You are a great genius of yourself, clearly.--Filll 17:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No I don't want an apology, and I don't want it escalated. I'm just kindly asking you to stop. Please, if you want to talk on the page, even if you are frustrated over repeating yourself, keep the personal attacks out. If you see bullshit or something else you don't like, refute it, leave the "this guy is writing nonsense" or "he doesn't understand science" comments out of it, they're just unnecessary. Wikidan829 17:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you guys know what the most difficult and effective way to end a confrontation is? Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we're resolved now. Thanks for your concern. Wikidan829 17:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Deathstar

Everyone should read the Deathstar talk page. I was laughing so hard I was crying. I really do not know what to say. I suggest that everyone read this absolutely amazing document.--Filll 21:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Evolution looks positively amateur in comparison. I'm embarrassed to have been involved with the article. Orangemarlin 02:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it is all pretty funny. Interesting for sure. I got a great laugh out of Deathstar.--Filll 18:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

ID/"Deathstar"

One user says: “The Death Star providing 1e38-1e39 joules of energy isn't verifiable through official literature ...” Another says that “Saxton calculates 1.2e39 Joules. It is based on a number of bits, such as apparent speed of debris, what he estimates the size of Alderaan to be, and the momentum imparted by a beam of light. It is Wong who cites 1e38J, based on apparent kinetic energy of the debris. The methodologies are actually noticably different between the two pages, as are the results” Yet a nother user says “You are all completely berserk” So who's correct here? ;-) ... Kenosis 00:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is great material.--Filll 01:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

People should also read Triclavianism.--Filll 01:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't that article be deleted, merged, or something? Orangemarlin 02:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Which one? Death Star? Triclavianism? Or both?--Filll 17:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The one on nails. It's just a huge quote. The Deathstar one is humorous, though very annoying. If only one of the Creationist types would spend that much energy on RPOD. Orangemarlin 17:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it is a huge quote. I think it needs to be fleshed out considerably. I suspect there might be more material to add since this is the sort of "angels dancing on the head of a pin" type of argument that religious types LOVE to get involved with. I am going to try to encourage some of our creationist friends to work on that article and make it more scholarly and complete. This is a much better use of their energies and talents than just annoying the piss out of us on scientific articles. It is pretty funny though. I had never heard of triclavianism. Just typical nonsense. Do they not realize how stupid this makes them look? --Filll 18:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Introduction to Evolution

I'm not sure I agree with the reason; but I can shot-gun reference if that is the only barrier. --Random Replicator 03:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

And ... the evolution quote box looks good in that format. --Random Replicator 03:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes the quote box looks good.--Filll 16:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Illustration of mutations

Little gem I found. Not sure where the best place for it would be. I'm going to tentatively put it in mutation, but there is no reason it couldn't go in more than one article. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have often remarked that mutation needs help. I think this would be a valuable contribution there.--Filll 15:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I was considering this for Evolution, but it doesn't include point mutations, but does include some types we didn't refer to. I presumed it was there already - let's add it! Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Intro to Evo

Your help would be greatly appreciated on the Introduction to Evolution Article. --Random Replicator 23:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

More Intro to Evo

Moved from discussion page to here ... seemed more appropriate.--Random Replicator 14:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?!!!! I hope I didn't pull the trigger too quick on the quotes. It just never seemed to expand beyond the couple you started originally. It was not bothering me or anything. Seriously, I don't feel strongly either way. You never put the real funny ones in there from the discussion page so I thought maybe you lost interest. Do you want to put it back?

The objection section opens a window for creationist criticism. I think I like it better with the new approach; "this is evolution take it or leave it".

Another topic... this should scare you. I was at the AP Central community message board [4]. (Advanced Placement Biology). The College Board now requires all AP teachers to submit their syllabus for approval to determine if their students will recieve college credit for the high school course. Someone raised the question concerning teachers who apparently submit their syllabus in which they give equal time to Evolution and Creationism. The College Board approves such curriculums. Of course this resulted in a firestorm of messages both for and against equal time for Intelligent Design / Creationism. I was stunned by the intensity of my peers and their passionate rejections of evolution. Think about it .... these are high school teachers with a captive audience. I dusted off my Ken Ham books "Evolution: The Lie". Apparantly my fellow teachers think its a science book. Filll, why are we descending back into the Dark Ages ? --Random Replicator 00:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is one quote:

Yes I do teach both and yes it is in my syllabus, that has been approved. You seem to have a lot of anger to those of us who do believe in God and His divine nature. My kids are taught more about evolution than I dare say many of my colleagues in public schools teach to their students. I do not have to defend or fight the war over this point it has already been won. Jesus paid the price and He is the Truth. If that makes me a "right wing fundie" then I stand convicted. Thank God that this is still a land where free thought and expression is still allowed.

In His Service,

Wow. We are in BIG trouble. Contrary to what some people like User:ScienceApologist claim, this is a REAL threat. This country is headed right down the toilet with these religious fascists running rampant like wild dogs. Rational people of good will have to meet it head on and not keep ignoring it, the way that we have for the last few decades. It makes me physically ill. Have you notified the National Center for Science Education?

Where have I been? : I have been taking a small wikibreak and now I am moving slowly, beset with allergies. I thought I would avoid the allergies this year, but I got nailed a bit anyway this week. Ugh. I would have put more of my quotes including the funny ones in the list, but I did not want to put the others in there without the approval of my main co-editors. Evolutionary evangelists: This week I went to hear an "evolution evangelist" who preaches "evolution" in the style of a creationist (see Michael Dowd or [5] for more information). It was sort of interesting, but unfortunately he got a lot of the science wrong. I tried to correct him, and even sent him a long email with some corrections, but I suspect that he has his "spiel" down, and would be loathe to change his message much, which has a lot of fruitcake-material in it. It really is too bad. These religious types love to get all excited and scream and dance around like maniacs, but they cannot be bothered to read high school textbooks on science and actually understand what is written. Ugh. Oh well. I guess one wouldn't expect too much else. --Filll 17:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

At least they responded:

Dear Jim, Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We are certainly interested if The College Board is accepting syllabi that include Creationism/ID. I am looking into the matter and will contact you if I have any questions.Education Project Director National Center for Science Education, Inc --Random Replicator 23:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please help if you have time

WP:ANI#Harassment and stalking Gnixon is on a vendetta against anyone who stands up to him. Your comments will help. Orangemarlin 22:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Noah's Ark#WorldWideFlood link

Haven't seen you around a lot, but I'm having quite a bit of fun goofing with the dogma of one of the Creationist subsets, Flood Geology. Your help, wit, logic and sarcasm is most welcomed, and, frankly, I have more fun when you're helping out. Can you set aside that book on differential mathematics (or whatever it is), and have some good old-fashioned fun?  :) Orangemarlin 19:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. I have been off in other parts of the cyber world, so I have neglected Wikipedia a bit, or at least slowed down my work here. However, I do intend to be back in greater force!--Filll 15:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Introduction to evolution

Hey, Filll, I hate to be a bother, but I'm runnoing a bit low on good popular books to cite up some of the sections. þdo you know any good ones fior Population genetics, comparative anatomy, vestigial structures, convergent evolution, artificial selection (could use Darwin?), molecular biology, co-evolution, and speciation (defining pre-and post- zygotic barriers) that will sufficiently define those sections? I'm just about to read Endless forms Most Beautiful - maybe I'll find something there - but if you have some good popular books for the sections listed... Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not an expert since I am not a biologist and never even took a biology course, but a friend who is a biology professor highly recommended The Tree of Life: Charles Darwin (New York Times Best Illustrated Books (Awards)), Peter Sis, Farrar, Straus and Giroux (BYR); 1st ed edition (October 1, 2003), ISBN-10: 0374456283. I read the Idiot's Guide to Biology but I was not impressed. Does anyone else have any other suggestions?--Filll 18:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose in the worst case, I can use Starr and Taggert, though that's a biology textbook, not a popular work. Still, for an introductory article, I'd like to use mainly popular works. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit

...at OM's talkpage made me laugh until I choked. You're a bad man. Really bad. Doc Tropics 02:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Gravity test

This is a useful analogy, even to the point of pointing up loose wording in our posts. When you said that gravity could be drastically changed by future scientific discoveries, you of course meant the theories we use to explain gravity might change! You might want to clarify your statement, people are getting confused enough already. :) TimVickers 16:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the gravity test is a useful analogy, but I not only mean the theories of gravity but the observations and evidence of gravity as well (see dark energy for example).--Filll 16:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Gravity test

This is a useful analogy, even to the point of pointing up loose wording in our posts. When you said that gravity could be drastically changed by future scientific discoveries, you of course meant the theories we use to explain gravity might change! You might want to clarify your statement, people are getting confused enough already. :) TimVickers 16:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the gravity test is a useful analogy, but I not only mean the theories of gravity but the observations and evidence of gravity as well (see dark energy for example).--Filll 16:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Check your email

And we need you at Jesus as myth article. Orangemarlin 21:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Archive of Filll on User_talk:Yqbd

Please be careful about editing talk pages and reverting aggressively and making snide comments. You are already violating enough rules to get a temporary block. If you continue down this path, I can promise you that you will find yourself unable to edit Wikipedia, and possibly get your IP address and neighboring IP addresses blocked as well.--Filll 14:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not on [[:User talk:Filll]]. Thank you.--Filll 14:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Flood Geology. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Filll 15:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You have violated the three-revert rule on Flood geology. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring.

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on User talk:Filll. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors; instead, assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. --Filll 15:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Creationism

Dude (dudette?), I know creationists can be douchebags but this is a fairly un-civil response. We can't have you getting blocked or banned for incivility, that's one less editor fighting 'em off. WLU 14:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

A war on science

Hi, just noticed your comment at Talk:Creation-evolution controversy#Johnson in A War on Science: have you any links to the Regents Lecture right after he published his book "Darwin on Trial"? My curiosity is piqued, though I've not really got the time to get really expert on the ghastly subject. While the BBC documentary didn't hammer home Johnson as a liar, to me that brief section is shockingly candid in setting out the aim to subvert science. But no doubt you chappies hear that sort of thing all the time – I'm not sure if I've ever met a creationist, thought when two Jehovah's Witnesses came to the door I shocked them by not slamming the door on their toes, and instead asked what they thought about evolution. We had a nice chat, and they didn't seem very sure though one of them thought human's weren't descended from lesser creatures. The other pointed out that science didn't explain where it all came from, then when asked if he knew where God came from he amiably acknowledged the point that it was the same problem moved back one, and they parted amicably. They just didn't seem very clued up about it, but to be fair the sort of behaviour you seem to have come across would not get them far in Scotland. However no doubt creationists are about somewhere, trying to subvert science.. . dave souza, talk 21:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Look here for Regents Lecture:

• Darwinism on Trial. Address at University of California, Irvine, 1992--Filll 03:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the monkey song, at 2 minutes into A War on Science someone says "the monkey song, I don't know what else to call it" and as a school bus goes along a country road, children's voices sing "I'm no kin to a monkey on a rope, a monkey's no kin to me tada da" etc. A catchy piece of daft propaganda. .. dave souza, talk 00:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If I was from the UK, I would not be too smug. Look at Truth in Science for example.--Filll 03:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Dave should meet Dr. Monty White; the UK's version of Ken Ham. [6] The zealots are global. --Random Replicator 15:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis started in Queensland, Australia. George McCready Price was Canadian. And so on...--Filll 15:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, to clarify I didn't mean to imply they're entirely absent here – the Time ed supp reports there's even one lecturing at Glasgow uni, and UK unis are starting to introduce compulsory lectures on creationism and intelligent design into zoology and genetics courses. And we're getting a Ken Ham tour round Scottish cities, but don't think I'll be going along. There's a modern church hall / cafe / bookshop in Greenock, and a while ago I admired but failed to purchase for our boy a "how the dinosaurs fitted on the ark" children's book. However, if I remember your account correctly, having a work colleague go in the huff because you're insufficiently creationist would be considered astonishing anywhere I've worked. Mind you, there haven't even been open conflicts about more serious religious issues, such as Rangers FC versus Celtic FC. Is Glasgow the only city where the Orangemen wear blue? ... dave souza, talk 16:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Not quite sure what "having a work colleague go in the huff because you're insufficiently creationist" means. Isn't English wonderful? So many regionalisms.--Filll 16:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, just a vague memory of you telling the tale of some female at work getting upset at you and refusing to speak to you after you'd defended evolution, or something along those lines. If my memory's at fault, my apologies. Don't know if you read the LA Times, but this article from Feb 12th caught my eye, and wow that's scary. Puts me in mind to try looking for some local creationists to chat to, but not sure where I'd find any around here. Terribly un-British to discuss religion. ... dave souza, talk 21:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Further response Mr. Theriault

1. Your artificial difference between an "evolutionary scientist" (a field that does not exists) and an "evolutionist" (a word that was resurrected recently to make evolution sound religious) are terms never used by scientists themselves. All scientists (well 99.9%) accept evolution as a scientific fact. In the fields of Biology, Chemistry, probably physics, and their subdisciplines, Evolution just is a fact. Outside of science, whether someone cares to understand it or not, they are not given a descriptive term. There is no Creation science, because there is no science that "believes" in creation. We allowed the name of this article to stand because it is what is claimed by creationists, not by scientists.
2. There are no political, philosophical or religious aspects to Evolution. It depends on scientific research, supported by millions of peer-reviewed articles. And, Filll is right, creation science is a term that isn't factual. Creationists, by their nature, cannot employ the scientific method. As discussed above, you do not appear to have an understanding of the science and the scientific method, and applying them to an essentially religious doctrine is inappropriate.
3. We do not feign, imply, state or argue that scientific theories and methodologies are intellectually inaccessible. We do state that you are ignoring them, because they are quite easy to understand. And please quit using "evolutionist" which is, once again, an invented word, utilized by creationists to imply, feign, state or argue that scientists follow a religion. That term is pejorative and is never utilized by a scientist.
4. Please note the NPOV sections. This is an NPOV encyclopedia, and given the lack of scientific, peer-reviewed, and published data that any god, gods, aliens, or other supernatural being had anything to do with this planet, religious information can only be described as a religious.

Orangemarlin 13:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

We have no idea if Mr. Theriault is the person who is posting here on Wikipedia. It could be a simple matter of identity theft. Even if it is the same person, this does not prove much except someone who has not yet learned the inherent dangers of exposing himself and his personal information on the internet. There should be extra points for this? WP is not a place where credentials are flaunted, but where results reign supreme. However, in this area, Mr. Theriault does not write as someone who even has a good high school level understanding of biology and evolution, let alone a college level grasp of these subjects. He did not bring up valid points, and they were easily dismissed. These are the same types of points that creationists have brought up for about 100 years and these points are always dismissed in a similar manner. I think that Mr. Theriault was treated kindly but firmly. The defects of his position were explained extremely carefully and thoughtfully. Several editors put a lot of thought and energy into explaining the problems with his position in great detail. He was pointed to several internal and external references with a substantial amount of valuable information. This was far more than he deserved, frankly, and far more attention than he would get in almost any other venue. The only problem is that the editors of this article did not immediately decide to change the character of this WP article to a religious recruiting tract. That would be unfair to the readers of Wikipedia. There are other wikis for that. If one looks at the article history, Mr. Theriault is lucky he is not banned or blocked for sock puppetry and violating the three revert rule. He was given EIGHT formal and informal warnings for his actions (on his talk page and the talk pages of his alleged sockpuppets) and was not the object of any disciplinary action, when he clearly could have been, for edit warring. His actions required that the talk page be protected from his attacks. He did not seek consensus before making major changes. Instead of some poor innocent, I see someone who is more aptly described as a POV warrior and vandal. Where was Mr. Theriault treated poorly? This is a charge that is completely without merit. Believe me, if I showed up on a forum at Answers in Genesis and engaged in the types of behavior Mr. Theriault did here, I would be treated far more harshly.--Filll 13:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh, about Rapid-Decay theory and Baraminology...

I haven't been following Creationism pages that closely, but I was under the impression that all articles already in Category:Creation Science wern't supposed to also be in Category:Pseudoscience because of redundancy, since the Creation Science category itself is in Category:Pseudoscience. Just wondering if something has changed is all. Homestarmy 18:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I will follow consensus, whatever that is. Point me to the place where this was decided.--Filll 18:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What is "Creation Science" supposed to mean? Wikidan829 18:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well creation science is a type of pseudoscience where supposedly scientific methods are used to "prove" the literal truth of the bible, including the formation of the earth in 4004 BC.--Filll 18:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I suppose God put light in motion to deceive us into thinking the universe is really millions of years old too ;) Wikidan829 18:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well Filll, think about it, there's a whole slew of editors who watch the pages you added the pseudoscience category to, and a great many of them who would agree that all Creation Science and most anything it is related to would be categorized as pseudoscience, so why wasn't the category already on those pages? The person removing the category on Baraminology for example seemed to think it was redundant too [7] because Creation Science is already in a sub-cat, but i'm not that familiar with how category policy works, the person who removed the category seemed to of left a reason for it on This talk page, it might of been some reorganization thing from the looks of it. Homestarmy 19:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Then why are some of the topics in both the creation science category and the pseudophysics category, which is a subcategory of the pseudoscience category?--Filll 19:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't know much about how Category policy works concerning this, (The only thing I absolutly remember is that articles aren't really supposed to have any categories in them who's placement on an article is disputed, but as you may of noticed, some categories seem mysteriously immune to that part of the guideline) i'm just saying what I know :/. Offhand, maybe pseudophysics isn't as disorganized as the pseudoscience category was, or maybe nobody is taking care of the pseudophysics category as much. Homestarmy 19:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution Controversy

Your input would be appreciated at Talk:Evolution#Controversy (2) and Talk:Evolution/WIP. Thanks! Gnixon 18:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Refeature Evolution

Do you think Evolution is ready to be re-featured? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I would check with User:Silence.--Filll 19:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Beyond Intelligent Design

I'll work on the article, but I think you need to pick up Chapman's book, 40 days and 40 nights about the Kitzmiller case. I think you'll find more references to this issue. Orangemarlin 01:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Rough Draft: Beyond Intelligent Design

Please take a look at this: User talk:Filll/beyondintelligentdesign--Filll 00:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

After some welcome suggestions by User:Orangemarlin, this article has been launched as Beyond intelligent design and a few links made to other articles. It is still fairly rough, but it is a start.--Filll 18:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)