User talk:Filll/Archive 13

DYK

On 31 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bernard d’Abrera, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Glad it made it in at last! PS, I toned down the hook a touch. --Espresso Addict 12:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello out there

First of all, you need to do some archiving :) Second, you've got some email. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I just did a ton of archiving! But you are probably correct, I should hack away some more of this old stuff.--Filll 17:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Bernard d’Abrera

Hi Filll. I notice you've just reversed my edit to remove POV in the introduction of the Bernard d'Abrera article. You've restored the text to:

"Bernard d’Abrera (b.1940), is a butterfly photographer and a publisher. He is a fervent creationist and has taken to injecting anti-evolution polemics into his books of butterfly pictures."

To me, this reads as flagrantly anti-creationist, and clearly breaks WP:NPOV. Describing his work as a polemic, for instance, is fairly needlessly POV. And why exactly is it important to stress that he a "fervant creationist" (my emphasis)? That almost implies that he's more of a creationist than other creationists - surely untrue. Please note that I say this as a fervant anti-creationist. Anyway, can you explain why you think we need this text rather than the more neutral text I edited it to:

"Bernard d’Abrera (b.1940), is a butterfly photographer and a publisher. He is a creationist and expresses anti-evolution ideas in his books of butterfly pictures."

Cheers, --Plumbago 13:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, first let us examine the word polemic:

• From the American Heritage dictionary: "A controversial argument, especially one refuting or attacking a specific opinion or doctrine."

I believe that "Dr." d'Abrera's statements in his books certainly fall in this category.

• Here is a recent usage: "'American Theocracy'... is not without polemic, but unlike many of the more glib and strident political commentaries of recent years, it is extensively researched and for the most part frighteningly persuasive."

Link: 'American Theocracy,' by Kevin Phillips - The New York Times Book Review

Hardly sounds like some terrible thing, does it?

• From the Oxford University Press Literary Dictionary: "a thorough written attack on some opinion or policy, usually within a theological or political dispute, sometimes also in philosophy or criticism. Notable polemicists in English are John Milton, whose Areopagitica (1644) attacks censorship, and H. D. Thoreau, whose ‘Slavery in Massachusetts’ (1854) berates upholders of the Fugitive Slave Law."

From these two examples, I believe that "Dr." d'Abrera's work is definitely in the category of polemic, given his far more strident tone. He brags about how nasty he is in interviews and in his own autobiography:[1].

Note that in his own autobiography he calls himself the "best known 'Butterfly Man' in the world", although I notice that until I wrote this article, there was not a single mention of him in WP, although we had a list of a couple dozen famous lepidopterists with articles here already. He was not mentioned here at all, prior to my article. He says he is regarded by many as the most prolific author etc etc. Then, from his own autobiography:

for the last 25 years, he has been an outspoken foe of all cod-scientific theories of ‘Origins’ (itself, by definition, a serious metaphysical concept, beyond the remit and competence of the physical sciences) that broadly comprise Evolutionism. Thus, he suggests that such baleful and irrelevant theories seriously compromise any true scientific study of the natural world, which should only be based on collection & curation, observation & measurement, laboratory experiment & prediction, and a generous helping of common sense.

In 2001, in his now famous Concise Atlas of the Butterflies of the World (Hill House Publishers (Melb.& Lond.) the author launched a systematic and scholarly critique of what he sees as the patently unscientific, profligate, and self-serving posturings of the quasi-religion of Evolutionism. He did so on the basis of wishing to free himself and his readers from the neo-Darwinian hegemony and hubris of the scientific establishment, and ‘the viscid, asphyxiating baggage’ with which that establishment continues to burden and impede the true and profitable study of the natural sciences. He further argues that genuine natural science should be based solely on the living fauna & flora (which is also represented in museums), and not on tendentiously speculative and unprovable theories of the past that are best consigned to the realm of pure science fiction.

(emphasis added).

Now does that look like he is taking a controversial stand? It sure does to me. It looks to me that he is arguing fervently for his cause, and against evolution. I originally classified this sort of thing as a diatribe, but then I toned it down to polemic.

From Dembski's book review, as cited in my article:

...the first hundred pages are quite different from what one expects in a typical taxonomic atlas...the entire discussion in these introductory chapters (before we get to the catalogues and plates) is framed as a critique of Darwinism...For strict Darwinists, the opening chapters of this book will be disconcerting. But for critics like myself, d’Abrera’s introductory chapters are supremely refreshing. Yes, there is some colorful prose here...The overwhelming sense one gets in reading the introductory chapters of d’Abrera’s book is of a man who has seen himself, his colleagues, and their work pushed around long enough and who will not stand for it any longer. D’Abrera casts Darwinism as a suffocating ideology and its purveyors as bullies. Consider the following passages from his text:

“Any person wishing to acquire a university degree of any altitude has only to place the word ‘Evolution’ in cunning juxtaposition with the lesser words, ‘Phylogenetics’, ‘Molecular Biology’, ‘Genetics’ or ‘Biodiversity’ in their abstract (or synopsis), and hey presto, they suddenly find themselves copiously funded!” (6)...

“Some may ask why I have included my arguments against the several theories of evolution of species in a popular work such as this. I answer that I do so because ... those who support any or all of such theories do so relentlessly and unopposed in every literary, visual and spoken vehicle that exists - be it base, popular or exalted highbrow. They are totally in control of every scientific journal or book in print and have no intention of having their hegemony threatened....” (53)...

“No field worker who studies insects, may now freely gaze upon his discoveries of insect morphology, biology or behaviour, without the taint of speculative Darwinism compelling him to colour his conclusions. No more is such a worker allowed to make direct, uncomplicated observations about objective facts about butterflies or moths.... Instead he is now compelled through the pressure of insidious programming by the overlords of the scientific establishment, to subject everything he has objectively observed to the tyranny of subjectivist and useless speculation about butterflies and their hypothetical origins. He must do so for no other reason than being able to collect his grant and acquire his PhD or some other doubtful honour of mutual respectability amongst his peers. The really dangerous part of this global pseudo-scientific cultism is that our worker has unconsciously been made to pass from the intellectual liberty provided within the legitimate realms of distinterested hypothesis, into the cul-de-sac of totalitarian absolutism of unprovable dogma.... Evolutionists thus become roped into the bondage of their own theory. They postulate it as holy writ and then labour ceaselessly to find the ‘evidence’ to fit it. Such tendentious labours only bestow the opprobrium of ‘contrivance’ upon the evidence so gleaned.” (64)

This kind of language definitely puts it in the category of a polemic, if not a diatribe. 100+ pages of talk about "overlords of scientific establishment" and "pseudo-scientific cultism" and so on is just over the top.

Interviews and other biographical material about "Dr" d'Abrera just serve to confirm this. He has decided to putnot a sentence or two, not a paragraph or two, and not just a page or two of anti-evolution material in his books. But over 100 pages ! Given that his main customers are museums and university libraries and the scientific community that buy his books to get access to the photographs, this is amazing behavior. Almost ALL of his customers are involved in this evil enterprise of studying evolution, or using evolution in their studies of nature. So not only is his language on this issue extensive and florid, but he serves it up in vehicles which are chiefly purchased by the targets of his attacks and opprobrium ! This is his source of income! He is cutting off his nose to spite his face. I would call this a fervent creationist. He wants to spit in the face of his customers and tell them, over and over, for 100+ pages, that he thinks they are evil and stupid and worse. I would call that fervent. I would call that a polemic, and possibly a diatribe. Would you not?--Filll 14:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a rather detailed response!  :-) Regardless of the fervour of d'Abrera, I still don't think the introduction conforms to WP's guidelines on either WP:NPOV or WP:STYLE. On the former point, that I've never heard of d'Abrera (despite reading more creationist nonsense than is good for me) suggests that he's no more "fervant" than any other creationist, so isn't deserving of that particular notice in his intro. The material above, while extreme, is not notably more so than other creationists I've come across over the years (although it's brilliantly over the top). And the whole "taken to injecting anti-evolution polemic" is clearly written from the perspective of an opponent, so equally clearly is inappropriate for WP. Yes, his work could be described neutrally as polemic, but not as being "injected". Anyway, I don't disagree with your view of him, just that we need to present him as neutrally as possible. Amongst other things, it's my POV that in defeating creationists in the cultural marketplace, it's best not to stoop to using the sort of tarring-and-feathering tactics that they (often) do. Tactics which, I fear, the intro to this article is adopting. Just my POV though. Maybe we need a third view? Cheers, --Plumbago 14:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps something like that would be good. I could be persuaded that thet the word "polemic" is a bit too difficult for the average Wikipedia reader, and should be avoided for that reason, I suppose, although I do think it is quite accurate and appropriate. If you do not like the word "injected" I could replace it with "included".--Filll 17:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to make it easier to read, as noted above. My main concern is the reading ability of the average WP reader, and I maintain that the LEADs must be easily accessible to all and sundry, or at least the widest possible audience.--Filll 17:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he has not always done this, apparently, but has just started the last few years. So I am not sure the current wording is accurate.--Filll 21:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Cruft and vandalism

Hi,

Along with creationism reference you removed couple of paragraphs that introduce a 40 year old well proven theory. This theory replaces Darwin's theory of sexual dimorphism and explains a huge amount of facts. Can you be more specific why you consider this text "a huge amount of cruft and vandalism"? Sashag 22:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me remind myself of whatever this is. It is not helpful to just drop a message like this on someone's page you know.--Filll 22:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok this was some weeks ago at Introduction to evolution: [2]. The reason I removed that is that this is an introductory article, not an advanced article. In addition, the English of the additions was not clear. Also, the formatting had been destroyed as well by lousy edits in several places. The material about the sex theory also used words that are too big for the readers of this introductory article as well as advanced concepts more suitable for an advanced article. The material was also just shoved into the article indiscriminately and did not belong where it was placed. You want more reasons?--Filll 22:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I see you have a Wikipedia article on the subject at Evolutionary theory of sex. That article is too complicated as well and has problems with its English. I have thrown a couple of tags on it and asked for some friends to possibly help. If the main article gets put into better shape, then possibly a link to it can be provided at the introductory article Introduction to evolution. I would ask first on the introductory article talk page. --Filll 22:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Bernard d'Abrera

Hi Filll. You are off to such a great start on the article Bernard d'Abrera that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Tipani

I agree that Tipani is interesting trivia, but I just don't think it belongs in the article on Project Steve. All the equivalents of Stephen are listed at Stephen already. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I suppose you are correct. I am a bit puzzled when the Finnish guy told me that it was not the equivalent of Steve, when I found a nice reference for that fact.--Filll 15:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ian Lowe

{{helpme}}

Ian Lowe, one of the people from British Center for Scientific Education has been trying to help us on the article avoid some wrong statements and potentially libellous statements from editors who might be on the other side of some disputes. Some of this material appears in blogs, which might not be particularly reliable, by those who oppose the BCSE. While I have no problem with using this information as examples of how vehemently the BCSE is being attacked, I feel uncomfortable with characterizing these "rumors" as "fact", particularly when the person involved is strongly objecting. Can someone offer some assistance and/or advice in this matter? Thank you.--Filll 21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! Sounds to me like you are getting involved in a bit of a tricky area...one place you might like to look is WP:V for information on reliable sources. Blogs are self-published, and are not generally regarded as being reliable. If you are confident that the sources are not reliable, you can remove them yourself. I would caution you to use a descriptive edit summary, explain yourself on the article talk page, and be careful to avoid the 3 revert rule WP:3RR. I will drop in on the article as an uninvolved 3rd party and keep an eye on it for you as well. Definitely remove any libellous statements about living people, as one thing we intend here at Wikipedia is to avoid causing personal harm through our articles--this ties into having a neutral point of view. Good luck, and thank you for being proactive and asking for help about this!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 22:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Frère Jacques

I saw you reverted my edit to that article. I initially did believe the song refered to the plague but after reading the Ring a Ring O'Roses article, and seeing it called "a misinterpretation" and a "myth", I assumed I had been wrong. --Android Mouse 06:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think most people think and have thought that is what it refers to. But it might not have been. However, all it takes is for some to believe that to make the reason that people want to attach a grisly and/or morbid significance to Frere Jacques is by analogy with Ring around the Rosie.--Filll 06:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel that the Ring a Ring of Roses article is a tad slanted with the wording on the interpretation of it, or is that just me? --Android Mouse 07:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand what you are suggesting. Please elaborate.--Filll 14:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel that the Ring a Ring of roses article is worded with a somewhat of a POV on the possible interpretation of the song, calling it a "myth" and a "misconception"? I was going to try and improve it but wasn't sure if it's just me who sees it that way. --Android Mouse 16:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not see anything wrong with the Ring a Ring of roses article myself. I found it quite interesting. I gather this is the appropriate view for an encyclopedia article. I am not aware of a huge academic controversy about this. If you have citations for that, then that would be interesting.--Filll 13:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

other's comments

Hi Filll. I don't like people changing my comments, why did you? [3] Fred ☻ 14:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow. You are going to get upset about this? I did it so a person could easily link back to the user page in question to see what was going on. Do you contend that this changed the meaning of what you wrote? Buddy, if you want to make a mountain out of a molehill, and earn yourself a lot of animosity, you are doing a good job. Why do you not AGF? How on earth did this edit harm you? How did it reflect you in a negative light? How did it alter your intended meaning? Wow...amazing....just amazing.--Filll 14:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Threats? –carefully does it now. Please answer the question. Fred ☻ 15:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok now. Where was the threat made? Give me an exact precise wording of the phrase that you personally regard as a threat. I see no threat. I am astounded that you perceive a threat here, purportedly made by me. What exactly do you allege?

As for answering the question, perhaps you missed my response:

I did it so a person could easily link back to the user page in question to see what was going on.

Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem, or perhaps English is not your first language. Perhaps you just mistakenly skipped over this sentence. Perhaps I did not word it carefully enough. Would you like me to expand on this theme for you? Perhaps a paragraph or two describing EXACTLY what this sentence means? Please let me know at your earliest convenience and I would be glad to cater to your special needs.--Filll 15:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Filll, my friend, you should not have said the first sentence of the above paragraph.--or indeed written that paragraph at all. To any WPedian, ever, even under real provocation, which this was not. Consider this a serious warning for NPA. DGG (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok fair enough. However, I do disagree that I somehow wrote something atrocious here. I am completely confused as to why

• wikifying a user name is a vile cybercrime

or

• stating that the complaint about wikification is making a mountain out of a molehill constitutes a terrible threat

or

• my statement explaining why I wikified that name was not clear enough

or

• how any of this constituted some terrible wikicrime and improper behavior.

I did speculate as to why my explanation of the wikification was not clear. That was uncivil? Well...ok...if you say so...--Filll 15:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Here was the first one

Buddy, if you want to make a mountain out of a molehill, and earn yourself a lot of animosity, you are doing a good job.

I suggest you log off and have a break, your last comment was even more uncivil. Fred ☻ 15:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not perceive that as a threat. I am shocked and surprised that you see that as a threat. Wow.--Filll 15:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Apology on my talk page please, I'm unwatching your page. Fred ☻ 15:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I will apologize on both pages, thanks awfully. I am sorry you somehow were unable to understand my explanation or missed it. I do not know why, but I am prepared to accept that there is some problem here, which probably is my own. Also, I am sorry that I wikified a name in a post of yours and that this offended you somehow. I will humbly suggest that this episode does speak volumes, which I will leave others better suited than me to judge. I apologize for wikifying a name in a post of yours. I think that it probably constitutes one of the most horrendous violations of wikiquette I could have ever committed, or has ever been committed by anyone on Wikipedia ever, and I am deeply truely sorry for it. I did not mean any offense whatsoever and clearly I have deeply offended your deepest sensibilities and sense of propriety here. I was mistaken and I did not mean any offense whatsoever to you or any of your fellows or anyone else who might happen to read that post which I had altered through wikification. I am duely chastised and will wear sackcloth and ashes for this shameful incident and truely grave wikicrime that I have somehow inadvertantly committed by my ineptness and ignorance and arrogance and calumny and abuse of every standard of prudence and decency on Wikipedia. I prostrate myself at your feet and beg for your absolution and remission of my sins for this grievous excess and vile atrocious affront. I also apologize for not understanding how the phrase "making a mountain out of a molehill" constitutes some sort of threat or menace to you, some expression of an intent to do some harm in any way shape or form to you. I must be completely ignorant and unperceptive and have missed that penumbration of semiotical hermeneutics and I apologize for my shortcomings and clumsiness and incompetence and lack of proper sensitivity to avoid offending you or making you feel insecure in any possible way. I apologize for suggesting that your post or statements or claims might have in any possible manner been interpreted in a negative way. I apologize for using the phrase "earning animosity" because clearly any reasonable person would never have been surprised or shocked that something like wikification of a user name on a post would have elicited this kind of response. Your response is completely reasonable and to be expected by anyone with a modicum of decency or the slightest amount of comprehension of the proper and prudent comportment that is to be expected on Wikipedia. I am deeply truely sorry and I stand corrected. --Filll 15:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll be damned if I'd buss Fred's fundament, either. Absolutely perfect. •Jim62sch• 22:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Frede needs to really read up on what constitutes a personal attack. He deleted some comments I made to an editor that I felt needed some guidance, calling it a "personal attack". Frede requires some corrective action soon if he keeps up this behavior. No apology was necessary for creating a wikilink on MY PAGE!!!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I do find it somewhat amazing that Fred.e can delete OrangeMarlin's comments on someone else's page completely, and call them a "personal attack", and when I just wikilink Fred.e's post on OrangeMarlin's page, a far milder thing, that earns me full frontal accusations of making threats, and being uncivil, and refusing to explain my reasons for this terrible crime of wikilinking another's post. Seems a bit strange to me. Let's compare:

Me:

• I wikilinked someone else's post on a third person's page. I was accused of terrible things for this.

Fred.e:

• He removed someone else's post on a third person's page. He was proud to say that he was protecting the third person from a "personal attack".

I was vilified for my actions, and he lauds himself for his actions, which seem to be far worse at first glance? Hmm...I wonder if there is a double standard here? I don't know...something smells funny to me about this whole thing.--Filll 23:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I surmise that you detect the odoriferous smegma of putrefaction emanating from the patient's corpus collosum. •Jim62sch• 11:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

WQA

Hi - I replied to your note on my talk page. --Parsifal _Hello 23:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

Hi there, I think it would be useful to focus the discussion of proposed changes on the sources that would be required to support the proposed broadening of the term 'evolution' from its commonly-accepted meaning. Such an approach avoids any appearance of ad hominem debate and puts the onus on the people supporting the change to produce material supporting their arguments. Tim Vickers 22:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably true.--Filll 22:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 13 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tara C. Smith, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 02:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Block

You have persistently criticized me personally in multiple discussions over the last couple weeks despite two warnings. I'm blocking you for 24 hours. Please learn to confine your commentary to the issues and not the people involved. Dragons flight 03:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked you, since I haven't seen any previous warning, the difs I've seen didn't seem that bad, and in any event DF should not be making the block when he is agrieved party. That said, I suggest you try to stay calm and WP:CIVIL and remember that we're all working together with the same goals. JoshuaZ 03:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, looking at the last few difs, especially [4] [5] [6] consider yourself to be strongly advised about WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. You should know better than to make these sorts of comments. JoshuaZ 03:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Also:   
   

• [7]
• [8]
• [9]

Dragons flight 03:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'm highly puzzled as to how the dif at 2:13 is meant to be at all relevant to this. DF, I think you need to chill out. JoshuaZ 04:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't see how any of those diffs are relevant. ornis (t) 04:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have one big message to DF: You win. You can win every argument. I give. I give up. I apologize for any discomfort or annoyance I have ever caused you. You made your point.--Filll 04:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't give up. I'm sorry. Much as you were pissing me off, it wasn't my call to make. Other people think I overreacted and I accept that. I badly need a vacation, so I'm leaving for a while at least. Dragons flight 05:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

About your block by Dragons flight

This was clearly an improper block and misuse of his position and tools since he was involved in an ongoing content dispute with you at Talk:Flat Earth Society and elsewhere. I'm sorry you had to suffer this. I'll be following up with Dragons flight and the community to make sure this doesn't happen again. In the meantime, you're free to edit and you can pursue whatever steps you feel are necessary through WP:DR if you're so inclined. FeloniousMonk 04:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

re. your mailing to unblock-en-l, it looks like User:JoshuaZ has lifted your block but the autoblock may still be active. Can you possibly post the autoblock ID here & I'll look into it? - Alison ☺ 07:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it did finally work last night. If I find out that it did not, I will post here. Thank you.--Filll 12:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

blog

first preliminary step would be to write and establish an article for the guy who runs it, to shows he;s a notable and respected scientist. Unfortunately, he probably doesn't meet the standards, see this draft which will make it harder. Perhaps you should start with one run by somebody who clearly does. DGG (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It is actually a lady, and I have expanded it a bit. I think she might be on her way to passng the standard for notability I think:

• two books published
• founded a group with 26 PhDs that is involved in politics and government lobbying
• writes frequently in a blog that is widely cited, and has been selected by a very selective organization which is paying all expenses
• contributes to another blog which is also among the most highly rated, and is selective about its contributors; only professional scientists of note

How much more does she need to be notable?

Here is my draft so far: User talk:Filll/Tara C. Smith.--Filll 21:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Tara Smith

Your draft looks very good to me but I think it probably makes the most sense to have one article about Aetiology and Smith. Maybe make the article on the blog a subsection of the article ? Anyways, I have a few more sources that I may append to your draft when I have time. JoshuaZ 01:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not know if one article is good, or two. I would favor two articles myself, but would not be too upset with one. The thing is, PZ Meyers and Pharyngula (blog) are two articles, and Panda's Thumb (blog) and the authors are separate articles. So why should poor Smith have only one article? Especially since I expect both her personal article and the blog article to grow considerably with time.--Filll 03:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Any more sources for one or both of these would be welcome. I am worried that one or both of these will not be notable. --Filll 05:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer merging Pharyngula and Meyers actually since the reasons for both of their notability are intertwined. Many of the PT's writers are independently notable which is why they have separate articles. JoshuaZ 14:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I can demonstrate that Smith is independently notable. She has 3 books published. She founded the Iowa Citizens for Science, and has been involved in lobbying in this regard. She has received press coverage for her lobbying. Yes, she is partly famous for her blog, but she is gaining notoreity for other activities. If ALL she did was start the Iowa Citizens for Science and do some successful lobbying with press coverage, she might very well be notable. Forget all her professional publications and her books. Those are just icing on the cake. The blog is still more icing on the cake. --Filll 15:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Smith has published 3 books, and taught at 4 different Universities, and has several journal publications as well. Smith organized the Iowa Citizens for Science (with a few dozen members), and been engaged in lobbying and organizing public Darwn events (1 so far, another upcoming in 2008), and an article about her activities in this area has been in the Des Moines Register. I think she is well on her way to notability, if she is not there already.

Her blog is rated number 7 in science from Nature, out of 46 million blogs evaluated. I count 4 print mentions (including in Cell (journal) and 5 cyberspace media articles about Aetiology (in addition to just 1000s of general blogosphere discussions on other blogs). Notable?--Filll 16:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You asked for my comment. In showing Smith's notability, don't base it too much on the blog, and do not repeat all the references' See WP:WG.

For the books, find reviews'. They are high school/undergraduate-level brief 100 p. books. [10] But writers of widely used textbooks can be notable for that--they are very widely held--check in OCLC. But make clear they are elementary textbooks, not scientific treatises.

You've got her current work wrong -- it's on the epidemiology of diseases in Gulf War veterans I will attach the bibliography from WOS to the page, but it needs formatting. She has 13 papers, cited 11, 10, 10 times at most. I do not think you will be able to show her notable as a researcher. Emphasise the activism, as related to the research. DGG (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. You really go above and beyond the call of duty for me, over and over and I want to make sure I express my appreciation for all your efforts.

On Smith and notability: That was my impression. The activism makes her stand out much more personally, over her peers. As I see it, she has a few areas in which she is active:

• Activism: being the founder and leader of a group that is doing government lobbying and been recognized in the press for this makes her stand out. Helps a lot with notability.
• Research: weak, since she is at the start of her career so far. Not so notable, but impressive for her age.
• Publishing: although the 3 books are popular books (or at least one is), they do show evidence of activity. Not sure if it is enough to be notable but it is impressive nonetheless.
• Teaching: not so notable, but still impressive
• Blog authorship: getting a lot of visibility, first on the internet, and now more and more in regular media. Particularly interesting to me are the Nature rating and the Cell (journal) mention, both leading science journals.

I will check on her current research and books a bit.--Filll 18:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I found some more. ISI let me down this time--- there are so many Smiths that their alogrithm for grouping authors "Author finder"' divided the Tara C Smiths into two groups, (and messed up the ones within the groups also), so I will be adding another set. I can't wait to tell them-- I know the people there very well. I also know the people at Scopus very well. It will still be borderline, but more impressive. Downplay the teaching--it never works as sufficient. There'are two lines of research the iraq stuff and the part you found. The research is still borderline, but respectable enough that she'll have no problem with tenure. It will hold. DGG (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

ISI really let me down--their groupings are screwed up entirely, and the TC Smith who did the gulf war work is a different epidemiologist entirely, and your initial analysis was correct, and I'm sorry to have led you down the wrong path & encouraged undue optimism. I've fixed it, but will check for citations. I was led astray by politics--sort of assumed anyone with progressive politics by that name was obviously likely to have done the politically related work. DGG (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

We will get this figured out eventually. Hopefully I will find out more about her activism, and make all this worrying about how substantial a figure she is in epidemiology at this very early stage of her career will be a moot issue. I think organizing this Iowa group which appears to be several dozen (at least 26 PhDs signed the letter to the editor, plus a bunch of others with masters and bachelors etc), organizing a public celebration of Darwin, and getting written up in the newspaper for lobbying is already enough, I would say. If one adds the blog, and the books, and the mentions in Cell and Nature, and then her "standard" research and teaching, then I think she might very well have enough to be notable. I hope to find some more to add.--Filll 20:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

On the current status of the two articles: I found a WSU professor recommends the blog as a reliable source. She has engaged in a fair amount of activism in the 3 areas:

• anti-creationism, organizing meetings, circulating petitions, writing letters etc
• anti-AIDS denialism, getting herself in trouble with AIDS denialists and also getting recognized by other leading HIV educators (links to come)
• pandemic preparation: Apparently some newspaper interviews on this subject

I found one book review so far. There might be more but that is all I have so far.--Filll 00:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Just found 3 book chapters and a review of one of the books. Even better, one of the books is the 50 best science blog posts of 2006. One of Smith's posts was selected and included. And Nature reviewed this book.--Filll 01:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation templates

Hi Filll,

How d'you feel about using Citation templates when adding reference? You're a consistent and experienced editor and I'm curious when someone with your edit count and experience doesn't use them. Is there a reason, or just a preference? I'm tempted to turn this into a template, but don't want to step on your toes.

Thanks,

WLU 19:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You can certainly try to fix my problems with references. The reason I have not done it widely yet is that when I have looked into it, I found it didnt seem as flexible as I would want, but perhaps I am not understanding something. I should warn you that I am working on a rewrite of Level of support for evolution, as I describe on the talk page of that article. I would welcome any comments or ideas you have about how to reign this article in and make it easier to read and more compact.--Filll 19:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added my thoughts, please keep in mind that I may not understand the page. Plus, it's a huge temptation to just agree that Creationism is stupid, wikipedia policies be damned, and turn the entire project into an anticreationism wiki.

From what I understand, the citation templates are there to ensure a standardized citation formatting, much like the use of a standardized referencing within scientific periodicals - there's no variability, therefore no question on what is the journal name, what is the title, where the pages go, is it a supplemental or a regular publication, etc. I'm not sure what kind of flexibility you were looking for on the references, but citation templates offer none - you fill in the fields and the template ensures that they all look the same. Which might not be what you were looking for. There are a variety of tools that could be helpful, the Reference generator and PMID autocitation, the first will do websites as well as journal articles.

Level of support for evolution I've not given an thorough read-through. Other things always seem to crop up on my watchlist... I'll provide more comments if I see the need tho' WLU 19:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you guys, I have made some much-needed improvements on the table. I want to make it as clear as I can what it is, and to present the facts in the most straightforward compact fashion that I can. I am trying to integrate it in with my Level of support for evolution draft rewrite. --Filll 21:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Parapsychology#Parapsychology_today_section

Could you have a look at this and weigh in? I'm... very uncomfortable with the NPOV issues being raised there. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Tara C. Smith

Although I am still expecting some more material, I think this article is ready for public inspection.--Filll 11:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

CFS

Notice you reverted my edit on above page without discussion, also note you have never contribted to article or discussion, want to explain your extrordinary actions? Jagra 11:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As I explained on your talk page, you should talk out your differences with other editors and reach consensus. You should not get in an edit war.--Filll 11:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Tara C. Smith

The reason the books were described as popular is that they are meant for the general public, not for professional epidemiologists. They are not best sellers, as far as I know.--Filll 12:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Filll, I read the sources and didn't really see anything to support the claims. Anyways, fluff like that really isn't necessary for an encyclopedia, just neutral facts seem to work best. Cheers! --Tom 12:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Three. I was following the suggestions of User:DGG in this matter, who strongly favored discriminating between professional books and books meant for a general audience. That is why I introduced the word "popular", although another term or phrase might be less prone to ambiguous interpretation. User:DGG also implored me to find reviews of any books she was involved with and include them, which I did. The other superlatives are not necessary, I agree, but I believe were accurate. --Filll 12:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not disputing that they are accurate, just that they are not really necessary, as they read more like commentary. Also, there are no requirements that I am aware of, for including reviews. I'm just doing my usuall nick picky editing :), hope you don't mind or take offense. Overall, the article looks impressive for just being created and you should be comended! Cheers! --Tom 13:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No I do not mind. I leave such things up to people who are far more literary- minded than me, such as User:DGG. By the way, she is clearly an activist, given her activist behavior; organizing lobbying groups, starting petitions, collecting signatures, challenging pseudoscientists repeatedly in different spheres. She is also pro-science, that is for sure. So although there have been other people who are called "pro-science activists", and I am not aware of anyone besides me that has called her this, I think it is a perfectly accurate description.--Filll 13:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Filll, why'd you put up the Tara Smith III on the DAB page? If there's no wikilink or even a redlink, it seems unnecessary. Would you mind if I deleted it? WLU 13:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this should be turned into an article eventually, since she has several acting credits to her name. Make it a redlink if you like. The advantage of having it there is that it helps the readers who are looking for "Tara Smith", and it makes it clear that these are all different people.--Filll 14:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I decided to restore some of the content that was removed, especially the part about the chapter in the book. I've also replaced the description of her as a pro-science activist with a mention of her founding Iowa Citizens for Science which should signal that she's an activist but doesn't have the sourcing/defintional problems. If we can get better sourcing on that, I'd favor the original wording. JoshuaZ 14:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks JoshuaZ. I as well favor the original wording. We will see how it goes. I did put this article forward for DYK.--Filll 14:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Tara Smith DAB page

(Starting a new heading so I don't get mixed up with a main page)

I looked into both, IMDB, both are incredibly minor - Tara Smith III and Tara V. Smith. They don't appear to be the same person, and I'm quite uncomfortable with a DAB page saying 'might also be'. The second google link that turns up for "Tara Smith" III is your sub page :) I'd be happier taking it out, even as a redlink. I can't see either of the actresses ever passing WP:BIO. WLU 14:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well they might be the same person. But I would not claim they are. I think that Tara Smith III might very well pass notability standards. --Filll 14:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind, I edited your comment ;)

How 'bout I change the DAB page to leave TSIII as a redlink? WLU 15:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a good solution, and just remove the speculative link about the other one. JoshuaZ 15:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Synthetics

Filll, it's appreciated that you've probably already considered this, but WP:BLP is particularly stringent about Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, especially when it might appear critical of the individual concerned. It can be a difficult balance to strike, but we really have to look for a reliable source putting together facts rather than putting them together ourselves in a way that synthesises an argument. ... dave souza, talk 14:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand. As I said on the talk page, I am in possession of more information about the topic of a sensitive nature and I am considering what exactly to do. --Filll 14:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it's tricky and can take a lot of patience. We'd a difficulty once with someone who was blatantly pushing pseudoscience, but just had to wait to find a published RS saying exactly that with direct reference to the character in question, and the usual blogs just aren't reliable enough for such a sensitive situation. Good luck with it, no doubt the information will turn up eventually in a suitably reliable source. .. dave souza, talk 16:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I wrote to you on this issue. Check your mail.--Filll 16:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops. have responded. .. dave souza, talk 18:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Just my theory...

I noticed the following entry on your user page:

"If you look at a map of the Pacific, you will see that the islands of Hawaii are all lined up in a row. If you include sea mounts and underwater knolls etc, the Hawaiian islands extend a great distance westward and then there is a sharp bend Northward as the island chain continues as the Emperor chain (the whole chain is called the Hawaii-Emperor chain, for obvious reasons). If you date all of these islands (about 50 I think) the dates get progressively older as you move along the chain, westward and then northward. The interesting thing to me is, what happened to cause the sharp bend?"

This would obviously be due to plate tectonics. The motion of the Pacific plate changed abruptly during the formation of the Hawaii-Emperor Chain. The abrupt change in motion could correspond to India's impact with Asia, or perhaps another less spectacular but no less important instance of plate collision - not inconceivably, the Pacific plate impacting with South America. Not knowing the date of the Chain's formation, either scenario is plausible. But I'm not familiar with the dates, this is just off the top of my head, so I could be dead wrong.

Now about the drunk bees... :) -- WolfieInu 19:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course. This is paleogeography or paleoplate tectonics. Of course, now that you have said that, you have already made yourself a target of the creationists and are going to burn in hell forever, according to them, and might soon be damned as an atheist!! --Filll 19:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I was just proving that I know what mainstream scientific literature is saying. This is my interpretation within the ruling paradigm. -- WolfieInu 20:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever...--Filll 21:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

A strange reappearance of an old "friend"

Is this in regard to Bernard d'Abrera, and is the NCSE feeding you information on him? Thanks. Daisey cutter 04:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No definitely not. You think that the NCSE knows anything about Bernard d'Abrera? I would be extremely surprised. Why do you ask? And what do you know? And who are you exactly? --Filll 05:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As I've commented elsewhere, the internets is essentially open and I'd imagine that the NCSE knows as much as is publicly available about Bernard d'Abrera, assuming they want to know about a fairly small fish in the area of their interests. Of course, as the world's most famous butterfly expert, d'Abrera can have no more expectation of privacy than any other international celebrity. And, as stated above, we have to adhere to high standards regarding what appears in biographies in Wikipedia. .. dave souza, talk 07:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well whether they have any information or not, I am not privy to it. I would be amazed if they have compiled compiled information on all 700 or so dissenters. My goodness. --Filll 12:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

On my talk page, you indicate that you "do not know Dr. Scott, nor have I ever met her or spoken to her. The NCSE has not passed me any information about Professor d'Abrera or anyone else." However, with this edit, you seem to indicate knowledge of the person using this IP address, and you also express an intention to keep some information under wraps. With this edit, you seem to be seeking feedback from the NSCE on an article you worked on. IP triangulation indicates that this IP is associated with the National Center for Science Education. Before I elevate this via WP:DR, I wanted to offer you an opportunity to explain these. Specifically, I am concerned about the appearance of COI and proxy contributions.

To answer your question, I do not know and do not ever recall ever learing about Professor d'Abrera until yesterday when I scanned the article about him on wikipedia. Daisey cutter 13:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Filll, are you planning to move the edits that were removed with this edit to a talk page archive? Thanks. Daisey cutter 13:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You believe that it is appropriate to make an archive on another user's user page for all the past messages? Including your highly suspect message of an improper and impolitic and rude nature? I was not thinking of doing that, no. Do you think that is prudent or advisable? What exactly is your goal here?--Filll 14:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. I would gladly take a polygraph or sign a statement under oath that I have not obtained any information from NCSE about any individuals such as Professor d'Abrera or anyone else. I am just as observant as you. I wondered who this anon was who was editing the Project Steve page, just as you did. I am no different than you, in that respect, I do not believe. Would you not agree? I did make a joke about editing the Project Steve page, which if you check, I had recently cleaned up and expanded considerably. I think it looks much better now, and I think most others would agree. The person who uses this IP address has never responded to me using any communication channel. I am unsure of the identity of this person, but just as you did, I of course traced the location of this IP. I think in that respect we are quite similar to each other, and I am sure to many others. Is this a reason for some sort of wiki dispute? I am somewhat amazed at the suggestion. I am at fault for having done the same thing you did? Although I did not quite send messages of the same nature as you did to this person, which had to be edited by an admin for content. And you admitted this was a failing of yours. I however, do not think your failing is a reason for some aggressive administrative action. Do you? Should we elevate it to a WP:DR? I personally believe that this sort of elevation is inappropriate, but others, including you, are free to disagree.--Filll 14:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Daisey cutter, I'm aware of the edits you refer to, and not only find no suggestion of impropriety, but think you appear to be stretching you interpretation of them to the extent of harassment. You do seem to be remarkably well informed about Wikipedia procedures for a newcomer, and I'm sure that you're bringing this up with the best of intentions but will also know to assume good faith and not rush to escalate discussion of your suspiciouns which I feel sure are unfounded. .. dave souza, talk 14:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Filll, have you not referred to Dr. Eugenie scott as "the boss" here on wikipedia? Have you not mentioned here on Wikipedia having "conversations with them" and that you "believe they the [National Center for Science Education] want to help us write the best possible articles on these topics." For you to deny contact with the NCSE now is probably a lapse in memory on your part or understanding on mine. Daisey cutter 14:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can recall, I have never referred to Dr. Scott as "the boss" on Wikipedia. I would challenge you to produce a diff of such a statement on my part if you believe it is important. I will point out that Dr. Scott is of course the boss of some people in her organization, so it is quite accurate to refer to her as "the boss" although she is NOT my boss. Is Dr. Scott your boss Daisey cutter? Do you deny that she is the head of an organization and therefore suitably and appropriately known and referred to as "the boss"? If this is your contention, then I would be very interested in any reliable and verifiable references you have that demonstrate that Dr. Scott is not "the boss" of an organization, because it was my understanding that she was. Perhaps I am mistaken, however. If Dr. Scott is not the boss of an organization and I have made a mistake, then I will make note of that.

Given your statements, I now have a pretty good indication of who you are, and I think you should be cautious about proceeding further, now that you have revealed yourself to me. You and I both know you are not supposed to be logging in to Wikipedia and will be summarily blocked/banned immediately if the admins are notified of your identity, correct?

If you are who I think you are, I procured a document for your use from the NCSE that was available on the internet at one time, but whose links had gone bad. And I just had them email it to me. And I then made this reprint available to you. And you posted it to Wikimedia, right? (It was removed later for alleged copyright violations. Oh well.) But not before you and I had quoted from it in our references/citations. Is this a problem? To procure a publication from the source so we can quote from it? This is a problem? If it is, I apologize for having violated some rule I was not aware of. I do not think requesting a reprint which had been available on the internet at one time and was published in a widely circulated journal some years ago constitutes some terrible sort of collusion. Do you believe that it does?

I ask again, Daisey cutter, do you plan to update all the counters for all these petitions for me at regular intervals? Say check on them every 48 hours and post any updated totals here. Remember that it is a lot of work to do A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism or Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism because you have to count them individually. These organizations do not give out totals except maybe once a year in press releases. Of course, this would be contingent on you continuing to be able to edit Wikipedia without getting blocked and/or banned because of your identity and past editing behavior.--Filll 14:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Odd, this seems like harassment and bogus bullshit on BLU-82's part to me. •Jim62sch• 21:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well looks like this sock puppet just got himself banned. That is a shame. But predictable.--Filll 17:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Fan

Are you going to the NCSE Grand Canyon Raft Trip? Happy Couple 20:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please visit the AfD page for this article:[11]--Filll 20:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I smell a sock: [12] •Jim62sch• 21:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Blogs etc as references

I am wondering about when blogs become useful as references. Some blogs are written by known figures who are notable already from their other writing, or from their qualifications or expertise. Some are associated with people who give their real names and professional positions and credentials. Some science blogs have been highly rated. For example, Nature magazine placed a "review of some of the best blogs written by working scientists" on its website in July 2006.[13][14].

Some examples:

• Pharyngula (weblog) by PZ Myers, a biologist from the University of Minnesota, science category winner in the 2006 Weblogs Awards
• Panda's Thumb (weblog), with many professional scientist posters, also highly rated (second place winner?). Almost every poster I have seen on there already has a WP article, and is noted for other writing already. Usually with good sources.
• talkorigins not a blog exactly, but with many articles written by well-known professional scientists and well-sourced
• RealClimate, a blog produced by "real climate scientists at the American Geophysical Union"
• Aetiology, found at [15], written by Tara C. Smith, Assistant Professor of Epidemiology in Iowa
• scienceblogs, a provider of science blogs includes many interesting and useful blogs [16]. Note that they are selective in who gets to blog, in fact.
• Nature itself hosts assorted science-related blogs [17]

Comments? Ideas? Suggestions?--Filll 04:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC) (repliedo n my page)

Aetiology article should hold up now. I would however not use it as a source for a definitive statement on the causes of evolution, since there are authoritative published statements to be found. DGG (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton

I must admit that I'm curious as to what Moultan has to say that cannot be discussed in talk pages & requires a phonecall (he made the same request to me, which I refused -- wrong continent & timezone, among other reasons). Nothing that doesn't run afoul of WP:NOR & WP:RS, I strongly suspect. Hrafn42 05:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I have it on Moulton's oh so reliable authority that "Filll is now aware", that the pair of you "reached an amicable meeting of the minds", and that you will "assemble the evidence [you] now seek[], to shore up the theory [Moulton] presented to [you] and to [me]". Do tell, what is this stunning revelation? Hrafn42 12:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy rough draft finished

I have finished my draft of the Homeopathy article. The draft is a rough approximation of what it should be like. It obviously has some flaws in it's format and wording right now but they will be kinked out within the next couple of days. Right now what I want is for you, if you're interested in helping to improve the article, to come to the articles talk page. There we will all discuss the article and how it could be improved before we replace the current homeopathy article with it. In order for this to work we need to follow a few rules. The first rule, the most important rule, is that no one but me can edit the rough draft. Do not edit the rough draft. This precaution is used to prevent edit warring and loss or addition of information that might not be up to consensus. Don't worry, It's just a draft and you'll have all the time you want to make changes after we've replaced it with the current article. The second rule is that all proposed changes in the rough draft must be made on the talk page of the rough draft and must be clear and concise. At that point anyone involved will discuss the proposed changes and if agreed by consensus they will be implemented. We will do that until there is no disputes or disagreements. After all disputes are hammered out, we will replace the homeopathy article with the rough draft. At that point there shouldn't be anyone needing to make huge edits, and if you do see an edit that you want to make, be sure to add a note on the talk page PRIOR to making the edit so that consensus can be reached and then you should make the edit. If you have any questions you can leave me a message on my talk page. Here is the link to the rough draft Link to rough draft. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Homeopathy rewrite

I notice that you have some criticism and objections to the whole idea and I just wanted to point out a few important things. Firstly, My goal is to have all of the major contributors reach a consensus on the article so that there won't be major edits done after it's implemented. If we all agree on how the article should be then if new people come along and make edits against consensus we just revert them and direct them to the talk page. Once the article is implemented, it will contain a good amount of information so that slight reorganizations or corrections in wording or facts won't be a problem and should be encouraged. My goal is to turn the article into a Featured Article within a few weeks. However in order to do this I'll need cooperation from all major contributors including yourself. If you have some constructive criticism then please help me out, all criticism is welcomed. Will you help? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course I will help. I think it is a good goal and I wonder how well it will work. I think to make it work you need to get the input from LOTS of editors on all sides, and I have not yet seen it. For example, when I threw in 200-300 edits a few days back, immediately after I was astounded at how many others followed to edit it. Many advocated completely different visions of the finished article. And now you are taking it in another direction yet again, which might or might not work. But I hope you will push it towards your goal, which I think is fine. I do not WP:OWN this article, and I only wanted to make it readable English and explain what homeopathy is. I think your history looks great. I will help, but I will not probably invest a huge amount in it since it is not a central interest of mine and it is clear to me that so many others have very strong ideas on what the article should be like. --Filll 10:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What should I do to get the draft more attention? I've left messages on all of the major contributors to all related articles. If they don't care to even comment then I doubt they will object to the rewrite. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

How about a big message on the homeopathy talk page itself? How about contacting each person that makes a new constructive edit to the homeopathy article itself and inviting them to look at the draft? I am not sure, but I was astounded at how fervently people attacked the article once I had it semi readable. It had laid fallow for about a year at that point with just a few edits a month.--Filll 11:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. You can help by encouraging people to help with the draft by posting on the homeopathy talk page where I left the message. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well all we can do is encourage people to comment. I note that none of the 3 or so editors that I recall making over 30-50 edits each after I was more or less done have even made a single comment on your draft talk page.--Filll 11:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Who are they? What are their names? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The page history shows that this month so far has been the most active ever, with over 420 edits. I have made about half of those. The most active editors after me have not yet even appeared at the new proposed article. I also notice that some of the most strongly held opinions I was dealing with have yet to be expressed on your talk page. I would therefore go back over the last month on the homeopathy talk page (in the archives) and post the notice on their talk pages, to try to get the maximal input. When I suggested condensing the scientific criticism section, repeatedly, for example, I was met with a hail of criticism. And this was even though I suggested not deleting anything but keeping most of what was already there in a daughter article so people would not feel their contribution had been discarded. --Filll 12:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I would be most interested in seeing comments from Jim62sch and Adam Cuerden and TimVickers and Orangemarlin (granted he has given some so far, but I wonder if he is done?) and JoshuaZ and Fyslee and ConfuciusOrnis. Others who were recently active include David D. and Pdelongchamp and Leifern and Hgilbert but I am less sure about them. You might check their contributions and if you think they were constructive, invite them.--Filll 12:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The most prolific homeopathy talk page contributor is Geni.--Filll 12:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I've left notes on all of their talk pages, none of them seem to be responding to them. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The page seems to have gone dead. I thought you might want to make some more proposals. Wikidudeman ^(talk)

01:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Dont give up!! Remember Peter had to go away for a few days this week. I will take a look if I can and see what else we can do. I would definitely consult ConfusciousOrnis and OrangeMarlin and Jim62sch for more ideas. I think you are doing a fantastic job and let me tell you, you deserve like 10 barnstars for this effort !! It is sort of like cleaning out the Stygian Stables, I think !!!--Filll 02:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, My goal is to turn the article into a Featured Article. Parapsychology, which went through the same process, is currently on it's way to FA status and I'm doing the same thing with Electronic voice phenomena. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You haven't been contributing to the draft lately. I thought that since you've created so many pages that are used in the draft, you would want to contribute some more and let me know when you feel it's ready to be replaced with the current article. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. I have slowed down because I am off working on some big formatting issue and rewrite of one of my previous articles. It is pretty taxing and a huge mess. However, I want to make it cleaner and shorter and easier to understand even though it has like 200 references. I should come back and help out a bit more at homeopathy. Thanks for reminding me.--Filll 03:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I and other editors have spent a lot of time working on the draft and believe that it's far superior to the current article. The draft is based on a lot of your own work and uses a lot of it in it's paragraphs. I reworded a few things so that it could flow together but a lot of it was written by yourself. I want to get the draft implemented as soon as possible so that outside editors can start working to improve it's prose and copy editors can start working on it as well as occurred with the Parapsychology article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Explore Evolution (book)

Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism is a new book created as part of the Discovery Institute campaigns.--Filll 23:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added it to the end of Timeline of intelligent design, you should check it to make sure my summary is accurate. ornis (t) 00:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)