User talk:Filll/Archive 2

Arafat

How you doing, i see it's my first post? Go on talk page and see, some people need some changes done, hopefully others will agree, it makes sense to write about jerusalem birth in the beginning, not at the end.

Isle of Wight Rubbish

Interesting proposal and thanks for asking my views. This information is already available at iwight.com, and does change now and again. It's unlikely to be useful to anyone unless the actually live at the location concerned. I don't think it's notable. Wikipedia is not a directory. Note also that in England we say 'rubbish' not 'trash'. All the best Naturenet | Talk 08:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd use German, but only I'm afraid it's become somewhat rusty.--Albinomite 18:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you think this means?

I wonder what this means? Something about the Black people article probably. J'inciterai le jour prochain un vote de direction à la page "noire," ta presence sera absolument nécessaire, au même que l'apparition des autres (L. et M. inclus).--Albinomite 20:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC) from User talk:LaBotadeFranco. autotranslation: I will incite the next day a direction vote to the page "black," your presence will be absolutely necessary, to the even that the appearance of the others (L. and Mr. include).[1] Possibly they are hoping to get a "vote" to move the page to their prefered title. Should we report this as meatpuppetry? Alun 20:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do either. On the one hand I'm considering applying for an request for investigation, on the other I don't think they really know what they are doing. I don't get the impression that they have any idea how robust wikipedia's administration is, or how difficult it is to keep changes once they have been made if the changes are against consensus. I have my suspicions about meatpuppetry, lots of new users all with the same "agenda" appearing at the same time. The change of the article title was certainly provocative, but I wonder if they had any idea what they were doing? As far as I can tell they haven't done anything really wrong, made a few "newbie" mistakes like trying to use vandalism "warns" inappropriately etc. I'm relatively unconcerned, I don't think they can do any long term damage, any major changes will soon get reverted. Even if they try to "force" some sort of "vote" for a change in article name they are likely not to succeed, a consensus is not a simple majority, and votes on wikipedia are usually open for about a week or so. I don't think there is likely to be any sort of majority for a change in article name and massive voting by new users is suspicious enough to warrant investigation. There are already enough strange messages on the respective talk pages for an investigation if there is a major attempt to change the article. They certainly seem to have some sort of racialist agenda. I'm of the opinion that we continue as normal and just keep an eye on them. I'm sure they are doing the same to me and will read this message. It's good that they know that we can watch each other, nothing is secret here. We can always refer for an RFI if there are any problems. Likely they will get bored soon enough when they realise that it's just impossible to impose a single POV onto an article. Articles can only ever change through consensus, there's just too many people ready to revert any POV pushing. They seem to have realised now that intimidation doesn't work, and what are fascists when they can't be bullies? Alun 21:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Albinomite has made 30 edits, not one to an article mainspace, all to talk pages.[2]

User:LaBotadeFranco (falangist stuff on user page) has made 39 edits, none to an article mainspace, all to talk pages.[3]

User:Balino-Antimod (Jean Marie Le Pen on his user page) has made 50 edits, four to an article mainspace (3 to Black people, 1 to White people).[4]

Considering these people claim not to be racists it seems odd that they are exclusively concerned with the Black people ans White people articles. I don't understand why they are not more interested in improving the articles about their political ideologies and the people involved therein. Alun 21:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Bring this issue to ANI. It's about time.

The correct translation of the French text is actually (I think): I will incite the next day a direction vote in the page "black," your presence will be absolutely necessary, the same that the appearance of the others (L. and Mr. included).

In my understanding these people are clearly coordinated outside of Wikipedia and are making an assault with an ideologically defined agenda. Or so it seems form the text and the more than apparent relations between Albinomite, LaBota and Baliño (see the PAIN case against Baliño, aka Balino-Antimod). --Sugaar 02:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Filll don't let yourself be unduly alarmed by these kooks, if you have any questions come to us will answer satisfactorily any of your doubts as to our intentions which are really the same as yours, to make the articles the best and most veridical they can be.Cheers--LaBotadeFranco 03:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil, there's no need to call anyone else names. If your intentions are as you claim then I fail to understand the secrecy, or the apparent conspiracies regarding the Black people and the machismo articles, maybe it's in the nature of fascists to be furtive and you are good faith editors, I hope so. If you are good faith editors then we all welcome you. Alun 06:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Black people

Take a look at the edit that Albinomite made.[5] I reverted it but now they are talking about getting a "quorum" and having a "vote" on the article.[6] It's just what I said would happen yesterday. Well let's wait and see. Cheers, Alun 13:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I think your comment here really hit the nail on the head in an elegantly simple way. Keep it up! Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Swahili Translations of Frère Jacques

Unfortunately, I was only ever taught this song orally from my mother. I can only describe its sounds since I don't know any romanized Swahili. I haven't found anything close to my version on the net.

UPDATE: I found in a Swahili dictionary that a word for "brother" is ndugu, which is DEFINITELY in the song I know. That helps a little! (It at least means that my version is actually Swahili and not another language used in Kenya.)

--Earthsprite 05:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Evolution

Bonjour. You are my hero. Your understanding of some of the BS foisted onto our consciousness by the Religious Creationists is outstanding. I'm using some of your arguments with the Christian lunatics who seem to surround me. I'm so glad I'm Jewish, but I wish I could just ignore this argument. But I'm a scientist too, and when I heard what they were teaching my son in high school, I nearly thought about using some natural selection on my son's "biology" teacher. He got reprimanded for teaching religion in a class that was probably 25% Jewish. Idiot, but that's what I've come to expect of the deranged Christian Right. Yeah, I'm a little angry about these people. Muslim fanatics and Christians fanatics--both killed my people over the centuries, both suppress Democracy, and both sound exactly alike. I feel better now  :) OrangeMarlin 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I Alun, award you Filll, this Barnstar, in recognition of your patience and understanding, and general common sense on the Black people talk page. You probably deserve about ten. Keep up the good work. Alun 19:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Your Accusations

I consider your accusations here [7] , here [8] , here [9] , here [10] and here [11] to be baseless. While it's possible that you've misunderstood me, given the frequency of your accusations, I find it hard to have good faith. I request that in future, you give direct quotes from me instead of trying to relay my views yourself. Thanks...Lukas19 00:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• ex:

you: "And you said anyone who did not believe in genetically determined racial boundaries was stupid and ignorant." [12]

me: "Saying that race is a myth is IGNORANT and STUPID"[13] Lukas19 00:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• ex2:

you: "He claimed that the authors of the article that did not support his position were incompetent and did not know the literature as well as he did (even though this was a Nature publication and came after the paper which supported his position)." [14]

me: "It should be also noted that the article which you say supports you DOES NOT consider about Edwards' claims." [15]

• ex3:

you: "When I admitted a mistake, he attacked me as stupid however." [16]

me: "Dont blame the page. It was your own stupid mistake. Especially considering that quotes were written between huge purple wiki-quotes, it was easy to spot. I directed you to it several times and you kept missing it and answering with sarcastic comments which became much more ironic after your admission." [17] Lukas19 00:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem here, is you believe I am interacting only with you on the talk page. Not at all true. Just look at the page. My comments are not all directed at you. And even in trying to find the section I missed, and referring to "the material above", I was not referring to anything you had contributed because I had not found it. But somehow you are so thin skinned that you took it that way.--Filll 00:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant. All links here, in this section refer to me. Lukas19 00:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Lukas19, you are the one issuing baseless warnings to every one who disagrees with your narrow point of view --- Skapur 00:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Notice

I have warned Lukas19 against harassment and advised him to follow WP:DR if he feels it is indicated. I now advise you to not encourage or respond to him. Please let me know on my talk page if he continues to harass. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

About Thulean/Lukas

I have had some problems with him. He seems to think that anyone who disagrees with him is "personally attacking" him, and threatens them. He has also issued "vandlism" warnings for content disputes. I think that because he got Sugaar blocked (and I though this block was totally unjustified) he thinks he can go arround trying to intimidate people at will. He seems to have gone very quiet on my talk page where I have confronted him with his spurious use of "warns". Personally I think he is trying to push a racialist POV and I have told him that, which of course he took as a "personal attack", but he uses genetic data from biomedical research papers that split people into "racial populations" constantly on certain articles, I have never seem him use other papers that contradict the concept of "race" from a genetic point of view, and papers giving this alternative point of view do exist. Because he never gives this alternative point of view I think I an justified in saying he is pushing a certain POV, while ignoring another POV that he doesn't agree with. So I think I'm on quite safe ground. Anyway let's see what he does next. Alun 07:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My advise

I have replied earlier in my own talk page to your comment on this user, formerly called Thulean, but I want to make a wider comment here.

I did got a quite unjustified block because of this user's wikilawyering and I am right now preparing to go to ArbCom about it (once the relevant administrator is back from her wikistress leave). Right now I feel I'm stepping in too muddy ground and I don't feel safe enough to start "legal action" against (as some seem to consider me somewhat controversial after his harassment and want to clear my name first).

But I'd like to help you if you think it's the proper thing to do. So far I have recopilated the following guidelines and essays that his behaviour breaches (aditionally he does breaches policies as civility and NPA in his speech rather often but most people just ignore those attacks). Guidelines are considered almost as high as policies and users must or should abide to them, essays are not so enforceable but they are often a reference point.

• Harassment (guideline): Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target. The purpose could be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely, for instance by placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page.
• Disruptive editing (guideline): A disruptive editor is an editor who:
  • Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.

(...)

• • Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.
  • In addition, such editors may campaign to drive away productive contributors: violate other policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.
• Consensus (guideline).
• Son't be a dick (guideline): Honestly examine your motivations. Are you here to contribute and make the project good? Or is your goal really to find fault, get your views across, or be the one in control? Perhaps secretly inside you even enjoy the thrill of a little confrontation. This may not make you a bad person, but to everyone who is busily trying to build something great, you become an impediment. People get frustrated, rancor ensues, the atmosphere changes, and the whole project suffers. Are you here to give, or to take?
• Wikilawyering (essay), defined as:

1. Using formal legal terms inappropriately regarding Wikipedia policy.

2. Breaking the spirit of a policy or guideline through sticking to a too-literal interpretation of the letter thereof.

3. Asserting that technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express.

4. Hiding behind misinterpretations or technicalities of policy to justify inappropriate actions.

• Single purpose account (essay): not very helpful but useful to illustrate what this user and other associated characters are.

Aditionally, I have gathered all the PA related warning diffs issued by Thulean/Lukas19 to the different users that he seems to consider obstacles in his way. They are: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]. I have excluded all those isued to LSLM (who actually tends to go too far and doesn't seem to be able to change the discourse to a more civil level) and those issued against me as well (as I was unaware of some subtleties of NPA when he issued them). I don't know about a couple of users but the rest seem to me very clean ones. Still at least Psychohistorian seems to have accumulated enough wikistress as to leave the White people article, the same I had to do.

As the case is not a black and white case, I'd suggest getting help from an advocate. I also suggest you to be very clearly in the right side of civility. I suspect that by now most sysops are already aware of this person's tactics (as I had to protest quite a bit here and there and all are not just plain blind) so you are probably in safe ground, but still just be cautious and don't let yourself carry away by his provocations.

It's probably best to start with a request for comment on his behaviour, I believe. Sadly, I fear I am not stepping on solid enough ground right now, so I won't be the one initiating it. Mediation in this case is really useless, as we are talking of a behavioural pattern, not a particular conflict.

If you need anything, just ask (you can also use email, if you wish, available for all email-able wikipedians). Regards, --Sugaar 12:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You've done a great deal of work compiling all this - may I suggest Rfc rather than advocacy as your venue for presenting this information? KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said before I am not going to be the one starting such RfC, because I still have to solve the issue of the unjust block I got (and that is waiting for the responsible admin to return from vacations and, as it must go via ArbCom at this stage, it may take months). While this issue remains open, I feel I could be stepping very unsure ground taking any action re. Thulean/Lukas19 (unless in dire need). Also I said I would try to disengage and I am a reasonably honrable person who tries to keep his word. But I will be willing to help others to do it, and in fact it's what I'm suggesting Fill to do, as (s)he asked for my opinion.

The idea of asking help from an advocate is untested terrain for me, just a suggestion. Personally I'm studying to become an AMA member when this chapter is closed, hopefully for good. Aditionally I'd suggest Addhoc as advocate because he's already had some touch with the case in the RfC on me and should have an idea on what's the problem by now.

I have learnt a couple of things from all this problem, and I'm still learning. I hope they can be useful, not just for me but for other editors of good will and Wikipedia as a whole. --Sugaar 14:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Beware friend, Sugaar is a rabid Basque communist and he's not even pure Basque.--4.245.251.108 17:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

British census

I was looking at the section on the Black people talk page about the British census, and the statement that was made to the effect that Black Other only applies to people of recent African descent is not supported by the BBC article quoted, as far as I can see. I don't understand why this claim is being made. Can you see anywhere in this BBC article that supports Whatdoyou's assertion? [30] On the British census form anyone who identifies as Black can respond as Black Other if they feel that Black African or Black Caribbean does not fit their identity. I can find no information that contradicts this, no mention of this is made at all in the BBC article and I've read it three times now. So where does this come from? Alun 07:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Lead

Thanks for the response. Here is the template {{LEAD}}. SlimVirgin made a very important point since slapping this tag on an article can scare new editors, and I think we should discuss the issue of the terms of its use fully. Articles tagged with this template fall into the Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup. So far none of the articles I have tagged have recieved a negative reponse though some have been reverted. I propose to start a wikiproject to deal with the problem on the whole, please sign your support here [31]. I would also like to propose a comprehensive rewrite of WP:LEAD since the present draft is not very instructional the way it is organised now. Clear guidelines should be set out in the body. FrummerThanThou 15:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for joining! FrummerThanThou 17:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Black

Thanks for the message. I do feel strongly that the actual "Black people" article should be inclusive. It really is not very clear how many people truly oppose this, since Editingoprah, Kobrakid and Whatdoyoudo all seem to be one individual with an obsssive POV. I know other identities have been created, e.g. "user:Outsideopinion" during an Arbitration dispute. Paul B 14:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Black people

As I said before, I really appreciate your attempt to bring reason to the Black people article. It seems to me that you are one of the few that has even come close to bridging the dispute. I am optimistic, I believe that the article will one day in the near future become a good article. I don't think the disparity between my opinion and those of others is that different, but just that we misunderstanding each other. --Ezeu 21:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Iagree, let's go for disruptive editing. What do you think? My patience is worn out. I don't know how to ay it in any other way. I have several times stated that they need to accept other POVs even if they don't agree with them. We have accepted their POV, but this doesn't seem to be enough for them. It's their POV or nothing. I am increasingly against a seperate article, we have a African diaspora article, they would just be replicating this one. User:Halaqah has already stated he will RfD any new pages created and I will support him in this. Lets have an RfC if you prefer, but I think there is enough evidence for a complaint about disruptive editing myself. I'm really angry at the moment, though I know losing my temper won't help. Alun 16:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like we have done everything on the list up to the "RFC" part. It might help if we would formulate something. I can set up a space where we won't have our draft hacked apart, I think. P0M 00:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Caption

We need a title for the bird :)I'm liking the format and pictures. Can we move the picture of the bones from the below to the comparative anatomy section. It would be perfect at the bottom of that section. --Random Replicator 21:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC) No I take that back .... we need a picture of forelimbs ... cat dog whale whate ever ... we can change the ames in the text to match the picture!!! --Random Replicator 21:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

lol ... your more diplomatic than I; perhaps we are beneath their consideration. A list of 40 web links is not my idea of help; I was thinking that they may know some readable text introducing the general public to evolution. Oh well --Random Replicator 01:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Black people (ethnicity)

Hi Fill. Thanks for your support. Perhaps it's my North American bias but I do feel that the African only definition of black is extremely prevalent and most certainly notable enough to be its own article. To me it's totally obvious that the label black has evolved to mean something far more than color, it now refers much more to a specific ancestry, an ethnicity, and this is a topic in its own right. But for reasons I do not fully understand, this opinion is extremely controversial among editors of all ethnicities and colors. Disagreement I can understand, but the depth and breadth of the opposition has been quite startling to me. There seems to be an effort to strip the word black of its ethnic meaning and reduce to it a simplistic "You either have dark skin or you have light skin" dichotomy that I find frankly boring. They'll allow a certain amount of quotes from those who equate Blackness with African ancestry, but they're not willing to legitimize this ethnicity with its own article, unique and separate from a broader oversimplified article on dark skinned people in general (unless we use a name other than black such as African people). But perhaps as a North American of African descent, I'm the one who is being biased. Perhaps Australian aboriginals and dark skinned Southern Asians have an enormous desire to be called black, perhaps it's a huge part of their culture too, and perhaps they feel people like me are kicking them out of the black category. But based on what editors reveal about their backgrounds, those aren't the people who are complaining the loudest. Maybe others feel the need to complain on their behalf (which is nice, but a bit presumptuous) and certainly some African-Americans would like to use the word black to bond with all dark skinned groups (not African descendents only). Fair enough, but never make the mistake of thinking the views that dominate wikipedia represent the world at large (or even a significant part of it). So many of the people these articles attract are those with very strong views, so just because the majority of wikipedia thinks I'm crazy to claim the term black excludes those of non-African descent, does not mean the majority of the world would disagree with me (though they might, haven't done a poll)

But editors like you give me faith that common sense and rationality can prevail in wikipedia. You don't have a strong opinion either way and are intelligent enough to argue both sides, and appear to have no agenda other than what's best for the article(s). Your smart enough to see the issue from everyone's perspective. It's very rare to have someone so objective, capable, and open-minded give so much of their time to promoting harmonious discourse, resolving disputes, and expressing good ideas. Timelist 08:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Intro to evolution

Really pleased with the way this is working out. (1) It's turning into a good article. (2) It's a great example of cooperative effort. Keep up the good work! Snalwibma 09:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

ahhhhhhh 10:23 AM EST like the picture format at that moment in the morphology section. Perfect.

Intro to genetics

Ah, now I understand. Sounds like a good idea! DMacks 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.

Thanks! --Vox Causa 22:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I kind of like this separate-intro idea for the evolution article, but do you really think gene and genetics need it? Neither article is (or should be) particularly technical to begin with, so I'm afraid that providing yet another intro veers into the realm of making us a textbook rather than a reference work. I've done some reorganization of gene lately as part of the science collaboration, but haven't done much on the lead; maybe it would be better to rework the lead of that article instead. Opabinia regalis 02:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you're giving the 'average reader' enough credit here - I think most people have at least a simplistic understanding of what a gene is, what DNA is, etc. These are the people gene should already be targeted to - those who know what the words mean but don't know the details. Most of these are explained in the text anyway, and there are wikilinks for more information. I understand that evolution could use a simplified introduction since it is a rather detailed article on a very commonly misunderstood topic, but this scheme seems unnecessary for a subject whose article is already targeting an audience with little prior knowledge of the subject. It just seems like an unnecessary duplication of effort, and extra work to keep the two consistent. Opabinia regalis 05:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with you that the articles absolutely should be accessible; I'm questioning the implementation. Gene and genetics do not have the same problems confronting evolution or any of the physics articles that have corresponding introductions - gene and genetics aren't already so long that adding more introductory material is problematic, they aren't trying to be technical articles, and they aren't in nearly as polished a state as the main body of any of the others. If gene and genetics are unreadable to educated non-biologists, then those articles need editing (well, they both need editing for a lot of other reasons too); having to maintain an additional fork is just... more to maintain. These two articles certainly ought to be accessible to a high school student in a biology class, much less a professional physicist. In particular, there's no need in these cases to cover such a broad base; it's fair to assume that nearly all of the readers will be newcomers to the subject, and write for that level. Bio postdocs don't read Wikipedia articles on genes. If you really want to do this, more power to you, but having two half-finished articles on the same subject isn't as good as one that's been solidly edited for accessibility and clarity - my suggestion is still to work on fixing gene and genetics themselves instead.

(As an aside, I entirely share your sentiments regarding pre-med students attempting to do math :) But I disagree that biologists are obfuscating their subject with unnecessary jargon out of some kind of physics envy; if anything, the current practice of biology is not quantitative enough, and too easily satisfied with poor statistics.) Opabinia regalis 08:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I tend to think in terms of "textbook". Which may be a weakness in the Wikipedia world. In regards to the Genetics article, in general. It seems to be so multi-directional, as to be nearly useless. Personally, I would have followed the classic textbook lead and "taught" tools for calculating probabilities, use of the Punnet square, mathematical alternatives, various types of gene "problems" such as sex-linked, dihybrid, pleotrophy, epistasis, ect ect ect ... Themes typical of a course in Genetics as opposed to devoting two or three paragraphs to covering the history of the term "Genetics". I guess my point is, if you wrote a synopsis of what you thought the readers should go away with after reading an article on Genetics ... what would it say? a mission statement? I'm inclined to agree that an alternative intro article similar to evo intro, may not be the best solution in this case, rather, more focus in the main article would better serve. Is there a strong sense of ownership to this one as clearly is the case on the evolution entry? --Random Replicator 15:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you see wikepedia as tool for information or a tool for instruction? This is not a challenge question, but an honest effort to understand the editors role. There is a difference between the two in regards to the style of writing. At first it may seem subtle, but in fact it may be the root of the problem in the editing wars. I'm thinking in terms of how would /should one go about attacking the Genetics Entry.--Random Replicator 19:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

RR - both genetics and gene have been dormant and un-maintained for a long time now, and are desperately in need of reworking. So no, there's no existing polished text, and no one defending it. (Evolution is already an FA, and requires constant maintenance to keep it from filling up with nonsense, hence the challenge in making substantial changes.) Having just looked at it, genetics is abominable, and gene is only somewhat better (I like to think it's at least better than it was last week, but it's certainly unfinished.)

On textbooks - that's what wikibooks is for. (See also the related wikiversity project.) IMO, we're a reference work first. Obviously, articles should be readable by people who are not already experts in their subjects (otherwise what are they for?) but should not be overly didactic. Things like instructional examples and deliberately pedagogical writing should go on one of those projects - both of which are newer than Wikipedia itself and could use more contributors dedicated to the production of educational material. Opabinia regalis 05:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Genetics glossary?

I had this idea this morning - since the main point of the introduction to genetics article so far, and the biggest reason for its existence, is the excess of jargon/definitions in gene and genetics, maybe what we really need is a genetics glossary along the lines of the topology glossary or the glossary of ballet. Though what I'm envisioning has fewer terms than either of these two, with more explication of each. That would cut down on the need to click through multiple wikilinks to define an unfamiliar term without introducing large amounts of extraneous text to maintain. The default could even be to open the glossary in a separate small window for easy reference (something I've done before with similar web content, though I'm not sure it's possible to enforce within MediaWiki.) Opabinia regalis 05:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant idea! :D Perhaps one could put a link to it in the lead, which by default would open a new window? IIRC, you can set that behavior in the HTML itself, although I forget how exactly. If it works, we could add analogous glossaries throughout molecular biology and biochemistry, and other fields fraught with technical terms. You could even imagine a special glossary page for each article, perhaps stored as a sub-page; that way, readers might not have to fish as much for terms in fields with lots of terminology. :) Willow 15:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to seed the genetics glossary with some basic terms tomorrow. Filll, maybe you want to copy the definitions you wrote in the intro as starting material? It would be useful if someone had a textbook on hand written for high schoolers, which could give some good clues about how best to explain certain interrelationships.

I think having a glossary for each page would start the same unmaintainability problem that comes up with the intro article - the glossary corresponding to molecular genetics would get out of sync with the one for genetics, someone would make a change to the one on DNA, the evolution one would get vandalized... etc. The genetics glossary could be linked to from a large number of these articles, though - certainly helpful from gene, genetics, genome, molecular genetics, Mendelian inheritance, etc. One central page also has the advantage of being able to retarget a reader from a page that's almost what he's looking for to a more appropriate one (eg, someone looking for genetics who found himself at gene instead, or who confused RNA and DNA).

On the popup thing - in html it's just the attribute "target=new" or "target=blank" in the href tag, but obviously that doesn't work with wikilinks, and static-linking another wiki page is asking for trouble. Since accessibility is such a goal in the MediaWiki design, forcing a new window may not actually be possible. I think I've seen a template system somewhere around that put useful info about a link in the corresponding tooltip (the yellow box that pops up if you hover the mouse over a wikilink, by default displays just the title of the target page), but that may not be optimal either, since you can't put additional wikilinks there. Maybe the best bet is just some text with the glossary link suggesting that the best way to use it is to open it in a new window. Opabinia regalis 06:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I see the problem, but how about this idea? There could be one master glossary file, but individual terms could be transcluded from it so that only the relevant definitions appear on the local subpage? That way, only one file of teminology definitions would have to be maintained, but the local glossary could be focused for each article. The code for doing that might not exist now, but do you think it's even worth striving for? Willow 17:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought when writing the previous reply about storing each definition as its own template and only transcluding the ones you want on a series of glossary pages, but that just moves the maintainability problem to dozens (hundreds?) of individual templates... Willow, your idea makes me think of a glossary file that is itself a template, which takes as parameters the terms you want to include on a given page, and which is transcluded on the local page. Does that sound something like what you had in mind? I think you're more knowledgeable about template specifics than I am.

See genetics glossary for a short mockup with a few basic terms. The format was pretty much stolen from topology glossary, with the addition of the internal linking. Once the glossary has a little more content, maybe we can play around with the formatting/template arrangement more. Even with the above master list idea, I'm not sure how to implement an article-specific glossary without articlespace subpages, unless there's a way to capture the referer article on the glossary page and adjust the content accordingly. (That might be too complex; I can't think of a good way to do that either. But I'm at least a year out of date on cool MediaWiki features.) Opabinia regalis 02:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Followup: Willow made a nice little collapsible template for a glossary that could be unobtrusively in an article but could expand to accomodate readers' interest in individual terms. See here for a test page - I don't think I like the placement yet, but haven't been able to get it to stay under the upper-right image either. Anyway, what do you think of this idea? Opabinia regalis 04:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow it is amazing. Very neat. I like it. I do not know how she made it but it is impressive as all get out. This is a brilliant idea and it looks very good. I can imagine this could be very handy.--Filll 04:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Evolution

Filll, with all respect, have you read the introduction I replaced? I quoted a bit of it on the talk page. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Quite. Point taken. Perhaps we could lose the unchanged paragraphs from the old Introduction secion, particularly the one dealing with the history from Darwin to the modern synthesis - knowledge of that isn't actually all that important to understanding evolution. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fact vs. Theory

I'm confused by your edits. It seems like Section 3 is a repeat of Section 1, just with a different word order.

Do you think we could take the gist of Section 3 and combine it into 1? OrangeMarlin 00:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

We must be editing over each other. OrangeMarlin 01:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I"m having an odd problem. What I see in the edit page is NOT what I see in the saved page. What am I doing wrong?OrangeMarlin 01:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Slow servers? And this message system sucks!!!OrangeMarlin 01:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes they also have IRC but I have never managed to make IRC work properly. So I do not bother.--Filll 01:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm continuing to have an editing problem. When I click on the edit button, what shows up in the edit field is not what I'm seeing on the final page. Is there some coding that I'm missing?OrangeMarlin 18:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, what you're seeing results from the page not being updated by the time it is displayed to you. A reload of the page will fix this. Some kinds of changes require a hard reload, which is Ctl+Shift+R. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

My color choice would be red or blue on white.OrangeMarlin 19:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Cusack

The article is now at User:Filll/Peter Cusack. Please let me know when you think the article has been improved and sourced enough for move into mainspace. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Your difficulties with deletion

I read on Puppy's page where you had a problem with understanding all the complexities of deletion. I'm trying to write an article to explain the whole process better to new users, and the article can be found here. Keeping in mind your recent problems, would you be willing to read it and give me a little feedback, please? Even if you don't, maybe reading it will help clear up some issues for you. Thanks. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 04:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually planned a second article covering undeletion. The length is unfortunate, since deletion is a complex topic. I wonder if shortening it would be useful. I will go ahead and start the undeletion article today as well, I think. Thank you so much for your comments! They were very useful. If you did wish to work on this yourself, I would be pleased. :) --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 13:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Fact vs. Theory

Frankly, given what's there (I don't like sections that are just quotes from other people), I'd support any of them. However, a shortened version seems more appropriate for the main articles, with a link to the full-length one. The Gravity vs. Evolution table would make a nice addendum. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've also added a bit more commentary on your lead for Evolution. I deconstructed a bit of it to show why I disliked it, but please don't take it personally. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest citing the Gould (and anyone else you care to) to show it's not a meta analysis. By citing Gould, you show that you aren't just combining things, which removes the calls for deletion. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Aye, but the reason they put that proposed deletion up was because they didn't realise there were so many articles like that. Methinks this article is one that almost needs fairly strong citation from the start, to prove our right to do it. On the other hand, it's a very well done article, so with the citations you're going to have a nice quick GA =) Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I remain stupefied as to why we are discussing fact vs. theory in this way. To me, it does service to the cause (LOL) to have a cogent, readable and ultimately understandable elucidation of fact vs. theory, scientific reasoning and real-life examples. Too much has been made of the "Theory of Evolution" crapola. Why is this such a battle? And why this worshipping at the temple of Gould? Again, I respect the man. But he talks way over the head of most Americans (not even going to dignify that comment too much).OrangeMarlin 00:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I think a big part of the problem is with the idea that seems to have arisen (whether from the Gould quote or elsewhere) that "fact" == "that from which it would be perverse to withold assent". A well-established theory may satisfy the second part of that equation, but it still isn't a fact - unless we abuse the language. (0330 here, will be off to bed. Perhaps I'll be more coherent in the morning). Tevildo 03:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I still don't like what I'm reading with regards to the section. I like what we did on that talk page you set up. We described what is a fact and what is a theory. We gave real-world examples (I mean who can argue with gravity?). It was clear and concise. Quote Hawking is fine, but I'd like to see it. I'm frustrated with this. I'm thinking that a couple of the players believe that they've written the best piece ever, and are reluctant to change. Dogma is never good! By the way, what is your background that you know this stuff so well? OrangeMarlin 19:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Caucasian vs. white

In response your comment on my talk page: I'm not sure why Caucasian would be considered more politically correct that white people in the United States, but it is certainly factually incorrect, out of date, and is rarely used outside of the USA as a term for white people. In Europe, it is mostly used to describe people from the Caucasus region. Spylab 16:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Evolution article

When Adam changed the article I was in disbelief there was not a call for revert. After a month of arguing for minor changes with little success, I was surprised with the silence. I didn't like Adams intro (nothing against Adam, just my preference), but I really do like many of your suggestions. I think the original article was probably graduate level so I think high school is more appropriate. I just don't know what that is now. I am concerned you seem angry. I hope I didn't provoke any anger (not my intentions), but I also like lots of editors to contribute to discussions to get a better feel for changes. Go back into the archives to see the lengthy and highly referenced discussions I made to appeal for some changes. I like your table and it would be good in an addendum or link, but I still want to see this article shortened. It would seem a compromise could be found to address all concerns. GetAgrippa 17:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I am trying to reign in some of the more troublesome aspects of that previous introduction of AC. I have been working on a direct comparison of the suggested introductions and styles. And I want people to look at them directly; their length, their readability scores, etc. And decide what direction they want to go. Perhaps you did not read the version of the "fact and theory" section that I and about 5 collaborators produced, and compare it to Slrubinstein's. If you truly believe that his is clearer and more advantageous and shorter, then I do not know what more to say. I think that I have said all that can be said.--Filll 17:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You have put together reasoned discussions about the section. I agree with you that there are some intellectual snobs running about the Evolution article that are trying to make it so abstract and unreadable that it falls right into the traps created by the mythologists pushing creationist and ID crapola on the world. The creationists continue to seize on the "theory" of Evolution, because scientists keep making a nuanced discussion of the difference between theory and fact. What you were trying to do (with very minor editing from me) was show that Evolution is a fact. What is so difficult about that? When certain creationists claim that evolutionists are a religion in their own right, I begin to wonder. Sometimes consensus is the worst possible way to make things happen.OrangeMarlin 00:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Biological laws

Where did you see natural selection discussed as a law? I think that might be controversial even amongst scientist, although I would be interested to be corrected. David D. (Talk) 20:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I am positive I have heard that phrase before. If you do a google search, it is clear that are over 26,000 hits, so some people use the phrase. If you look at the talk page for scientific law I have put some sites I found about biological scientific laws. There are probably more. --Filll 20:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This might be due to ignorance? This is Ernst Mayr's view on the subject: "In evolutionary biology, however theories are largely based on concepts such as competition, female choice, selection, succession and dominance. These biological concepts, and the theories based on them, cannot be reduced to the laws and theories of the physical sciences. "[32] David D. (Talk) 20:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

fair use

if you are unhuppy with situations like this please consider to visite from time to time Wikipedia talk:Fair use,where this insane policy was made and participate in the votes.Please also trie to atracte others to the isue.--Bootstrapping 14:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

LEAD

You make some good points, i have noted them on the talk page there. Make sure to elaberate on them there so that the "native" editors know what we're talking about, I wouldn't edit it myself, perhaps you can make some bold moves? By the way, you can add youself! frummer 19:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)