Archive IIXV: September 2010 to September 2015. Nothing important happened in this one.
What sort of freak then is man!
How novel, how monstrous, how chaotic, how paradoxical, how prodigious!
Judge of all things, feeble earthworm, repository of truth, sink of doubt and error, glory and refuse of the universe!
―Blaise Pascal
Every man supposes himself not to be fully understood; and if there is any truth in him, if he rests at last on the divine soul, I see not how it can be otherwise. The last chamber, the last closet, he must feel was never opened; there is always a residuum unknown, unanalyzable. That is, every man believes that he has a greater possibility.
I've never seen an FA image captioned like that on the main page. Is this some brand-new procedure I missed? I don't see anything similar on any of the past or future main-page FA boxes. -Silence 16:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
This is an unusual case, as the image's nature and relevance aren't immediately obvious. For a featured article about a person, we almost always display a self-explanatory depiction of him/her in life. A mummified head warrants a caption (because many people won't see the hover text). —David Levy 16:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to edit war with you, even if I disagree strongly, so I'm putting the two versions on the talk page for a vote. Adam Cuerdentalk 22:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
...Okay, now I feel like an idiot. I hadn't noticed your (quite excellent) changes in the latest version. Very glad I didn't edit war: I'd have looked even more an idiot. Adam Cuerdentalk 22:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Before we go to an edit war here Silence could you take the time to read about the FA review critisisms of this section, the evolution discussion and the fact it was renamed History of Modern ET please.
It is annoying that you reverted without comment on the discussion page and have done so a second time. This section needs to be shorter and you keep reintroducing details that are mentioned earlier in the article. Thanks Candy 02:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
If they are mentioned earlier in the article, then remove them from earlier in the article, not from the "History" section. You removed details that weren't mentioned earlier in the article, because you hadn't noticed that some had been removed for the express purpose of transplanting them to where they belonged—"History". I see no justification for having such an absurdly short history section, when featured articles like Bacteria, which have infinitely less important, complex, and necessary histories, have history sections 3 times larger than ours! I see no evidence that this is anything other than overcompensating for a past criticism; the fact that the article was too long in the past does not justify making it too short in the present. Articles must be self-sufficient; the fact that we have a daughter article for going into greater detail does not justify our making this section excessively short when there is more important information to be included. -Silence 02:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
If they are mentioned earlier in the article, then remove them from earlier in the article, not from the "History" section.
Then discuss this on the discussion pages please
You removed details that weren't mentioned earlier in the article, because you hadn't noticed that some had been removed for the express purpose of transplanting them to where they belonged—"History".
Yes, it's hard to follow changes in evolution. Which is why there are talk pages to join discussions about editing.
I see no justification for having such an absurdly short history section, when featured articles like Bacteria, which have infinitely less important, complex, and necessary histories, have history sections 3 times larger than ours!
Probably because there is another article expressly about the history for evolution?
I see no evidence that this is anything other than overcompensating for a past criticism; the fact that the article was too long in the past does not justify making it too short in the present. Articles must be self-sufficient; the fact that we have a daughter article for going into greater detail does not justify our making this section excessively short when there is more important information to be included.
Then read the discussion pages please. Candy 02:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Silence. I think you may have accidentally deleted the material on Misunderstandings from Darwin's day. To avoid the risk of an edit war I've put up something on the Evolution talk page about it. Could you explain your objections (if any) and how they might be overcome, or confirm that it was deleted unintentionally and we can restore it. Together we can make Wikipedia stronger. NBeale 15:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I apologize if my edit description was unclear, and I'm glad to be working with you. I moved part of the information (the statement to the effect that Darwin opposed extrapolating his theory to non-biological contexts) to the last paragraph of the article, where it's more directly relevant. I removed the other part of the information (about natural selection being the main, but not only, mechanism of evolution) because it didn't seem relevant to any part of the article; we don't have any quotations or statements anywhere in the article claiming that Darwin thought that natural selection was evolution's only mechanism, so correcting an absent misunderstanding seems superfluous, plus we're trying to cut down on article size as much as possible. If you feel it's important, it would probably fit better in a daughter article like Misunderstandings about evolution—though there is current ongoing discussion about that article which may lead to its deletion, so I wouldn't put too much time into it at the moment. I removed your change to the first sentence of "Misunderstandings" because it was (1) grammatically incorrect (you took out a space after the comma, and another comma would be helpful after "From its inception"); (2) irrelevant to the text that followed (most of that paragraph was about the theory/fact distinction, not about natural selection); (3) overly specific (the section deals with misunderstandings of evolution in general, not just with misunderstandings of natural selection, which would belong more on natural selection anyway). Modern evolutionary theory is not just natural selection, and the evolution article is not just about ideas in Darwin's day; if anything, views from the time of Darwin are vastly less important to this article than modern views, though they have their place in some contexts. -Silence 15:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
This "draft" is clearly the weakest of the 4 I have in the sandbox on this subject (the others are a rewrite of Evolution as theory and fact, Talk:Evolution/falsifiabilitydraft, and the Objections to evolution draft Orangemarlin and I have been working on). This "religion draft" contains only a small amount of real material at the top; the bottom 90% is notes and comments by myself and others of material that might be included or might be relevant. My plan at the moment is to slowly merge in my material with yours at User:Silence/Evolution to form a single Objections to Evolution draft (as long as my co-editor Orangemarlin agrees, which I suspect he will), and as long as it seems that the community is not averse to such an article. I do not know if the religion article will get enough material to be its own subarticle, or will just be a subsection alone of an Objections to evolution article. My main efforts lately, aside from slowly accumulating material and references for the Objections to evolution article and adding material and references to Support for evolution is to work on the rewrite of Evolution as theory and fact. My drafts are a bit more ragged while I work on them than yours, I suspect. When I get an idea or come across an interesting point, I just slip it on the to-do list for later, rather than stop work on another project to incorporate it. Only when the article is being prepared to go out the door do I try to clear all those notes and material. This is what I did with Support for evolution. My mistake there was after clearing out the other material to move the draft from "alpha" to "beta" condition, and while it was still in the sandbox, not to invite the community in to contribute. I think that would have built consensus, helped settle on a better name possibly, and eased its entrance into WP, rather than have to go through this AfD process.--Filll 14:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Holy cow. You are a maiden?? I am always confused on here. I guess I am sexist since I assume everyone is male. Oops. I am embarassed. Sorry.--Filll 14:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it probably won't be necessary to make a "Religion and evolution" or "Evolution as religion"-type daughter article. We will probably have enough room on Objections to evolution and Science and religion to discuss everything we need to. And my drafts are pretty ragged, too; most of the "Objections" article at User:Silence/Evolution is just an outline, and a lot of the sections I'm already provisionally "done" with will need a major rewrite, and will need a lot more references. But for now, it's enough to just get down a basic outline, and gradually (evolutionarily?) build on that. I look forward to combining our various drafts into one article, it'll be more interesting and productive once we're all working on these objections in one centralized location.
And I am not actually a maiden, no. Nor am I creamy-skinned. :) That was in jest. -Silence 16:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe that people have to see a Objections to evolution mockup in a sandbox, with the sections from the misunderstandings article included to be able to understand what we are suggesting. They do not seem to be able to imagine a full synthesis including misunderstandings and other objections. Now of course, if it gets too long, it might be necessary to have a "misunderstandings" article and an "other objections" article, but that is getting a bit complicated.--Filll 18:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree; that's why I've been working to try and get a working draft up at User:Silence/Evolution. And it already has most of the "misunderstandings" content, plus tons of misunderstandings not included there. If the article gets too long, the most useful thing to do for our reafers will be to make daughter articles for specific misunderstandings or groups of misunderstandings, akin to Entropy and life or Evolution as theory and fact. A "misunderstandings" and "other objections" setup, or anything of the sort, would be too complicated; it would either lead to lots of redundancies, or to an arbitrary and counterintuitive distribution of information that'd just confuse people. Evolution#Misunderstandings is sufficient for correcting, very briefly, common misunderstandings, and Objections and the other daughter articles will be sufficient for detailing those misunderstandings and their consequences, where necessary. It is always more useful to present misunderstandings by topic, rather than grouping them all together; for example, the best place to discuss misunderstandings about vestigial structures is in Vestigial structure, not in Misunderstandings about evolution. -Silence 19:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Well I do not only work on creationism and evolution issues. I sometimes like whimsical fun articles and trivia and geography. And I have decided that I will be far more careful in the future about vetting my work before posting it as an article. I will invite peers/friends/associates/experts etc to check it and make sure I am not saying something really stupid before making a new article. So the article about bees and inebriation is in the sandbox right now. And I am inviting and collecting comments and corrections. At some point, the material will be placed in one or more articles on WP or used to create a seperate WP article.--Filll 17:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Not related to the problem concern above; but I wish to compliment you on your patient and extremely well stated response at User talk:Clayc3466. To take the time to address all the "quotes" was most impressive and made for interesting reading. If Wiki had an award for such acts; you would be well deserving. You are a convincing writer ... albeit ... it most likely fell on deaf ears. --Random Replicator 23:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Using Safari, no difference except in the spacing of the MDFile:Mkdw Firefox Test.jpegUsing Firefox, same spacing problem for bothUsing Internet Explorer, columns instead of 4x2 rows
Mkdwtalk 06:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Removing formatting content and reducing the size of the text by a considerable amount to one of my userboxes is helpful and could be considered vandalism. Please do not tamper with userboxes that do not require further maintanence. You talk page is 112kb too long. Wikipedia recommends pages over 30kb be archived. Mkdwtalk 04:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The template I used for the userbox is the 'standard' method in creating a userbox. See WP:UBX#Userbox_types. Please stop changing it. Mkdwtalk 05:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
That template is only used for individual userboxes on pages, not for userbox templates; when it is used for templates like User:Mkdw/House, it should be substed into the template. See "Userbox sampling templates" in the section below. When Template:Userbox is used inside of another template, rather than directly included on a page, it leads to formating errors on certain user pages. -Silence 05:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
It does not eliminate the problem you're talking about. The sampling section quotes:
You must use subst:, or the template will not work properly.
This effectively makes it no different than the user typing {{subst:User:Mkdw/House}}, and could arguably be a better choice since the 'standard' template is designed specifically for a single userbox creation. Mkdwtalk 05:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
You are mistaken. Substing your version of the template leads to code errors. Substing mine does not.
I have compared them both. They appear identical minus the fact that on User:Silence/Test2#Silence's version The M.D. are not evenly spaced, in fact they are wider than the originalthan the first copy. Also on your edits to {{User:Mkdw/House}} you greatly reduced the sizing of the text which is my only reasoning for reverting the edits. In the rows, they are evenly spaced. I checked using Safari, Firefox, and Explorer. Would you like a screen shot? Mkdwtalk 05:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead. On my Firefox browser, your version causes the fourth item in the row to be knocked down to the next row; mine does not. -Silence 05:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Here they are:
The error appears consistently, pervasively, and irresolvably in my Firefox browser: File:Mkdw Firefox Test2.jpegUsing Firefox, spacing problem solely for Mkdw's version
The only apparent way to fix the problem is to replace the template-within-a-template with direct code. Substing the template-within-a-template does not work; substing has no effect on the display of either version of the template, only on its appearance in Wikicode. -Silence 06:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Well its fairly late and I'm on my way to bed. Perhaps its that version of Firefox or that resolution? Since the template I used is in common use and still what appears to be the 'main' form of creating a userbox, perhaps this is a question we'll want to bring up on the Template:Userbox page and someone will be able to fix it on the template side. Mkdwtalk 06:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
It is not the "main" form of ubx template. The overwhelming majority of userboxes do not use this format; in fact, out of over a hundred userboxes, this is one of only two I found that used the userbox template within another template. This syntax is clearly depracated, and I've seen numerous users in the past go through the userbox archives and fix hundreds of templates that caused this error; yours must have slipped through the cracks. There is no visual benefit to using your version; if you don't like the very minor changes in font, feel free to use a substed-within-the-template version that preserves your font. On the other hand, I've proven that there is visible harm, at least for some users, in straying from the pack in this area; it would be considerate of you to avoid future complications like this by allowing the template to be reformated. But I agree that it's late, so I'll be back tomorrow. 'Night. -Silence 06:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe I showed this one to you before: Talk:Evolution/Objectionstoevolution. Bear in mind that it is a mess and has private notes etc in it. It has a long ways to go before it is ready for prime time, or inclusion into yours, although parts of it might be ok now.--Filll 20:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a hopefully not too controversial "Gene flow" section rewrite in progress, also including a few other sections that group well with it. I'd appreciate your views and help. Adam Cuerdentalk 20:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I have requested that Raspor stop engaging in debates over Intelligent Design as they violate WP:NOT and do not help with the larger goal of encyclopedia-building. I would like to ask you to likewise disengage. If he is looking for a debate on ID, evolution, and creation science, he can find a web forum offwiki. If you have any questions, please let me know either via my talk page or e-mail. (Just ignore that big ol' Wikibreak banner--I clearly am.) -- Merope 02:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Excellent job with the recent sourcing of influences you've done at Regina Spektor; primary sources are always very good to use, because it pulls the rug out from under the feet of assertive know-nothings. Best, Badagnani 04:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I have to learn more patience and wikirules. You are inspiring. Arguing over and over about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" just is tedious to me. Thanks for your calm assistance on this issue.--Filll 16:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
That's a remarkably unhelpful way of putting it. I agree that this "reader's digest" thing isn't looking like a very good idea, and we probably won't end up using it, but saying "a mere article cannot dare to deviate" is absurd: it is a direct affront on the spirit of Wikipedia, which always encourages new ideas and collaboration. Criticize an idea because it's bad, not because it's new. I agree that there are limits to how many ways an article should stray from the "standard" layout of articles, but that doesn't mean that experimentation and brainstorming, or that any non-standard formatting that strays from absolute "unifmority in appearance and layout", is suddenly unacceptable. Very, very few Wikipedia conventions are set in stone; if they are stable, it's because they work, not because we're obsessed with tradition -Silence 23:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you kidding? If you wish to change Wikipedia formatting, take it elsewhere. Such changes are to be decided by large community concensus, not you. Don't dare presume editors of a single article have the right to decide these things. And don't talk down to me. -- Ec5618 23:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I never once said or implied that I "wish to change Wikipedia formatting", nor that "editors of a single article have the right to decide these things"; but anyone on any part of Wikipedia is free to propose or discuss such changes. Only when there is significant support for such a change and it is very likely to become a reality is it necessary to seek broad-based discussion; most such proposals are too minor and informal (e.g., "hey, wouldn't this be a cool idea?") to necessitate such community-wide discussions. Wikipedians are not banned from discussing formatting issues and ideas whenever and wherever the need arises.
Your comment betrays a surprising hostility, contempt, and disrespect for even momentarily discussing new ideas; although, as I already said in my previous comment, I agree that the "Reader's Digest" is a bad idea here, your aggressive, condescending, and dismissive tone (for the second time in a row, you say "don't dare do X"; such threats are a sure-fire way to discourage civil, calm, friendly, and productive discussion) is very counterproductive, and unwarranted in such a low-level, first-stage brainstorming. I recommend reviewing Wikipedia:Civility carefully and taking a short time to rethink your comments and regain your calm before your next response; remember that discussions are not battles, and it is perfectly possible to be insistent and clear in stating your views without being harsh, condescending, or aggressive. This is not meant to be an attack on you, but important, well-meant advice to avoid unnecessary conflicts, so I apologize if this or any previous comment offended you. -Silence 23:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you are allowed to discuss things. I am free to point out that I object to any non-standard formatting. Which I did. It is you who initiated hostility, by calling my opinion 'unhelpful'. I'm not threatening you, I'm trying to explain to you that it is not a good idea for editors to change standard formatting in a single article. We don't have the manual of style for nothing. If every article were designed on the whims of its editors, there would be no uniformity. Which is a bad thing. So yes, a mere article cannot dare to deviate.
In future, when someone calls your tone condescending, please remember that there's really little point in turning around and calling their tone aggressive, condescending and dismissive. If anything, it should suggest to you that you should perhaps have heeded your own advice.
In slight but well intentioned mockery of your post, I will state that my initial comment was important, well-meant advice to avoid unnecessary conflicts. I never dreamed it would prompt anyone to call my contributions 'unhelpful'. -- Ec5618 09:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I did not call your opinion "unhelpful". I agreed (for the most part) with your opinion, and called your hostile tone unhelpful: "a mere article cannot dare to deviate" (rather than simply something like "individual articles shouldn't deviate so far from the norm"), followed by similarly condescending and aggressive statements like "Are you kidding?", "Don't dare presume editors of a single article have the right to decide these things.", and "And don't talk down to me" (when I had clearly done nothing of the sort; the only way friendly advice can be considered "talking down" to you is if you consider yourself above everyone else..). We were not changing formats in this article; we were discussing possible formats for this article. If we'd been actually going about initiating the newly-brainstormed ideas, your response may have been warranted, but taking the trouble to attack even the consideration of new ideas with attacks like "Are you kidding? If you wish to change Wikipedia formatting, take it elsewhere. Such changes are to be decided by large community concensus, not you. Don't dare presume editors of a single article have the right to decide these things." is just asking for trouble.
Calling an unhelpful tone unhelpful is not an "attack"; this is another part of the problem, that you seem to take important advice as a personal attack, even when the critic is agreeing with your general point. Saying "a mere article cannot dare to do X" is just a more antagonistic, rude, and dismissive way of saying "a mere article shouldn't do X", so your consistent choice to opt for the more antagonistic, rude, and dismissive method of getting your point across is troubling. Your initial post is the kind of thing that causes conflicts, by making a mountain out of a molehill: it is easy to explain the situation to people without leaping immediately into "danger mode" and making veiled threats and aggressive dismissals, when clearly the casual, preliminary brainstorming going on does not warrant it. Most of the proposals that were ongoing at the time didn't even involve using a nonstandard TOC; we were primarily considering using the table as a side-banner, not unlike what other articles, like Introduction to evolution, use to try to simplify their topic. -Silence 12:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I have moved this discussion here, so it doesn't muck up the main Talk page. If you wish to explain to me how calling someone's earnest and logical stance 'unhelpful' is helpful, please do so here.
If I understand you, "Are you kidding" is condescending, but "That's a remarkably unhelpful way of putting it" is civil. I hope you don't really believe that.
For the record, I object to any non-standard formatting, including this sort of table of contents. Uniformity in appearance and layout is a good thing. I'm sorry, but it will not do. We are not here to decide Wikipedia formatting.
You may wish to take a look at the redesigned Community Portal, which has featured a table of contents since the redesign. The table was specifically designed to match the appearance of the standard table of contents, for the sake of uniformity. In my opinion, when even such a page uses 'standard layout', a mere article cannot dare to deviate.
I stand by my post, and object to your efforts to find malice in it. Perhaps you should read it again. I also object to the extent to which this discussion is dragging out. -- Ec5618 16:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
"Cannot dare to deviate" is a stance that will not stand the test of time. "Are you kidding" is condescending and certainly unhelpful, in the context of repeating the same thing without discussing the substance. You are rejecting it de facto. Your lecturing tone and intransient position does seem to be condescending. Just my two cents and sorry if you think i am too blunt. Just out of interest do you really think every article should be a cookie cutter item? That seems to be your implication? this seems like a recipe for boredom. David D.(Talk) 17:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Never once did I say "Your stance is unhelpful". Rather, I said "That's a remarkably unhelpful way of putting it". Your opinion was valuable and helpful, but your way of putting it was needlessly dismissive and aggressive. This is a key distinction. Even the most earnest, rational, and well-evidenced view can be harmful to Wikipedia when expressed in a hostile manner. Compare, for example, "Please note that articles should not use non-standard ToC formats" to "How dare you try to deviate from Wikipedia's standard ToC formats!". The point is equally good in either case, but the effect is likely to be dramatically different; the former helps Wikipedia, the latter harms it. I never once claimed that any of your posts have any "malice" in them; most uncivil and offensive comments are unintentional, and yours clearly were well-intentioned. My criticism was primarily focused on your needlessly harsh and dismissive presentation, not on your opinion, and certainly not on your intentions. -Silence 18:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
This entire discussion is really not productive, in my opinion. There is no content here. Just relax and lets go back to real work.--Filll 17:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Welcome advice. I think this was just the result of a misunderstanding; Ec5618 was a little too quick to jump down a proposal's throat, I was a little too harsh in fixating on the "how dare you" language, and it escalated from there. It seems unnecessary to squabble over blame when we essentially agree on the relevant point of article-editing, even if we disagree on Wikiquette a bit. -Silence 18:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad we agree on that point. My point still stands though, and I hope you remember it: uniformatity in formatting is a must. If individual editors decide to ignore the manual of style in favour of their own stylistic views, by changing the font for example, that uniformity is lost. Again, if you wish to majorly change formatting, such as the formatting of the table of contents, take it up on the Village Pump, so that all editors can agree, and so that the change may be site-wide. Perhaps a site-wide change is warranted. Feel free to discuss that.
Just keep in mind that adopting unusual formatting for a single article, on whatever grounds, is very dangerous. If a change is warranted, it should be made site-wide, through a change to the software, or a template. No article should get special treatment. The editors of a single article have as much right to ignore the neutral point of view policy as they do to set the fontsize larger.
That's my point. -- Ec5618 21:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
And what official policy is your justification for this view? -Silence 22:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
In my experience, going against the Manual of Style is very dangerous. For example, a while back the editors of the George W. Bush article decided against using the standard semi-protection boiler, in favour of a smaller padlock icon. What they should have done, and I hope you agree, is discuss such a change on the Talk page of the boiler in question, instead of deciding to make an exception for their pet project.
As for your question on official policy, let's remember that I began this exchange by making it clear that this is my opinion. My use of the words "In my opinion .." hints at this. In my opinion, editors cannot ignore the Manual of Style on a whim. In my opinion, when even the Community Portal can make use of the standard table of contents, articles should too. I object to any non-standard formatting.
The point of the Manual of Style is to create uniformity. Without it, Wikipedia would hardly look very professional, so going against it on the article level is folly.
For the record, I did not 'jump down a proposal's throat'. I merely suggested deciding Wikipedia style is not what one does on Talk:Objections to evolution. -- Ec5618 00:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Since I seem to have ignited this contretemps with my clumsiness and ignorance, please allow me to apologize again. I do not know the rules of WP very well yet and I do not want to do anything against the rules. However, I might note that sometimes the rules are not perfect, and they obviously have been evolving here for a while. People try things, and certain approaches catch on, and certain approaches are abandoned. One disagreeable feature that I have noticed, for example, is the urge to shove a large amount of extraneous information into the first sentence of the lead, including alternate birth and death dates, parental names, multiple names, titles, pronunciation guides, multiple translations and transliterations of the title (sometimes in 4 or 5 or more languages), multiple parenthetical remarks in sequence with no intervening text, and so on. In extreme cases, the first few lines of the LEAD are no longer even sentences or readable, just an incoherent string of material. When I have complained on the talk pages of the articles in question, and at the Village pump and on the MOS pages, I have been told uniformly; "it might be ugly for but it is not against the MOS." And some have claimed that it IS the approved style of WP to just have sentence fragments with no verbs and multiple languages and multiple parentheses such as
in the LEAD first sentence, and so on. And some have disagreed with me vehemently since it was either allowed in the MOS, or somehow mandated by the MOS (which I do not see, but if it is, then the MOS should be changed). So I do not think one has to worry excessively about the MOS. This is a free encyclopedia with evolving rules and protocols that anyone can edit, and anyone does edit it, with all kinds of results. This is not the Congressional Record or a paper in Nature or the Declaration of Independence. If we cannot experiment a little here and push the envelope here, where can it be done? I am not one for standing on formalities and tradition. If I was, I would never have gone into science, where one of the main things you have to know to be any good is, is that everything that came before you is potentially disposable. There are no sacred cows, because all of it is temporary. If a scientist was clever enough to come up with an alternative explanation that was more parsimonious and had greater explanatory power in any field, he would have done his job. But you cannot do that if you respect tradition too much, because to make progress, you have to replace what came before. You are always beating your brains to figure out why what they did before is a pile of crap and how you can do better. Of course, creationists read these efforts in the scientific literature and completely misinterpret the intentions and purposes. When I tell them that scientists are trying like crazy to find holes in evolution, they misunderstand. The creationists cannot believe that if scientists find a hole, that it is a very low probability event that evolution will be replaced with the Genesis account. The Genesis account has basically zero explanatory power and is not at all parsimonious. They fall into a strange way of thinking (due to basic ignorance) that if some aspect of the current theory of evolution falls, they only alternative is to invoke magic as causation. So anyway, I have rambled on but I again apologize; I do not want to break any cardinal rules here, but I think that it is not some vile sin to experiment and test the boundaries. At least I sure hope not.--Filll 04:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for responding to my request for comments on the GWB first term/second term "daughter" articles. As I say there in a response I posted this afternoon, your points are well-taken as general Wikipedia/biography principles, but I am afraid as applied to the particular situation there is a problem. It has to do with the type of daughter articles, not the fact of daughter articles. Not only are those articles just overlapping/redundant with what will and should be the main content of the GWB article, but to break up a two-term president's terms into separate encyclopedia articles does not make as much sense as treating domestic policy and foreign policy with more depth, or the Darwin or Chavez examples you gave, or Ike's military career and Ike's presidency -- see especially all the other GWB daughter articles that also exist as I just listed there. Please take a look at my recent response and the situation as a whole and think about it. Thanks.-JLSWiki 20:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Silence, I noticed you made an edit to the death article recently. Though this doesn't related directly to the article I was wondering how you feel the religious external links should be treated - should we have a selection of links relating to the most prominent religions, a link to a single page describing religious attitudes towards death and/or links to such pages, or should we simply leave the afterlife subject out of the EL section entirely? I haven't had any responses on the talk page so I'm interested in any feedback on the issue. Richard001 23:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
Hello, I dont really understand how this things work but when you moved Dharmic Religions to Religion - what happens to all the history and talk pages associated with the old page? Does that all move too or are they somewhere else. Regards, --Blacksun 10:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Silence, please be careful to do merges properly. You didn't undelete the old history after doing the move. I have restored the old history of over 300 edits. —Lowellian (reply) 01:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
