User talk:Marcosantezana

Heritability

You have added valuable content to the Heritability article. With all due respect, you need to protect yourself against the charge of original research. I urge you to review our policies Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia: Verifiability and Wikipedia:Cite sources. The issue is not whether what you wrote was correct or incorrect, but that you can provide an independent (from you) source for it. I hope you accept this as constructive advice. These three policies, along with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view are the cornerstones of the project. Strictly complying with these policies will dramatically decrease the chance that you will come into conflict with a fellow-editor; when in a conflict with a fellow editor, referring to these polciies may help guide an effective resolution; being familiar with these policies will help sensitize you to places (that do not fully comply with these policies) where you can make valuable improvements to an article.

Also, the content you added to this article was generally about the meaning and use of the concept, "heritability." Do you think there would be value to adding material on common ways the concept is misunderstood or misused?

Welcome to Wikipedia and good luck, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i did not add anything that is original.

"adding material on common ways the concept is misunderstood"

yes, of course it is useful, but i believe i already saw some lines in that direction that could be polished and expanded perhaps.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcosantezana (talk • contribs)

If you did not add anything that was original, then you can and should cite your source. See the policies I mention above. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i don't do not understand your questins. i worked on the introduction so citations about obvious stuff are unecessary. one could cite doug futuyma's book "Evolutionary Biology" among the general references though. it is considered the best among professionals.

if you want to worry about something please consider trying to clean up the utter non-sense that is a bit everywhere. you should realize that to do what i am trying to do is is hard work.

btw, the nonsense i keep finding everywhere and i have not yet had time to clean up was obviously accepted without citations since there could not be any ;)

read this for instance: "Natural selection does not distinguish between ecological selection and sexual selection, as it is concerned with traits, for example, dexterity of movement, on which both may operate simultaneously. "

this is sheer syllogistic nonsense. now tell me where are the citations for this gem ? :)

cheers

marcos—Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcosantezana (talk • contribs)

Sign

As a courtesy for other editors on Wikipedia, please sign your talk page and user talk page posts. By adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments, your user name and the date will be automatically added. Broken S 05:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

also please use edit summaries when editing articles. Thank you. Broken S 05:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Natural selection

I like your edits of natural selection. Much clearer now. - Samsara 05:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False primacy claim in introduction of natural selection

Hi, in reply to your question about where in the introduction of natural selection there is a lack of clarity on primacy: [1]. Regards, Samsara _contrib ^talk 13:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote on natural selection intro passage

As a contributing editor of the English wikipedia article on natural selection, you are being invited to vote on two different versions of a controversial passage of the introduction. Please see details on the talk page, Talk:Natural selection#Vote on intro passage.

Yours sincerely,

Samsara _contrib ^talk 01:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Natural selection

It appears that you are close to violating the three-revert rule on natural selection. [2], [3], [4], [5]. Changing an article back to your to your preferred version more than 3 times in a 24 hour period is considered impolite and counter-productive. Although you are technically outside of the 24 hour period, such edits are still considered in violation of the spirit of the rule. It would be helpful if instead of simply reverting back if you would discuss the changes on the talk page. If you have any concerns please contact me. Thank you. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 08:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 3 revert rule does not depend on you being right or wrong. It is irrelevant if you are more qualified or if the other people are incorrect. This rule aplies to everyone in all situations. Futhermore, you comments "do you know how to read?" and "you need [a logic class]" [6] are clearly incivil. Please read wikipedias policy on civility and no personal attacks. I understand that dealing with others can often be frustrating, but this project requires that you do so politely. Thank you. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 09:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shorter sentences?

I wonder whether people would find your edits more palatable if the sentence structure was less complex. Clearly, Slrubenstein is just plain reverting all of your edits. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 00:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NatSel intro

Thanks, I changed the text, you were right, missed it. Stared to long at the text I guess. --KimvdLinde 05:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you connect to natsel-driven evolution suddenly Marcosantezana 06:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that you want to add evolution by drift etc in the intro paragraph? (BTW, could you leave your contributions at my talk page? Or here, have it on my watchlist) --KimvdLinde 06:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you used the version of Dave souza, I am now making a new version, will be there in some minutes. --KimvdLinde 17:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, the question is how much should go in the first paragraph. I think making a very clear example, with images, should be definatly in the NatSel page. I am not a big fan of the selfish gene in a total, although I like aspects of it. --KimvdLinde 18:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natural selection again

I would appreciate it if you would participate in the discussion on the lead section at the talk page, instead of just editing it at the main page. See my comments on it at the talk page. --KimvdLinde 10:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the owner of that page and as such, it would be appreciated that you would take part in the discussion instead of just reverting. --KimvdLinde 20:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As such, if you are not satisfied with the consensus text, you have to blaim yourself for not participating in the discussion. --KimvdLinde 21:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you just keeping to push your version of the truth (which is faulty in places) and treat the article as your own? I have repeatedly asked you to discuss with others, what is wrong with that? --KimvdLinde 06:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR again

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

[7] [8] [9] [10] --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reset your 24 hour 3RR block, because of evasion of the block. - TexasAndroid 19:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reset your bock again. When you are blocked for 24 hours, you actually have to spend 24 hours without editing. If I detect more evasions, I will continue to reset the block. - TexasAndroid 12:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation request

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Natural selection]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

van Valen/Kondrashov

Hi Marcos, thanks for the comments on my userpage (although my talk page would have been a better place...). I am puzzled now whether you're referring to the article here on wikipedia (Evolution of sex) or the essay on my web page. If the latter, I haven't changed that article for about four years, and I've no intentions to do so now or in future. I may withdraw it if you think the omission is too grave. My thesis will actually contain a more recent review of that topic, although the thesis is not actually concerned with the evolution of sex... (but it was the topic I started with).

Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and was it you who was arguing for impact over primacy on the Darwin vs. earlier scholars issue? ;) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration filed

I have filed a request for Arbitration here.KimvdLinde 06:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 18:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kin selection

Re your edits to Kin selection: The sentance is redundant. "an individual that loses its life to save two siblings, four nephews, or eight cousins, is a "fair deal"". It's ovbious that if 2 siblings are a fair deal then saving more than this is a better deal, so there is no reason to re-state it. All it does is make the paragraph more confusing. -Ravedave 04:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana

This arbitration case is closed. The final decision is at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 02:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA review of "Natural selection"

As part of the GA review sweeps process (see:Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007), the article Natural selection has been re-reviewed. I have placed the article on hold until sufficient citations can be added to the article. If an editor has not expressed interest in improving the article within seven days, the article will be delisted as a Good Article. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 04:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]