User talk:Filll/Archive 14

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

Aetiology (blog) is not notable?[edit]

I beg to differ. You can see the discussion at the talk page of Aetiology (blog).--Filll 14:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

help in clarifying the creationist belief[edit]

I have answered u on my talk page. but some user is constantly reverting in silence my edits. Please if you can speak up on this again to clarify since u were involved in this back and forth. Thanks beforehand--יודל 19:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
I'm awarding you this barnstar for your help in rewriting the homeopathy article. It is now implemented and hopefully will improve even further in the near future. Great job! Wikidudeman (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology is now a Featured Article[edit]

Cropcirclebarnstar(small).png The Paranormal Barnstar
I'm awarding you this barnstar for your having worked hard to help me get Parapsychology to FA status. Congratulations. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Main Page/cakeditorial[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on Main Page/cakeditorial, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD g11.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. slakrtalk / 01:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, since you contributed here is your Paste[edit]

design. However, in each subsiduary daughter article like this one, you are going to insist that the same references and citations be repeated over and over? Please. This article is about an aspect of intelligent design, not intelligent design. If someone wants to know about intelligent design, they would just go to that article, right?--Filll 17:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Which of my concerns does your answer address?Tstrobaugh 17:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
If you cannot understand that, perhaps you should not be editing Wikipedia articles. How does my statement showing that this is inappropriate for this article not seem clear to you?--Filll 15:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


From the second reference, "Before discussing Defendants’ claims about evolution, we initially note that an overwhelming number of scientists, as reflected by every scientific association that has spoken on the matter, have rejected the ID proponents’ challenge to evolution. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ expert in biology, Dr. Miller, a widely-recognized biology professor at Brown University who has written university-level and highschool biology textbooks used prominently throughout the nation, provided unrebutted testimony that evolution, including common descent and natural selection, is “overwhelmingly accepted” by the scientific community and that every major scientific association agrees." Also, does the third reference in the article not clearly address your concern? 59.92.46.188 10:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design HrafnTalkStalk 11:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what any of you are talking about. My concern is with one citation only. The one I pointed to above when I said "this matter [1]". I don't know how 59.92.46.188 can talk about a second reference. If Hrafn thinks that the link he inserted solves the problem then put that in the reference. It is the citation that I am disagreeing with, not the premise.Tstrobaugh 14:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC) This argument has been identified by one or more editors as constituting an arbitrary demand for a shrubbery. Please resolve this by clarifying the basis for the objection in canonical policy. Expanding the requirement to include chopping down the tallest tree in the forest WITH A HERRING may be met with additional mockery and scorn. – ornis 14:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you implying that i have not been "Be civil, Keep your cool, assume good faith, avoid personal attacks."?Tstrobaugh 15:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
You are wasting people's time with nonsense questions. It is obvious from intelligent design we can bury you in citations. And you want to push this issue? This article is not about intelligent design, if you had not noticed.--Filll 15:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
You keep threatening to fix the citation that I have a concern with. Go ahead and do it, what's the problem?Tstrobaugh 15:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be more of a troll than an editor. Hmm...want me to investigate down that avenue a bit further?--Filll 15:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Investigate to your hearts content, now that you have made a personal attack, I guess you missed ""Be civil, Keep your cool, assume good faith, avoid personal attacks.""Tstrobaugh 15:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
You're kidding, right? you reverted after all this discussion of all the wonderful citations that are available? That's just obstinate. What is your reason for not putting a correct citation in?Tstrobaugh 15:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The citation IS correct. It is WP:V & WP:RS. That you don't like it is your problem. That there are hundreds of citations in other articles that add further weight to it is not a problem under WP:NPOVFAQ#Making necessary assumptions. So either come up with a real complaint or go bother somebody else. HrafnTalkStalk 16:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't realize this was "YOUR" article. The header on the main page says "Welcome to Wikipedia,

the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Please excuse my idealistic urge to make it better.Tstrobaugh 16:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well please excuse us for regarding your demands as unsupported, unreasonable and unhelpful.  – ornis 16:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Which of these, as you say, "demands" are "unsupported, unreasonable and unhelpful". "I think if you want to quote the court on this matter [2] a better section is Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science#4._Whether_ID_is_Science. However I still don't believe that citation supports "The consensus of the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science,[2]" That citation supports the Judge's belief, don't you have any citations that support the assertation in the article?"Tstrobaugh 16:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Asked and answered, long since. HrafnTalkStalk 17:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for adding your two cents. Do you think that is furthering the discussion? How could my question already be answered? He just made his comment. I'm questioning his comment. If you have an answer please post it, or just keep silent if all you have is a retort, it's really not helping.Tstrobaugh 17:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent>It has long since been corrected. Many more references are available. You are engaging in a violation of WP:POINT now so it is best to move along before you suffer consequences.--Filll 17:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because you assert something doesn't make it true. Please explain how I am in violation of WP:POINT, in your humble opinion. And also please enumerate the consequences. I am editing in good faith and responding truthfully to all comments, which is more than I can say for others.Tstrobaugh 17:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Might I suggest that questions about the nature of ID be discussed at Talk:Intelligent Design? Anyone wishing to know more about the status of Intelligent design would refer to that page, so Irreducible complexity is not the best place to raise such issues. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 17:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, I agree. I do not disagree with any of the assertions, as I've repeatedly stated. Only the one citation. Leave the assertion (as I have on all my edits) and put a correct citation in. How clear can I be?Tstrobaugh 18:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at the page and the references. If this continues, then I am warning that the consequences will not necessarily be to your liking. Just a word to the wise.--Filll 18:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your veiled threats entail, please eloborate. What exactly do you think I'm doing wrong. Disagreeing with you? Responding to your comments?Tstrobaugh 14:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You raised your objection. It was dealt with. Now, I suggest that everyone DNFTT.--Filll 15:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Good advice, I pray that you are able to follow it, I hope that you yourself can stop flaming me. eg. "If you cannot understand that, perhaps you should not be editing Wikipedia articles", "You are wasting people's time with nonsense questions", "You appear to be more of a troll than an editor", "now so it is best to move along before you suffer consequences", "I am warning that the consequences will not necessarily be to your liking. Just a word to the wise".Tstrobaugh 18:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Glad to see Filll added sources to the line we we're discussing (The consensus of the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science,)[3]. I don't know what all that backtalk was about now. Can we delete the inadequate source "Kitzmiller v. Dover page 82-3"? Theres really no point to it now, with all the other sources. Then my proposals would be complete. Thanks for your efforts.Tstrobaugh 17:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Kitzmiller needs to stay, sorry. Odd nature 19:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you expressed that. Could you tell me why? Do you think it provides support for "The consensus of the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science"? If so could you explain why, because I don't see it.Tstrobaugh 19:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the link is to page 82, but page 83 contains:
"we initially note that an overwhelming number of scientists, as reflected by every scientific association that has spoken on the matter, have rejected the ID proponents’ challenge to evolution. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ expert in biology, Dr. Miller, a widely-recognized biology professor at Brown University who has written university-level and highschool biology textbooks used prominently throughout the nation, provided unrebutted testimony that evolution, including common descent and natural selection, is “overwhelmingly accepted” by the scientific community and that every major scientific association agrees."
Because Wikipedia's standard is verifiability, and we do not engage in original research, the important thing is to find reliable sources which attest specifically that scientific concensus is against ID being science; not to attempt to 'prove' it ourselves by assembling statistics. The Kitzmiller verdict is one such source. TSP 20:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
That's my point, I don't think a Judge's opinion is a reliable source about a scientific matter. Earlier I used Scopes Trial as an example of this.Tstrobaugh 20:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly advise you to reconsider. I am not in a mood to play. Please try to back off and edit in a responsible fashion.--Filll 20:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy draft[edit]

Please take another look at the draft and tell me if you think anything else should be changed. I think it's about done. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Fill, You brought up some issues about the draft being a bit too large as well as the lead being a bit too long, however I can assure you that after a few weeks of copyediting, the article will probably lose about 10-15 kb in size once things are better worded and redundancy is removed. The info itself is all relevant and important though. I think the draft is close to being finished. I would like to implement it pretty soon so that the public can start improving it and copy-editors can start working on it as well. I think it's reached about as far as it can reach with the small amount of people contributing to it as is and should probably go live pretty soon. Some input would be great. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Noah's Ark kangaroo pic[edit]

On the Noah's Ark talk page you express a wish to save the kangaroo. Can't see why, personally - they're in plague proportions and make quite a decent pizza filling. But anyway, if this is be your wish, one could justify putting him in the Literalist section, to replace the cloying pic of two litle girls with a dove. For justification, see creationdefence.org or cristiananswers and many more. (This one's a doozy. My only worry is that ross nixon might think we were making fun of his beliefs, and I rather like ross - he's decent and willing to entertain other views. PiCo 02:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Science blogs are WP:RS in some cases[edit]

Particularly if written by well known notable scientific figures in the scientific community, as is the case of PZ Meyers. Therefore, Pharyngula (blog), Panda's Thumb (blog) and Aetiology (blog) are WP:RS sources, actually. Some science blogs are peer-reviewed and subject to some editorial control. Some are chosen specifically by well known publishing companies like Seed magazine. These blogs I listed are rated by Nature magazine. Some are mentioned by Science (magazine). Some are reprinted in peer-reviewed books, and some are quoted in peer-reviewed journals as sources. So it is not always true that these are not WP:RS sources, for your future reference. I am not going to mess with Rosalind Picard while I am still trying to establish the full back story with other sources, however.--Filll 00:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fill, thanks for the response. I visited the blog and did not feel it met wp:rs but will defer to others. Cheers, --Tom 00:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The following post from Scienceblogs's Pharyngula is relevant to this discussion: Clearly, bloggers need to take over science journalism. It talks about cases where blogs may be more WP:RS than more mainstream media (in this case even science-specialised MSM). Hrafn42 05:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


Rough draft on biologic institute[edit]

Please comment on the article at User:Filll/Biologic Institute.--Filll 03:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A few points:

  • Do we have a WP:RS to indicate that the BI is in fact doing "research" and can thus be legitimately called a "research organization"? The fact that they haven't actually published anything yet would seem to counter-indicate this.
  • I think you will find that the BI was announced in 2005. I suspect that there isn't any WP:RS for its existence until considerably later.
  • You should probably include the background (strongly Creationist I seem to remember) immediate firing of the person at the BI that the New Scientist talked to.
  • "Axe, Dixon and Gauger responded to the New Scientist article published January 13, 2007." needs rewording (probablt soemthing like inserting "in a letter" between "article" & "published").

Hrafn42 05:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for the feedback. I realize now that it might not be appropriate to have a section Biologic Institute in the Discovery Institute article, since the connections between the two, while strong, might be not formal. It is a separate organization, somewhat like Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity, that shares some of the same personnel. In the case of the Biologic Institute, it gets funded mainly by the DI.--Filll 15:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect Disco to Discovery[edit]

Somebody tries to mock the name. Please comment for speedy deletion[4]. Thanks.--יודל 19:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Biologic Institute[edit]

New article launched. Comments ?--Filll 04:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

KT[edit]

I just don't understand why you are adopting such an aggressive, adversarial tone...an RfC is not for determining who is "right" and who is "wrong", it's for trying to get more input and opinions from the community in an effort to resolve problems and try and reach consensus. In this case especially, I'd really like someone to have a look at my own behaviour and tell me what I have done to provoke such an aggressive and vitriolic series of responses, because to tell you the truth, I really genuinely don't think I've been unreasonable or difficult. Badgerpatrol 22:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Adversarial? I am giving up. How is that adversarial? I don't want to fight. You win. Stop attacking and harassing me please. If you think you did nothing wrong, then far be it for me to tell you otherwise. You have not done a THING wrong. Not a thing. You win, ok? I apologize for ever talking to you or appearing on those talk pages. I have had enough abuse on this matter. Just stop bugging me. What part of "you win" do you not understand? --Filll 22:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy rewrite[edit]

I plan to implement the homeopathy rough draft( link) by September 1st, 5 days from now. Unless of course more proposals are made to change it, in which case I will postpone the implementation until it is ready and agreed upon. Some things concerning the rough draft are still in discussions, which can easily continue once it goes live. An example is the inclusion of mentions of Jacques Benveniste. Other things can easily be fixed after a week or so of copy editors from the general public going over it and removing redundancy and rewording sentences to be more brief and precise, which will cut down size of the article including the lead without removing relevant info. So If by September 1st I receive no more suggestions on improving the rough draft then I will replace the Homeopathy article with it. If you see problems with the draft, please make suggestions on improving it. Even if the suggestions might have already been made, just make a new post with the suggestions so that we can discuss them. Here is the link to the rough draft again: Link to rough draft. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Global warming and forcing[edit]

I don't want to get into on the talk page (as it's not relevant there), but you're no more of a subject matter expert than I am (based off your "about me" bit) and arguably are less so. Furthermore your statement

this forcing might cause cooling or warming or other climate responses

is false. Not even Michaels or Lindzen would argue that this forcing will not cause warming. Their arguments (of late) have been that it's uncertain that anthropogenic forcing is causing the majority of the warming. (Michaels has also argued that the increase in forcing will stop once we run out of fossil fuels.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? How many GCM runs have you personally made? How much GCM code of yours is currently running? In how many countries? How much do you know about the flux corrections and celestial mechanics in the models? Do you know Manabe personally? Care to tell me what you know about Dick Lindzen's private life and personal tastes? How many times have you had breakfast at Keeling's house? How many times have you been interviewed by the New York Times on this issue? How many times have you interviewed by Reuters and the AP on this topic? How well do you know Broecker and his work? How many publications in the Royal Society journals and in Nature and Science do you have on this issue? Have anything in Phil Trans on this do you? How about publication on Milankovitch comparisons and Dobson measurements? Do you know Sherry personally? I do not care if you are Hansen himself. I will put my record up against anyone else's, including yours. But it is unfair to engage in combat with an unarmed opponent.

Your attitude is exactly why I will respectfully decline to bother to try to improve these kinds of articles in the presence of people such as yourself. Have at it, since you are such a great expert. I am so impressed by what I have seen from you already. Enjoy yourself and I hope you feel good about driving out any expertise on this topic that might exist around this project.--Filll 20:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Now Filll, we all know that Ben is a genius. Tut, tut. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes my mistake. That is why I will let him edit the Global Change articles to his heart's content. I am sure he has way more background than I do and more peer-reviewed publications in the area. How silly of me.

I just want to make sure that he knows that not all of us buy his silly linguistic arguments, or the political correctness arguments on that talk page.--Filll 20:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have run GCMs, and they do contain my code. Your statement tht CO2 might cause cooling is wrong. Your claims of expertise in this area are, as far as I can see, not backed up by any evidence; either in terms of links to any external evidence of your competence, or any sign that you understand whats going on. Your response to BH is shameful William M. Connolley 21:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Shameful huh? And Broecker and company are full of nonsense? Ah I see. And no runs ever show cooling under any conditions? Over any time scales then? Well go ahead if you are such an expert then. I will not bother with such articles with experts such as yourself involved. --Filll 21:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That's OK, William, your response is uncivil. (Bad, remember). BTW, excess CO2 may possibly be symptomatic rather than causative, and let's be honest: the science for global warming is a bit weaker than it should be. Yes, this is your pet area, I know that, but climatologists don't agree on the evidence and computer programs are only as good as the data you feed them. If you're going to disagree, try to be civil about it. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't take your response seriously Jim. If you really consider my response incivil, I suggest you take it up in the appropriate place. You won't, because you know you'll get laughed at. And no, Co2 isn't symptomatic, for reasons that have been pointed out endlessly William M. Connolley 21:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This is why I do not edit such articles. There is no point. I will let these esteemed colleagues of mine take the field since they are so gifted and brilliant, and always correct. And have such a deep knowledge of the entire field, including my own personal expertise, which is involved with the data itself and what we know statistically. But never mind...even if requested, I will decline to get involved. I will not even point it out to WC if I run across him at a conference, because what is the point? All that this episode confirmed for me is why I need not bother. Thanks guys.--Filll 21:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, shameful. You clearly don't understand this area (either at all, or as well as you claim). I am not your colleague. The vague claims of expertise are not plausible. Rather than discuss the issue, you wave around a pile of silly words in a (hopeless) effort to disguise you ignorance. This is shameful. Broecker won't help you, since all GCMs that show THC slowdowns still show overall warming. If you're not going to get involved anymore, that will be helpful William M. Connolley

Watch civility, or else you will be caught in an administrative issue you do not want to be bothered with, I am sure. Ok? You leave me alone and I will leave you alone. Thanks for confirming what I already suspected. And I am glad to know that you are so well acquainted with all results from all over the world from your esteemed vantage point, including all published and unpublished results from the last few decades, including work in simulation and in data analysis and numerical analysis and so on. This badgering and baiting is quite unbecoming, frankly. --Filll 21:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Evolution as theory and fact[edit]

Hello Filll. How are you? I am RS1900. You created the article Evolution as theory and fact. I think it is a great article. And, it is great to know that you are not enthusiastic about letting people attack science. I am also against pseudoscience. However, I am a little surprise that you are not an atheist. I am an atheist, however; I respect the religious views of theists. Anyway, I am happy to know you. Best of luck. RS1900 04:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, being an atheist is not prima facie evidence of accepting the scientific principles surrounding Evolution. In fact, several individuals have used disingenuous User pages to state that they are atheists, but have no clue about Evolution. There are so-called atheists who believe that little green aliens control life on earth. Alternatively, accepting Evolution as a scientific fact (theory in this case) does not imply any denial of the existence of a god. I am somewhat religious, yet have no doubt that every living organism evolved from a common ancestor. Your thinking is flawed. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Your thinking is flawed. Did I ever suggested that being an atheist is prima facie evidence of accepting the scientific principles surrounding Evolution? No! Did I ever suggested that accepting Evolution as a scientific fact (theory in this case) imply denial of the existence of a god? No! Well, it is totally unfair to suggest that my thinking is flawed. You said that "there are so-called atheists who believe that little green aliens control life on earth". Who are they? I am not one of them. I am an atheist and I understand Evolution. And, I respect the religious views of believers. Try to understand what I am saying. RS1900 02:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow, are you saying it's not little green aliens controling life on earth? Damn, another fantasy shot to shit. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Patience[edit]

Filll, I really want to say how much I admire you for your patience with dealing with Moulton. It is not 5 edits into my talk with him on his page and I am already frustrated. Cheers, mate! Baegis 02:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Moulton[edit]

I would strongly recommend just ignoring him. MastCell Talk 21:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy[edit]

"Filll", it doesn't matter whether you find these schools' accreditation "hard to believe." Let me enlighten you (if you had bothered to read the footnotes, you wouldn't be having this problem):

The National College of Natural Medicine is accredited at both the master's and doctoral degree levels with the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU). The Northwest Commission is one of six U.S. regional accrediting bodies recognized by the U. S. Secretary of Education. Their Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (ND) degree is approved by the State of Oregon, Office of Degree Authorization and accredited by the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education (CNME), a programmatic accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education
The fully-accredited Everglades University's accreditor, ACCSCT, is recognized by the United States Department of Education as a private, non-profit, independent accrediting agency. ACCSCT's scope of recognition includes the accreditation of private, postsecondary, non-degree-granting institutions and degree-granting institutions in the United States, including those granting associate, baccalaureate and master's degrees, that are predominantly organized to educate students for occupational, trade and technical careers, and including institutions that offer programs via distance education.
The American Medical College of Homeopathy's Certificate Program is licensed through the State of Arizona and has full accreditation as a comprehensive training program through the Council for Homeopathic Education.

For the sake of peace in the article itself, I've removed the other minor schools mentioned. But if you remove these three, you will show your POV bias, as I have proven my case. --profg 12:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Do not get yourself so worked up into a lather. Thanks.--Filll 13:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Uhhh... OK. Thanks! --profg 16:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Rfc[edit]

I noticed you endorsed some views on an old Rfc. While I appreciate your desire to assist the community in this regard, an Rfc which is not listed on the current list is generally considered "closed" even if no one has bothered to add closing tags. At the time this Rfc ended, the tags did not even exist, "closing" consisted merely of removing from the current list. Hope this information helps! KillerChihuahua?!? 15:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding personal comment: I really need to clean out my watchlist. This came up on that, or I never would have noticed. Meh. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Get a dictionary?[edit]

That is most certainly uncivil. Please refrain from such edit summaries. - Crockspot 02:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


I beg to differ. I do not see an understanding of the words "uncivil", "baseless", "dispute", "inappropriate" in some of the recent edits to that article and its talk page. I also see a misunderstanding of the WP:UNCIVIL, and WP:NPOV policies; no offense intended. Perhaps I am just delusional or insane or evil or working for the devil, on the other hand. I wonder which it is?--Filll 02:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hernando de Soto (explorer)[edit]

While I appreciate that you reverted deletion vandalism in Hernando de Soto (explorer), I would like to point out that you missed other large deletions in the two edits prior to the one you reverted. I recommend that you review the history of an article before reverting, to make sure that other unreverted vandalism is not hiding under the most recent vandalism. Popular articles, such as Hernando de Soto (explorer), are likely to be vandalized more than once before the vandalism is noticed by editors like you and me. -- Donald Albury 12:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Button sig2.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design[edit]

Filll, you really ought to know better than this. It's exactly what the Creationists do, linking to some crappy third rate source. BTW, the ID article is done in almost perfect WP:CITET references. Really, you should stick with what the article is using. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, I tried. I do not think it is as bad as all that, but I won't fight it either.--Filll (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's not give fodder to the creationists!!!!! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Objections to Evolution talk[edit]

Could you go back to your Talk:Objections to evolution post and edit it to renumber your points? You refer to "points 2 and 3", but there is no point 3. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If you look carefully, you will see there are two points labelled "point 1". Please think a bit before you bother me with such minutae.--Filll (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Introduction to Evolution[edit]

Barnstar-lightbulb3.png What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Awarded to Filll for "Resolving the Too Complex Debate" in the Evolution Article

I didn't have the courage to pull the trigger for the third time; nor the heart to ask you to do it again. Thanks for keeping the faith. --Random Replicator (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Original Study?[edit]

Hi Filll. I translated into Bulgarian the article about "Evolution as theory and fact". There are people claiming this is an original study. Is it? Please give me some arguments. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.87.62 (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No, this is not WP:OR. First, the statement that evolution is a theory is quite common and can be see in many references, some of which we cited in the article. Second, the statement that evolution is a fact is also quite common and we cited many references. The same is true of gravity, although we do not have any references cited for this at this point, I do not think. The comparison between evolution and gravity is very old, and I think goes back to Darwin, if I remember correctly. I have a rough draft of a rewrite of the article that is half finished, and much of this will be addressed in this rewrite. I will see if I can find some references for you which make this case. I do not think that it is SYNTH, since this case has been made so often in the mainstream literature, at least in English.--Filll 21:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy notice[edit]

I have mentioned your username in evidence presented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Your contributions were mentioned as one of many participants in an edit war. GRBerry 01:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi there. I'm responding here to your characterisation of this edit as a "massive edit" in your evidence in the above case. If you look closely, you will see that hardly any of the text changes. It is the breaking up into different paragraphs and the way the mediawiki diff generator works, that makes it look like a massive edit. This has been pointed out earlier on the evidence page. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#Evidence presented by JzG ("My thanks to Carcharoth for pointing out the actual textual difference in the change...") and also here. Carcharoth 20:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, and regarding your absolute conviction that MatthewHoffman is a sockpuppet. It appears that it is an account operated by a real person named Matthew Hoffman, who e-mailed an arbitrator to complain about the block and sock-puppet accusations. Generally, it is best to avoid making such accusations against people who use their real name on Wikipedia. Carcharoth 21:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Well if he is not a sock puppet, he sure is doing a good job of imitating a sock puppet. I have over 20,000 edits, but when I look back at my first few hundred, I obviously was completely clueless. If he just absorbed all that information by reading and observing and osmosis, I will be a monkey's uncle. NPOV? sources? wikilinking and linking? formatting? It took me quite a while to figure all that out.-Filll 21:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If you actually start looking, I think you will find things are different to what you think. Look at the early edits of a wide range of accounts and see what you come up with. Carcharoth 01:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Discovery Institute[edit]

I've had a look at this page and I'm very troubled by your behavior there. While I understand and agree with your motivation to fight off nutty creationist POV, you shouldn't make other editors into enemies when they should be your collaborators. I understand arguments about tendentious issues can get heated, but you aren't even letting them get heated, you appear to be starting out with the heat on full blast. WP:AGF isn't just a nice thought, it should be how we approach every dispute, and I'd like to see you do more of that in this particular case. There is no call for you to assume that every new editor or respondent to an RfC is a creationist agent, and that kind of approach should halt immediately. Thank you. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 20:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I offended anyone. I was just taken aback at being called uncivil and being threatened for having said his complaints appeared baseless. Where I am from, this is a very polite way to state that we disagree on that point.--Filll 21:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The issue is not your comment about an argument being "baseless", but your general and immediate hostility towards new contributors to that article, as well as much more uncivil remarks like "get a dictionary". Again, I ask that you restrain yourself from this behavior and initially assume good faith from new contributors. Thank you. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


If you will check, you will see that I was FIRST branded as being "uncivil" for using the word "baseless", and several other nasty things were said about me and to me. Let me make this clear:

I am highly offended and outraged that I was branded as being uncivil for using the word "baseless".

To me, this was the trigger. I had not said anything that should have insulted any reasonable person before this event (and I did not really say anything offensive after that, as far as I am concerned; I was trying to point out the ludicrousness of the complaint and to try to defuse the situation with humor). So the complaint about the word "baseless" is the seminal issue, in my humble opinion. If you disagree, that is fine, however, I would beg to differ with such a characterization.

Maybe my understanding of this word "baseless" is wrong. Maybe it is different than his or yours. However, I would respectfully disagree. I am willing to stand corrected, if you can document to me how using the word "baseless" is uncivil or some sort of invective or expletive, or that its use should necessarily cause some sort of affront. You are cordially invited to demonstrate to me using some sort of reliable source that the word "baseless" is patently offensive.

To my mind and as far as I understand, I did not write anything uncivil when I said that his "complaints appear to be baseless" at 14:53, 1 December 2007. Do you think this is one of the most horrible examples of incivility you have ever seen on Wikipedia? Please document to me how this is one of the most uncivil comments ever observed on Wikipedia and the use of the word "baseless" is among the most egregiously blatantly rude events that have ever occurred on Wikipedia. I await your well-documented response with interest and baited breath.

After he called me uncivil, and said I did not understand that ID != creationism (contrary to all our dozens of reliable peer-reviewed sources listed in these articles), and said I had "a hostile attitude of POV" (whatever that means, but it sounds aggressive, far worse than the word "baseless" to me, but then I am obviously stupid compared to Crockspot and you, and have a very limited understanding of English compared to the two of you), lectured me that I should engage in self-reflection, said I was on a "soapbox", implied was not conducting myself in accordance with WP policies and hinted at several other slurs at 01:34, 2 December 2007. In response to this provocation, I gently suggested he might want to get a dictionary in an edit summary. I wrote:

Sorry, but you are incorrect. This is not uncivil; it is just correct. Please get a dictionary if you have trouble with English

at 01:44, 2 December 2007.

I did not curse. I did not call him a complete moron. I did not say he was a cry baby. I did not say he was engaging in unfair tactics and violating WP:AGF. I did not call him a troll. I did not call him a POV warrior, which he has given every indication of being. I was very very gentle and tried to deal with the situation with good humor and levity. I did not complain to the administrators. I did not report him to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts or use some other Wikipedia forum or dispute resolution process.

Now if you want to attack me for this edit summary, then I think we should get some community feedback. I frankly am tired of being badgered and bullied for using the word "baseless". Show me how the use of the word "baseless" is one of the most horrendous crimes ever committed on planet earth. Show me. I am willing to learn and will stand corrected.

I do not want to offend anyone. I apologize to anyone that is offended by what I have written on this topic.

Will anyone apologize to me for repeatedly badgering me and making nasty comments about me? I have yet to hear one hint or suggestion that CS or any of his defenders might have made a mistake or acted out of line. Others are far too sure that they are correct, no matter what.--Filll (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. However, I humbly suggest that the next time you choose to scold someone, it might serve your interests and the interests of Wikipedia better for you to get your facts straight first. It might be difficult for someone to focus on your purported points when they are struggling with irritation over being falsely accused. Best wishes...--Filll (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


Gamaliel speaks wisely, and it's worthwhile always trying hard to be polite and AGF as far as possible. Of course this can be very hard to sustain when articles are the subject of orchestrated campaigns to play the rules in order to promote a religious viewpoint. I must admit having assumed good faith and welcomed several users who turned out to be trolls or socks, and also having genuinely enquired if evident misreadings were due to English not being the editor's first language, with the result that said editor took considerable umbrage. As it happens, that was a pov warrior determined to attack a Christian fundamentalist. So it goes. ... dave souza, talk 21:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
If this were just about the "baseless" remark, then you might have a point, but this conduct concerns your initial reactions towards multiple users. I suggest you put aside your anger over that specific incident and examine your overall behavior. Thank you. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 22:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you already wrote this.--Filll (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Um, Gamaliel - seriously? You're lecturing Filll for letting himself be baited by Crockspot? And you're lecturing him for sarcasm? You really have nothing better to do than scold people for not picking their fights better? The irony makes my head spin. Guettarda (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you think this response is particularly productive? I have plenty to do, and part of that includes attempting to prevent editors from attacking other editors as their opening gambit, including respondents to an RfC. Do you think there's something wrong with asking other editors to assume good faith? This isn't the best example to set here. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 00:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy talk subpages?[edit]

Hi there, I just noticed the Talk:Homeopathy/pro and Talk:Homeopathy/anti, what function did you have in mind for these pages? All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

PS, you do a good job. Nil illegitimi carborundum. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes those pages. If you look back in the homeopathy talk page history, ScienceApologist and Orangemarlin and Peter and I and a few others were discussing the relative weight of the "pro" homeopathy material and the "anti" homeopathy material in the article. Each side said that the other side was too dominant and had too much space. So I decided to roughly estimate it, and created those two subarticles. When I realized that the two sides were far more evenly balanced than they had been claiming, I stopped worrying so much and agreed that the article should be promoted. I do not know about the current balance, however. --Filll (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you mind if I delete them as housekeeping? I worry about Google indexing what could be seen as POV-forks. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No go ahead and dump them. If we have to recreate similar files later for more measurement, we will just do it. --Filll 03:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Re [5], here in Iowa we call Missouri the "Show me again, slowly" state. (Just one of those silly inter-state rivalries.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Filll/homeopathyscales[edit]

OK Filll will do...do you want me to edit it direct in your sandbox or suggest changes to you? I see a few corrections I could make but am not sure whether to edit them myself or tell you about them first; just let me know which you prefer. You will be happy to know that none are major changes or contentious issues BTW, cheers Peter morrell 17:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I only have asked a few people so far to help review it, there should be no problem with just editing the original right in the sandbox. If you want to make more comments, you can write them here or on the talk page of the sandbox article which is at User talk:Filll/homeopathyscales. I hope this will not be too controversial. I think if we can make an article like this, it will be very valuable to many people, since it will clearly describe these potency scales for anyone who wants to know.--Filll 17:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I will follow through as time allows. cheers Peter morrell 20:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Christine Comer[edit]

This article is interesting and needs work and fleshing out.--Filll 22:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Christine Comer[edit]

Thanks for all your work improving my meager stub. Do you think it should be moved to Christine Castillo Comer? The more sources I see makes me think sh2e treats both Castillo and Comer as a last name. (I thought, initially, that Castillo might have been a middle name until one site had a hyphen betweeen the two.)

Also, any sources that give a more detailed bio would be great. Thanks, — Scientizzle 22:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if it should be moved. I suggested that it might be a good news item at Wikinews but I am not sure if they will pick it up. I am Filll there too and you can see the draft under my contributions.--Filll 22:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I heard her speak on Science Friday and she was pretty compelling.--Filll 22:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. (I've never worked w/ Wikinews.) I won't hear her until the podcast comes out tomorrow. — Scientizzle 23:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

New users on ID and related articles.[edit]

Hey, Filll, per the arbcom case, could you do me a huge favour? Count up the new users that appeared on Intelligent design and Talk:Intelligent design over two months or so (and who started or almost started, by editing there), then check the block logs for them - I'd be surprised to learn that much under a third of them don't turn out to be checkuser-confirmed socks of raspor et al, which is, of course, very relevant to the case. Adam Cuerden talk 03:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


The investigation[edit]

No rush - it might be useful to ignore the last month, as it takes some time to figure out if they're socks or not, though. Adam Cuerden talk 18:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet explanation please?[edit]

Would you care to explain why my username is apparently listed at your page here? Thanks! Dr. Cash (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for any undue concern I caused you. If you look above, I am compiling evidence to help a friend with an ArbComm case. And to do that, I will go through all the people that edited intelligent design related articles over the last couple of months that are not "regulars". I will then look to see how long they have been on WP, how many edits they have, what articles they edited, history etc. It is to try to determine how many of the "new" or "unfamiliar" editors of the ID pages are really SPA and socks etc. We are trying to make the case that it is understandable that Adam Cuerden has blocked some accounts with only a small amount of evidence, given the frequency of socks and SPA on these articles. Sorry about worrying you. It is just for data collection purposes. You are obviously not a sock.--Filll (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I was quite disturbed to find my name there as well until I saw the explanation above. It might be a good idea to put a bit of explanation at the top of that page to avoid needless concern. Seeing one's name on a list of "suspected ID socks" without further explanation can be unsettling (especially when one is not a sock, and most definitely not an ID proponent). Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea.--Filll (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

RFA[edit]

Hi Filll, I trust your judgement but with this edit I'm not clear why you oppose so strongly. Any chance of some examples and rationale? David D. (Talk) 16:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A couple. I think that his level of editing experience is only moderate given the length of time he has been on WP. I also have been quite discouraged by some of his attitudes in edits, particularly associated with Homeopathy. A GA is a 90K train wreck? This was the result of months and months of compromise and discussion between real homeopaths and real MDs and scientists; dozens of editors in all and thousands and thousands of edits. Then we finally agreed that it was GA status, and it was promoted. It was difficult and a lot was done in a sandbox rough draft. Finally we were all reasonably happy, except for a few trolls who appeared later and wanted a complete rewrite to make it all prohomeoapthy since they do not understand NPOV. A couple were blocked and are probably back as socks. Thumperward marches into this situation, and without understanding the situation starts making imperious changes and declarations and changes as though he was some sort of expert in the subject and science and the article. Amazing.... Therefore, I am not sure he has displayed the correct temperament to be an admin. I am not sure the place to test his theory of "no references in LEADS" is on an article like homeopathy. If he wants to change policy, let him argue at a policy page. This also strikes me as someone who does not understand WP very well and also has fairly suspect judgement. Also, I find that I am put off by people who argue every vote against them. I think it is unseemly and it does not sit well with me. If they have to do this, are they really suited for the position? --Filll (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I can understand the frustration on homeopathy but don't you think the LEAD is better now than a month ago? I'll look into his edits at homeopathy in more detail but with respect to the recent LEAD discussion I have found myself sympathetic to his comments. David D. (Talk) 18:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is too bad we need to overcite. But that isi the nature of controversial articles. And my personal tastes are irrelevant. It is what is NPOV and a fair summary, fairly accessible and protected against POV attacks and well cited, and the product of a wide-ranging consensus.--Filll (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

When four or five editors pour several man months of effort into writing an article, and shepherd it to GA status, then have it knocked down, and then re-evaluated and repromoted to GA, how do you think they feel to have someone say it is a "90K train wreck"? Also, if he is to be an admin here, there are really really controversial articles: abortion, 9/11 controversies, black people, intelligent design, dominionism, etc. There are HUGE fights at these articles, o a regular basis. When I look at his contributions and see him on the homeopathy page, I really think he needs a bit more seasoning in dealing with these really contentious subjects and difficult situations. Especially if he has a self-admitted "short fuse". It just is a bit early I think for him to be given the extra tools. I have seen too many admins who abuse their tools.--Filll (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Filll, I just wanted to express my sympathy with your frustration on this RfA. It's obviously touched a nerve for you and I can see from your contributions that you have high standards, and understandably take offence (as would I) when hours of work are apparently disregarded. However I thought perhaps that, when things have blown over a bit, you might look again at the way you played this RfA? Posting an Extremely strong oppose with no supporting comment was bound to get you asked: 'Why such vehemence?' Had you just posted Oppose as several people below you have done, no comment would have been called for. Thumperward may well have a lot to learn, but I see no evidence of malice, just (at worst) naïvete. Laying into him as you did in your latest reply there is unlikely to improve his editing skills, and I think just contributes to a sour atmosphere. I'm not posting this here to prolong the unpleasantness, or as any kind of counterattack. If I was Phaedriel I'm sure I could spread some warm and fuzzy wikilove, but my age, gender and nationality (middle aged Englishman...) are against me! So again, I do understand and sympathise with your frustration: but perhaps it's not too late to go back there and lower the temperature somehow? I'm sure if you do, Thumperward is more likely to take your criticisms on board, and you'll feel like you've got back onto the moral high ground.
Apologies for this awkward (and quite possibly unwelcome!) message, just felt I ought to try and say something rather than pretend nothing was happening there. Best wishes - Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me be a bit clearer. My last post was an attempt to lower the temperature. However, I felt I had to defend myself against people who attacked me for saying I was offended at being asked for a reason, when I did not want to give one. I felt I had to describe why I did not want to give a reason. The reason is, I do not want to make an unpleasant situation worse.

Let me clarify further why I am irritated. I personally spent maybe 100 hours on this article. I know several people who spent as much time if not more. I also have personally verified that the editors who contributed substantially included:

  • A PhD in physics
  • A PhD in biochemistry
  • several other PhDs
  • An MD
  • An internationally recognized homeopath and author with a faculty position at a major university

This editor appears to have no credentials to match this. Nevertheless, he signalled his intention to discard the vast majority of the efforts of this group of people who spent hundreds if not thousands of man-hours on this article, in a capricious, cavalier fashion. This is very discouraging. And encouraging this kind of attitude will destroy Wikipedia. Is this the kind of thing we want to reward on Wikipedia? I think not.

When I read WillowW's account, I was even more aghast. I respect WillowW more than just about any other editor on Wikipedia. WillowW is an incredible contributor and a real scholar and works very very hard on her articles. WillowW has a raft of FAs and GAs to show for her incredible efforts. We are lucky to have her. When I read that she had the same sort of experience with this editor that the editors on homeopathy were threatened with, it really gave me tremendous pause. It is painful to work on something very hard for hours and hours and hours and then have it dismissed by someone who really does not understand at all. This is not the way Wikipedia should be heading, at least in my opinion.

I think this editor needs a lot more seasoning before he is ready for adminship, if ever. I think that I would like to see at least another 10,000 or 15,000 edits on controversial articles, and a record of success in doing this. The adminship tools are too powerful and there are too many very sensitive situations here on controversial articles to just award them to someone with this type of attitude and level of experience. Certainly I need to have some evidence of competence at handling tense environments around contentious subjects before I would support him. If and when I do, I would be happy to support him. However, by goading me into laying out my reasons for opposing, a bad situation is made much worse. We do not need more tension and animosity here; we have too much of that already. Now by asking me to explain, however, politely, things are made far more poisonous. That is why I did not want to give my reasons.

The reason I suspect that the "oppose" votes of people who came after me have not been challenged is because I made such a big stink about it. I really think that the wheedling and begging and pleading and badgering for "support" votes creates more bad blood than is necessary. I do not like it. It wastes time. It looks bad. It hurts feelings on all sides. It makes people not want to vote at all, since it is basically intimidation. That is my opinion. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Filll, why did you write "I have been taken to task by "supporters" several times on my talk page, for both opposing and for being reluctant to state why I oppose at this time."? I seem to be one of these two supporters, but that is strange interpretation. I came to your talk page because i was wondering if I should switch to oppose based on your comment. I just wanted to know exactly why you felt this way since i thought i might have missed something. I'm sorry if you felt that was inappropriate but it was certainly no intention on my part to question your judgment or even force you to write more on the RFA. David D. (Talk) 03:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood then. But what I said before stands. Having to explain every possible oppose just makes the candidate feel worse (which I am loathe to do), increases the general feelings of animosity and ill will on Wikipedia and might even cause conflict between those opposing and the candidate. This is not constructive, since all editors, including those who oppose, will have to continue to work with the candidate, and those who oppose might very well want to support the candidate at a later date. I do not want to be involved with bringing up these negative issues, a role I feel I have slid into, unfortunately. This is very regrettable, since it reflects badly on me, on the candidate, on those asking for more information, on Wikipedia, and so on. I am sorry that I misread your motivations. I am sorry to have smeared you with that post. I would far rather have just voted, and then stayed mute. And I probably should have done just that. Live and learn.--Filll (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
"Having to explain every possible oppose just makes the candidate feel worse" Agreed, which is one of the reasons why i brought my question here. As you say live and learn. By the way i don't feel smeared, just wasn't sure if you misread my original intent. Everything is resolved now. David D. (Talk) 04:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy notice[edit]

courtesy notice. Thanks. Ra2007 (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Heisenberg's certainty principle[edit]

Covered in The Economist. Ra2007 (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Surely you are joking. Just because some journalists at the Economist magazine incorrectly wrote the "Certainty Principle" instead of the Uncertainty Principle does not mean that it is notable. Please. I think you are possibly trying to be disruptive, so please do not bother me again.--Filll (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll go a step further: it's conceivable that the phrase might be accidentally used in a honest-to-goodness journal article and that it might get past peer-review (a paper from our lab that stated 18-7=9 did, after all), but unless that phrase was being used to refer to something other than the uncertainty principle, it would clearly be a typo. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Creation & Evolution similarities[edit]

Creation and Evolution have similar traits. If you believe in evolution you believe that the universe came from a cosmic egg which exploded in the big bang. If you believe in creation you believe God formed life. Do you realize both beliefs have something That has been there before Time began.God or a cosmic egg.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesus Is risen (talkcontribs) 18:29, 11 December 2007

Yeah. Totally similar, except one has evidence, and the other does not. But other than that, they are identical.--Filll (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, never mind.[edit]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Proposed_decision#Ludicrous.21.21.21.21.21

- Vanished user

NOR Request for arbitration[edit]

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 00:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


Homeopathy talk page[edit]

Wanted to let you know that I'm enjoying your contributions to the talk page there very much. Your comments are well though out and pithy, and they make me laugh. Rray (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey[edit]

Those who can, create. Those who can't, delete. -- Very poignant. Did you think of that one yourself? Cirt (talk) 06:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC).

I am sure you are very proud of yourself.--Filll (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)