User talk:GetAgrippa/Archive 2

See my new BRAIN it is delicious with a good Chianti and some fava beans. Happy dining!

Hey GetAgrippa!

I hereby award you this additional brain

I noticed that you blank your talk page every now and then. A better alternative would be to archive the discussions when they become too lengthy. If you would like me to archive your old discussions, I can dig them up and archive them to your talk page (as a token of my appreciation of all your knowledgeable contributions to Wikipedia). Take a look at what I did for my talk page.
Oh...here’s a brain to enlarge your already huge brain. =D Jumping cheese ^Contact 07:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For painstaking and diligent efforts in improving the Evolution Lead

Mud fight

I would ignore samsara, s/he's probably about to quit the project again anyway. David D. (Talk) 17:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Remember not to ask me for favours in future, David. Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, if you can't take criticism don't hand it out. David D. (Talk) 22:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. Nice try. Saying that you recommend ignoring me is not really a criticism, is it? ;) Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The criticism was on your talk page. This is the recommendation for GetAgrippa. I will follow my own recommendation in the future too. David D. (Talk) 01:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope you reconsider leaving. You're a great asset here. Guettarda 18:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment

re [1]

You're right. I agree with you on everything you've said in general terms about Wikipedia. I feel the same way.

Regards,

Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Please reply to my talk page (I don't usually check the other user's talk page). Thanxs! ^_^ Jumping cheese ^Contact 07:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure your present brain will work perfectly fine (you only loose a few tens of thousands of brain cells a day).
Anyways, I archived all your old discussions. If there are any problems, please feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Have fun editing! =) Jumping cheese ^Contact 22:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to be of service! If you want me to retrieve your previous user page, I can also do that. All I have to do is click the history tab and locate the previous version. Have fun editing! ^_^ Jumping cheese ^Contact 23:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No apology needed

Ho, stop, take it easy. You do not have to appologize. This is how article development goes, and it was just my thoughts that I expressed (a bit to harsh, my applogies). My frustration is with wikipedia as a whole. The page was a declared disaster in the past and it was only resolved by me rewriting the page together with Gleng in my userspace. Since then, it has been relative stable. I have always been someone who tries to write for lay people. It is a challenge, but one that I think academics can benifit greatly from if they can master that. I always step back, and ask myself if my mother would understand this (if she could read English). She is not stupid, but uneducated, and it is at times for me a challange to explain her things that I do for work.

As for leaving, unless there are some good changes in that it becomes much easier to crrect POV-pushing and things alike, and in which pages can be concerved and only changed by experts who know where they are talking about, I might come back. But the atmophere here is way to anti-expert, and even when you have written something, it just gets slowly demolished by passer-by's who think they know more than an expert on the details of complex concepts like natural selection. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

some advice

Never allow one person to bully you away from a page (e.g. Natural Selection, Evolution, or evo-devo). If this appears to be going on, try to start a conversation involving more people, especially editors whom you respect. See if you can evolve a consensus among them. If not, well, then your feelings that you should walk away from a page are probably valid. But I urge you to try this process first. Talk pages are often used for bickering and arguing. But they can also be used to develop a consensus (as I have tried to do on primary/secondary sources). You need to be willing to initiate and facilitate a dialogue (rathe than meerly present your own views) and you need to seek the participation of others who are knowledgable and, just as important desirous of collaboration — this is what the "wiki" in wikipedia is all about, a willingness and capacity to facilitate collaboration via dialogue among knowledgable editors of good faith. I urge you to give this a try and to cultivate your skills in this direction. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on Steve's page, you can always find something amusing on Wikipedia. To begin with, there's WP:BJAODN. Then there's WP:AN/I, which is always good for a laugh. If you really run out of things to laugh at, you can always laugh at people - they take themselves much too seriously around here. If you're having a really bad day, try writing at Uncyclopaedia instead.

If all else fails, try laughing at yourself. After all, you (meaning all of us with advanced degrees) are here arguing with 15-year olds about subjects we have spent half our lives (or more) studying. I think it's worthwhile, but if you don't laugh, you might as well cry.

Honestly, the key to getting things done around here is social/political. Being right isn't good enough - you need to negotiate with people, you need to "play well with others". As for your comment about not editing in the article space, (a) you should always revert vandalism, no matter where you see it, and (b) shouldn't it only apply to your field of research? After all, if you are writing about your home town you're just another unqualifed yahoo :) I actually believe that expert editors are a great boon to WP. That said, I rarely edit articles in my actual subfield. If I want to do that, I should work on a manuscript (that said, one of these days I will break down and totally re-write the ecology article).

Cheers. Guettarda 16:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda - as always - is spot on.

To respond to your response on my talk page - I do not think anyone has any grounds to thin you authoritarian, egomaniacle, or thin-skinned. But I do understand your frustration. Have you ever worked on a grant proposal with someone, or really coauthored an article (I do not mean one of those JAMA articles with 15 authors because you provided some data, but I mean, where you really shmoozed with a collaborator, brainstorming, and going back and forth clarifying both the language in the article (or proposal) as well as your own ideas)? It is time consuming to work in this collaborative fashion but also very rewarding. I ask, because this is what wikipedia can be at its best. Of course, to go back to my example, bear in mind that when you collaborate on a proposal or journal article you choose your collaborator which means (1) you probably know you like one another (2) you know how to communicate with one another and (3) it is very clear how and where you complement one another. Well, imagine that these three elements were missing. This is the case with Wikipedia, and it is this which makes collaborating on an article often frustrating. Nevertheless, anyone, certainly you, can learn how to do it and do it well and when you do, the result will be (1) much better articles (like evo-devo hint hint) and (2) a more pleasurable rewarding experience for you. I hope none of this sounds patronizing. You thanked me for my encouragement and I appreciate that. I am encouraging you because it has become evident that you are the kind of editor we need more of here. The better you get at our admitedly weird (well, unique) process of collaboration, the happier I think you will be. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your comments about collaborative research and the need for better science education especially concerning the ways ethics and methods intertwine. Be that as it may, Wikipedia bears the burden of being entirely collaborative (ideally) with none of the props most researchers can take for granted (beginning a collaboration only with people whom you know, like, respect, and can work with). Consequently collaborations often break down or hit rough spots. I think our policies (content ones lik NPOV, Verifiability, and NOR which are meant to ensure quality content, and behavioral ones like Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and Wikipedia:Civility to facilitate collaboration) take the place of (or provide) that education and are also meant to help people collaborate, resolve problems when collaboration breaks down, etc. For what it is worth, I believe that (1) you have never violated any of these policies and (2) I personaly feel strongly that the three major content policies trump the behavioral ones. If you get into a conflict with someone and you are sure you are complying with the three main content policies and they seem to be violating one of the conduct policies, stick to your guns and if necessary turn to others for help - other editors whom you respect or if needs be our mediation process. But stick to your guns, if you are right lots of people will support you. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

being a nag

Soooo... are you really not going to add to the evo-devo article? It still seems to me that you have valuable and relevant contributions to make. Based on what I have seen on the evolution page, no one doubts your expertise or your compliance with core policies like NOR, it seems like the only issues you have had have to do with properly framing your contributions (whose point of view is it, to what extent it is a matter well-established or currently being debated) and properly situating your contribution (literally in the sense of where in the article to put it, and metaphorically, explaining - in language accessible to a lay reader - how it relates to other elements of that section or the article as a whole). I hope you consider these constructive comments. It seems to me that as long as you are crystal-clear on these two things you can be more bold in your edits. I genuinely hope you will, on the evo-devo page. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

you are welcome ... sort of. Don'e ever let other editors get you down (see earlier advice). But know this: citing more and more articles will never "get your point across." ALL they will do is prove that you are not engaging in original research. This is in fact very important (i.e. not to violate our NOR policy) but that is all piles of citations or quotes accomplish. They do not prove that the research is relevant to the article, nor do they explain how the research is relevant to an article. In Wikipedia (as in an article for JAMA or American Anthropologist) it is us contributors who must make the connections, explain why and in what way and to what extent the research is relevant. And I urge you to do this work not on the talk page but in the article itself. Indeed, one way to conceive of writing an article is, explaining the importance and meaning of current and previous research in relation to other elements of the article. right? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Remember also that the research we draw on (e.g. the articles you cite) always reflect particular points of view, and that our article should provide properly contextualized accounts of multiple points of view. For example, when discussing the theory (ies) of evolution, I do not think it is always sufficient to say "this is the POV of scientists." We may need to distinguish between the POV of molecular geneticists versus zooligists versus phystcal anthropologists. Or maybe evolutionary biologists are divided into camps. My point is only that when two editors disagree over how to define or describe something, sometimes it is because each editor is informed by a particular point of view. the resolution may be just to acknowledge that in the article, e.g. "Although most biologists have defined evolution as x, some molecular geneticists have recently suggested defining it as y" 9and then explain how the research - or research aims - of molecular geneticists may have led them to see things differently from other biologists. Or physicians. Or whatever. I hope you get my point, it is pragmatic. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

With the single exception of harald88, who refuses to accept one edit, the debates are all resolved I think. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Cell nucleus evolution

I think you did most of the work on the cell nucleus evolution section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_nucleus#Evolution), and so you should be able to help me: Is plantomycetes the same as Planctomycetes? ShaiM 13:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

nag, continued

If you are wtill willing to put some work into evo-devo, perhaps you can respond to this [2] (I do not mean, respond on the talk page; I mean if you agree with the comments, see if you can make the appropriate changes to the article. You know far more than I do which is why i don't think I can do it, and you are also a very clear writer. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Evolution

You may be right that it is a waste of time ... alas, many people will still use Wikipedia as their first step in research. And I do think good things are possible; it goes back to working with a very heterogeneous group of people through a medium that is not the ideal for collaborative work. In any event, have you seen the last few comments here [3]? you are not alone or unheard. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. If you do not mind further advice, here are two bits: (1) consider the talk pages as opportunities for "teaching moments." I do not remember the details of your professional career but I am sure you know what I mean. Try to identify Grafts main objections, and - as an expert - be willing to take on the burden of figuring out what the source of confusion is, and then explain. Perhaps people in different fields use certain words differently. Or - and this is crucial because Wikipedia is meant for public consumption, think average 10th graders (US system) - he, like many editors, may be focused on "translating" scientific debates into a simplified language that is easy to explain and can be used consistently, so those kids can make sense of things. I am not by the way defending anyone or anything, just explaining why many experienced editors and experienced experts come into conflict, they are used to writing for radically different audiences. But look at it this way, if you can figure out Graft's confusion and explain it to him in a way that makes sense to him, then you (you, not him - this is not about you guiding other editors, it is about you editing articles - with all due respect) can put that language in the article with confidence that other students will "get it." This is one function of talk pages - to identify every possible source of confusion or misunderstanding before text is put in the article. (2) when the core policies - NPOV, NOR, Verifiability - support you, stick to your guns. Don't get frustrated, just point out that the other editor is violating NPOV or NOR and insist that that cannot be the basis for making an edit. Never back down (as long as you are right) and others will support you. You can always ask mediation or put in a request for comment. These mechanisms didn't exist in the beginning, we developed them because we need them so don't be surprised if you need them sometimes too. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that your contributions and commentary are both appreciated. You do excellent work! Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Smile!

Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Hey GetAgrippa! I noticed your recent frustration over POV pushing and harassment on Wikipedia. I also had my share of POV issues (mainly over the political status of Taiwan) so I know how ugly it gets. Remember, Wikipedia is suppose to fun to edit, not stress inducing. If you feel that there is too much pressure, take a short Wikibreak. I know there are disruptive users crawling all over Wikipedia, but you can beat them.
Stay strong. =D Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 06:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

deneticists

The genetics people have been put in by User:TBHecht, and not by me. I can only hope to do as well on similar lists on related subjects. I would agree on the primary classification of about 90% of the people, especially because molecular biologist is an extremely general term & the more specific genetics or cell biology or [ ] is probably better when possible. For graduate school I applied to a department of virology, and by the time I arrived, it had become a department of molecular biology. DGG 03:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

US education

You are correct. The US wins a lot of Nobel Prizes. However, I am afraid that is not a good measure of the health of the US public education system. I think there are plenty of bad signs. And the US Nobel Prize Winners I have spoken to have the same opinion I am afraid. I am sure I do not need to enumerate them for you, since you are a scientist yourself. It might be slightly better in the biological sciences than the physical sciences that I am more familiar with, but I have my doubts. This is not to say other countries do not have their own problems of various sorts in education, but that does not excuse us from trying to do our best in the US. US domination of science does not have a very long history, and is obviously true for a few special historical reasons which might not continue to hold if we do not bolster the support system.--Filll 16:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As a science teacher, a phrase spoken by a former prison warden frequently comes to mind "If you want better prisons; send me better prisoners". If I could fix the educational woes facing our country, would they be willing to pay me more than $25,000 / year?

I see they are at it again on the evolution page ... "call for edit". Perhaps the editors need a clear conception of who is the audience? I think in terms of high school students, which would struggle with much of the content (despite my godly teaching skills). Perhaps I should run a reading level test on it to see what grade level it is written.

Actually I enjoy reading the discussion page, it is both enlightening and entertaining ... Kudo's to you GetAgrippa for you insightful commentaries and your willingness to keep fighting the fight! Good Luck --Random Replicator 02:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Last common ancestor

You said "Everything has a last common ancestor"; which is not true due to Horizontal gene transfer. If there had never been any lateral gene transfer, individual gene trees would have the same topology, and the ancestral genes at the root of each tree would have all been present in the last universal common ancestor, a single ancient cell. But extensive horizontal gene transfer means that neither is the case: gene trees differ (although many will have regions of similar topology) and there is no single cell that can be called the last universal common ancestor. WAS 4.250 18:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Evolution

GetAgrippa, I'm honestly baffled by your defense of the old introduction, as, frankly... have you read it recently? It was a huge big block of jargon, that failed to explain a single evolutionary concept in terms that I'd be willing to believe the target audience could understand, and Margareta's version, though much improved, just served to show how little content was actually in it, once you stopped looking at it as a list of links. I know you're an intelligent person from working with you elsewhere, so I'm frankly a bit baffled as to what you saw in the old introduction. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, i just noticed your last comment. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry!

GetAgrippa, I'm rather sorry to have written in a manner you think 'come close to snide'. I called you an 'editor pro' since I have got the opinion that you know the subject well, and have high experience in expressing your knowledge in WP editing; it was absolutely not meant ironically. My reason for the comparison with some contributions from less experienced editors is the trouble with getting across with some of the fundamental ideas in 'the modern version of the modern synthesis' (no snide, but I think Dawkins clarified some things further than Fisher). I just wanted to examplify the common kind of misunderstandings I fear the references to 'survival' might strengthen; not at all imply that you would share them. Again, no irony was intended; and I apologise for any impression you may have got to the converse.--JoergenB 15:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fact vs Theory rough draft

Yes I think that in both gravity and in evolution, the field is littered with a large number of discarded hypotheses, theories, speculations, conjectures, laws, etc. I try to make this clear by describing 3 discarded theories of gravity, and 3 discarded theories of evolution. Of course I could list far more, but that would be more appropriate for the history of science. All I want to do is to make this "fact and theory" controversy a bit more clear. Please take a look at what I have written at Talk:Evolution/FactvsTheory and give me your feedback. --Filll 17:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for checking out my rough drafts of the tables. I would like to use both tables and the text as a replacement for the current sections on theory vs. fact in evolution and also Creation-evolution controversy. If this is too long, I would propose a separate article on this issue and abbreviated versions included in evolution and Creation-evolution controversy with liks to the separate article. I am not sure what colors to put in the tables and what design exactly to use, but at least it is a start.--Filll 23:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

First, I think you can feel safer editing Evo-Devo since it is not likely to attract many novices. I am curious to know what you think of Mav's suggestions - I think they are reasonable, they are at least thoughtful - but I do look forward to your working on that article again. As to Evolution, my strategy in situations like this is - and I admit I haven't been following it closely, but I mean based on what you say - is to wait a month or so and then restore what was good, and see if there is anything from the flurry of recent edits worth keeping. Sometimes there actually are some good things worth keeping. Anyway, if you wait a month, some of the locusts have moved on. That said, i at least intervened in this one section (not the intro). If you think what I did is worthwhile (I kept a visual Fill put in that I do not find objectinable, and restored an older version with some editing for clarity) than make whatever improvements you think are worthwhile. If Fill deletes them, I will review his changes and if I agree with your edits I will restore them. Of course if it is not just one person but several people we do have to give their edits more weight - at least to the point of taking their motives seriously (i.e. good faith). Slrubenstein | Talk 15:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to delete what slrubenstein has done unilaterally. I have seen his edits and his attitude and I do not think that is a particularly useful plan. I will instead attempt to build a consensus for what I hope is a clearer and more useful version, forged not just by me, but by several editors. If the consensus is that slrubenstein's version is preferable, then I will bow out of course. Slrubenstein has obviously been around far longer than anyone else involved with the evolution article, and this might confer some special status. I would not dispute that, even if it is not a formal status or is in contravention of the rules of Wikipedia. If an overwhelming majority of evolution editors prefer slrubenstein's text, or the text that preceded orangemarlin and my attempts to rally people to improve it, then we will have met an impasse and have to concede. However, I will say as an outsider to biology, and someone who has had to debate creationists repeatedly, that slrubenstein's contribution and the previous "fact and theory" text was not clear, would be unlikely to be useful in a debate with creationists, and is not in accord with what goes on in large areas of the other sciences. If the editors of evolution want to keep it out of some feeling of tradition or whatever, then I just have to wish them good luck.--Filll 15:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You probably meant me when stating that the viewpoints towards faiths has exhibited some level of contempt. Sometimes one needs to take an extreme POV to counteract the crazies on the other side. I personally believe that liberties are taken away one little step at a time (I'm paraphrasing a line from a beautiful episode of the West Wing). I have contempt for the Creationists/Christian Rightwingers etc., not because of their faith, but because of their fascism. They want to make the world appear to be the way they want it. If they didn't exist, do you think the Evolution talk page would that full of stuff? And if they really believed what they believed, why don't they go to every single article in Wikipedia that makes mention of anything older than 7000 years ago. There numerous geology, paleontology, biology, articles everywhere. But no, they waste our time here. I don't like anyone that smacks of Nazism or Fascism--these people do. So please don't get me wrong. I am not in contempt of Christianity (though I don't believe in it, and don't share in the myth) nor am I an atheist. I am in contempt of these individuals on here who espouse their beliefs. That's allOrangeMarlin 20:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

fact versus theory

I'd value your thoughts on the different versions forwarded by me and Fill. Thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Muscle pic

Wasn't me that found it, I just embedded it in the article instead of including it as a link. But thanks. Did you see my comment on the speed of muscular contraction, or was that on a different article? WLU 23:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ernst Mayr and Speciation

Hi, GetAgrippa! Sorry to bother you, but is there any way you could work Mayr's definition of speciation into the section of Evolution on speciation a little better? As it is, it's a little hard to see why Mayr is being brought up (I presume because his definition is now the one widely used), but putting the sentence in a bit more context (e.g., something like "A species, in the common usage set out by Ernst Mayr in 1942 and widely accepted since" - though perhaps a bit less wordy) would make things clearer. You seem to know his work better than me, I fear: I only know his definition of species third or fourth hand. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is Ymous and why should I mediate with him?

I am stunned. Who is this person? --Filll 23:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

When I first appeared on the page some weeks ago, and made a few tentative suggestions, I was put in my place pretty quickly. I am an outsider, and some people have been editing this page for 4 or 5 years. I am not even a biologist and I know very little compared to many of the editors. It has only been through diligence that I have managed to make any changes at all. Clearly this is a topic that people feel very strongly about. However, I have been repeatedly attacked in my life by creationists using crazy irrational arguments, and I want to do my part to create a resource that is available for others who find themselves in that position, so they can fend off these attacks and educate themselves. Talkorigins is fine, but it is not very accessible, IMHO. I think that if science relinquishes evolution to the creationists, it will not be very long before the creationists go after the rest of science. The creationists view this as an information and cultural war, and the fundamentalists seem to want to stomp out secularism and materialism and separation of church and state and other faiths and even other branches of Christianity. They are not shy about espousing a radical hostile agenda, not much different than the one I see their Muslim counterparts adopting.--Filll 01:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Talk:Evolution. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Creationism

Take a look at Creationism and the venting in the reasons for edits.--Filll 21:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Evolution

I do not insist that the entire article should be accessible to a high schooler. I think there is plenty of room on Wikipedia for a professional level article. However, I do think that having one or two paragraphs at the start of the article that is accesible to an average person, and maybe an accessible introductory paragraph to each of the longer important sections would make the article much more appropriate for a general encyclopedia. I also think that the article need not be so long that it overwhelms the reader; on Wikipedia one long article can be broken into a suite of overlapping related articles without losing a thing, and making the article much "friendlier" to the reader. Someone interested mainly in the history of evolution, fascinating area in its own right, can bypass all the other stuff and get right to that. Someone not interested in ancient history but in the peculiar twists and turns that the theory has taken that reveal how far it has come from Darwin's original fairly simple conception can read that. And someone like orangemarlin who want only to defend themselves from attacks by creationist extremists in their local school board meanings can easily find articles that focus on this, in readable, understandable clear language. I know what it is like to be in his position, having been under attack by them myself. I know talkorigins exist, but I have several problems with it:

• it is a bit out of date and does not integrate all the sources that exist
• it is a bit difficult to navigate
• Wikipedia is the sort of source where one would expect to find an accessible list of material that can help a stumped parent, or student, or lawyer get up to speed easily on the common arguments and responses to these arguments, plus a list of places to look for more information

I am somewhat shocked that editors are not interested in these fairly simple, obvious goals. --Filll 14:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV warning

I just put up a new article at Support for evolution summarizing the scientific, religious etc support for evolution. I realized that although there are many creationist articles, evolution mainly has science articles, or an article or two about the history of various parts of the dispute. I am told that summarizing the support that exists on one side is nonneutral (although I do include a section describing support for the creationist side). How is it nonneutral to give the objective information? I am not saying who is right. But it is a bit hard to deny that support exists. See below: --Filll 03:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

While I am in support of evolution, I do find that this article is difficult to put into the light of a neutral point of view. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 03:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would dispute this. The topic is that support exists. Whether that support is justified or not is another issue. I have copious references from both sides and it is a bit hard to deny that support exists in the scientific, religious and other communities. How is that being biased to summarize the support that exists?--Filll 03:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

OOps I need a hand

over here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Support for evolution —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Filll (talk • contribs) 08:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

I am still fairly new on WP compared to some people who have been here for years. I also am comparatively new on the controversial areas. I can see that we (orangemarlin and myself) went about this the wrong way. A bad title. A bad theme. Looks too biased. Not enough previewing. Not enough community input; too much of a "surprise". I thought it was just a dispassionate description of the level of support and how it is measured and how substantial it is. I am considering rewriting it in different ways, such as describing the differences in opinion/support in different communities, or describing the different methods that have been used to gauge the level of support in different communities (polling, petitions, declaratio of support by different organizations {religious, scientific, academic, government, educational, corporate, etc.}, court cases, laws, political speeches, and so on) and the results of these. Comments?--Filll 15:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that progress on the main evolution article is happening. I tried and tried to get them interested in trying. I prodded and prodded. Finally I guess enough other people agreed and it started. I havent looked lately, but I thought the lead a few days ago finally looked accessible. After my experience with the fact and theory section where the two editors I had never seen before (or since) appeared to rip my attempt to shreds I was a bit stunned. What they wanted to replace it with was just garbage, even worse than what was there before. And so rude ! Not interested in discussing the rational for his changes (at least the first one). Then I investigate a little and find out he started the article almost 6 years ago, and although he keeps telling me not to feel ownership of the article, he obviously feels ownership. He wants to preserve meaningless phrases that he cannot even explain to me, I guess for the sake of tradition. And now where are these two editors? So frantic to keep people from editing "their" article? I refuse to get in an edit war with people like that. What I find amazing is that the "community" of editors more or less let them do whatever they wanted, or backed them up, I guess out of respect since they have been here so long. It was very instructive to me about how WP works, or doesnt.--Filll 13:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, what motivated the work on the fact and theory section was Orangemarlin had some trouble with his local school board, and wanted to look someplace to find some easy responses to the creationists trying to remove evolution from the schools in his area. He looked at the evolution article, and was not impressed. Several lousy sections that were unreadable. The controversy article is even worse. And that was that. Talkorigins is not really much help either, if you have ever tried to read it in detail. A lot of the common attacks by creationists are not addressed or addressed well, a lot of talkorigins is out of date and hard to read, with two many words and no succinct clear accessible summaries. The National Center for Science Education also makes it tough to get this information easily. Then one or two editors in the AfD discussion tell me that "there is no controversy there is no problem there is no reason to even address any of this in WP." No wonder the creationists are winning! I am not saying that WP should duplicate these resources, but they should be like an encyclopedia in this area: Summarize the situation, make it clear what the main arguments on both sides are, provide links to other material so a person is not left blindly googling around trying to find stuff (when I use WP, this I think is one of its best functions). This is also why I am a little surprised when I find people frantically wanting to remove material from the opposing side of an argument, when of course someone who comes to WP as a reader wants to know exactly what the opposing sides say. How can you address your adversary if you do not know what they think and how they argue? What the interconnections are between all the components are ? Anyway, that is enough of me ranting,,,--Filll 13:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Evolution/Gene flow

I've set this up to work on it. Somewhat meandering, but a fuller description than the awful stuff we have. A lot of what we have in the Gene flow section really ought to be under Population structure, I think.. --Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Still learning

Ok I am trying to understand this bit about the cloned mice cancer cells. Someone took cancer cells from a mouse, and turned them into regular mice, which were then normal but developed cancer at birth? And this demonstrates what? I am so clueless in biology. Sorry.--Filll 14:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

But the cancerous cells were still not quite normal, because the mice developed cancer early, right?--Filll 16:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

want to help mediate a conflict?

Here is a golden opportunity to do something I believe you enjoy doing, which is to bring clarity to a discussion and suggest avenues for addressing an issue. The article is Race and Intelligence and what you would have to do is read these two sections: [4] and also [5] - you may wish to read other sections of talk, I leave that to you, but these are essential. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! I never want to do anything that might get in the way of your improving the evo-devo article But thanks for the reply/comment on my talk page. No, I do not know fif there is an article specifically on human intelligence. I think it may be a good idea, and invite you to suggest it but if you do not I will. One of my favorite physical anthropologists argued that fom a Darwinian point of view we really have to get away from the idea that human beings are "more intelligent" than dolphins which are "more intelligent" than pigs which are "more intelligent" than dogs etc. and understand that just as the value of traits is relative, according to their adaptation to a particular niche, we need to understand that cockroaches, pigs, and humans are all "intelligent" in whatever way is appropriate to their niche and it is inappropriate to try to compare them as if there were some absolute or universal scale. I wish there were an article or articles that worked within this framework but suspect many people would resist it. What do you think? Anyway, I understand you may not have any expertise as such on race and intelligence but I do think at this point you have the experience to make neutral and constructive suggestions about how to move beyond a conflict and it was for this reason I suggested you comment on race and intelligence. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

We have a general article on Intelligence which is really human intelligence and I left a comment there simply saying the name should be changed to reflect it. If you know the lit. on animal intelligence - and whether you do or not, you definitely know more than I do because I know none of the actual literature - there is an aricle on Animal cognition - "animal intelligence redirects there - and I suspect this is an article you could work on - if only to ensure the general framework is appropriate - constructively. Still don't want to deter you from evo-devo (it is just that I think this is one of the most exciting new directions in evolutionary research and it is pathetic that the article is so small compared to say natural selection. Of course, I think the article on genetic drift should be more substantial too. Alas, these are just outside my expertise). Slrubenstein | Talk 16:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Intelligence

Please help out with a comment here (you may also want to cut and paste things you wrote on my talk page) Slrubenstein | Talk 14:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! If you have more concrete proposals that would help "race and intelligence" by all means make them, the situation is a mess. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Creationism in Genetic code

That guy sure is persistent. The court precedent is a good point! Could you add a note about it to the on-going talk page discussion? I'd just copy'n'paste your edit summary, but they're your words so figured I'd let you write them:) DMacks 21:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! DMacks 21:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

have I shared this with you yet?

You can share it with students (or other educators): http://www.understandingrace.org/ Slrubenstein | Talk 15:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you like it! I had no role at all in developing it, though I am proud being an anthropologist. I put the link at the "race" article but haven't done anything else to promote it except mentioning it on your user-page as well as Futurebird, Ramdrake, etc. But please feel free to use whatever means at your disposal to publicize it, among evolutionary scientists and public school teachers.

I am also glad you think some of my efforts are slowly paying off at race and intelligence ... with complex things one really needs patience though I am surprised so few people responded to the request for comment (RFC is supposed to be a major an effective means of mediating disputes). Personally, I think they would all do well if they picked one of the bullet points - for a while it looked like they had settled on the third one - and just hammer out a set of edits to the article they could all feel were improvements. Or work on Futurebird's proposed new introduction. Let's see what the situation is like in a week. Now, how can I get you to revamp the intelligence article so it takes a universal (all species) and evolutionary approach? Oh, and ... evo-devo! You have to admit, it IS important and the article is pretty puny. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: race - it is hard to see how ArbCom would take the case because they usually deal with violations of personal behavior norms (e.g. violation of 3revert rule, personal attacks). The biggest proble with Wikipedia in my opinion is that there is no formal mechanism for arbitrating disputes over content. I used to be on the list-serve (until I moved) and there and here I made the proposal for a committee, like arbcom, specifically to mediate these disputes. Others had other suggestions - editorial "boards" of experts to review such cases I think was one. The point: none of these proposals went anywhere and I gave up. In fact, in my opinion, high-quality articles at Wikipedia are the result of one or a few very nowledgable editors who stick around for YEARS and never leave, OR, one or a few editors who are just willing to stick it out long enough for a bad editor to give up and go away. Patience is everything. the fact is, I have not written a new article or made a substantial contribution to an existing article in many years - I came here and saw some big holes which I filled. in a couple of cases it involved protracted battles (Jesus, Cultural and historical background of Jesus, genetic drift if you can believe it). In a couple of cases I actually managed to work well with a few editors (including RIK) to create what I thought was at least a balanced article (race). And in a couple of cases I was lucky in that the topics most important to me (Shuar, Franz Boas, Cultural relativism) are so obscure and uninteresting to most people that no one ever really tried to ruin them (in a way, also a shame as they can certainly be improved and no one else cares enough to try to improve them). As for "race and intelligence," I probably ought to stop commenting (at this point I really am just repeating myself) and wait a week to see what happens. I think there are good editors out there who are more experience than I and it is a shame that none of them have left really well-informed constructive comments when I made the RfC. Either they realize that they work together or the article never changes, or they implode. Let's see. Do you teach? or do private sector research? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If you really are developing an investment in Wikipedia, you need to contribute to more articles and even create new ones (as opposed to participating in talk pages) ... then, you will eentually be made an admin and THEN if you ever wante dto you could really get involved in ArbCom. Just a suggestion. But people respect you and I think you just need to write more articles to get the real credibility someone needs to get real stuff done here. If these kinds of conflicts worry you, you should join the list-serve and see the extent to which others take them seriously or not. I say this only in the hopes you could succede where I failed that is in setting up more effective ways to deal with disputes over content where knowledge about a discipline is important, or at least an ability to do and recognize discriminating research is important. I teach. Try to do research. yearn for time to write real things. Google my last name and anthropology and you will probably find me pretty quickly. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Nevertheless, there are two half-written articles and two in my mind I desperately want to write this year. But Wikipedia is not even my distraction from real writing, it is a distraction from writing university reports, answering e-mails from colleagues, and marking papers! Anyway, it is obvious to me that you have a lot to contribute here and the only limit is your time, interest, and will. Good luck! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Missed!

Hi GA,

Good to know I'm missed - I've been taking some time off to finish the ol' PhD, which frankly is well overdue. I'll be back in a few months when that's under my belt. Graft 22:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

R & I: Bell Curve Graphic

I noticed that you had some questions about the graphic being placed at the top in the Race and intelligence article in the new intro (Talk:Race and intelligence/new intro feb 07) I have included the graphic at the top, but with a caption that I feel places it in context. Could this be a compromise? futurebird 18:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words

This stuff makes me very tired. I'm glad you're making an effort to bring in some fresh eyes. futurebird 03:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

spam evolution

I will check it out but I am not good on blocking IP addresses,check with more experienced admins like Jayjg or people who are also on ArbCom, Slrubenstein | Talk 11:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Cutting out some external links from Evolution

Hello GetAgrippa. I am happy to hear that you are thinking of some external links that could be removed.

I personally can see a number of external links could be easily removed as they seem redundant. There are a lot of ways to describe a rose, but a rose is a rose.

Do you want to propose some to remove, on the Talk page?

I notice that Silence had some ideas as well, but I doubt he'll do the pruning for us :-)

There are numerous ways to shorten external links sections. We can move links to daughter articles where they deal with only a specific aspect of evolution; we can turn them into references if they substantiate anything in the article body; we can simply remove any that aren't noteworthy or helpful enough to merit inclusion; etc. For example, "Top Ten Myths" and "Talk.Origins Archive" could be moved to Misunderstandings about evolution, "Timeline of evolutionary thought" could be moved to History of evolutionary thought, "Becoming human" could be moved to Human evolution, some of the simulators could be delisted or moved, etc.

Since people seem receptive to changes, this might be a good time to start proposing this. Assuming you have the time, of course. EdJohnston 03:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Evolution lead

Hey, The Mutation rate article gives figures of 10^-4 to 10^-6, and for bacteria and phages the rate is 10^-5 to 10^-7 per gene per generation. I'm fairly sure that's wildly off, however. This article gives a rate of 10^-9 per year per base pair - a much more believable figure, that gives about a 50-50 chance of a new mutation per year for most organisms. So we probably can presume a new trait every generation with reasonable oh dear I'd better sleepnight.Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

True. I suppose that the mutation rate isn't necessarily high enough to guarantee a new trait every generation. Still, better to just remove the time frame than to add a wishy-washy "can". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 22:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Indels

Maybe I'm just too lazy to go trying to find the paper you mentioned, but... what's an indel?--Margareta 20:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

goodbye?

Does this mean you are leaving? If you have it in you, I would care to know why (and I think you know you can communicate with me through a number of means). be that as it may, I value the contributions you have made and will miss your activity here. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I seldom check in on Race and Intelligence now - it is under mediation, and as far as I am concerned whoever is passionate about it can deal with it - but I think they have made some progress. I am far more concerned with the Race page - I think it is important to provide a thorough historical context, and detail the major proponents of the major views (races exist as genetic clusters revealed through cladistics; races are not biologically real and genotypic and phenotypic variation should be studies through populations and clines; races exist as social constructions) and the evidence they use. Another editor thinks it is too long (i agree it is very long but I also think it is one of themost controversial articles about one of the most complex topics on Wikipedia) and also that normal people will not be able to understand it so a lot of the stuff on genetics and clusters and alleles and all that technical language needs to be cut. It is frustrating.

I of course fully appreciate your frustrations. One way to deal with them, besides taking wiki-breaks (ALWAYS a good thing to do) is simply to slow your pace i.e. a half-hour a week rather than a half-hour a day, or whatever. And remember, policies are your friends. If someone reverts an edit of yours that you are certain is fully compliant with policies, just stick to your guns and do not get annoyed or irritated. They will either give up or take it to mediation and if your edits are fully policy compliant you will probably win. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

Hi, good to see your comments on the Evolution article. If you wanted to make any more detailed comments I would value your review at the peer-review page. TimVickers 19:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but the more I read about evolution, the more I see that I am ignorant about! The peer-review page is here, hint, hint, hint. :) TimVickers 23:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Presentation3.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Presentation3.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Presentation3b.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Presentation3b.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

help me, please?

GetAgrippa, if you sre still aroung, I am having a series of conflicts with another editor at the Race page. Would you ming going over this section [6] and see if you have something constructive to add? Be forewarned, it is a lot, and a mess. To put it most crudely, I think the issue is NPOV (Wobble/Alun believes that there is only one biological definition of race and that is subspecies and any other terms biologists use for race must be synonyms for subspecies; I believe that just the past sixty years, and even now, biologists and physical anthropologists have had very different definitions of/approaches to race and that they are not all reducible to subspecies, and that all these views must be represented in the article). Wobble/Alun thinks the issue is that he knows the science and I do not; he understands the scientific research and I do not; if I did I would agree with him. This conflict is really wearing me down and I think there is a real need for other (and fresher) views. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Getagrippa, i just figured out that the heritable imprinting stuff on evolution talk page was from you. Can you send me an e-mail, I see you don't have it activated? David D. (Talk) 01:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Glad you are back. Alun (Wobble) and I sorted out our problems concerning Race, and we are, slowly, trying to revise that article accordingly, feel free to help out. Among other things I now realize how mistaken I was in my reading of the literature on mtDNA and Y-Chromasome haplotype "lineages" and we agreed to create a new section called Molecular genetics and race to provide an accurate account of that literature. We created the section, but no one has revised it yet to make it accurate. I also added a section to the Social construction of race section to discuss popular uses of mtDNA and haplotype analysis of one's own DNA in order to make claims about one's identity.

On other fronts, we and Ramdrake and Jeeny have been battling racists at European People and White people.

Well, good to see (as it were) you again, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Darwinism

Hi there, your thoughts about this article and its proposed deletion would be appreciated. The sources cited make particularly interesting reading. Tim Vickers 03:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I really do not understand this either. My impression is that Memestream is a psychologist with an interest in evolutionary biology who has read a few popular science books (probably Evolution in four dimensions) and is wanting to apply his interest on Wikipedia. His interest focusses on definitions and semantics and his lack of background in biology is reflected in the quality of the sources he chooses. Not an ill-intentioned person, but certainly not the scientist with a deep understanding of the subject. Tim Vickers 00:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sad. In a way I think he brought that on himself, since the good reputation of his other account (which makes excellent and expert contributions) did not transfer to his "controversial topics" account. Tim Vickers 18:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

Long time no see, and it's good to see you back. Now can we talk about the POV warriors who have invaded since your left us?  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I just read where you had a angiogram or angioplasty (I read "heart cath", so I'm not sure which it was). I'm pretty familiar with cardiology procedures, so if you have any questions, drop me a line. Hope all is well. I'll take all of the steaks and butter you were going to eat for my personal use :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

evolution/neo-Darwinism

nicely handled. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

objections to evolution

Please go over this and make such changes as you see fit? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Objections_to_evolution&diff=173015246&oldid=172833120 thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I couldn't help to notice your comment on the evolution talk page. While I agree with the sentiment that suppression of scientific facts and theories area bad thing, I think perhaps your comment about Iran should be reconsidered (?). Firstly, some of the readers may well be from Iran and may take some offense at that statement, and secondly, I'm sure (as with most other countries) not all people from Iran are religious extremists. I don't mean to sound like I'm telling you off, but do you think you may being a little hasty by adding that comment to a public page?? ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 19:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm just a British scientist living in the US so constantly being cautious about what I say, especially concerning religion and evolution (such a huge difference even between Western countries on those subjects). I'm not offended by your comments, I'm just aware that this is a very controversial subject that attracts many heated "debates" - just trying to avoid you getting caught up in another one! Take care, and thanks for responding...gently! :) ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 19:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 05:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

username

Just saw a comment from you on someone else's talk page and had to come here and say - I love your username. Tvoz |talk 17:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

comercial site

Please consider change.

Your first two external links on parathyroid site are very commercial with lots of good and lots of bad infromation mixed together, pointing to each other as if to confirm their own validity but created by the same person. ultimately they are a commercial venture designed to direct patients to the surgeon who has created these pages. These sites have been well maintianed to ensure that they stay at the top of the search engines but may not be entirely reputable. Perhaps other reference would be better.

The following is also a bit confusing:

A blood calcium 15-30 minutes after the biopsy can help determine if the disease is caused by a single abnormal gland or multiple glands.

A drop in serum calcium suggests a single source, and no drop suggests multiple glands. This, with a non-localizing Sestamibi scan would point toward a neck exploration, rather than a minimally invasive method aimed a single gland disease.

US guided FNA identifies parathyroid glands and distinguishes them from LN or Thyroid nodule but can not tell if gland is hyperfunctioning. If lesion in correct location is larger than normal and is parathyroid it will most likely be the culprit.

Most physicians use drop in PTH (rather than calcium) in the operating room, 5 and 10 minutes following excision of a parathyroid to confirm biochemical correction/cure and to exclude multiple gland disease.

nonlocalizing scans are more common in multiglandular disease but may not preclude minimally invasive appraoch and neck exploration can be done "minimally invasive" as well

Please email if you have any questions. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkmitchell (talk • contribs) 02:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Evolution

hi GetAgrippa -- Is this edit [7] yours when you forgot to log in, or are your comments being changed? The IP appears to edit evolution articles, so it could be you, but I don't like to see anon IPs changing comments of registered users. Just checking! best, bikeable (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What on earth is that Mjharrison person thinking? What they are writing is so strange I feel there must be some kind of language barrier. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I told you its an obsession

I have always wondered why the population genetics, in regards to criteria to meet for non-evolving are missing from the main article. I made a point at putting it in the Intro article. In fact, I think that was my first conversation with you. When teaching the topic I outline what has to happen for a population not to evolve. Even the idiots quickly realize that such conditions can not be meet. As to swinging on everyone's gate; I know that is a weakness of mine. Which is why I am so pissed that the entire discussion page is dedicated to ownership and that the current tone of FA is ownership; not helped any by OrangeMarlin's statement accusing ownership. So yes, I do need some help here. --Random Replicator (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Glad you are back. Alun (Wobble) and I sorted out our problems concerning Race, and we are, slowly, trying to revise that article accordingly, feel free to help out. Among other things I now realize how mistaken I was in my reading of the literature on mtDNA and Y-Chromasome haplotype "lineages" and we agreed to create a new section called Molecular genetics and race to provide an accurate account of that literature. We created the section, but no one has revised it yet to make it accurate. I also added a section to the Social construction of race section to discuss popular uses of mtDNA and haplotype analysis of one's own DNA in order to make claims about one's identity.

On other fronts, we and Ramdrake and Jeeny have been battling racists at European People and White people.

Well, good to see (as it were) you again, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Darwinism

Hi there, your thoughts about this article and its proposed deletion would be appreciated. The sources cited make particularly interesting reading. Tim Vickers 03:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I really do not understand this either. My impression is that Memestream is a psychologist with an interest in evolutionary biology who has read a few popular science books (probably Evolution in four dimensions) and is wanting to apply his interest on Wikipedia. His interest focusses on definitions and semantics and his lack of background in biology is reflected in the quality of the sources he chooses. Not an ill-intentioned person, but certainly not the scientist with a deep understanding of the subject. Tim Vickers 00:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sad. In a way I think he brought that on himself, since the good reputation of his other account (which makes excellent and expert contributions) did not transfer to his "controversial topics" account. Tim Vickers 18:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

Long time no see, and it's good to see you back. Now can we talk about the POV warriors who have invaded since your left us?  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I just read where you had a angiogram or angioplasty (I read "heart cath", so I'm not sure which it was). I'm pretty familiar with cardiology procedures, so if you have any questions, drop me a line. Hope all is well. I'll take all of the steaks and butter you were going to eat for my personal use :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

evolution/neo-Darwinism

nicely handled. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

objections to evolution

Please go over this and make such changes as you see fit? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Objections_to_evolution&diff=173015246&oldid=172833120 thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I couldn't help to notice your comment on the evolution talk page. While I agree with the sentiment that suppression of scientific facts and theories area bad thing, I think perhaps your comment about Iran should be reconsidered (?). Firstly, some of the readers may well be from Iran and may take some offense at that statement, and secondly, I'm sure (as with most other countries) not all people from Iran are religious extremists. I don't mean to sound like I'm telling you off, but do you think you may being a little hasty by adding that comment to a public page?? ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 19:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm just a British scientist living in the US so constantly being cautious about what I say, especially concerning religion and evolution (such a huge difference even between Western countries on those subjects). I'm not offended by your comments, I'm just aware that this is a very controversial subject that attracts many heated "debates" - just trying to avoid you getting caught up in another one! Take care, and thanks for responding...gently! :) ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 19:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 05:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

username

Just saw a comment from you on someone else's talk page and had to come here and say - I love your username. Tvoz |talk 17:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

comercial site

Please consider change.

Your first two external links on parathyroid site are very commercial with lots of good and lots of bad infromation mixed together, pointing to each other as if to confirm their own validity but created by the same person. ultimately they are a commercial venture designed to direct patients to the surgeon who has created these pages. These sites have been well maintianed to ensure that they stay at the top of the search engines but may not be entirely reputable. Perhaps other reference would be better.

The following is also a bit confusing:

A blood calcium 15-30 minutes after the biopsy can help determine if the disease is caused by a single abnormal gland or multiple glands.

A drop in serum calcium suggests a single source, and no drop suggests multiple glands. This, with a non-localizing Sestamibi scan would point toward a neck exploration, rather than a minimally invasive method aimed a single gland disease.

US guided FNA identifies parathyroid glands and distinguishes them from LN or Thyroid nodule but can not tell if gland is hyperfunctioning. If lesion in correct location is larger than normal and is parathyroid it will most likely be the culprit.

Most physicians use drop in PTH (rather than calcium) in the operating room, 5 and 10 minutes following excision of a parathyroid to confirm biochemical correction/cure and to exclude multiple gland disease.

nonlocalizing scans are more common in multiglandular disease but may not preclude minimally invasive appraoch and neck exploration can be done "minimally invasive" as well

Please email if you have any questions. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkmitchell (talk • contribs) 02:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Evolution

hi GetAgrippa -- Is this edit [8] yours when you forgot to log in, or are your comments being changed? The IP appears to edit evolution articles, so it could be you, but I don't like to see anon IPs changing comments of registered users. Just checking! best, bikeable (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What on earth is that Mjharrison person thinking? What they are writing is so strange I feel there must be some kind of language barrier. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I told you its an obsession

I have always wondered why the population genetics, in regards to criteria to meet for non-evolving are missing from the main article. I made a point at putting it in the Intro article. In fact, I think that was my first conversation with you. When teaching the topic I outline what has to happen for a population not to evolve. Even the idiots quickly realize that such conditions can not be meet. As to swinging on everyone's gate; I know that is a weakness of mine. Which is why I am so pissed that the entire discussion page is dedicated to ownership and that the current tone of FA is ownership; not helped any by OrangeMarlin's statement accusing ownership. So yes, I do need some help here. --Random Replicator (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)