User talk:Filll/Archive 15

Smile (hows the mud)

Enternoted has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Did you check out the Nova documentary? I can't believe that they used the "Inherit the wind" footage so deceptively. Keep up the undercover work. Enternoted 05:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution talk page

Could you try to stop debating the creationists? That isn't what the talk page is for and only encourages them! :) Tim Vickers 16:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Tim, it's so hard to stop. And maybe, just maybe, we can convert one to the Evil Society of Darwinism. You just never know. :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wrestle with a pig, you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. Tim Vickers 17:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But sometimes I get bacon, ham, and some good spare ribs. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am torn here. I notice if we ignore them, they become emboldened and then start edit warring. Although on the other hand, it might be better to remove all their comments immediately from talk pages.--Filll 17:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advise to read the FAQ, direct to Google groups/TalkOrigins if they wish to discuss subject rather than specific comments about the article. That seems reasonably effective? Tim Vickers 23:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Threats, threats and more threats

YOU'RE not in the mood to play? Then stop playing, problem solved.Tstrobaugh 21:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem? Just relax and try to be civil. How many times do you have to be asked? What do you think your behavior looks like? You have been a productive editor on WP for a long time. Just try to behave in a more reasonable fashion. --Filll 21:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to have a discussion? Good. I have no problem. Why do you keep attacking me? Why did you move the discussion page? Please also explain to me what behavior I have exhibited that is not reasonable. You are the one who moved that page and said it was at my request, that seems like very unreasonable behavior to me. What am I doing that you dislike so much? Tstrobaugh 21:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will let others look at the evidence and take their advice. I have no idea what possessed a seemingly rational editor to behave in the manner I witnessed.--Filll 21:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whose advice did you take for the first strike[1] [2]? and why did you say it was at my request?Tstrobaugh 21:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you, Filll, that was very kind of you. For now, I'm going to move that into the hidden, HTML commented out section on my talk page, because I'd rather not draw any more attention to the incident; worried about WP:BEANS. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Anyone who proudly flaunts a 100 year old psychometric gauge has already discredited themselves.--Filll 01:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting subject, I don't know what reference to "100 year old" means, but I the test I took was developed in 1997, see:WAIS III. There is a science though called Historiometric which estimates IQ's of historical figures. As for "flaunting" that person is probably exhibiting Narcissism, for some help with dealing with one see: [3].Tstrobaugh 19:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Albert Smith (inventor)

Hi Filll,

I am confused as to why you reverted my edit on the George Albert Smith (inventor) article. The otherpersons template which I removed is intended to be placed on articles whose titles could refer to other articles. To add this template to all the articles that are listed on a given disambiguation page would be tedious and superfluous. It does not make sense for someone to type "George Albert Smith (inventor)" into the search bar when searching for any George Albert Smith other than the inventor. If you disagree, please explain your reasoning.

Thank you,

Neelix 16:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I guess that makes sense. Ok.--Filll 16:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dawkin's Video

Filll --- One of my students showed a video clip [4] of Dawkins where he has a pregnant pause before attempting to answer a question about increasing genetic content through mutations. I've read a few commentaries where he debunks the video as a "set-up" and a few from the producer who claims Dawkin's misrepresents the truth. Its an old issue that seems to have revived itself on AIG sites as well as you-Tube. Do you know if / where it was definitively decided either way. --Random Replicator 02:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, youtube videos are not the way science is done. However, I would use this as a teaching moment. The assorted videos are obviously doctored and there are allegations of looping to make the pause look longer than it was, similar to quote mining. I would ask the students to come up with 10 reasons why this video is a valid attack on evolution, and 10 reasons why this video is invalid as an attack on evolution. One can find copious amounts of material on this on all sides on the internet. Instead of looking at a video that proves nothing and might be faked in various ways, let them do some real thinking and investigation. There is a huge amount of this in the literature and on the internet. This would give them an opportunity to start thinking critically and investigating for themselves, instead of just taking some nonsense as factual and accepting it.--Filll 13:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aspen & Apse Heath

Hi, I've amended the wl for the specific name to Populus tremula as this is the aspen native to Europe. I must admit I hadn't realised that there were non-European aspens! DuncanHill 17:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Remember there is even a town called Aspen, Colorado. However, we do not call them aspens in Canada, but poplar trees, which is probably the wrong name).--Filll 17:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fascinating stuff, I must say I wouldn't normally call an aspen a type of poplar, tho' that is clearly what the botanists say. Did you see my reply at the Language Ref Desk? I found a couple of other Apsley/Aspley places, but they are in Beds, not the IOW. DuncanHill 17:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw your reply, thanks. It is interesting. I grew up calling these trees poplar trees (actually white populars, and there were black poplar trees as well, but I have no idea what these really are botanically). It was as big shock to see the aspens in the US and realize that they might be the same or closely related trees.--Filll 17:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

If you're going to archive talkpages in an effort to cut off trolls (which is an ambiguous proposition at best), could you please make sure you {{talkarchive}} it. The results of not doing so can be seen here, with the troll continuing to add comments to the archive. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I decided the page had become too long so I thought it needed to be archived. Of course, sometimes archiving can help with troll problems. I did not know about the notice and I will endeavor to use it from now on. Thanks.

I was going to cut and paste the last trolls comments on the main page, but I decided this is just more nonsense from someone who is clueless or just looking for a fight. "In the literature" is not a common phrase in academia? It gets something like 36 million hits on google, after all. The other stuff is just nonsense as well. Of course some quotes reference creationists and some describe evolution as fact and some as theory and some as fact and theory; so what? What nonsense..--Filll 17:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a well-known fact that the persistence of trolls is inversely proportional to the validity of their arguments. :P Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Needles

You're doing great work on the article, especially references. By any chance have you come across {{cite web}} and its friends for even better citations? They work inside <ref></ref> pairs very happily, too. Fiddle Faddle 19:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at that and many people have pushed me to use it. However, at least so far, I have not felt it was flexible enough for my purposes. I know that sounds lame, but oh well..--Filll 19:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that at first, then I forced myself to use it. Now I am a convert. What do you find inflexible? Fiddle Faddle 20:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps I should make a list of problems I have when I try it. I have tried it a few times and always abandoned it in frustration when I could not make it do what I wanted.--Filll 20:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a crack at one, where you used a sort of "double reference" within one, split it in 2 and deployed cite web. Happy to have your thoughts on flexibility or otherwise (this is pretty much the most basic use, btw). If I'm aropund I'm happy to offer help - I seem to have become quite "experienced" with it recently. Fiddle Faddle 20:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isle of Wight - bold - MOS

regarding your edit

I won't be reverting your edit mentioned above; I am just placing this note here to clarify why I bolded "Angel Radio" so it is less of a mystery ... in those cases where a redirect refers to a term in an article which is a subtopic or "has possibilities", I generally do bold that term as it has effectively the same status (semantically) as the main topic term (in this case "Isle of Wight"), which is bolded as part of the MOS. Based on my non-expert understanding of the MOS, I don't think this behavior is either encouraged or prevented. I think this is the first time I've seen a bolding I've put in place as part of this behavior reverted, but that's ok - there is a first time for everything. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure, but I would say the best approach to this is to make a separate article for Angel Radio.--Filll 14:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know?

Rather than the wikipedia project, this is a much more disappointing reference to this. WLU 06:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia gets longer and worse by the way?

Filll, I'm not an expert editor, I need help, I woudln't know where to start. It may be that I'll have to look for an administrator. I've seen in the past what kind of support you're usually asked for, and also it seems your editing and managing skills are useful in scientific issues. The premise is, I'm the biggest anti-smoking person. But this article seems to me to be trash, and it goes too far beyond its scope. Note, here already there's an article about health issues. Apparently, the one I'm pointing to you is the type of articles that attracts angry anti-anti-smoking. But the hard-core editors seem to me have gone too much beyond the scope of WP in defending it from such attacks. It is a pamphlet that, to me, seems to mix real facts with huge emotional resentment toward smoking. I'll give you an example of an edit that I had to modify that stood up quite for a while unchallenged (you should really read it in the way it sounded before my correction). I make a prediction that someone will remove that source now.
Worse still, recently an editor has destroyed the article completely. Here is his main contribution, but you should rather read here on the talk page where I comment on his changes. If I understand correctly, you muust have a very scientific approach, and you should undesrtand what I'm talking about. I'm furthest from being an anti-anti-smoker, but I feel habitual editors are really stretching this one too far, for my idea of what an encyclopedia is. It's not the place to fight social wars, however right they might be.
Curiosity. I recently found out (I don't know if you have access to the pdf here) that it is likely not smoking, but complete sedentary life as opposed to practising intense physical activity the first avoidable cause of death in western countries, and I so would like to see sedentary editors fight their altrustic editing war also there. --Gibbzmann 05:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Talk[reply]

I am not sure I can help, or how I can help. The best advice I can give you is to have multiple sources, and get them in the highest quality publications you can find.--Filll 12:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa

TS take it easy? OM is the combative one. "I owe you shit". Calling me a troll and my edits pov. Why are you singling me out? Turtlescrubber 00:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not keep pushing it. And edit warring. I sent him an email. --Filll 00:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring? I added a pov tag to the section on the page. He has reverted me without comment (other than calling my edits pov)and hasn't used the talk page on the article. If you are talking about his talk page, OM trying to hide an uncivil comment by calling me a troll and "banning" me from his page, this is unacceptable behavior. Turtlescrubber 00:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Men an Tol

Hi. I think it is OR & should be removed if a citation is not provided. I do not hold with ley lines anyway as the research is broadly against them and a balanced view is best anyway.Rosser 16:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion

Some people just love to implement 'the rules' no matter how useful something is. Someone will no doubt suggest that 'we' should send the article to Wikibooks and then they will find a reason for deleting it! I have added my comments. Rosser 23:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dominionism

Hi Filll. The Template:Dominionism TfD, on which you commented, has been closed with no consensus (default to keep). Although the TfD debate touched on several issues regarding the form the infobox should now take, much seems unresolved. I invite you to participate in further discussion on this topic. Thank you. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard d'Abrera

In case you hadn't noticed, we have an admin making substantial (and in my opinion problematic) edits on Bernard d'Abrera, based on a WP:OTRS complaint from d'Abrera himself. As the primary author of this article, I thought you might wish to weigh in on the subject on the article's talkpage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. This discussion has spread to WP:AN#Bernard d'Abrera. I'm signing off for a while, will take a look at the state of play in a few hours. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creationism talk thread

Hello, I deleted the unconstructive thread that anonymite had started on talk:creationism per WP:TALK. Just wanted to let you know the edit summary wasn't directed at you. :-) Kindest regards, AlphaEta 03:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weinberg

Last suggestion: I'm not sure about the "example approach" to Weinberg. So many complaints about it being too difficult to understand --- maybe it simply is. You could delete the part: Hypothetical: yada yada... or perhaps just delete Weinberg and the entire population genetics section.

I'm going to keep the fingers off the keyboard and allow the communal mind to mold it into something worthwhile. Maybe if I give it a rest others will be more willing to clean it up. The current edits by our English guru have certainly improved the article; it’s changed enough that I don't feel comfortable making edits in fear that I will distract from their positive contributions. Besides the questions they raised on the most recent list --- I don't know how to answer. I was pleased --- and somewhat proud --- of the rapid defense by the community in regards to the delete request. I just wish I had the skills to hit the GA status; no doubt with some effort it will eventually met the standard. I am delighted to have been part of the Wiki process. It has also been a pleasure working with you; your quick wit and effective prose have been a source of entertainment -- I’m thankful that I was always on your good side!!! All as a result of a wire in my wall. Well I'm going on a pro-longed Wiki-break; I need to spend more time watching Oprah --- all this thinking is damaging the brain, perhaps beyond repair. Take care friend--Random Replicator 22:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are making great progress and are so lucky to have a real English instructor working with us. I hope we can eventually all pull together and create something we can be proud of. I think that our English expert needs a huge barnstar for this effort!--Filll 21:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOR

I know you care about the policy. What do you think of my proposal to revise the second section (on the origins of the policy) in section 1 of the current talk page? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

		My RFA
		Thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 58 supports, 1 opposes, and 1 neutral. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified. Addhoc 19:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

on a certain recently blocked editor's page. Please reconsider your post and retract (remove) it - that's either kicking someone while they're down, or feeding the troll, and it can only exacerbate the situation. Thanks much - KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too late, I've removed it. I was just here to warn you for precisely the same reason William M. Connolley 21:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite correct. However, it was already gone when I went to remove it. I have dealt with a long string of flack from this same editor, but I should not antagonize him further.--Filll 21:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

I just wanted to invite you to my myspace page again to refute my polonium halos blog. /nothingwilldie I'm not trying to cause trouble. This is simply meant to be invitation to a friendly debate.EMSPhydeaux 23:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in debate. I am interested in peer-reviewed journals and confirmation by other scientists in peer-reviewed journals. And after a few years, your theories might get scientific consensus.--Filll 23:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOR comments

Hi Filll. I figured this part of my reply really isn't neccessary over on the NOR talk page. There's been quite a few insults flying back and forth from all side the last few days, as can be readily seen browsing through the page. Without looking, I think the one one you made about 3 or 4 editors trying to push their own agenda was wrong. I think that is what I termed "group 1", I think most people fall into "group 2", even a few people who started out as "group 3". Anyway, I also will apologize, as I myself have been guilty of making snide or otherwise sarcastic remarks, getting so flustered there. One person that I've seen the edits,e tc. of that really surprised me was FeloniousMonk. Just two "I oppose" comments on different days without any further explanation of why he was ooposed, leaving the impression that he was just opposed to any change, no matter what or why. In some cases like this, I think perhaps people (myself included) start associating what we see as non-constructive or even insulting comments as all coming from the same group, and begin to associate everybody we've arbitrarily placed in that group the same. I am sorry for doing so, and look forward to working out some sort of compromise whereby (most) everybody can be happy. wbfergus^Talk 14:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOR

Well, we have had our disagreements in the past, but I have to tell you: I am so grateful you are involved in the NOR discussion right now. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting to lose patience with WAS 4.250, which is a bad thing. Am I misinterpreting him? Am I being unfair? I would appreciate it if you would comment on this exchange. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment#Homeopathy

This is a note to inform you that the article on Homeopathy has been listed at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment for review to see if it still meets the Good Article Criteria. Editors are encouraged to comment on this nomination and reach consensus on the specific concerns raised by reviewers. Tim Vickers 22:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New try at homeopathy intro

To all involved: please see "My two cents" edit of homeopathy intro here

Friarslantern 22:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote mining

I'm interested to hear your take on this article. Carbon Monoxide 01:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs work, but it is a very valid topic and the material should be edited, and expanded, not deleted.--Filll 01:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a major POV problem, clearly attacking creationists. I agree with you, it's a valid topic, but it needs serious neutral point of view work. Carbon Monoxide 01:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

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 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 21:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creationism

Thank you for your recent message regarding Creationism. However I am completely at a loss as to why you think I am "undoing other people's edits". In fact an edit of mine, which I explained on the talk page, was 'undone' without explanation. I also think classing two edits as an "edit war" is over the top. I would welcome your explanation. Thank you. 199.71.183.2 16:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, Fill, as is often the case with self-examination of behavior, and especially among Wikipedia editors, you're a dick to 199.71.183.2. 66.71.75.149 22:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Denialism?

What's "denialism", and what does it have to do with me? Badgerpatrol 16:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Maybe I am mistaken. I will check.--Filll 16:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. My apologies.--Filll 16:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, apology appreciated in and taken in good faith. Thank you. I thought you were suggesting that I was in denial about something, which, apart from perhaps denial over my rapidly receding hairline, I think I'm pretty much safe from. That kind of makes my point- good faith mistakes and misunderstandings do happen sometimes. It's best to discuss things civilly to clarify things rather than making assumptions and assuming bad faith when there isn't any. As for your other points...a) I'm happy to discuss, as a geologist, any concerns about my judgement you may have over --Cretaceous Boundary Extinction Event]] (which I assume is the article you're talking about). I like discussing geology (most of the time). In fact, no-one ever actually discussed any of the substantive points that I made. Instead things just descended into an escalating series of attacks on me which certainly stressed me out and it seems had a negative effect on you too. It's just silly, it's unnecesary, and it helps no-one. b) I'm not sure what you mean with regard to admin privileges. I'm not an admin, have never been, and thus am not in a position to abuse privileges that I don't have. c) I didn't accuse anyone of being a sockpuppet, that is not what I was driving at at all. I've clarified this elsewhere. Badgerpatrol 16:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had you confused with someone else who was also at the K-T boundary article. There have been several there over the months who came in professing deep knowledge but never contributed anything more than criticisms. We are not subject matter experts. If someone who is a subject matter expert, or professes to be, wants to fix the putative numerous problems in that article, they are free to do so. I just want someone who is an expert to fix the problems instead of demanding that nonexperts fix the problems. Which happened at least 4 times I know of. If experts want to split these hairs, that is fine. It is up to them, not those of us in the hoi polloi.--Filll 17:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do take your point- but in the case of an FA review, it is kind of the point to flag issues with an article. There are two purposes to an FA candidacy- to flag issues for immediate improvement, and to ultimately decide whether the article, at that point, is of sufficient quality to become a featured article. Sometimes problems can't be fixed overnight, even by those with "expert" (a word I hate) knowledge- but that surely doesn't mean that they should go unmentioned. Good faith criticism of the article should not be conflated with criticism of the author. I should also point out that I did make quite a few edits to that article, and I intend to make quite a few more, provided the behavioural climate remains stable. Anyway, the events of that particular FAC are in the past. Thanks for discussing this civilly, it is much appreciated. Badgerpatrol 17:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irreducible complexity

One of the references you added to Irreducible complexity is generating an error. Also I disapprove of pandering to a troll's demands for multiple references for a perfectly ordinary (not extraordinary) claim. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to resist and finally I decided after almost a week of this to give in. I tried to fix the reference. HOpefully this will plug that hole.--Filll 16:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)Sometimes that's what it takes to shut them up. If being buried in good solid, clear references, doesn't satisfy them, and they continue to demand shrubberies, then so much the worse for them. – ornis ⚙ 17:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The feeding with additional references seems to have left the troll undiminished vocally. ;) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. At least our proverbials are well covered. ;) – ornis ⚙ 22:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When we slowly boilerplate our articles with this, we leave trolls and POV warriors less chance to cause chaos and make inroads. They basically just move on. If I compare the situation at evolution now with a year or so ago, there is now far less vandalism and attacks by trolls and POV warriors at evolution. I think that intelligent design will eventually also be far more impervious as we put more mechanisms in place to deflect trouble. We are just arming ourselves against attack.--Filll 22:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expelled

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed work