User talk:Filll/Archive 20

I'm worried

Hi Filll

As you've probably gathered, my special area of activity on Wikipedia is the Old Testament, especially the Pentateuch. My aim is to gradually (it has to be gradual - these articles are all controversial) bring them up to encyclopedia-standard by bringing modern biblical scholarship into the picture. (Have a look at my on-going re-write of Creation according to Genesis - once a stronghold og wide-eyed creationism, not increasingly scholarly, and not yet finished).

Anyway, a new link has appeared on Genesis. It's T Wikiversity: Study of Genesis. I never knew this thing existed. But apparently, in the democratic world of Wiki, not only can any ignoramus write encyclopedia articles to educate his equally ignorant fellows, he can also run university courses. This one, on the study of Genesis, is being run by a guy who woks in a Target store. Jesus wept.

So what to do? It won't just go away. And I can't say I disagree with the "courses" he's set out. But a guy from Target is going to assess papers? http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Study_of_Genesis/Project_Page/Sample_Term_Paper gives you the idea. I just don't know what to do. What do you suggest?

PiCo (talk) 05:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure. But I do know that if you look back at the early days of Wikipedia, it was a lot more wild and wooly. And anyone could just declare anything to be true. Then slowly there started to be standards. And sources were increasingly required. And if you look at a GA or FA from 2 or 3 years ago, it was a very different quality level than a GA or FA today. So although WP itself has plenty of problems of various kinds, the standards are improving. Other Wiki projects are not as well developed as WP itself. And one of those I suspect is Wikiversity. It is very early days for Wikiversity, clearly. There is no "accreditation" agency and no standards for courses. Anyone anywhere who wants to set up a course and run it, can. And you are nervous about having to advertise what you feel is substandard material on your increasingly sophisticated and professional article page, but do not want to be uncharitable. I would ask for advice at the Village Pump if I were you. Also, would a tiny link at the bottom really be such a disaster? People will quickly see what sort of resource it is for themselves if and when they look (although I suspect few yet go to look at things from Wikiversity, to be honest). You could just delete the link to it, although that is not particularly fair and he could complain.

What I think will happen eventually is that there will be increasing competition in Wikiversity among those offering courses. And some sort of rating and ranking system will emerge. Some courses will be excluded, or pushed into other places. Another option is that Wikiversity just folds; after all, students have the increasing option to get real courses from MIT and Berkeley, including videos of lectures etc. And they will be joined by other schools. Why should anyone go to Wikiversity run by amateurs when they can get the real thing from world famous scholars, free of charge?--Filll (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Another option is to discuss it on Wikiversity itself at their "Collquium"--Filll (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Please help!

Hi,
By now you must have read the studies/clinical trials I posted about on Schmucky's Talk Page (you can find the same matter on my Talk Page as well);if you haven't, I strongly suggest you read it. I know that some people will have objections to the ninth study, but I'm sure the other studies should be acceptable, especially if the allegation made by the 'Nigerian Journal of Medicine' that Homeopathy is "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst" is 'acceptable'. I request someone to now change the Paragraph in the introduction from, "Claims.....................quackery at worst", to something like, "There is scientific evidence that Homeopathy works...............
I've already done the Home-work:-
There is evidence that Homeopathy works, but critics who haven't tried it, say that claims for efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by scientific and clinical studies and that the ideas behind Homeopathy are scientifically implausible and "diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge"
Thanks in advance for the co-operation.
Ramaanand (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC) alias Dr.Jhingadé

Wasn't this sockpuppet blocked recently? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the user account has been blocked since 13:54, 18 March 2008. The sockpuppet info ought to appear on the user page of Ramaanand (talk · contribs) - which it does, I just checked. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The word "civil"

Filll, I've got a suggestion I've been thinking about. You've been typing the word "unCIVIL" a lot, like that. It seems to me that you might be making a mistake by doing that. You and I both know that using the civility policy abusively is not civil, by any reasonable definition of the term. Can I ask you to use the word "civil" to describe actual civility, instead of buying into an abusive definition? I think that it will help if we stop using the word to mean something unreasonable, and take it back from those who would abuse it.

It can be incredibly empowering to define the terms of discourse, rather than letting your opponent define them. It hurts my eyes to see you type "unCIVIL", because I know that's not what the word means, and the caps-effect is so antithetical to how we try to think of rules here. Please, don't let the rules-lawyers define the terms of discourse. That plays into their hands so much. You don't want to set yourself up as being against "civility" or even "CIVILity". You're for civility; you're against the abuse of our policies to gain an edge in a content dispute, which is extremely uncivil.

Does what I'm asking make sense? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok makes reasonable sense. You are right, the current problem is not so much a CIVILity issue, but those who have distorted and warped our principles for their own ends. They are misusing CIVIL, and overweighting CIVIL in discussions. And unfortunately, the bureaucracy, at least so far, has gone along with this. I personally try to be CIVIL and try to avoid giving offense, at least of a certain kind (it is impossible to never give offense since many are offended when I disagree, and I disagree a lot). I do however, defend editors and admins like Vanished User, JzG, ScienceApologist, Deeceevoice, Orangemarlin, Jim62sch and Peter Morrell when I see productive editors and admins being vilified for CIVIL infractions, when unproductive but CIVIL malcontents are skating through with a pass. If you notice, I do not particularly care if I agree with the editor or admin in question or not (for example, Peter Morrell is on the other side of the alternative medicine issue than I am, but I have still gone to bat for him a few times, and I have defended Deeceevoice even though I disagree with her on most issues), but as long as these editors and admins are productive, I am far more willing to tolerate unCIVIL slipups, at least personally, and I will defend these productive editors as best as I can.--Filll (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:VigilancePrime

Filll -- VigilancePrime, who is currently blocked, has a message he's requested me to pass on to you. You can read it at his talk page. Mangojuice^talk 19:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I responded.--Filll (talk)

I went to his talk page, said he's been blocked indefinitely. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Look more carefully at that banner. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just there, and it has been modified. Last time I saw it it said he was blocked indefinitely. You GTBacchus must've or Filll your friend must've modified it. I'm changing it back to it's original format. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll also make a note to inform administration for possible action. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Look at his block log, silly. He wasn't blocked indefinitely. If you want to notify an admin, I'm one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Straw men

I noticed this a couple months ago, and I'm noticing it again now at User_talk:Raymond_arritt/Expert_withdrawal. When you use what you're calling "sarcasm", this is unhelpful. You're making straw man arguments and then attacking the straw man, instead of actually engaging other editors in useful discussion. This isn't civil. Civility is about, among other things, staying on track and not getting distracted by irrelevancies. When someone makes a disagreement personal, they're getting sidetracked with irrelevancies. When you tilt at straw men, you're getting sidetracked with irrelevancies. Do you see how this can serve no useful purpose in moving the discussion forward? The way you discuss things makes you come off looking like you're more interested in fighting than in resolving the dispute. This is not useful. Friday (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not interested in fighting. If I was interested in a fight, I would file an RfC against Dlabtot right now, and have filed several complaints against him already at AN/I with plenty of diffs. However, I do "growl" and let someone know that if they continue to badger me, there will be trouble. Just a friendly warning.--Filll (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Filll, you're doing the "straw man" thing with my statements, too. It tends to prolong the fight and postpone the discussion. If you really want discussion more than fighting, then stop doing things that are likely to provoke people. I'm worried that you're really sabotaging your productivity. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I might make similar critiques of your interactions here. But for now, I think I will just retreat. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Have I mischaracterized your position? If so, I'd like to know how, so I can apologize. I'm hardly anyone you have to retreat from... :/ -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Have a nice day.--Filll (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

From a concerned outsider

As I consider myself just that, I would like to point out a couple of things.

First, the concern you have about the project is very valid; indeed I believe it is the single biggest current threat to the quality of the entire project. I have been following this very closely since the whole VU thing, as I felt this way long before then as well, and saw that case as profoundly and tragically relevant.

However, my impression is that your description of the issue is highly unideal, so much so as to almost be counterproductive to even identifying and dealing with it. I certainly do not believe you are trying to be this inefficient, but only wish to point out that is the consequence, unintended or not. This then is contributing to your perception that other editors are not fully on the same page as yourself, when I seem to read that they are. While they may articulate it differently, I think several other productive users, including GTB, would agree in principle with all this.

I will second what others have said before, but in a new way so perhaps you understand it all better. I cannot overstate the fact that civility is not, indeed cannot be, a weapon. The weapon you have been wishing to describe is this: obstinance, intransigence, and stubborness, in the face of contrary project policies and guidelines, used to a large enough extent so that its consequences (sometimes, although not always, intended), are frustration by good faith editors, subsequent increased likelihood of incivil behavior, and then just such behavior, eventually. Describing that scenario as using civility as a weapon is somewhat cute but in the end confusing. You probably have seen the WP:SPADE circus, so let's apply it here: civility isn't the issue, it (or its lack) is the consequence. It's WP:LAWYER, WP:TE, WP:GAME, and their ilk, that are the issues.

Part of your frustration is due to the fact that when a new set of eyes sees a discussion between a (superficially) civil wikilawyer and a frustratedly incivil but otherwise well meaning editor, the incivility is immediately apparent, but the wikilawyering (or whatever beans du jour) is not. The former is obvious, but the latter requires understanding of the content dispute and history, both of which can be very complex. (IMO, the whole MH/VU Arbmess actually worked in very much this way, which in hindsight may not be all that surprising.) But please note, the project isn't designed to be this way, no one is took it upon themselves to write policy/guidelines so as to explicitly encourage this type of behavior (certain localized project space activity in the recent past can lead one to contest that in good faith, but that's for another day...); rather it is merely a historical artifact, even if it is one whose implications are not lost on those who see the project as a means to a personal end, rather than an end itself.

Other good faith editors have tried to point all this out to you, although I think thay've had a hard time because of how you frame things. In the end, you are becoming frustrated, and in an ironic twist, are becoming the posterchild for the very problem you are trying to fix, and might feel like you are being driven away, only now on account of poor communication among good faith editors, rather than project gaming. (That is not to say that other baiting and metaphysical études of "show me that you showed me that you showed me..." are not frustrating, I fully acknowledge.)

Their advice too, I fear, is not getting through. I will try a different approach. The very weapon that is being used here against the project can be used for the project by good faith editors such as yourself. By stubbornly pointing out violations of policy, guidelines, and/or consensus, without raising the rhetorical level and (if necessary) even to the point of sounding like a brainless automaton, one strips claims of incivility from their potency (sorry!), as making them would only serve to draw attention to a civil discussion, with adherence to project principles on only one side, at least predominantly.

Thanks for reading. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of this I agree with. Some I respectfully dispute.

I would agree that the project is in trouble in some ways, and the VU situation brought this into sharp focus for many of us, myself included. I will also admit that some of VU's actions and statements did not help matters much. However, a strong and quite dispiriting message was sent to the community from the powers that be, in my opinion, and the opinion of others, from the VU/MH case. It might have been unintentional, but that does not make it any less real. I was tempted to file an RfC against the Arbcomm itself, but I decided that would be counterproductive. If I see further evidence of the same behavior, I reserve the right to ask for such community input in the future. I also dismiss or severely downweight all the claims of secret evidence from VU that the AC used for its ruling in this case; I was in pretty steady and extensive private contact with VU, and have seen a lot more than was publicly released, and I think those claims really are not particularly credible, in my opinion. (If anyone reading this asks for diffs of this, I will respectfully ask you to get your own diffs. I will not dig these up for you at this time. Thanks).

I might describe things differently than you or GTB or anyone else, but I describe them as I see them. If you disagree with my perception or my description, that is your prerogative. However, it starts to become comical with people frantically trying to convince me that my opinions are not my real opinions, and my impressions are not my real impressions. Try those arguments on someone else folks. They do not go very far here. (If anyone reading this asks for diffs of this, I will respectfully ask you to get your own diffs. I will not dig these up for you at this time. Thanks).

That is great that you are stating that civility is not and cannot be used as a weapon. I agree it should not be used as such, but the reality is, it is increasingly being used as a weapon, and increasingly successfully deployed as a weapon. That is the whole point of the Expert Withdrawal pages and similar discussions on this issue; to sound the alarm, and bring this misuse to the community's attention and protest it in the strongest possible terms. Because if we continue down this path, it will contribute very negatively to the project. Do not bother asking me for diffs of this; I am not going to waste time digging them up if you have not seen this phenomenon already. And do not charge me with incivility for not digging up the diffs, thanks awfully.

I do not agree that I, or others who hold views similar to me, are mislabelling obstinance, intransigence, and stubborness, in the face of contrary project policies and guidelines as CIVIL violations or civility problems. That is a separate problem, but a very crucial problem. It is the basic difficulty with controversial articles. On many of these articles, a group does not want them to be NPOV. And it is hard to enforce NPOV. Because you have to have knowledge to know what the NPOV is. And to do that, you have to be involved. And if you are involved, you cannot enforce NPOV. A loophole in our regulations. A small mistake. (If anyone reading this asks for diffs of this, I will respectfully ask you to get your own diffs. I will not dig these up for you at this time. Thanks).

I believe your characterization of the ease of enforcing CIVIL and the difficulty in enforcing other policies is accurate. I also agree that it was probably not designed this way. However, the systems in place and policies have evolved over time. One could not necessarily forsee all the problems and loopholes when the system was designed. This is completely reasonable. (If anyone reading this asks for diffs of this, I will respectfully ask you to get your own diffs. I will not dig these up for you at this time. Thanks).

The WP:BAIT problems you describe are exactly what are leading experts to disengage. Hence, the proposal for Expert Withdrawal. If everyone else here wants to play foolish games, they are welcome to. (If anyone reading this asks for diffs of this, I will respectfully ask you to get your own diffs. I will not dig these up for you at this time. Thanks).

I do point out violations of policy. Look at my past contributions. However, I do not do it as much as I would otherwise because I have been threatened and threatened and threatened, and I do not trust many of the admins on WP to have the good sense to understand what is going on in these situations. (If anyone reading this asks for diffs of this, I will respectfully ask you to get your own diffs. I will not dig these up for you at this time. Thanks).

In conclusion, I would like to point out that if anyone reading this asks for diffs of this, I will respectfully ask you to get your own diffs. I will not dig these up for you at this time. Thanks. If you did not get that, let me reiterate that if anyone reading this asks for diffs of this, I will respectfully ask you to get your own diffs. I will not dig these up for you at this time. Thanks. And finally, please remember that if anyone reading this asks for diffs of this, I will respectfully ask you to get your own diffs. I will not dig these up for you at this time. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Civility means treating other people genuinely well. That cannot be used as a weapon. A superficial understanding of WP:CIVIL can be used as a weapon, but that's not civility. Civility means actual goodness. Actual goodness cannot be a weapon. I think this is what Baccyak4H was saying. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That was what I tried to say, yes. Trying to frustrate editors into not behaving well, then calling them on it, is not actual goodness of course. But I am not completely sure he isn't talking about something else altogether, but in which case I don't get it yet. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Civility is not being used as a weapon. That is obvious. However, people are attempting to use WP:CIVIL as a weapon. Increasingly, and it has some traction, otherwise people would not be continuing to try to use it in this way. If anyone reading this asks for diffs of this, I will respectfully ask you to get your own diffs. I will not dig these up for you at this time. Thanks. --Filll (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Filll, my goal is to stop people using WP:CIVIL as a weapon. If you ever bring my attention to someone doing that; I'll do my best to not let it happen. That's a promise you can cash in any time you want, as many times as you want. Ok? Please understand that I have never charged, nor will ever charge you, with incivility. I think you're a really good guy, who's getting really frustrated. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec; rp to Filll) I can tell by the depth of your reply that you take me very seriously, even though I mostly lurk, and for that I am grateful. For the record, you need not provide me with any diffs, as everything you claim to see (on wiki), I have too, albeit of perhaps different instances.

I agree that MH/VU may turn out to have profoundly dire even if unintended consequences. While I do not claim the process worked to perfection, it's outcome is (in hindsight) at least plausible, in part due to some of these issues. But (as you imply) that then raises more questions than the cases purport to answer, questions that are not easy...

Your mentioning of the intrinsic flaw about being uninvolved is not something I meant to originally discuss, but I will say you are right on. You could drive a truck through that loophole, and in some places on the project there already way too many skidmarks.

I am not sure this is necessary, but if you felt I was trying to put words in your mouth (what you called "convince me that my opinions are not my real opinions"), I fully apologize and assure you that was not my intent, and rather I probably misinterpreted you (see below PP, esp the end), and commented on my misinterpretation.

I gathered from your reply that what you call the civility problem is not the problem of wikilawyering into submission that I mentioned, and that you (fully) recognize the danger of the latter. But then, what is the former? All things being equal, incivility should be discouraged (or worse), and pointing it out is not (in itself) problematic. I fail to see how the antedote of not being incivil raises any problems. Spurious claims can be made, but if one is as singlemindedly focused on being civil as the worst effective POV pusher is (or seems to be), it will only serve to raise scrutiny of the actual situation. I can only then assume (literal language there, I am not trying to be condescending) you are referring to pockets of recent efforts to actually rework the actual civility policies so as to (supposedly) have the notion of reasonable dissent undergo a death by a thousand cuts. (Is that what you meant in your previous reply to GTB?) If so, I don't see this as being a significant threat, only because so many eyes are now aware of it (I could be wrong of course, but I think and hope not...for now). So I strongly suspect I still may be missing your point altogether. If you feel it still productive to do so, you could clarify that for me. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well let me see. There are a number of aspects to how WP:CIVIL is being used right now on WP. I probably would not even be able to list them all. However, before I start, let me caution anyone reading this that I will not be providing diffs and do not intend to and will invite you to get your own diffs. Thanks. But for starters:

• WP:CIVIL appears to be being treated more seriously, and the standards for what is a WP:CIVIL violation are changing, or seem to be changing, with time.
  • I have heard this by the grapevine from the upper levels of the Foundation etc that CIVIL is to be treated more seriously, and this began in the last few months
  • I have seen it in some of the pronouncements of AC (for example, in the MH/VU case, suggesting someone was acting like a sock puppet was described as uncivil. Sorry I will not provide diffs for this. You are welcome to get the diffs yourself if you must have them.)
  • I have seen it in some of the attitudes of assorted admins who are presumably following this (for example, several admins agreed that the phrase "homeopathy promoter" was uncivil and called for sanctions. Sorry I will not give you diffs for this; find the diffs yourself if you must have them.)
  • I have seen it pronouncments of Jimbo (who for example, stated that labelling the behavior of an editor as "self promotion" was a blockable offense for incivility; sorry no diffs. Find them yourself if you want them.)

I think this is from a variety of reasons, including possibly (1) reduction of legal exposure and (2) reduction of the chance for bad publicity

• I and others have also have become more aware that CIVIL is easier to enforce than NPOV and NOR and RS etc, and for this reason, is enforced more often.
• Because CIVIL is being viewed as increasingly important by the powers that be, and it is easier to enforce, it is ripe for exploitation and abuse, and this might in fact be happening. I would argue that it is happening. Sorry I will not provide diffs for this. If you want diffs, please find them yourself.
  • To get the upper hand in a dispute many malcontents and promoters of FRINGE positions are charging mainstream users with CIVIL violations, which are often spurious, but sometimes recognized as valid, whether they are or not. The violations of CIVIL can be for something as simple as disagreeing with a FRINGE promoter. Sorry I will not provide diffs for this; if you want diffs, find them yourself. Thanks.
  • Using WP:BAIT many FRINGE promoters are provoking mainstream editors into outbursts or reactions which are then judged as a violation of CIVIL, so they can dispatch their adversaries. Sorry I will not provide diffs of this. You are welcome to get diffs of this yourself.
  • techniques for dealing with FRINGE that were perfectly kosher a year ago are no longer viewed as such, and maybe are now treated as violations of CIVIL, such as calling a field a FRINGE field, calling a field pseudoscience, calling someone a sock puppet, use of the phrase "troll" etc. Sorry I will not provide diffs but you are welcome to find diffs of this yourself if you like.
  • CIVIL is enforced unevenly, especially when combined with BITE. Behavior that would get an experienced user in huge trouble is perfectly acceptable and forgivable from a newbie or a SPA with a few thousand edits. Sorry I will not provide diffs but you are welcome to find diffs of this yourself if you like.

There is probably a lot more features to how CIVIL is being enforced and how it is changing that are of interest, but that is a start. Sorry I will not provide diffs but you are welcome to find diffs of this yourself if you like.--Filll (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikibreak?

Filll, I have to say that it seems like you're starting to get really stressed about things that are going on around here. It also seems like some people have taken to baiting you, and you're biting. It might be best for you to take a bit of a break to cool off, or at least focus on not falling for their traps. If you feel like sticking around with these things, it would probably be more helpful to ask an admin to look at continued harassment you've experienced. I know you're a sane person, so when they're driving you to this point, something really needs to be done. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A couple of people, who know very well who they are, have identified themselves to me as irrational and basically "uncivil" jerks. I am making sure I send them the signal that I will, in the most civil fashion possible, mock them and make them look ridiculous. If you think this is bad, I can get much much worse. But for now, I will consider just Withdrawing from the areas which seem to be in trouble. It is not worth it to me to try to stop us engaging in ridiculous behavior. In fact, there might be an advantage to a real big disaster or two erupting. It might be a good way to get the powers that be to wake up. If anyone reading this asks for diffs of this, I will respectfully ask you to get your own diffs. I will not dig these up for you at this time. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Who do you consider to be "the powers that be"? I mean, there are several people lined up now to help you, and we're watching like hawks for any abuse of WP:CIVIL, and I'm ready to stop any such abuse. Who would need to prove that they're on your side for you to stop believing that the "powers that be" are against you? You see, Filll... we are the powers that be. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

When I mention "powers that be", I am talking about those who hold inordinate amounts of influence over the community for a variety of reasons (and this usually does not include admins, sorry). For example, Arbcomm members are among those who are "powers that be". Checkusers might also be "powers that be". Bureaucrats might be viewed as "powers that be". Others influential with the foundation might be regarded as "powers that be". And so on. Is that more clear? I apologize if this is uncivil to anyone and I note that I will not be providing diffs but you are welcome to find diffs of this yourself if you like.--Filll (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Filll, have I asked you for a diff in this conversation? Have I accused you of incivility? I think you're displaying a bit of an exaggerated reaction here. I suppose it's very satisfying for you to keep typing that line about diffs... when you're ready to dialogue for real, I'll be around. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess you are missing the reason I have decided to make sure people know I will not be providing diffs, and inviting people to find the diffs for themselves if they require them. I am sure if you think about it a little bit you will realize why. I regret to note I will note be providing any diffs here and invite anyone who wants diffs to find them for themselves. Thanks. I also apologize to any who might take offense. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. You thought I was requesting a diff from you. Sorry, I'm king of slow sometimes. I don't need any diffs. Take care. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No I still think you miss the point. And no I will not be providing any diffs. Anyone who is interested in diffs can find them themselves. I apologize to anyone who is offended by this since I do not mean to be uncivil. Thank you.--Filll (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Fact, theory and a new journal

This article is likely to interest you, found via the links shown at Talk:evolution.... dave souza, talk 00:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Evolution resource

Just wanted to share this link, it's for the new "big" textbook on Evolution. Amazingly, most of the figures from the book are available free of charge on the web page, so it's a really useful resource. It may be a useful external link on some articles. I've added it to a few, maybe you can see further uses.

http://www.evolution-textbook.org/

I also messaged Dave Souza and Adam Cuerden. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC) diff=187720119&oldid=187578481 :)] David D. (Talk) 17:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Expert withdrawal

I'm not sure what you want to be shown, but the Ilena/Fyslee Arbcom has multiple, blatant examples by multiple editors. What do you want to be shown? Editors arguing that it is harassment to point out their improper behavior because others have similar behavior? Editors arguing that they should be allowed to harass editors accused of misbehavior? Editors repeatedly gaming the system? It's all in the arbcom. Worse, it's all still being done by editors that were part of that arbcom. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

From [1]

During this period between the world wars, sightings were reported and searches launched for, among others, the snoligostus, the ogopogo, the Australian bunyip, the whirling wimpus, the rubberado, the rackabore, and the cross-feathered snee. These sound like some interesting creatures that deserve articles on WP! The only one I know of is the ogopogo, although I have never seen it, even though I have been to Lake Okanagan many times. ...--Filll (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Article you could propose for translation

In the german wikipedia there is an article about homeopathy in the time of the nazi dictorship. See [2]. Nazis tried to promote a new german medicine, which should include homeopathy, but gave up on that idea in 1939 after the results where disatorous. --80.133.146.251 (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Translation

I have responded to your query regarding Homeopathy at my talk page. You may want to look at it. Thanks, Shyam ^(T/C) 09:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Conventional "homeopathic" treatments

Many standard medical practices like prescribing ritalin and adderall for ADHD, heparin for IBD, vaccinations, hypnotics to prevent falls among the elderly, and allergy treatments are homeopathic, in that they involve treatment with something that produces the same symptoms as the disease.--Filll (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said, that really is a very good point. We would need to find a good source that makes this relationship as you have, but it's very true. There is no reason for people to be skeptical of low potency homeopathy, at all. High potencies are another thing. —Whig (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview

What is the role of science in producing authoritative knowledge? How should Wikipedia report on pseudoscience? Veterans of numerous edit wars and talk page battles spanning dozens of articles across Wikipedia, User:Martinphi and User:ScienceApologist will go head to head on the subject of Wikipedia, Science, and Pseudoscience in a groundbreaking interview to be published in an upcoming issue of Signpost. User:Zvika will moderate the discussion. Post suggested topics and questions at The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview page. 66.30.77.62 (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Comments like this one, "Learn a bit instead of listening to some babbling preacher who just wants to pick your pocket and make you stupid" (directed at Professor marginalia) are not constructive. Please try to be civil. Thanks. NCdave (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me how this constitutes a WP:CIVIL violation and who was personally attacked by this.--Filll (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Award

		The Original Barnstar
		I award "The Original Barnstar" to Filll for being bold and his fine contributions to Evolution-related articles. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Filll. I have seen your contributions and your comments on talk pages. I must say, you are one of the best Wikipedians. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attack

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Infonation101 (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:DTTR Shot info (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no personal attacks in Filll's recent contributions to that page? Am I missing something? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a small lesson in how malcontents are using CIVIL as a weapon now.--Filll (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No, how they're might try to use it as a weapon. I don't see anyone buying it. We'll deal with accusations such as this by simply shining light on them, at which point their spurious nature becomes clear. What's the problem? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, dealing with an accusation such as this is done better if you avoid words such as "POV-pusher" or "troll". Until you said those, nobody could reasonably accuse you of a personal attack, but you just handed them a little bit of ground to stand on. Why do that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, noted.--Filll (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Filll. Sorry about using the above template. Looking back what you said was not too personal to be considered an attack. I don't know if it's possible, but I'd like to redact what I put. Infonation101 (talk) 04:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Infonation101, Filll was not involved in personal attacks. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I know it's a few days after the fact, but I noticed that at one point recently on a talk page, you were arguing with another user about how you have something like 22 years of schooling, and several graduate degrees that they don't even know exists. I'd like to remind you of a few things: first, Wikipedia is generally anonymous, so not only do you not know the education of the person you are arguing with, but they do not know your education either. On top of that, people can make things up, especially in regards to graduate degrees. Second, how many degrees you have or how long you have been in school is irrelevant to the task of editing Wikipedia. We do not discriminate against people who have had no formal schooling anymore than we do experts in a field: experts and neophytes alike carry the same weight when editing. If that's not to your liking, consider Citizendium. Bringing up your own education in a largely irrelevant situation tends to imply that you are trying to show people you are better than them. That may or may not be the case, but it's certainly not a civil thing to do. Since it's not a very civil thing, nor is it something that is constructive to the encyclopedia, or serves any beneficial purpose, can I ask you not to do it again in the future? Thanks. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, how perfectly fascinating! Some friendly intimidation and threats from a purported attorney! Does me alluding to my age and education in passing constitute a violation of some policy on Wikipedia? Perhaps one could shoehorn it into a violation of WP:CIVIL which seems to be a popular and politically correct violation for admins to charge editors with? Why not try a formal charge of a violation of WP:CIVIL then? Let's go and see how it turns out, shall we?

Since I have been reprimanded and implictly threatened for this, something I take some umbrage at as I am sure you can understand, I will of course expect you to also reprimand and threaten to sanction a number of others, including User:Orangemarlin, User:Mastcell, User:Tim Vickers, User:Wesley R. Elsberry and User:William M. Connolley. After all, all of these editors have mentioned their training and experience while editing here. Do we know if Orangemarlin really is an MD? Do we know if Mastcell really is an MD? Do we really know if User: TimVickers is the same as Dr. Tim Vickers, and do we really know if User: Tim Vickers has a PhD from Dundee University? What about Elsberry and Connolley? Do we have any proof that they are who they purport to be? Has anyone contacted their undergraduate and graduate institutions and verified that they really were awarded the degrees in the subjects they claim? I also expect you to force them to remove all indications or hints or suggestions of their training and identity from their user pages, as I am sure you want me to remove the identifying information you can find here? Perhaps that is inappropriate material to reveal and might be incorrect and give me some sort of advantage in editing disputes.

In fact, come to think of it, is it not extremely inappropriate to suggest an editor was or is a member of the US military and has US military experience on their homepage? This might give them some advantage in editing, might it not? Particularly when said editor has a record of editing articles related to the military. And what about advertising that an editor has a degree in Political Science from Florida State University in '07 and suggesting an editor has a law degree from American University WCL in '07 ? Aside from its highly improbable nature, might not this advertisement constitute some infringement of the same policy? For example, an implicit attempt to intimidate other editors? Under the same principle, it seems that these sort of infractions are just begging to be answered with some serious administrative sanctions, do they not?

Interestingly, this same editor also suggested he had personal information and contact with legal scholars in the heat of a dispute: [3]. This alleged personal knowledge is probably a violation of the same principles, I would think. I have no doubt I could find copious volumes of similar examples.

I also find it quite interesting that you compare me to Essjay. How have I exploited my purported and putative experience and education in a way comparable to Essjay? Did I use it to get myself on the Foundation payroll? Did I lie about it in an interview with The New Yorker? I did mention it in the middle of an argument with someone who clearly was out of his depth on a controversial article, but I notice that you seem to have minimal experience with this kind of editing on Wikipedia, with the most edits to any page being about 79 or so, and your average number of edits per page coming in at a lightweight 2.66, and your number of mainspace page edits at only 5002 after more than 2 years of editing. I do not notice you have edited particularly controversial articles either. With all due respect, this is not particularly impressive, and not indicative of deep knowledge or insight of the kinds of prolonged discussions that take place on controversial articles, frankly.

I also expect that you will be reprimanding User: Angry Christian for using the pejorative "young man" [4] which produced offense [5], and obviously was based on some claimed age and experience advantage on the part of Angry Christian.

As it turns out, you have underestimated my years of schooling. Also, I have repeatedly stated publicly that I do not edit articles in which I have education or experience or deep knowledge, on purpose: [6]. A big part of the reason for avoiding them is to avoid charges of misusing my background, education, or knowledge, as you have thrown at me here.

Let us also examine the context in which I made that statement from here:

Saksjn, at some point you have to stop stalking me, and stop accusing me of being mean to you. You posted an absurd comment here about people being persecuted and I did the same. Ever since then you're on this "Angry Christian is not treating me nice" kick. Stop stalking me, stay off my talk page. Get a hobby, get a clue, grow up, any of those 3 suggestions would be an improvement. Just staying off my talk page would be awesome. Thank you in advance. Angry Christian (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have several hobbies, and I can't help my age. As far as get a clue, I believe I have one, but won't ever be able to convince you of that. Unfourtunately it seems like we have similar interests and can't help but run into each other. About the archived results, the comments about christians eating babies was totally rediculous, and had know reason to be brought up. Saksjn (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Um I think you do not quite get it. Maybe it is your age.--Filll (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite get what? Saksjn (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In order to end questions on my age I'll just let you know, I'm 16 and a junior in highschool. There you go. Can we stop making it such a big deal? Saksjn (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am older than you. Probably older than your parents. You might have 11 years of schooling. I have more than twice as much. And a bunch of graduate degrees that you probably do not even know exist. So realize when you come here to lecture us, it is like trying to lecture your teachers, or your teacher's teachers. --Filll (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This exchange, on the talk page of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, came after an extended period of discussion with several editors who are high school age and younger, but who purport to come and lecture and dictate to everyone else how the article should be written. In particular, some advocate violating WP:NPOV and many other principles of Wikipedia. After prolonged harassment, sometimes discussions become mildly heated. I do not think I was inappropriate in my argumentation or that I violated WP:CIVIL. If you feel I have, let's consider an RfC on the matter, and compare my behavior with those of others, such as those advertising their status as attorneys on their user pages. --Filll (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Comments like this one, "Learn a bit instead of listening to some babbling preacher who just wants to pick your pocket and make you stupid" (directed at Professor marginalia) are not constructive. Please try to be civil. Thanks. NCdave (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me how this constitutes a WP:CIVIL violation and who was personally attacked by this.--Filll (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. But you archived this discussion before I got a chance to answer your question, so I've restored it so that I can answer your question.

It is a violation of Wikipedia policy against personal attacks to characterize the people you disagree with as being stupid, or to denigrate their religion by characterizing their preachers as "babblers" who "just want to pick your pocket and make your stupid."

Thanks for listening. NCdave (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I never said anyone was stupid. I said some preachers want to make people stupid. And you have to read it in context of what was said before, in that destroying science will make us stupid. You get it? Nothing like taking things out of context is there? But I guess you are skilled at that with all the quote mining that goes on with people with a certain type of beliefs, right? And I do cast aspersions on any religion that is involved in destructive beliefs and behaviors. As I think anyone who is rational would. If that is some great crime, then feel free to condemn me.--Filll (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I understand that you feel strongly about this. ("I do cast aspersions on any religion that is involved in destructive beliefs and behaviors.") But to suggest that someone is irrational if they disagree with your opinion of their religion, to hint that people like them are skilled at deception, to say they need to "learn a bit" instead of listening to babblers, and to cast aspersions on anyone's religion on Wikipedia are all violations of WP:No_personal_attacks, an ironclad Wikipedia policy, which states, in relevant part:

some types of comments are never acceptable:

• ...religious... or other epithets... directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion [etc.] ...is not a legitimate excuse.
• Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream....

Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done...

The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user.

I don't agree with some of the rules around here, either. But I do my best to follow them. Please do likewise.

Thanks for listening. NCdave (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you are skilled in the art of manufacturing imagined slights. You are a dangerous person and maybe someone who should not be editing Wikipedia for that reason, given your clearly displayed propensity to abuse the very principles on which it is founded. Many rely on the abuse of WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF to further their agenda when their supporting arguments are weak. You display those very characteristics. You are free to follow whatever religion you like; however, the basic premise which we are discussing, is not the free pursuit of a religion, but the imagined right to force one's religious beliefs on others. This is against the very foundational principles of the United States, Human Rights and Wikipedia. You can try to disguise this true intent by assorted calumnies, but it is laid bare and plain under close examination. I have made no attacks on anyone in particular, or upon any beliefs of anyone in particular, but I have cast aspersions on the presumed right to demand that others follow your own beliefs. This contravenes the definition of civility to its core. You can try to cloak it as something else, but that is its true nature. If you continue to harass me, I will take steps because repeated spurious accusations and abuse of CIVIL is itself a violation of CIVIL. Good day.--Filll (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition my statements, which were alluded to in the "learn a bit phrase", were in response to questions asked by others on the talk page. I guess you demand that others only answer if you personally deem it appropriate, and in the way you think is reasonable. I wonder if someone is not suffering from a variety of WP:OWNership issues here? I am not free to answer questions in the way I see fit, as long as I attack no one personally (which I did not ) and do not engage in rude inappropriate speech characterized by invectives and expletives (which I did not)? Well very interesting. You are well skilled at a variety of the mendacious arts, are you not? Don't bother me further unless you want me to actually treat this seriously. And that probably would not be to your liking.--Filll (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sir, you mistake me. I have never, and would never, advocate "forcing one's religious beliefs on others," as if that were even possible. Devotion to religious liberty runs in my blood, literally. I am a direct descendant of America's most famous religious dissenter, Roger Williams.

All I ask is that you please abide by Wikipedia's policies, and not disparage other wikipedians, or their intelligence, or their religious views, or their pastors, or their motives, or their seriousness. NCdave (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing like addressing any matter with a solid helping of confusion...--Filll (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

What was confusing? NCdave (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Filll, avoid that shiny thing dangling in front of you. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly

Thanks for your interest in coming and being a part of a conversation! - I'm going to host a chit chat at 00.00 UTC March 26th (which is probably tomorrow for most - it's 8.00pm east coast US) - it'd be great if you can come along, and I've created a new 'confirmed' participants section at the wiki page, which it would be great if you could pop over and sign, if you are indeed available! - I hope so, and I look forward to chatting tomorrow! best, Privatemusings (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you planning to participate? Raul654 (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I will give it a try again. I talked to Kim Bruning a few days ago on Skype and had no problem. I find it works best for me in the evenings. Before that, I have trouble connecting for some reason.--Filll (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

the momentary "interloper" on yesterday's Skypecast...

...was me. Thanks for leaving a request on my Skype account to attempt to help me rejoin. I misunderstood the setup of the call -- somehow I thought this was a kind of fishbowl conference in which I could listen in to the live call (with maybe 40 or 50 others); I wasn't necessarily there to contribute anything. I'm still somewhat new to WP (one year) and Skype, and realized I needed to set up a WP-specific Skype username to shield my real name -- not that I'm concerned about revealing it to any of the intrepid good citizens who populate NTWW. So thank you for trying to include me...I will keep watch for the next one and perhaps I will be less shy about coming out from the woodwork next time. --Sfmammamia (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. You could just listen if you wanted to. The discussions are obviously not very large yet but they might get much larger with time. We moved from a Skypecast to a conference call since the sound is much better on a conference call. However, unless you accept a friend proposal you cannot be added to a conference call.--Filll (talk) 03:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Malleus Fatuarum

Hi Filll. I have responded to your post on that page. In the future, I would appreciate it greatly if you could leave a note on my talk page if you are responding to one of my edits - that way I can respond quickly and clear up any misconceptions that might have occured. Best wishes, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC).

Is this really a problem?

If we have people deleting without providing a good reason in the deletion log, let's talk to them about it and get them to fix the problem. If we have people deleting so fast that they're unwilling to discuss it when questioned, again let's talk to them about it and get them to fix the problem. If such a problem persisted, it would clearly be seen as a misuse of admin tools and would be dealt with accordingly. Also, it may not be useful to bandy about the term "deletionist" - I've probably done more deletions than I have article edits, but I'm not guided by anything like a "deletionist philosophy". No, I merely try to ensure that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia- this means trimming away nonsense and articles that are not verifiable. Friday (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. So maybe the term "deletionist" will soon be judged politically incorrect and unCIVIL? How fascinating!

Of course there is crud and cruft that needs to be deleted. I do not doubt it for a second. But there is another side to this story, which I am sure you will find out about if you just ask around. As I intimated, I am sure that User: DGG could give you many more examples than I could.--Filll (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comments about "civility-creep" in Malleus' RfC

Very well said! More and more often I am seeing some people taking the position that robust disagreements and close arguments which disagree with their own position as cases of incivility, and I think it does everyone a disservice to stand by and let them do so. I myself almost had a report made just because I disagreed with someone on RfD (and said so). Because I pressed them to justify why they were merely repeating arguments that had been refuted previously by myself and others, the response was to accuse me of incivility. I have had many more such incidents, and they are happening more often. Since one of my own research areas is informal logic, argumentation theory, and research methods in a scientific subject, I know how much rests on being as stringent as possible in testing out ideas and arguments. The current drift on here is destructive in the extreme!  DDStretch  (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite correct. And I think we have to point this out, to stem this drift down a dangerous path.--Filll (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Another strategy is to learn how to ask difficult questions without being accused of incivility, and to deal with any accusations that may still arise in the most de-escalatory manner possible. The former is easy to control by making a clear and strict distinction between the contributor and the content. The latter comes from making it clear to everyone watching that you're doing the former, and by being ready to apologize for inadvertent offense. Responding to a spurious accusation of incivility by talking about "civility drift" is actually not particularly productive. The best way to silence such accusations is to soar above them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In the cases I was involved in, I clearly adopted both of these strategies (as agreed by others whose advice I sought after being accused of incivility). The problem is that this sometimes does not work, and in the case I am thinking of clearly did not work. On one other occasion, I was accused, on the basis of no information, of pretending to be civil, with my intentions and motives being quite the reverse. In the light of such assumptions and accusations which questioned my motives and intentions on no real bases one is at a loss of how to respond except to ask for evidence, which will then be taken into this kind of "conspiracy theory of one" type approach. The problems of determining intentions and motives are as yet unresolved and difficult philosophical and practical issues in real life, let in the context of electronic communications. Nevertheless, these kind of responses are baffling and, if unchallenged, will definitely result in a tendency to extend claims of incivility into areas where it is neither justified nor appropriate.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot the add the following, which might be the most important thing I should have said: "But on the whole, you are right that we should be careful about the kinds of language we use, and I would be inconsistent if I did not agree with that. So, in the light of that and your reminder, I agree that I should have been more careful in my use of terms in my initial message here. It can be explained by the frustration I've outlined above, but an explanation is not an excuse. Thanks for promptng me to make this last statement."  DDStretch  (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we're largely in agreement. First of all, incivility should not be a charge that we can level at each other. Civility should mean nothing more than treating others with full respect and dignity, because failing to do so is eventually disruptive. Disruption is blockable.

I agree with challenging spurious claims of incivility, but how do we do that? Is making claims of civility creep and civility drift really the best way? Can we rely on numbers of reasonable editors to shine light on false claims?

I'm interested in the situation you described. How did it go? Did you end up censured or under sanctions for the perceived incivility? In other words, did it work?

As far as determining motives or intentions, I would hold that we have no business trying to do that under any circumstances. We can't read people's minds, and we have no business trying. Blocks are for disruption, not for intent to disrupt. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this.

As for the practical means by which we can tackle spurious claims of civility, I will have to think more about that, but in the cases I was involved in, I merely politely pointed out that disagreeing with someone and closely arguing the case against them was not incivility. The naming of a process as "civility creep" etc should not be used when directly tackling unjustified claims of incivility, but here we must be clear to distinguish between two kinds of language: the language one uses when one is discussing how to practically do something (tackle spurious claims of incivility) in which case a handy label like "civility creep" could marginally be used (let's call this the "modeling language"). This is in contrast with the language one uses when one is actually doing the stuff one is discussing in the first case, i.e., when one is practically countering spurious claims of incivility (let's call this the "target language"). Of course, one may inadvisably use one kind of language when engaged in the other activity, which would be another reason for us to take care. However, I note some problems may be unavoidable: the use of "spurious claims of incivility" may itself be inflammatory if used as part of the practical action to counter spurious claims (target language), whereas it may be very useful, and almost unavoidable, in discussing strategies to use to do the countering (modeling language). I think that is all I should say about this "background stuff" at this point, as I'm diving into one of my academic research areas and I'll become unclear to others because of my need to be brief but also my need to give a flavour of my thinking on the matter etc. However it is an intriguing question which, in various forms and in various arenas of discussion (academic debate being the greatest area), I have researched for some time in one form or another. I think it perhaps highlights to me a need for people to have more training in practical issues of critical thinking and informal logic/argumentation theory (though this sounds too academic and dry for what I have in mind)

In the specific cases I mentioned, they didn't get to the stage of being "officially reported" anywhere, but were part of a variety of discussions (about a AfD and an RfA, respectively). For the first, the accusations were made and I pointed out that disagreement with one's own position was not in itself incivility. I also informally asked some others for their unbiaed opinions, and got back that they thought I was polite (including one comment that they had never seen me behave at all impolitely) I also asked them for their opinion on contacting the user concerned to try to explain my viewpoint about civility and the need to engage in hard critical thinking about one's own and others arthuments at times, explaining that this can be rigorous and tough sometimes. Their advice was "least said, soonest mended" and so I didn't pursue that course of action. In the second case (the RfA) I think enough other editors stepped in to state that unjustified claims about other's motives and intentions were just not acceptable, and the problems then largely stopped, though I am not sure whether any real realisation of the unacceptable nature of the claims has been accepted by the user, given subsequent behaviour by them with others. I also tried to point out roughly what I said earlier about allegations of motives and intentions.

I hope all that answers your questions! Sorry for the length and the technicality of some of it. It is something I am very interested in and have vague ideas on how to proceed, and so please prompt me if you would like to hear more (and remind me if I don't respond as I have a variety of editing calls on wikipedia at the moment.)  DDStretch  (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As I have said before, elsewhere, I believe civility creep (temporal dependence of standards for civility), abuse of WP:CIVIL, overaggressive enforcement of CIVIL and dealing with WP:FRINGE areas and proponents of WP:FRINGE topics are essentially independent issues. They are of course related, but not the same. And part of the first steps one must take when trying to sort out a difficulty, is to understand the nature of the problem. Part of that understanding is to develop labels for certain kinds of phenomena and be able to recognize evidence for these phenomena.

Civility creep in and of itself is not necessarily all bad. Much of it is probably a necessarily and natural progression as WP gains greater prominence and maturity. That does not mean that all civility creep is necessarily good, or all political correctness is necessarily good. That does not mean that having a label for civility creep is bad. That does not mean that recognizing and cataloguing evidence for civility creep is bad. --Filll (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. I find that the label "political correctness" is often abused, and carries a little too much baggage to be useful in many contexts, but I agee with the sentiment, that there is nothing wrong with identifying and discussing the evolution of the Wikipedia community. I'm interested in this idea of cataloging; that could enable us to look more closely at our standards and how they change over time, in response to various causes. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it is true that to first deal with an issue is to first understand the problem. Although possbly seen as being out of date by some now, the work of Polya, especially his book How to Solve It can give an outline of some useful heuristics to use to guide one's work. It is also true that developing useful labels by which one can identify the categories with whch one classifies the objects of interest is also a very good step. The technical name for this stage is abstraction. The problem is in knowing just what to throw out when one does the necessary simplification due to abstraction.

In this respect, I think any concept of "civility creep" (using a modeling language term) would have to be a by-product of other observations that would need to be made. In other words, rather than have "civility creep" as a given category, let it become a result of other observations one makes. This type of approach has been used successfully in many areas that try to model human behaviour.

To do this, an obvious first step would be to think about observing some behaviour at one time and then at other times. A comparison of them over time would then allow any ongoing process which might later be described as "civility creep" to express itself. By doing it this way, we would aim to be as neutral as possible, allowing no change, or changes in either direction to become obvious, so that we could counter any accusations that we would be biasing our research (for this is what we are now talking about.)

The aim in all this is to arrive at a set of information (in a very ideal situation, perhaps in the form of a graph) which would clearly show any trends that might show changs in the incidence of unjustified claims of incivility, or else some other display that would show clearly a change in the criteria that were being used to judge incivility. That way, it all becomes public and openly debatable. Of course, what I'm talking about here is an example of empirical behavioural research, and it does seem that, ideally, this is what we should be working towards. Since I was a research design consultant for behavioural sciences for many years (especially in a longitudinal study, which is what this is), I can advise further, if this way is seen to be a useful way to proceed.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Please reconsider your wording.

Please can you reconsider your wording in this diff [7]. To conflate (accidentally I am sure) child-abusers with the many good-faith contributors to the RfC is insulting, inappropriate and I believe unacceptable. DuncanHill (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Um I am afraid you have misread or misconstrued my intentions of giving that example. I certainly do not want to equate child molesters with the people responding to this RfC. I am amazed that you could draw this conclusion in fact! It is absolutely astounding. But interesting nonetheless.--Filll (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I am sure it was accidental, but I do think you could improve your wording to make your intention clearer. DuncanHill (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps your egregious misinterpretation was inadvertant. But nevertheless, it was quite flagrant and exceptional in its own way.--Filll (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain that comment in plain English? DuncanHill (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain how you came upon such an outrageous misunderstanding of a simple statement? No offense, but it is quite interesting how you managed to confuse and tortuously misrepresent the example.--Filll (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I made the mistake of assuming that it had anything whatsoever to do with the thread in which it appeared - which was about Guy's use of language that some find offensive. Clearly, it had nothing to do with the points to which you were responding, and frankly I have no idea why you mentioned it there. If a child abuser is misusing the RfC to get back at Guy, then certainly something must be done to stop them, but raising them in your defence of Guy's use of language is somewhat bizarre. DuncanHill (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I commend you for your mastery of anfractuous logic.--Filll (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The wording I see is, "I have even seen some advocate of unfettered child molestation who ran afoul of the community and JzG, using this as an opportunity to "get even" with Guy." That statement seems to claim that some one person involved in the RfC is an advocate of unfettered child molestation. Filll did not conflate child molestors with good-faith contributors, although he seems to have asserted that one contributor is an advocate of molestation. He didn't name a name.

If my reading is mistaken, Filll might consider that his wording was infelicitous enough that multiple readers came away with mistaken impressions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not name a name and I do not intend to identify this individual. He or she knows who they are, and others involved do as well. That should be enough. If you are desperate to know, you can certainly find the evidence of it on the talk page of the RfC, which is where I came across it.

But the point was, and remains, that people are of course crawling out of the woodwork to use this RfC as a platform to settle scores with JzG. Even some who are somewhat unsavory themselves, or want to use Wikipedia as a platform to promote all kinds of views. Is that any surprise?

I also find it interesting that this relatively straightforward statement was extrapolated to such an extent. Quite telling in itself, frankly. And it besmirches the person willing to stoop to make such a charge considerably, in my opinion. But you are free to paint yourself in whatever negative light you wish. Just realize that others might notice.--Filll (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Conflate means, amongst other things, to bring together. I do not think it was necessary to bring together those good-faith editors who are concerned with Guy's language with someone who promotes child-abuse. If an editor has been using the Wikipedia to promote child-abuse, then they should be banned and the Foundation should make any identifying information about them available to local law-enforcement. DuncanHill (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It is already in full view on the RfC; I just repeated as an example of why this RfC is reaching ridiculous proportions. If you want to pursue this person, feel free to hunt them down and do so. Do not accuse me of charging all the participants in the RfC with this heinous advocacy. You cannot hide from your own behavior so easily. But nice try.--Filll (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I never accused you of "charging all the participants ... with this heinous advocacy". I asked you to reconsider a wording which gave an unfortunate impression. I don't know why you have taken such a dislike to me, and I no longer care - it is obvious from your comments here and elsewhere that it is impossible for you to interact constructively with me anymore. DuncanHill (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You are free to feel as self-congratulatory as you like, since you believe yourself to be "in the right" and would never consider any other possibility, or even the fact that appearances might bespeak a different tale. However, I might deign to comment that it was not I who was frantic for redress of the "unpardonable sin" of protecting a redirection of the term "turdburglar" many months ago, and aggressively rejecting, with prejudice, all potential explanations or comments that might have ameliorated the situation. With all due respect, you appeared to give the impression of wanting a dispute, at least in my opinion, I am afraid (no offense intended). And I have tried to avoid one, but still as gently as possible respond to repeated attacks upon me for even daring to suggest that English language usage, particularly of assorted expletives, maledictions and execrations, might have some spatial dependence (that is, lack translational invariance symmetry). I am not sure why that inspires such hostility, although language can drive people to all sorts of extremes, and the N word is a particularly charged example where I live. So congratulate yourself and soit fier. After all, you have every reason, evidently. --Filll (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be a misunderstanding about the word "conflate". It does seem from DuncanHill's comments here that he did not, in fact, mean to accuse you of "charging all participants with heinous advocacy". DuncanHill, when I first read your comment, using the word "conflate", I took the same meaning Filll did, because I took conflate to mean "to fuse into one entity", that being how I've always seen/heard it used. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Conflate means to confuse the meanings of two words into one word that may not have squat to do with each other. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My meaning comes from dictionary dot com. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster [8]. DuncanHill (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

CIVIL, CIVIL they all cry, rather than...I don't know...read the actual edit? Yep, CIVILity creep, creeping all the way... Shot info (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You know... is he blocked for it? Is there even a credible threat that he will be blocked for it? Is it civility creep, or is it one person, trying and failing to abuse WP:CIVIL? Is it "they all", or is it one guy? Did you not notice that more people are here read the post and are here saying he wasn't uncivil than saying he was? Is the sky really falling, or is it just fun to pretend it is? Instruction creep relating to WP:CIVIL is a problem, and we're working on it. Calling out how rotten things are is of limited usefulness. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, exactly. I invite anyone to read all of the exchange and judge for themselves. Or, even better, drag me up on CIVIL charges in an RfC or Arbcomm proceeding. Let's really examine my accursed abhorent monstrous behavior, shall we? I swear, if we allow the CIVIL warriors to have free reign, they will destroy the project.--Filll (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody reading the above would claim that your original post was uncivil. People reading here might conclude that you react badly to charges of incivility, but hey, that's life. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the problem with Filll is to do with civility, rather to do with deliberate misrepresentation of the actions or views of others. DuncanHill (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think it might be misrepresentation to call it "deliberate misrepresentation". I think Filll doesn't mean to do that. I think he means to highlight the flaws in opposing positions by noting that they become absurd when pushed to logical extremes. The fact that this often comes across as deliberate misrepresentation is something Filll might or might not care about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So you think you are beyond reproach and I have mispresented your views? Then file an RfC. Let's see if the community agrees. Put your own statements up for examination and I will be glad to do the same. --Filll (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Above reproach? That's not remotely implied in the above, and I just re-read it twice, carefully, looking for DH making any statement about himself. It's not there.

Why would you ask someone if they think they're above reproach? Has DH ever claimed to be above reproach? Most people I know wouldn't make such a claim. None of us is above reproach, but your questions seems to suggest that DH might hold himself that way, or at least that he gave some remote indication in that direction. It's not there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it is all a matter of interpretation. I guess I am forbidden to have any discussion where I do anything more than just cut and paste the other person's text? Then I apologize for this offensive post. I will just have to post your own words back to you. "Above reproach? That's not remotely implied in the above, and I just re-read it twice, carefully, looking for DH making any statement about himself. It's not there. Why would you ask someone if they think they're above reproach? Has DH ever claimed to be above reproach? Most people I know wouldn't make such a claim. None of us is above reproach, but your questions seems to suggest that DH might hold himself that way, or at least that he gave some remote indication in that direction. It's not there." I disagree. But oh well I am so hamstrung now that I cannot say more. How delightfully productive and useful these rules are. Not.--Filll (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you're not forbidden to have any discussion where you do more than cut-and-paste. I didn't say that, nor did I imply it. It is quite helpful to refrain from jumping to the conclusion that someone has just said something absurd before asking.

Note that I do a lot more than cut-and-paste, but do I blow your position up into an absurdity? Do I ask you whether you think you're above reproach? No, why would I do that? Why not just discuss a topic without asking the person whether they hold absurd views?

I'm pretty confident that you don't think that you're above reproach, or anything in that ballpark. You probably think what you do for fairly ordinary and logical reasons. I don't know what they all are, but I'm not going to assume that they're utterly pathological. Why would I do that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Gee I wonder why I said that then? Maybe I am just stupid. Or unreasonable. Or both. Oh well.--Filll (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I think you're frustrated. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Notthewikipediaweekly

Nice job...Great discussions...and good luck with Sunscreen. Hope to catch you there at NTWW again next time. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I hate my voice, but I want to get the word out that we are facing some severe problems on the FRINGE articles, and it would behoove us to think carefully about developing and testing some new mechanisms and policies for addressing the problems with FRINGE articles. Amazingly, not everyone realizes we are facing difficulties there. --Filll (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

These are some good points. But for example, from the discussion I came away thinking maybe you over-estimate the level of "scientific" analysis devoted to articles about fringe topics in other publications, including other mainstream encyclopedias. For example, your view that Britannica would give a lot of attention to scientific analysis in the article about homeopathy - but that's not the case. Britannica has one tepidly critical sentence: "In the 20th century, however, homeopathy has been viewed with little favour and has been criticized for focusing on the symptoms rather than on the underlying causes of disease." And that, I'll think you'll agree, is not exactly "scientific" either. The strongest pro-science statement in the Columbia encyclopedia article is, "U.S. medical schools do not presently emphasize the homeopathic approach, although it has become popular among some physicians in European and Asian nations and is widely used by the public in over-the-counter medications." The World Book encyclopedia (20 years old ed. unfortunately, but serves as another example anyway) - very very short description, no criticism, no "scientific view". So maybe some of the conflict at wikipedia isn't really so simple--this very diverse editorship honestly don't all share a common understanding of what an encyclopedia needs to look like. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I did check Funk and Wagnalls and a recent version of World Book. Both articles were about 1/3 critical and presented the scientific and medical mainstream prominently.--Filll (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very good. So there we are. The competing encyclopedias aren't in agreement yet on this either. So maybe the same competing perspectives "out-there" find their way here--wikipedia's editors clearly aren't yet in agreement about where the fulcrum point needs to be to achieve NPOV. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

You deserve a barnstar.

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		To Filll, for maintaining a neutral viewpoint in adverse circumstances. Axl (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I do try. People do not appreciate it and think I am a moron and biased and unCIVIL and a jerk. But I do try. I am not really such a beast you know.--Filll (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I believe neither of these. In fact I have a high opinion of you and of your considerable efforts to bring the project forward. I merely think that you have an unconventional communication style; one that I am used to from some friends in real life, but which seems to be rather rare in Wikipedia. This can lead to misunderstandings. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Filll, I also have a high opinion of you. I have seen your contributions and only a very intelligent guy can make such contributions. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

PowerToy Calculator

Are you in advanced mode (View->Advanced view)? --soum ^talk 12:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And I can graph some things, but I cannot define a range. I cannot plot in polar coordinates. I cannot save a graph. I cannot make a flyout window. The "window" button in the graph area does not seem to work. And so on.--Filll (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The window button is the key to all the functionality that you seem to be missing. The flyout window allows you to define ranges, switch between cartesian and polar co-ordinates as well as save graphs as bitmaps. Are you getting any errors when you are hitting the Window button? Which OS (I mean which version of XP)? Whats the current handle count in use by your OS (Open task manager, go to the performance tab and check the totals group)? --soum ^talk 12:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not much of a computer expert. I am using Windows XP Home Edition Service pack 2.0. The handle count bobs around a bit, but is about 14200.--Filll (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, when I reboot the machine, the handle count goes down to around 10,000. I then immediately pulled up the Powertoys Calculator, and the Windows button works, with the extra functionality and flyout window. So I think your hunch was correct. Now, should I be doing something different?--Filll (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Windows XP starts behaving weirdly when the handle count reaches in the vicinity of 15,000 - windows don't draw properly, menus come up blank etc - for around half a gig of memory. The best solution to this would be to add more RAM. Barring that, reduce the number of applications that auto-start on boot to give the applications that you use more breathing space (run msconfig.exe, go to startup tab and uncheck all those which you recognize but don't always need running). Also uncheck unneeded services (services tab, a pretty safe and effective candidate is indexing service, look for xp optimization guides on the web if you are being more advanturous).

For a more quick fix solution, whenever the handle count reaches 12.5k+, reboot. For something even more quicker, go to the processes tab in task manager. Look for processes with the highest handle count, and end that process. Keep repeating till the handle count comes beloq 10,000. The handles column might not be shown by default, you might have to enable it from View->Select columns. Hope this helps you. --soum ^talk 13:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of The Austringer

A tag has been placed on The Austringer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly

Thanks for expressing an interest in coming along to the next conversation - if you click above you'll see that we've confirmed a new date and time, and have also created a new 'confirmed participants' section (sorry about the extra hoops to jump through - but hopefully it'll help us figure out if 'everyone's here'!) - if you do happen to be free at the suggested time, that's great! - I'll create the 'room' about 30mins early, as usual, and please do pop in as soon as possible so we can iron out the inevitable technical problems in time for a prompt-ish start! thanks, and I look forward to chatting tomorrow! best, Privatemusings (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Tara C. Smith

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Tara C. Smith, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Tara C. Smith. 65.27.204.71 (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Question re 9/11 case

Hi Fill, being new and no doubt unaware of undercurrents and hidden processes in these kinds of proceedings, I'm curious on what you're basing your confidence that it's it's not over. It looks pretty much over to me, since 5 of the 6 necessary votes have already been posted, with no new remedies, no new findings, hardly any comment, just all of them voting in unison. Am I missing something (I hope)? Woonpton (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well last I looked, only 2 votes had been cast, a few days back. If 5 have been cast, you are right. It might be almost over.--Filll (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I just realized I've been looking at the "proposed decision" page, not the final decision on the main page. Oh, hmm, but there isn't any voting happening that I can see on the main page. I find this all somewhat confusing. Thanks, Woonpton (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Orthomolecular medicine RfC

Hi there, just a note to alert you to the fact that one of the editors of this article is now edit-warring to remove the sourced criticism that was agreed to in this RfC. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It was not agreed, read the RfC notes again. e.g. WhatamIdoing ...Furthermore, the [critical] paragraph could be accurately summarized simply as "Critics think this controversial field needs more scientific research to support its claims."--TheNautilus (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Conference call

Sorry, but as I feared I'm still stuck at work. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, next time maybe.--Filll (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the interview suggestion, can you please give me more details? and why me? seems a valid question to ask! Do you have a time slot in mind as I am pretty busy this week. You can email me if there is much to say. thanks Peter morrell 14:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

a NotTheWikipediaWeekly message

Hi folks,

I've confirmed a time for the next conversation on Tuesday night, US time, (Wednesday, 02.30 UTC). Huge apologies that this isn't going to be good for Euro folk, and I know Anthony and Peter will likely be unable to attend therefore. It's possible we need a bit of a wiki effort at the project page to better organise and plan conversations - and I'd also like to encourage all interested folks to watchlist that page for updates / changes etc. which will probably be a smoother way of staying in touch than many talk page messages (though it's great that more people are expressing interest in participating...). With that in mind, if you'd like to reply to this message, please do so at my talk page, and I'll respond as soon as I can.

If you are able to attend at the given time, please do head over to Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly#Confirmed_Participants and sign up - this is a great help in making sure everyone is around. We generally chat for about 10 minutes before 'going live' and the whole process takes about an hour, and I very much look forward to chatting to all!

best, Privatemusings (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

question

I noticed on the expelled talk page that you mentioned that you edit on conservapedia. Do you have the same user name there. I edit there and think it has a lot problems and would like to be in contact with someone that actually might make some good contributions. Thanks. Saksjn (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

question

I noticed on the expelled talk page that you mentioned that you edit on conservapedia. Do you have the same user name there. I edit there and think it has a lot problems and would like to be in contact with someone that actually might make some good contributions. Thanks. Saksjn (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually do not edit on Conservapedia. I might have created an account there, but if I did, it was so long ago that I no longer remember it. I keep track of other wikis where people interested in creationism and evolution and intelligent design might like to edit however. For one thing, some people are able to be more productive on these kinds of wikis than ours, since we need NPOV, and they do not have that rule, which many people find very difficult to deal with.--Filll (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I don't edit much there anymore. I'm a Christian that believes in Intelligent Design, but I can't get the neutrality issues out of my head. I prefer to edit somewhere where I can argue for my views instead of taking the role of an evolutionist and fighting for neutrality at conservapedia. Thanks for the response. Saksjn (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Intellectual integrity

I don't have any clue why you do it, but please refrain from lying about other users. It makes it very difficult to collaborate, and is quite uncivil. GusChiggins21 (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Response at User talk:GusChiggins21. Fill, just ignore this please. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No one is baiting. I'm asking a user that I've caught lying at least 5 times to stop lying. He just lied about me on the BLP noticeboard, saying I started a debate, which he in fact started, and continued to push, after being asked to stop. He's lied on my talk page to get me banned, and it needs to stop. Cut the bullshit and start enforcing policies fairly, you're supposed to be an admin. GusChiggins21 (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It is best to ignore this kind of thing.--Filll (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

XVIVO and "Expelled"

XVIVO has sent a cease-and-desist letter to Premise Media over the animation of the inside of a cell used in "Expelled". They have requested the animation be removed from all copies of the film *before* the April 18 release date. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am stunned. Amazing. What else will happen?--Filll (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious. Antelan^talk 02:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Evolution: Fact and theory.

Do not feed the troll. Do not point out that this is an introductory level course summary. Do not point out that this is an arbitrary distinction in academia and a major sticking point only because creationists have used it to shoehorn. Do not!! WLU (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)