User talk:Filll/Archive 8

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

N.H. Horowitz[edit]

I am thinking about writing about Norman H. Horowitz, Caltech biology professor, previous department head etc. One can find some material about him:

And a huge number of publications. I do not want to have a deletion fight again, however. Suggestions?--Filll 21:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Norman H. Horowitz[edit]

I think writing about Norm Horowitz would be very worthwile. He deserves to be better known for a number of reasons, including his contributions to

  1. the one gene-one enzyme hypothesis (note his memoir on this matter),
  2. the concept of biochemical evolution and
  3. his pioneering space biology.([1] note short squib on Horowitz, biochemical evolution and space biology])

Are you thinking of writing about him for Wikipedia? -- User:TBHecht, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, Filll, I'll support you. We should go from success to success; it may be effective. I think the absolutely unbeatable thing to get it is comments from two different review articles discussing the work in favorable terms--ck the criteria. (As well as a few rewards). Perhaps the best longer-term plan is to add all the members of the National Academy of Sciences who dont have articles yet. DGG 03:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

looking for a moderator and/or contributors[edit]

Physics is being rewritten and we are looking for contributors and/or moderators at Talk:Physics/wip Do you have any suggestions? --Filll 16:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Physics nearly kept me from getting sufficient grades to get into Medical School. No way!!!!!! Orangemarlin 18:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

So you would be perfect. You are neutral and not an expert in it and have had trouble with physics writing in the past probably so you would push them to make it understandable. Only if you want to of course.--Filll 18:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm completely unqualified to help here. I have only school-level physics so much of the discussion would go over my head. Sorry. TimVickers 18:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on user page[edit]

Hello again. Sorry I've to sleep now, but use WP:WARN. Instructions can be found on my talk page. Good luck. Xiner (talk, email) 04:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Userpage vandalism[edit]

Don't worry about it, people do that all the time. I may have made it worse by speedying his article, but just FYI, that was eminently speedyable, and is the kind of schoolkid stuff that fills up CAT:CSD. This user doesn't seem too excited about actually writing an encyclopedia anyway; he may well be blocked by the end of the night. Opabinia regalis 04:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

moved question over from user page[edit]

Sorry, I didn't wanna mess your page up again but I don't know how to send you a message. Anyway why do you feel the need to delete that page? Just let it be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xgamerdan (talkcontribs)

A new article for your consideration[edit]

Please look at the stub Largest wooden ships.--Filll 01:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This is fun. I had to throw a Neutrality/Factual dispute template on the treasure ship article because it was written without references, and reads like someone is trying to make these ships out to be a great example of Chinese engineering. Not that I don't think Chinese engineering wasn't great, but a 600' wooden boat? Please. Orangemarlin 04:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


Hi! Things have really picked up lately, with After Midnight being a huge contributor and enormous help! People who have caught the "pageantry bug" are really passionate about it and its great to see it being translated into constructive editing on here :) -- PageantUpdatertalk | contribs | esperanza 06:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

David Shankbone[edit]

I really appreciated the nice message you left on my talk page. Thanks for taking the time to do that. --DavidShankBone 17:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet[edit]

I'm protesting this decision. I've added comments to User talk:AnonEMouse stating my protest. Orangemarlin 17:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Lists of interest[edit]

Some editors successfully deleted a good article from mainspace (List of articles related to scientific skepticism) and now they believe they can do the same to a similar article. Anything I add to the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts‎ including "reliable references" gets deleted. They do not like the existance of the article. Anything that critizes something they are an advocate for they want it removed off the face of Wikipedia. Can we say POV editors. Thanks, --QuackGuru 22:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I reorganized the information and put it in a project. Then they tried to delete it from there too. They almost got it deleted from project space but it barely survived the MFD. Put it in your watchlist and protect. Click Here! --QuackGuru 00:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Your AMA case[edit]

You recently requested an Advocate. From what you have said, filing a WP:MEDCAB case would probably be best. Geo. 04:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Creationist Orchard[edit]

Would you mind reviewing the content related to creation-evolution which was added to article common descent under the section Common descent and Creationism? I had some trouble adding similar material in the past and wanted to make sure it was encyclopedic. I also think some of the information can help in writing the creation-evolution controversy page. Pbarnes 01:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I started but it needs a lot more. It also needs many more references I believe.--Filll 03:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Uploaded Matsumura|1998 source article[edit]

I uploaded it to wikisource. It's not the type of source I prefer, but you all can be the judge. StudyAndBeWise 00:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Appeal for assistance[edit]

Looking for a moderator and/or contributors Physics is being rewritten and we are looking for contributors and/or moderators at Talk:Physics/wip Do you have any suggestions?--Filll 01:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


I've noticed your frustration from time to time - don't let them get you down.Trishm 13:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Harvard Referencing and citations[edit]

Filll, please take a look at this and let me know what you think: User_talk:StudyAndBeWise/HarvardHowTo StudyAndBeWise 05:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks good to me. I am no expert and I have problems with references, but I think it looks like I could follow it if I had to.--Filll 05:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Religious perspectives on dinosaurs#Jewish Views[edit]

You're pretty good at this stuff. Can you help with this section? Basically, what I've found is that short of some very strict Jewish sects, all the major parts of Judaism (Orthodox, US, etc.) think that Evolution is fine and dinosaurs died out 75 million years ago. Orangemarlin 18:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I copy edited it a bit. It depends on how much detail one wants to get into with various extreme sects.--Filll 20:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's not. The Fundamentalists quote mine enough. They'll think that one crazy Rabbi in Brooklyn represents all Jews. You should have seen what was there before: [[2]] which represented quote-mining at its worst. Orangemarlin 21:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request (pleae review)[edit]

Filll, could you take a look at the Lucca Brazzi article, which was tagged by an anonymous user for speedy deletion. I cannot remove the tag, but anybody else can. Use your own judgment. But be assured, I am not Lucca Brazzi. StudyAndBeWise 00:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, somebody else just did it. StudyAndBeWise 00:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Creation science[edit]

Filll, arguing with creationists on discussion pages is not worth the energy. Instead, try presenting the creationist perspective in all its glory to get their story out there as it needs to be told. Check out the quote from Gish in the second paragraph of the article. Who is going to argue?Trishm 04:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the disputed tag from level of evolution[edit]

It appears to me that the disputed tag is not intended to call attention to articles that see minor edit battles between an anonymous user and a prolific contributor, especially when a specific description of what is disputed is not provided (e.g., the accuracy of some sentence of section). If I was wrong in removing the tag, please add it back to Level of support for evolution. StudyAndBeWise 05:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Beating the Dead Horse[edit]

I love it. Don't you just feel like that guy some times? --Random Replicator 01:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Creationist Orchard[edit]

Would you mind reviewing the content related to creation-evolution which was added to article common descent under the section Common descent and Creationism? I had some trouble adding similar material in the past and wanted to make sure it was encyclopedic. I also think some of the information can help in writing the creation-evolution controversy page. Pbarnes 01:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I started but it needs a lot more. It also needs many more references I believe.--Filll 03:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


Updated DYK query On 11 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of world's largest wooden ships, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Laïka 13:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It ran from 12:59 UTC to 19:15 UTC ([3]); the DYK was updated pretty quickly yesterday, but it has been archived. Laïka 11:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

help me[edit]

{{helpme|we need Level of support for evolution to be protected}}--Filll 18:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You can request protection of a page at WP:RFPP (Wikipedia:Requests for page protection); first you might want to read Wikipedia:Protection policy to see if the page qualifies for it. (There's a lot of 'rv' in the edit history, so protection to stop an edit war might be reasonable, but I don't know much about the situation.) --ais523 19:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.--Filll 19:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Amazing website[edit]

Advances of the ancient world

Using a video game as your main reference[edit]

Abus Gun, and I suspect several other contributions by the main editor, draw on video games as their main sources of information and reference. Is this reasonable or advisable?--Filll 15:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ottoman gun[edit]

The article is not clear, but this is real world, adapted for a game. They did use such very wide bore inaccurate guns. 05:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it might have some element of truth in it. I believe it might be named after a town in Turkey. However, the references are fairly scanty and I could not find much. However, I do not know what should be done; if it should be left alone or deleted. I looked for more material to improve it but so far I have not been successful.--Filll 13:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Natural selection[edit]

... is the current science collaboration of the month and will hopefully be substantively improved in the near future, so if you want to write about evolution and take a break from arguing over the title for the level of support article, you should stop by. Opabinia regalis 03:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Aw thank you![edit]

Thank you so much! You don't know how badly I needed that. Wow! Have you seen this? I really feel I'm going loopy. Another thing is User:PageantUpdater/Evrik conflict which I'm using to try and calm myself down by objectively documenting the entire crazy episode. -- PageantUpdatertalk | contribs | esperanza 23:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I saw. It seems sort of nuts to me.--Filll 23:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Judaism and evolution[edit]

Hi, I've been working on Articles missing a category possibly due to vandalism; I noticed that you deleted categories from the article Judaism and evolution without listing a reason in your edit summary. I re-added the categories, but please feel free to edit those categories if necessary and provide a rational in your edit summary or on the talk page. Thanks, -sthomson06 (Talk) 21:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to mention that I'm assuming you deleted them accidentally! Let me know. -sthomson06 (Talk) 21:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I had no idea I had removed a category from Judaism and evolution. It was obviously some sort of mistake and I apologize. I am glad you caught that! --Filll 02:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
This is odd. I went over to look at the article, and I found that I had edited it and left a comment. I don't recall ever seeing this article. Orangemarlin 03:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
No problemo, Filll. I'm just trying to be thorough. I run into this problem sometimes with newer Wikipedians, but you are obviously not a newcomer! Happy editing, -sthomson06 (Talk) 04:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Filll... They hurt my feelings![edit]

They took my plea for simplification to mean I tolerate mis-information. What I was trying to say is “accuracy to the point of minutia is incompatible with clarity.” How many times do you think they have 'edited' the introduction? If stability is the hallmark of a good Wiki entry then evolution is a failure. I like the idea of an abstract, setting up the article itself. At least a 'lead sentence' that lets the readers know what they are in for.

Our contribution was a simpler explanation of evolution. It was not intended to be a summary of the introduction of the main entry as they seem to imply. I can't go back in there ... they chew me up every time.

Did you catch the edits by Fubar Obfusco on the Intro to Evo, I thought he did a nice job rewriting for clarity.

Also, what is it with creationist and grammar? Do you think God is bitter over being represented by bad spellers?

Evolution is false. It is not true. God created the world and everything in it. NOt millions of years of mere chance of evolution!! Jesus Christ the Lord created the world!!!Not sumthing of mere chance!! rv rv rv--Random Replicator 00:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry they hurt your feelings. I think you and I agree completely on this topic. I have pounded away on it over and over since at least November or so, and sometimes I make some headway, but then it just drifts back to being incomprehensible again. I will not give up however. I have had them kick me in the shins plenty but I know I am on the side of reason here; it does us no good to just write dense impenetratable stuff that only experts can read. After all this is an encyclopedia written for the average internet user. It is not a graduate textbook. It is not a contest to show how smart we are. I have no problems with the body of the articles being incredibly dense, but I would like at least a sentence or two at the start of each article that most people can understand without a dictionary at their side, or without having to dig through two or three levels of wikilinks. I agree with you that our contribution (mainly due to you by the way) is supposed to be a separate article in its own right, not just an introduction to the main article. It does not let them off the hook and allow them to write an incomprehensible main evolution article. Misinformation is one thing, and we should not allow that, but vague statements are permissible when just giving a broad overview of a topic, as far as I am concerned. I do love that great "creationist" quote you have there. These guys are a laugh riot.--Filll 01:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is going to my quote page. Too funny Orangemarlin 01:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I do hope that my work is keeping everything as simple as possible. Gett on at me if I ever slip into over technicality. Adam Cuerden talk 20:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)



while I agree (completely) with your point on Talk:Black People, I do not agree with the WP:Point you are making with the link. I think it is needlessly inflammatory, and suggest you delete it. Jd2718 17:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The uncomfortable truth[edit]

Why hide this? Inflammatory? Yes. True? Unfortunately such attitudes exist. And the efforts of some of the editors on the black people article over the last year or so have encouraged this sort of stuff. I think we should acknowledge it exists, but instead focus on the most accurate current modern most accepted scientific views, instead of out of date, controversial discredited material. I know that black people really badly want to believe that they are a separate species or race and superior to other races, but unfortunately science does not support this view, and this view really encourages the absolute worst extrapolations, like the chart I displayed. You want to deny that such things exist? You want to deny that these nonscientific attitudes can be exploited to support the worst possible conclusions? Hmm...--18:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Because it is easier to edit, and to change and improve things when no one is up in arms. It's always going to be a struggle. Pissing people off isn't going to make it easier. On the contrary.

Did I deny that the image exists? No. But you've implied that here. I'm getting off your talk page. But do be careful what lines you choose to cross. Jd2718 18:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have followed the page at all for the last few months, or looked at the history, you will know that someone is ALWAYS pissed off on that page. They are so angry that they have driven away most other editors. Huge amounts of valuable material have been flushed down the toilet. You are free to try to "improve" the article, if you want. I do not know what your own personal views are or what your agenda might be. I might cross a line or two with my POV. I find that about 50% of the editors on that page also cross one or more lines, depending on your own personal POV. I would far rather that science and reason and tolerance be used as guides for editing the article, but unfortunately, past experience indicates to me that this is not the case for the black people article. It is mainly a platform for people to push very narrow angry objectives, in many cases. So be it. I have mostly distanced myself from that article and the editors on that page.--Filll 19:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
And I thought Evolution was bad. Orangemarlin 21:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Overwhelming majority[edit]

I hate that phrase. It implies that there is a minority of scientists that reject the theory of evolution. I know your a math guy, isn't 99.6% about as close to 100% as you can get?Orangemarlin 01:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It is pretty close, possibly within measurement error. However, I thought it was better than saying "most" which several people have tried to change it to. What do you think?--Filll 01:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Use the exact number, it's referenced. Orangemarlin 19:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Done.--Filll 20:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)