Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution

Moved from main page

"I think I sense a chip on someone's shoulder..... It is general. Get it? General. You want sex? There are plenty of articles on here about evolution of sex, including a couple that are in horrible shape. In fact, I wonder if you might be the author of one of those horrible articles which appears to be nothing but complete gibberish from the experts who looked at it." This isn't just my perception, this is belittling another editor. There is no reason to speculate about me and a potential "chip on my shoulder" in a discussioni about an article. Please don't tell me this is anything other than what it is: a diversion from the topic in an attempt to personally cast me in a poor light. The speculation that I wrote bad articles and probably wrote gibberish because this person disagrees with my comments is the same thing. It's bad enough to see this written about me, but for you to come and defend it as not being "evidence of incivility," confusing to you that I see it as such, and "alarming" is even more offensive. Not even on Wikipedia should discussions about a topic diminish to personal speculation about the person. Please don't. --Amaltheus (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no facts to back up your attack on other editors. There is not only consensus, but it's pretty much a great article. Provide diffs if you've been attacked. Otherwise, chill out. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Provide diffs? What's that? My attacks? I quoted from the talk page. Why don't any of you tell people to chill out when they start accusing others of writing "gibberish" and of having a "chip on their shoulder" instead of joining in the attack? --Amaltheus (talk) 06:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:Diff Here we go.[1][2]

"Oh well. He is angry and spewing. But to be honest, I think he would be anyway. He is just angry angry and frankly, a crank.--Filll (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)" chip on shoulder all the rest

It's personal. Particularly continuing it after I withdrew. There is no need for others to come here and say it is not what it is. Wikipedians have long histories with other editors and interactions and seem to take these out on newcomers to an article. It's amusing, I guess. But it's a waste of time. Other editors will come to this article when it is a featured article and will be met with the same hostility and personal attacks. --Amaltheus (talk) 06:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent>It is unfortunate that a disagreement over a minor edit, expanded to the point of making anyone feel unwelcome. In fact, I may have been less then open minded on the suggestion. But, I really feel that such injustice would best be addressed through different avenues. This page is not the place to strike back via an oppose; regardless of any insults received. Here we discuss the merits of the article itself; not the editors. In some defense of my actions; there is no history of edit wars – remarkable considering the topic. The only reason my name is all over it is because I am incorporating the ideas of others. I hope you will consider holding back on a position on the quality of this entry until nerves have settled; then I encourage you to return to voice a support or oppose based on the article itself. Please consider my logic.--Random Replicator (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The scholarly arguments would be more interesting if they were that. Discussing evolution and others' views is fascinating. It's been hijacked by the creationists everywhere to become these boring off-topic discussions where ideas are shoved down each others' throats. I love to have people challenge my ideas, but when the level of challenge is: "I think you wrote gibberish," it's not a challenge, but an admission of not being able to challenge the ideas offered. Still, it has been an entertaining insight into Wikipedia. This is enough of the issue of this article for me, though. It's clear the article does not have the support of a variety of editors working on the subject to gain consensus but rather a small group pushing various ideas while name-calling others.

I did look over the pages about featured and good articles, and I think that reaching a consensus on an article of this nature is important. I think also that being able to discuss the topic on the talk page at an intellectual level to show young readers that this is done is very important. This is my personal opinion on the matter, like OrangeMarlin's dislike of textbooks or books. Given the nature of the topic I stand by my strong oppose, others may do with it as they like. A well done article introducing the reader to the topic of evolution is an excellent idea. It deserves to be treated with respect on the talk page. If one writer is calling another names then everyone jumps in to support the name caller the discussion page will not be a venue for discussing the article. An article about evolution will generate discussion on the talk page. I think getting together as editors and encouraging actual discussion about the topic is very important to the high quality of this article. That's my opinion. --Amaltheus (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Its unfortunate it came to this; we are cluttering this page. But you are not the innocent victim which you claim to be. Below is your commentary that occurred before Filll's response quoted above. You were screaming persecution while the conversation was more than civil and open-minded. "I don't think that my comments were considered, looking at the hostile response above, and the attempt to find multiple contradictory reasons to dismiss me by first saying I'm making it to complex, and now I'm dismissing bacteria (I had left out prokaryotes to respect the tone of the existing article and its emphasis on eukrayotes), and I see the Wiki-gang-up in full force. I am more used to discussions about teaching evolution where others' ideas are weighed and evaluated rather than hostilely and aggressively dismissed. This is not a beneficial technique for learning. I will not continue this discussion. There is no need to call others in to dismiss my comments from even different angles, the hostility to sex as a source of variation is evident." It is this that preceded Fillls response; you were claiming persecution, simply because of the disagreeing views. I am not saying you deserved a personal attack; but you were stretching the limits on patience for those disagreeing with your idea by calling them bullies; certainly you were never open minded to an opposing view. That's my opinion.--Random Replicator (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine we can continue. This is Fills' first exchange with me, my comments first, I'll be sure to bold his, too, because I can bold also:

Better, but point 2 is talking about sexually reproduced offspring in general. Bacteria reproduce, and their offspring may be identical to the parent. While clones may differ in minor random ways due to mutations this may or may not be accumulatable, so you should mention sex somewhere. Also, if it is sex, it has parents.--Amaltheus (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

For this kind of overview or gentle introduction, extra complications or exceptions really are inappropriate. We have the same problem with this article in general, or the LEAD. We cannot be all things to all people here. That is why there is an article called evolution. Even there, there is argument that the LEAD is too general and does not cover enough exceptions and special cases.

However, if one insists that even 13-15 year olds (the target audience for this article) must hear the fine details suitable for graduate study on their first encounter with the subject, you will destroy the entire reason for the article's existence. We just cannot include all kinds of complications in the overview box. That is what happened to it before (version 2 above). People want to shove so much extra crap in that it becomes worthless. If you want detail, read the article itself. Better yet, read evolution. Better yet, read the references.--Filll (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Your response supports what I said about the gang up tendency. You're looking for something to say, it seems, to support Filll's attack of me, anything. --Amaltheus (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You will likely never view that paragraph as your own form of personal attack. I took offense, when I read it. The accusations of being hostile and operating under a gang mentality were made before things got out of hand. You see nothing in it that represents a personal attack? I must stop now, this is disturbing and destructive. You are welcome to have the last word. I will add no more--Random Replicator (talk) 07:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Amaltheus, both you and Filll have expressed yourself strongly. I shall be asking him to withdraw anything that could be construed as a personal attack, and I hope you'll do the same. From the discussion on Darwin's finches I'd hope that you can work with others constructively, and since you evidently feel that sex is mandatory for this article aimed at 14 year olds, it will be welcome if you can propose detailed changes to the wording to meet your objective, remembering to keep the information concise and simple. Thanks, ... dave souza, talk 12:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent> I withdrew my comments and apologized. And frankly, I have to agree with RR here. Your initial several posts to the talk page I found offensive. And if I am attacked enough, I will return fire in kind. I am sorry about that, but try to change your attitude and you might get a better reception. You even wrote that you had been in trouble on Wikipedia before from editors and even bots for your edits. You refused to even suggest constructive changes when asked and asked. And I did not say you wrote gibberish; I said another article on evolution and sex was gibberish and the author had visited us before and caused trouble. Sorry again.--Filll (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Take it outside, guys. A single editor made snide comments to another, since striken and apologized for. Anyone looking to see this go further needs to take it to dispute resolution. But this FAC is not the place to resolve the who-called-who-names disputes. Today's lesson from the Professor: In any content dispute, incivility will fail to torpedo the opponent, but it can torpedo an article or a FAC real fast, so those guilty of it need to knock-it-off. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Solely in defense of this FA attempt: A review of the discussion pages over the last few months and a quick over-view of the edit history should demonstrate a pattern of compromises which have lead to improvements. This clash does not be-speak of the attitude of the numerous editors. There is nothing in the edit history or conversations on the discussion page that even remotely suggest ownership by any particular individual or group of individuals. This squabble represents a personality clash and nothing more. I hope those who are kind enough to critique are not left with the impression that input is not valued. It is. So I hope we move on to address any problems with the article itself that may account for it falling short of FA. I can assure you that all your concerns raised here; that are actionable will/have been discussed. Any that have been deemed controversial are discussed; often at length on the talk page in an effort to reach a general agreement. --Random Replicator (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my concerns with this article. The ownership gang simply will not let it go. They have now moved on to insulting me personally on Random Replicator's discussion page for my attempt to discuss the article on its discussion page. If the writers are more interested in and concerned with insulting an editor who attempted to contribute to the article by first discussing potential edits on the discussion page this will make the article problematic as a FA. Read what it says on many discussion pages on Wikipedia, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the article."

This FAC is the place to say what I said. I stand by it. The "retraction" of insults was merely a move to a new venue for continuing personal attacks against someone who thought there was meaning to discussing articles on the talk page. The attacks continue:

[3] Now I'm being called not sane: "those of us who are sane ... are always willing to debate things in a calm fashion." I'm guilty of endless badgering[4] for making a comment. I'm guilty of trying to "shove sex and frantically promote sex"[5] because I suggested sex should be mentioned once in the summary box. I'm just a "person who wants to have disputes ... dictate to everyone else."

The editors are more interested in badgering, belittling, attacking, and insulting editors who want to discuss the article on the discussion page, who disagree with the content by raising issues on the discussion page first, the article will be a problem because of the owning editors. This looks bad for Wikipedia. Really bad that editors not only cannot discuss the issue with an outsider (many outsiders will be attracted by the FA status) but continue badgering and insulting the editor who dared to speak up. If this is what will happen to anyone who disagrees with any content of the article, if what happens is they become the target of malicious multi-venue on Wikipedia personal insults, it will detract from the article and from Wikipedia limiting its value as a FA.

This is the place to mention this, at the FAC, if FA status ultimately puts other potential editors, particularly kids, in the path of these editors and the article they own. As long as the editors continue to attack me on Wikipedia for disagreeing with them I cannot more strongly state my opposition to putting this article in a place where others could become targets of this malice. --Amaltheus (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The evidence for article ownership is not there. Amaltheus (talk · contribs) has made one contribution to Introduction to evolution‎ which was this on 5 Jan 2007. The edit was accepted. There was no edit war. The user has made no further edits although the editor has edited on the talk page. No one has blocked the editor from editing. On the contrary, I've invited the editor to make contributions to the article on the editor's talk page: see here Unfortunately, the editor has claimed 'ownership problems' on other articles: see here, here, and here. The editor wrote in an edit summary here, "Removed comment unread. Unnecessary with the length and opening shot. Familiar already with desperate protection of articles on Wikipedia". Seriously, I doubt any of these are real ownership disputes. Certainly, there has been no edit warring on the Introduction to evolution article in several weeks. I invite the editor to edit the article and contribute to make this a truly good FA article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no seen no evidence of WP:OWN on this page over the past few months that I have been copy editing and reviewing it. Quite the opposite in fact. I have offered several comprehensive reviews and each time the editors have been eager to embrace my suggestions to improve the page (or politely decline them!). Awadewit | talk 03:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The "diffs" from a respone to Filll advising me that acting like him is the way to go on Wikipedia and threatening me that I won't last long unless I act like him or if I do act like him. The last part isn't clear, but when people are unclear about what others say, they should lash out and attack, deny what they've said, and gang up on other editors relentlessly hounding them away.

I think you're right that I should try to follow the example you and your friends set so I can fit in. I will accuse other editors of "endless badgering" when I disagree with their viewpoint,[6] I will accuse other editors of trying to "shove crap" into articles when they want to add a single line that I disagree with,[7] I will speculate about the "reasonableness ... of trying to frantically promote sex" or any other agenda if someone brings up something I disagree with,[8] I will accuse people who make a couple of suggestions about an article that I disagree with of "trying to dictate to everyone else just because everything they suggest is not going to be adopted and they want to have disputes,[9] I will accuse people I disagree with of being bullies and wanting to throw tantrums I will accuse other editors I disagree with of being obsessed with their topic (sex really threw you for a loupe it seems, sorry about that, I realize it's culturally a difficult topic in places, but not that it would so hard for an article about multicellular eukaryotic evolution),[10] I will accuse people who disagree with me of "being here only to fight," because, after all, if they don't agree with me, they're here to fight me, no one ever discussed an issue on Wikipedia, I will have my friends gang up on an editor I disagree with then bait them to make them even more of a target (you go Wassup, that was a brilliant stroke of temptation!)[11] while I mock them for being "obsessed with sex"[12] I will accuse people of wanting to alter a single line of text in a summary of trying to add "fine details suitable for graduate study in order to destroy the article by trying to to shove so much extra crap in that it becomes worthless,"[13] then when they respond my friends and I will take off like we're at target practice shooting them down on the article talk page, shooting them down on our discussion pages, belittling them, attacking them, lying about what they said and denying everything I said all over the place, ignoring all the evidence to the contrary. I will accuse my opponent of "having a chip on their shoulder"[14] and speculate they write "complete gibberish" for Wikipedia just for the hell of it.[15] Then, just for fun, I'll start going to their discussion page and saying, even though I said they had "a chip on their shoulder," "wrote gibberish," "endlessly badger" other editors, that they're at Wikipedia "only to fight" that the problem is all them for failing to learn more about Wikipedia.

The editors of this article cannot leave someone they disagree with alone.

The evidence for article ownership is clearly present in Filll's and friends' relentless continuing attacks and personal insults against me for asking that sex be included in one line of a summary box. I assume the offensive issue is sex, that this is a charged issue for Filll for some reason, but sex will be discussed with eukaryotic multi-cellular reproduction and evolution. One can't offer an article and hope that the readers' minds will contract. The issue may be brought up again for discussion on the discussion page. It will lead to what it has led to here, hounding someone who raised an issue that is personally unpopular with one of the article's owners.

I do love the threat by Filll on my discussion page, that if I act like him, my time at Wikipedia will be short. It contradicts Filll as an example.

The continued hounding and denial of it are the ownership. I discussed the article on the discussion page as suggested by Wikipedia, and this, according to the articles' owners is wrong. This article has to be discussed a special and unknown way, or contributors will be personally attacked. --Amaltheus (talk) 07:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know or care what is going on here but what I have seen is a ton of violations of WP:NPA that has consumed and taken over the FAC page forcing me to move this text to the discussion page. If it continues my blocking finger will start clicking. That is an official warning to all parties involved in the above dispute.--Jersey Devil (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

OMG... I've been away for a couple of days, and then I come back to find this. I haven't time to read all of it in detail, but on the basis of a quick skim-through it strikes me that: (1) The "very strong oppose" from Amaltheus originated, as far as I can see, in a minor disagreement about the wording of the summary box and whether to cover just eukaryotes in the text / in the box. (2) The "very strong oppose" seems to be based on a grievance at the way Amaltheus feels he/she has been treated, rather than on the article itself and whether it's worthy of FA status. (3) I cannot see any substantive reason given by Amaltheus to support the opposition - and whatever about the recent unfortunate spat, the accusations of WP:OWN, and the fears that the article will inevitably be subject to edit-warring, are completely unwarranted. (4) Like Amaltheus, I care about the article's continuing value and accuracy. But what it does not need is this sort of nit-picking attack. And sorry, it is nitpicking. This is an introductory article. It is bound to blur a few fine distinctions and skate over a few details. In summary, I can see no justification for writing "very strong oppose" on the FAC page - and I invite Amaltheus to reconsider it, looking at the article itself and setting aside any sense of hurt arising from the perceived attitudes of other editors. Snalwibma (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that if people would read what I say before dismissing it, they would not resort to calling my concerns "nitpicking" and the dozen other assaults on my ability to think given by Filll. I also would appreciate if other editors who want to assign me "feelings" based on Filll's words, would actually read what Filll said and tell me how my perception is wrong. I read some of Filll's comments on other articles the other day, encouraging this sort of action to other editors, by dismissing it and attacking those who are already the target of it is disgusting. Snalwibma, please tell me how you are comfortable ascribing a "sense of hurt" to me in an intellectual debate? My emotions are not at issue here, but they keep being raised. You've called my arguments nitpicking, but you haven't countered. Please counter what I offered, but please don't ascribe feelings of hurt to me.

As an introduction to evolution the article discussion page will be a place where consensus on the topic is to be reached. Evolution is a huge topic. This article rather than being taken from an outline in a book on "introduction to evolution" is an article composed from the main topic, evolution, by Wikipedia writers. As such, it is their original take on what an "introduction to evolution" should be for the age group they're targetintg. None of them have given evidence on the discussion page that they are the qualified education experts who alone should be outlining an introcution to evidence.

Given that, reaching consensus about the content of the article from a number of editors is important to having a high caliber or FA on the topic. This will require that the discussion page be used just for that. Filll did not say that my disagreement was minor. What he did was insult and attack me, just like you are coming here and urging me to set aside my "feelings of hurt" as if my argument could bear no weight whatsoever. I'm just "nitpicking" according to you. In fact, people will nitpick. The target audience, young teenagers, may nitpick, go off on tangents, ask unfocused questions about the article and its choices of topics and examples. And, when these nitpickers are responed to by ascribing "feelings of hurt" to them, by dismissing their contributions as worthless, intellectual discussion of the issues will not occur.

The article will suffer for this. Evolution is a huge topic. There are enough creationists and intelligent designers who have made it into something else. It is a straight forward idea about the world we live in based on a hundreds of years of observing that world and thinking about how it came to be. This should earn respectful discussion by all parties when questions about the focus arise. This should be so fascinating that thinking about someone else's "feelings of hurt" is lost amidst the debate about the topic.

With this particular article that is not the case, and it continues not to be the case. The article itself is not interesting enough that the editors could not be pulled away for days to discuss me. You come here and refuse to address the issues I raised, instead choosing to ascribe a "sense of hurt" to me for my disagreement on the FAC. The article itself does not generate enough respect among its supporters to be the focus of their arguments for it attaining FA status. When it is on the main page, this will be a bigger and sillier problem than it is now.

I stand by my "very strong oppose" as long as the editors and their supporters don't dig the article enough to stop badgering those who disagree with any part of it. This attitude would be disasterous for an article trying to attract a young readership. --Amaltheus (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In which case I am completely at a loss to understand what the problem is. You refer only to the behaviour of editors, not to the article itself. What is your problem with the article, and how would you like to see it improved? Snalwibma (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

My problem is just what I stated, and continue to state, and you continue to ignore. Please, if you have no intention of reading my prior repsonse, don't continue this discussion.

The article should be able to tolerate discussion, reasoned debated, intellectual exchanges on its talk page. It cannot do this because of the hostility with which disagreement is met on the discussion page of the article. When it is on the main page, there may be more discussion, particularly by its young audience. There is no reason to subject anyone else to what I have been subjected to. The editors simply could not let go of discussing me for days on end. The topic of the article should be written up well-enough that it can stand debate. When I raised a specific issue, instead of responding to the issue I was attacked, relentlessly, for days. It is clear the article is not sufficiently well written and has not been thought out well enough that its editors can stand to debate, support, and accept challenges to what they've chosen to write. Evolution is one of the most talked about topics on the web, an article on evolution that is "featured" on Wikipedia should be able to tolerate debate. This one can't.

I would like the article to be improved by its editors responding to the content of what I disagreed with, without any belittling of me, or attacking me. I would the article to be improved by the editors showing they are confident enough in what they have written to be able to discuss and validate their own choices against other choices, or to consider other topical issues. I would like the article to be improved enough that the editors are comfortable reading what people write on the discussion page and discussing the issues raised, instead of their sense of the writer's "hurt." I would like the article to be about an introduction to evolution, not a desperate race to featured article status knocking down anyone who is suspected of being in the way.

If you can't discuss something I've written, or are unwilling to, please don't bother responding, it's not needed.

As to your claim that I refer only to the editors' behavior, not to problems with the article itself, you are the one who raised the issue of my "sense of hurt." If you want to discuss the article, don't imagine you can sense what I am feeling from square one, then come back and tell me I've failed to discuss the article itself. You don't know what I'm "sensing." You don't seem to have read what I've written, by your response, either. --Amaltheus (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio

<copy of oppose comment, and subsequent discussion moved from FaC page>

• • Sink, imo--update my very strong oppose Although it may have just been an editing error, probably was in fact, there was a copy vio added to the article where almost two full lines of distinctive text from a major researcher were used without quotation marks.[16][17] I think the article needs thoroughly checked for other inappropriately or improperly used text, particularly when it is aimed at younger readers. IMO this simply has to be done for the entire article before it should be featured on the front page, as this could be embarrassing for Wikipedia and reflect poorly on all of our evolutionary biology articles. This is too strong of a potential bad influence on young readers, also, imo. --Amaltheus (talk) 08:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I admire your enthusiam to protect the young reader; I am somewhat preplexed about the implication that the article is plagerized is not FA because of copyvio problems; based on a last minute, midnight addition; by an editor that played only a minor - recent role - in improving the article. You were on this page before the ink dried on that edit. Certainly before anyone had the chance to even review the edit; much less question its validity. Have we been removed from your F... off list [18] --Random Replicator (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I clearly indicated in my post (please do read the entire post) that there may be another reason for the copyvio (plagiarism is a harsh word to use without knowledge of intent, so we should stick with copyvio if you don't mind). Removing material from Wikipedia that is a copyvio before the ink on the page has time to dry is appropriate. Wassupwestcoast is an administrator and will confirm this. Copyvios are serious problems on the web and dealing with them quickly and responsibly should be part of Wikipedia, including making sure that FAs conform to the practice of having no copyvios in them. If an obvious copyvio is present, whether due to quick editing or intentionally, the article should have another level of scrutiny for additional copyright violations before moving on to becoming a FA.

(If you are telling me to F off, please take this to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution as you yourself requested. Please remove both your comment and my response to the appropriate page when you have read this.) --Amaltheus (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I do think the revert was appropriate; and should have been immediate; however, again I question the eagerness to bring the concern here as a reflection that it is problematic of the entire article. The F list is of your making; don't twist the message to imply I am of like mind. Random Replicator --71.77.211.77 (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)--Random Replicator (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not twisting it. I offer the F list to those who want to confirm, as you appear to want, that they do own the article. It was your suggestion that certain comments be moved to the discussion page of this page. If you consider my F list to be an appropriate conversation for this page, you appear to have changed from your past intention to move discussing me off of this page. That's fine. People make mistakes, and people change their minds. However, let's not discuss it any more here as a courtesy to others following this page, and let's do use the talk page if you wish to discuss your participation in my F list.

I'm okay with doing things at the time, rather than waiting. I think copyright violations are as serious as Wikipedia's policy claims they are. --Amaltheus (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Yes, there was a copyvio, and it has now been fixed. Thanks, Amaltheus! But to go from there to a suggestion that the article suffers from other copyvios, and because of that to condemn it as a whole, is stretching things a bit far. If there is evidence of anything like that, let's have it uncovered and sorted out - but it is unfair to use this one slip-up as a stick to beat the whole article with. Snalwibma (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Unindent Re "beat the whole article." This is what I said, "IMO this simply has to be done for the entire article before it should be featured on the front page, as this could be embarrassing for Wikipedia and reflect poorly on all of our evolutionary biology articles." I think asking that the entire article be checked for copyvios is realistic considering the obviousness of the copyright violation, and necessary considering the importance of not having copyvios, and the problems that may arise if copyvios appear on the front page. The entire article should be carefully beat for copyvios. Possibly even if it was a simply a mistake by Wassupwestcoast, if the article should wind up on the main page. I think I stretched things exactly as far as they need to go: check the entire article carefully for other slip ups of this nature. --Amaltheus (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately this instance was fairly easy to identify, as it had the edit summary temp text and ref to bolster speciation implying that it was a temporary insertion requiring editing. Your assistance in checking text against the supporting references is much appreciated, and I trust that you'll assist with checking for any other instances. .. dave souza, talk 21:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

<end of moved talk>

A question on this, is it appropriate, then, to add a copyvio with the intention of editing it out later? This seems like a bad policy. --Amaltheus (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

More owneship issues.

Moved from FA page:--Random Replicator (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

---

I had been trying to work with the authors, but it's apparent the ownership issues won't go away. As I won't be allowed to discuss changes, my concerns about the quality of the article remain unaddressed. These quality issues arise because of the difficulties discussing the article with its various owners. This article is nowhere in the vicinity of the featured articles I have been reading on the main page. --Amaltheus (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC) PS I don't at this point care what happens to the article and will leave it alone, good or crappy. I cannot believe how nasty the editors have been to me and continue to be. Anyone can edit? Not a chance. --Amaltheus (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion on talk page. --Amaltheus (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Amaltheus was asked to join a group of the page's editors and myself on our revision of the lead of the article (he subsequently erased this invitation from his userpage), but s/he refused. See here. I specifically made an effort to invite him/her because I know s/he had felt excluded in the past. I agree with him/her that many of the sentences are problematic; in fact, I identified them as such just today on the talk page. We will be fixing them tomorrow. Awadewit | talk 08:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I was asked why I bothered to post to a discussion on the lead section.[19] Then I was told that I was not invited.[20] Then I was scolded by someone for getting ticked off at trying to provide useful changes to the article in spite of being mocked by the editors for a week. Then I got Awadewit's invitation. I think I will allow myself the utter incredulity that this was really an invitation. My comments about evolutionary biology stand regardless of this continued personal assault on me. --Amaltheus (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

These comments about ownership, "getting ticked off", "being mocked", and a "personal assault" are completely unjustified. I suggest that any further discussion of these matters should take place at User talk:Amaltheus.Snalwibma (talk) 09:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't take them or any discussions about me to User talk:Amaltheus or User talk:DVdm or User talk:Snalwibma or anywhere else on Wikipedia, just Stop it! Cheers![21], [22], [23][24] --Amaltheus (talk) 06:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty enough in the article that needs worked on. --Amaltheus (talk) 06:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Late Game Summary

For clarity:

• Supports

Ben (talk · contribs)

DrKiernan (talk · contribs)

Kaldari (talk · contribs)

dave souza (talk · contribs)

Awadewit (talk · contribs)

Giano (talk · contribs)

Professor marginalia (talk · contribs)

Dweller (talk · contribs)

GetAgrippa (talk · contribs)

Wassupwestcoast (talk · contribs)

David D. (talk · contribs)

GrahamColm (talk · contribs)

• Strong Oppose

Amaltheus (talk · contribs) On-going

• Oppose
• Tony1 (talk · contribs): comprehensive, 1b
• Marskell (talk · contribs): comprehensive, 1b, stability, 1e
• Sceptre (talk · contribs): stability
• Oppose No obvious resolutions

Orangemarlin (talk · contribs): use of secondary references

• Oppose, User Inactive

Kaypoh (talk · contribs) :no follow-up to invite

Brískelly (talk · contribs): no follow-up to invite

Titanium Dragon (talk · contribs): no follow-up to invite

Edit at will: --Random Replicator (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved from FAC page

What are you talking about? Show me what it says now, and what you suggest to rewrite. I've answered the question enough, and it's tiresome that my answers don't get read, get ignored, then I get asked to answer the same question again. "The problem is raising the double helix to the level of one of the most important breakthroughs in the biological sciences when it pales in comparison to what their published insight into the base pairing does. I don't think the sentences about the base pairing G-C A-T have added anything to the article or are necessary to an article of this nature. But Waston and Crick should be clarified because that little sentence in this one tiny article is the foundation of a new era in science, and in evolutionary science, and the double helix, as important and interesting as it is, is not the same thing." I'll repeate myself. --Amaltheus (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Random Replicator (talk • contribs)

Please never address me in such a dismissive manner again: I've answered the question enough, and it's tiresome that my answers don't get read, get ignored, then I get asked to answer the same question again. Whether it was intend or not --- it is insulting. I've attempted to clarify on the introduction evolution talk page.--Random Replicator (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's tiresome having one's comments completely dismissed. So, you don't like it either? But I don't get to ever ask any of you not to do it to me. Stop it! Cheers! --Amaltheus (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Both stop; stick to the article, don't engage the other. Random Replicator asked a legit question; I'm not clear on the answer either. Graham tried to help, it seems to me that we all want to know if you're happy with what is there now, after the changes. Patience, please. You've come this far, it's not necessary to get snippy at this late stage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

He asked a question about a section I had already struck. I answered the question he asked, then he asked it again. And I answered it again. And I addressed it with Graham's post. How many times is his question legit? Once seems enough. RR is asking about "adequate to your concerns" when I've already struck out my concerns on this issue. What concerns? --Amaltheus (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I interpreted it as a good faith question; there were several changes made. If you're happy with what is there now, there's no problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was happy or unconcerned about any issues with the way it is now, that's why I struck it out. It would be nice if my strike out had been considered a "good faith strike out." I don't agree with everything in the article, but not all things are important enough to the quality and substance of the article to raise as issues. I'm not keen on including the description of DNA base pairing, but it would be easy enough for any of thousands of living evolutionary biologists to argue its importance in an introduction to the topic of evolution, because genetics is how evolution is primarily studied today, so it is a matter of opinion not critical to the article whether it stays or not. IMO. --Amaltheus (talk)22:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Amaltheus, I really thought RR was asking a different question that whan you had struck, but perhaps I misunderstood. The article has come a long ways, and it looks to me like your suggestions are being read and understood and dealt with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I was asking if I could address his concern in a different manner to avoid the need to expand so much. Perhaps by simply deleting the term "double helix" as a point of emphasis, we could meet the need without expanding so much. I've address it at the articles talk page with three examples. If you no longer have the patience to help me through this then I recommended using the same edit option I have access to. As it currently stands; I attempt to clearly understand your concerns, put them in the article, then wait for the blazing criticisms. Certainly not any joy in that. --Random Replicator (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The "blazing criticisms" are about issues related to genetics and evolution. The article has a number of serious problems about the topic itself. I generally have my papers edited by critical people prior to submitting them for any reason. It's standard in the sciences to do this. It's hard to adopt a completely different standard when discussing the sciences-a standard that is foreign to the sciences. Blistering criticisms? If the article says evolution is something it's not, it should be pointed out before the article goes to number one on Google. --Amaltheus (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Until you are willing to use the edit this page option at the top; you will unfortunately have to depend on others to address your concerns. As such, it is better not to lace every suggestion with derogatory commentary about either the article or the editors. I have no ownership here; I'm simply trying orchestrate compromise; which until now - I've been successful. If you goal is to improve --- then jump right in. If your mission was to be a disruptive force --- then consider it accomplished. As the last survivng member of the Wikigang -I formally declare that I've had a belly full of this crap. I'm done --- you win! Someone e-mail and let me know how it comes out. Cheers! --71.77.211.77 (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)--Random Replicator (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop it! Cheers! --Amaltheus (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What part of you win do you not understand? Next step, AfD.--Filll (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The part that says "you win" then turns around and calls me an asshole.[25] Thanks for the congratulations, by the way. That was nice of you. --Amaltheus (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)