User talk:Quietmarc

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Quietmarc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey hey! My first comment on my talk page. Now I truly am a wikipedian... :)Quietmarc (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expelled, Darwin, etc

Marc--Hello! Thanks for chiming in. You wrote, "For that particular section, the main reference is the sciam article, and because scientific american didn't include the entire quotation, we cannot, either." When I came across the article, it already had the two references that are still there, footnotes #'s 75, to the SciAm article, and 76, to the text of Darwin's The Descent of Man. I would not want to misrepresent SciAm, but I object to their misrepresenting Darwin. As Nerdseeksblonde said, if we can't complete the quote SciAm mined from the original, we should just drop it. But I think if I delete it, Dave will restore it. No point in that. That's why I'm going to try to go up a level. I still cannot for the life or me understand why a primary source is banned, unless maintaining political correctness is a greater goal than accuracy and truth. For example, in the Wiki article on George Washington, footnote #32 leads to Washington's original writing, not to a book or magazine or newspaper. That's all I'm requesting.

Is the difference between the Expelled... article in Wiki and the one in George Washington that one is a movie review? No, can't be--the reviews of Mary Poppins and Secondhand Lions, for two examples of Wiki reviews, are not so carefully footnoted. This is what leads me to the conclusion that it is to protect Darwin's legacy at the expense of suppressing what he wrote. Just take a look at Dave's talk page to see what a champion of Darwin and opponent of creationists he is.

Please show me where I'm mistaken if I am. Yopienso (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopienso (talk • contribs)

I believe Dave is latching onto a NPOV rule--also known as grasping at straws--to prevent me from including the full quote. I don't see him doing backflips over at Mary Poppins or Secondhand Lions because they are improperly sourced.

Here Wikipedia links "my" banned quote to the movie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

The quote is in a text box about a third of the way down, and the movie is cited in the third paragraph of "Criticisms and controversies."

I would add it to the article, except I've already appealed to the mediation cabal. Besides, I have no desire to argue or get into an edit war.

Perhaps this next reference http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2008/02/how-low-can-ben-stein-go/ would be disallowed because the quote comes in a reply from one Alan Niven whom I can find online only refuting evolutionists. Yes, I myself would disallow this being introduced into the article. I pass it on to you in case you are interested--it does have "my" quote--Darwin's full passage--on the same page and in rebuttal to a hostile review of the movie. Obviously I'm not the only person who is aware of this inconsistency in Darwin's legacy-protectors who also serve as Wiki's and every other PC organ's gatekeepers. What is ironic to me is that I fully understand Darwin was speaking from his time and the knowledge available to him, and am clamorous that a man must always be judged by his times. Nor do I pin his mistakes on Dawkins or Provine or Dave Souza. However, it is true that the eugenicists did build on Darwin's foundation, and Darwin was very much aware of his cousin's arguments and to a point agreed. But, as Shoemaker's Holiday informed me, that will never fly at Wiki.

This has been a great education for me and has convinced me that my friends who believe in a left-wing conspiracy are not as loony as I had thought. There's no organized conspiracy, of course, except perhaps by a few nuts--certainly not by any of the evolutionists appearing in Stein's film. But just as Christianity, being pervasive in the common culture for the past millennium, kept a tight clamp on scientific investigation and conclusions, being an actual "conspiracy" only infrequently, so today in our post-Christian world the pervasive humanistic common culture controls the media and to a great extent, the purse strings of scientific inquiry. I had hoped for better, but as Darwin concluded, "Man [though he be a genius educated at Oxford] still bears in his bodily frame [from which I perhaps unjustifiably extrapolate "and mental processes and social conduct"] the indelible stamp of his lowly origin." Might makes right. Or at least preponderance defines the flow of the mainstream. Yopienso (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baraminology

Please see the new thread I started here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: regarding dating methods

I saw in an edit summary on Dead Sea scrolls that you stated WP preferred CE and BCE. Actually, we have no preference: see WP:ERA. It's typically the decision of the original article writer of which style to use. However, we don't change from one to the other without good reason such as to make the page uniform in one style; IOW your rv was good. Auntie E. 16:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info...I suppose it's similar to the British/American English thing...it should be consistent in the article, but doesn't have to be wiki-wide. What would you have put in the summary for that change? Quietmarc (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Case

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Weaponbb7 (talk)

Spoiler Discussion

Dear User,

You previously participated at the discussion regarding the collapsing of spolier's at Talk:The_Mousetrap. I invite you to comment at a similar discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler#Proposal.

Many Thanks

Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 22:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

creation–evolution controversy

An article you have edited List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy has been nominated for deletion. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_participants_in_the_creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy FYI --Kaptinavenger (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]