User talk:Filll/Archive 9

Oddly enough...

I think I might need your help in understanding something science related. I'm in a discussion on Talk:Christianity with someone, and we're going all philosophical with what to "know" something means, and it would probably impact the wording in several important places in the article. My question is, someone else is saying that because Christians don't know "scientific" truths when it comes to our beliefs, and therefore because we know only "religious" truths, that rather than say that Christians know anything, that we just believe or have faith that something is true. (Which, in context with the article, would probably just implicitly read "blind faith", since of course the article isn't arguing or showing support for what we know or anything) My problem is that from all my silent background watching of the Evolution talk page, it has always seemed to me that science isn't about truth at all, and that's not a bad thing. Rather, it has always seemed to me people say it helps to find models which will work out to be correct when applied to our observations. Is this accurate? Homestarmy 14:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are absolutely correct! I am glad that we managed to make that clear. Science is not about truth or proving anything really. Science is about providing a compact temporary explanation for data. This explanation of course is expected to change later. I might come to the page and see what the excitement is about.--Filll 15:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yay! I have to admit, sometimes I think I know too much and jump into these big hard discussions and then end up wrong much later :/. This stuff gets terribly complicated....Homestarmy 18:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Baraminology

Er, Filll, I wasn't suggesting Baraminology be deleted completely, just merged (as it is already, in fact), with Created kind, so that we aren't reduplicating a lot of effort on two articles that heavily overlap. Vanished user ^talk 21:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Kandice Pelletier

I see you've noticed the "little" debate going on :P. Care to offer your opinion on the talk page? I don't care if you agree or disagree with me, I would just like an independent opinion! -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 22:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Filll 22:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

See, reading those websites did drive you crazy. Now you're editing beauty pageants. It's sad to see what they did to you. Orangemarlin 22:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I'm just thinking that I need to cool down a little, so needing to do a little more than editing history related articles, because with those last days happenings in those articles I'm fealing I'll kick some butts if I don't cool down. So, if you think any article need improvement (content based, as I can't be of any help in grammar). I'm a scientist and can help on biology, biostatistics, environment. You sound to be interested on evolutionary stuff, so maybe you would know. Fad (ix) 02:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, mutation needs to be cleaned up and made more accessible. I also think the same is true of gene and genetics and also gene. I also think that introduction to genetics needs work. I would also ask User:Opabinia regalis for her opinion and a few others perhaps. They might see your request on my page and respond. What articles have you edited that are driving you nuts? --Filll 03:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the mutation article. I also found Cyanobacteria article to not be on such a good shape either. Fad (ix) 21:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As for your question, lets just say they're nationalist driven articles. Not science related. Fad (ix) 21:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to help out with black people and eventually I gave up. Just too many angry people with too many conflicting agendas.--Filll 02:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

An RfC brought up by User:Lukas19 et al.

Hello, sorry to disturb but I thought you might be interested in commenting on this rfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/LSLM·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC) (sorry I put that on your user page, thanks for moving it ·Maunus· ·ƛ·)

Your input is requested at this AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Level of support for evolution--Filll 19:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Where have you been?

I haven't seen you out and about the various Evolution and Creation articles. Given up? Orangemarlin 22:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No I havent given up. Just slowed down a bit and been exploring skypecasts and some other things online. --Filll 04:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Good to hear. Guettarda 07:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is good to hear. I was worried that the endless edits and battles have worn you out. Orangemarlin 14:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Remember User:VacuousPoet

See User:StudyAndBeWise. We were flamboozled. Orangemarlin 16:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (2nd). You should read it. Orangemarlin 17:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow. Well at first he was being productive and I appreciate his efforts. Even if a person is really a wild-eyed creationist, they can still contribute to the work. I would rather them help rather than just get into fights with everyone and try to impede the work. I guess it just goes to show that you never quite know who is here. He did seem to get into an awfully big fight with Adam over what seemed very minor to me. So is he blocked? What is the status?--Filll 19:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

How many times has he shown up? I'm getting tired of it. It's hard to assume good faith, when it gets abused over and over.Orangemarlin 00:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys if you're feelings are hurt. Due to the anonymous nature of wikipedia, either one of you could be wild eye creationists, or you could be the same person, or even high school drop-outs who are self-educated.

In any event, OrangeMarlin, you should be nicer to those vile pseudo-scientific creationists, you might have helped a few of them become contributors. Adam is a wild eye pseudo-religious evolutionist, in my considered opinion, based on his pattern of edits to the creation-evolution controversy article, and one who actively seeks to flavor the the article pro-evoluiton. Due to the sympathy he receives, he pretty much has free reign.

You two (filll and orange) are evolutionists who do not contribute much to the benefit of the creation side, but you do (at least Filll) contribute and endeavor to find good NPOV RS (aside from talkorgins:). Filll went above and beyond the call of duty more than a dozen times that I've seen....I am particularly impressed with his intellectual honesty regarding sources. I tried to contribute without regard to who it would benefit, and it worked fairly well, until Adam came along. I did protest from time to time on other articles regarding balance and NPOV, but I did not go in wild eyed and without information and start making changes (as Adam did on the creation-evolution controversy). My edits will stand scrutiny (but please do scrutinize them), and if or when they do not, it will be human error and not conscious bias that is at fault.—Preceding unsigned comment added by VacuousPoet (talk • contribs)

VacuousPoet. Once again, despite several conversations with you, you miss the point. Although your alter-ego, StudyAndBeWise, did some nice edits, it's still a sockpuppet of a banned user, VacuousPoet. If you read the User Talk page of your sockpuppeteer self, you'd see that an admin gave you a chance, despite some commentary from me. Apparently, you chose to continue along your merry way of avoid bans. Well, until you come forward, apologize to everyone in a sincere manner, I will use every resource I can to make certain that you do not evade bans. As for my being nice, I am nice to every user who does not attempt to avoid bans, who does not act in a troll-like manner, and who attempts to be Civil and use NPOV. As for your vendetta against Adam, give it up. He's a great contributor to this encyclopedia and knows about what he speaks. Finally, my life is a lot more fulfilling than you'll ever know. Don't presume to know me, because you haven't got a clue. I save lives. I served my country. I probably pay more in taxes in a month than you earn in a decade. I have probably lost more knowledge of science than you have ever gained. People like Filll and Adam are intelligent, and perceptive people. You are so arrogant that you think you can continue to play little games with Wikipedia. You accuse us of the MUD, but in fact you live a life like you were some Soviet spy trying to break into the CIA. Do you enjoy that? Grow up VP, that's all I can say. Orangemarlin 05:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't know if any of you two know what a Multi-user Dungeon is, but you're in one. While you are mostly nice to like minded MUD-participants, there is a real world out there...take more wiki-breaks. Your real world friends and family need you, and if you don't have any available, new friends and family await you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.215.40.207 (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

VacuousPoet, it would be nice if you would try to behave in a civil manner. For example, please sign your posts. In general, I have no problems with creationists (and neither does OrangeMarlin or most others here) until they start to engage in certain unproductive and antisocial behaviors. Anyone who has been working on the evolution and creationism articles for any length of time starts to build friendly relationships with others who are reasonable and productive, including those on the opposing side. I am sure everyone was glad to have you here as StudyandBeWise and have you contribute. It is a welcome change from what we see from most creationists, unfortunately. It might be a MUD, but that is not particularly relevant. What is relevant is that we have a set of rules that are mutually agreed upon, that we are using to attempt to write a free encyclopedia. This is an exciting and historic enterprise and a potentially very valuable contribution to human knowledge. You can disparage it all you want, and you can storm off in a huff because something did not go your way. Believe me, OrangeMarlin and I and many others here have also been blocked in many instances from doing what we thought was best. If you believe that we are in some sort of secret cabal and always get our way, you are sadly mistaken. Just take a look at the histories of many articles we have worked on, our reverted edits, our deleted articles, etc. I will point out that both OrangeMarlin and myself have repeatedly extended the hand of friendship and assistance to various creationists or biblical literalists or intelligent design supporters and attempted to try to help them become productive contributors. We do not summarily dismiss anyone here because everyone can potentially contribute. I wish we could convince more creationists and others to work on some half-finished articles like religious perspectives on dinosasurs. It is only when an editor starts to be more of a liability than a benefit that we reluctantly join with the community to censure a troublemaker. So on your way out the door, if that is where you are headed, please do not go out of your way to kick the rest of us in the shins. That just confirms some of the worst impressions we had of you from your previous incarnation as VacuousPoet before you reformed yourself temporarily as StudyAndBeWise.--Filll 17:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You wrote the following on the SSP page regarding VacuousPoet:

I am undecided as to what his fate should be. I do agree with your previous statement that, at the minimum, he should apologize for disruptive editing which he conducted as VacuousPoet and possibly as kdbuffalo. I am certainly willing to go along with whatever the community feels is the appropriate response, however. I am not arguing that his helpful edits should outweigh his repeatedly disruptive behaviors. The point is, other creationists can be productive without engaging in such tactics; why should he get a pass? After all, this is not some forum to judge the correctness of his or our personal views, but to write an encyclopedia, and in that respect, he has been a negative influence.--Filll 22:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC) I didn't want to continue the conversation there, but I think you're missing the point. I'm taking a strict interpretation of the law--avoid a ban by creating a sockpuppet, the sockpuppet gets banned. I really don't care about anything else at that time, even he made some useful edits. If he wants to participate in this community, then participate honestly, don't try to play games. At the minimum, he should stay away for a long time. I wouldn't believe an apology from him under any condition. Orangemarlin 04:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are taking a strict interpretation of the law/rules. I will point out that I said, "I am willing to go along with whatever the community feels is the appropriate response". If people decide to ban him, then so be it. I have no objection to that.--Filll 14:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Evrik

Would you care to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Evrik and leave a comment if you feel it is appropriate? Thank you. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 23:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you possibly be able to "certify" the RFC...? I'm not exactly sure what the process is but I'm worried it will be deleted... -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 08:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Organizing the Evolution and Creationism articles

Every day, I seem to find a new article (not new in the sense of being written, but new for me to read) in some wikilink from one of the multitude of articles. And some of the articles are beginning to sound a lot alike. For example today I ran across Politics of creationism. Frankly, some of these articles are forking in repetitive ways. What do you think about setting up a Wikiproject on Evolution and Creationism to begin to get this field of articles under control. Even the Creationist articles belong in this discussion, because first, there is a need to keep those articles intellectually honest and NPOV, and second, because much of the Evolution article is written with Creationist arguments in mind (sad, but take a long read when you get a chance, because it almost sounds defensive). I'm not much into the science of evolution, because it really isn't my interest. However, I am very passionate about the politics and social ramifications of Creationism and Evolution, so I know I'd participate. The Wikiproject could set the rules of engagement. I participate infrequently on a Wikiproject with respect to the NHL. We make decisions on what to include and not include on various team pages, and everything else. Believe it or not, the passion there is not so different from the religion vs. science stuff here. What do you think? Orangemarlin 15:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. For my own amusement, I started a list to try to organize all the articles I was finding at Talk:Evolution/controversyarticles. This list is not even close to complete. I think that it is sort of surprising we do not yet have a Wikiproject set up. I am not sure how to set one up, but we definitely should.--Filll 16:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if controversyarticles is a bit too tough for this project. Orangemarlin 19:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You mean just too ambitious? I do not understand what you mean. Do you have a headset? We should meet at in a skypecast and discuss it.--Filll 20:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of discussion that should be held in real time in the regular space, so people have at least a little chance to think before replying. If we ever to go to a Skype conference, we will need a moderator. I've been in many phone conferences, and they fail completely if the matters are too contentious. I do not know if this has ever been discussed before in WP, and I think you should ask at the village pump. There has recently been a discussion of the proper role of IRC there--which is similar---anyone can in principle join, but few do. Remember also that some of the people who would want to contribute are in Australia, and most of us work or go to school. the regular mode lets everyone participate when they can. DGG 20:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that everyone should have access to it. However, I have tried the IRC here and found it particularly unhelpful, although it potentially could be very useful. Also, having a discussion in IRC, or by email with one or two others, or by phone, or jointly editing some article by email or in a sandbox before presenting it to the wider body of Wikipedia is perfectly reasonable and normal, and is obviously part of standard Wikipedia practice, as near as I can determine. Having a Skypecast, or Skype conference, or doing something similar using MSN messenger or Yahoo! messenger or AIM or any similar technology is just an extension of the email and IRC discussions already taking place. I would gladly ask about it at the Village Pump, but I fail to see how this violates any "rules" or standards on WP.--Filll 20:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment on Orangemarlin mentioning Politics of creationism as an example that some of the articles are beginning to sound a lot alike. This article was recently created by extracting content from the Creation-evolution controversy article, hence maintaining an equilibrium in content that sound a lot alike. It provides an entry specifically for the political issues instead of mixing that with the documentation of the philosophical controversy. However, I think it might be timely to discuss (on either of the entries talk pages) how to split the roles between Creation and evolution in public education and Politics of creationism. Terjen 05:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

See you later

I am on strike (for the arbitrary and underdiscussed and overbold forks of the creation-evolution controversy article. StudyAndBeWise 03:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I really wish you wouldnt StudyAndBeWise. You have made incredible contributions and I am sorry I have not been around to mediate this dispute, since I have been involved in real life stuff. I think it is really a tempest in a teapot and that if we can all discuss it it will evaporate. Would you be open to discussing it in a conference call? In a skypecast? I would be glad to try to help sort this out.--Filll 14:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Way of St. James

Is it reasonable to claim that the Santiago Compestella contains the actual remains of St. James and this is a fact? Or is it more accurately described as a legend? Or even myth? I will not get in an edit war over this.--Filll 15:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Fetus Soaps

If you want to get a gift for that person who has everything, why not consider a nice fetus soap or fetus broach to wear? [1]--Filll 18:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You have too much time on your hands. Shouldn't you be inventing a new branch of differential mathematics or something? Orangemarlin 18:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually am working on some rough notes for some lectures that might turn into a book, developing a new technique for wireless transmission and reception, and working out algorithms for deep space exploration. I am not really spending my whole life looking for fetus broaches. I just ran into them and thought others might get a smile out of them. --Filll 18:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You did succeed in the smile thing. I'm pretty certain that I won't be reading your book on wireless transmissions.  :) Orangemarlin 20:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The strange thing is, most people are not really interested in page after page of equations. I just have to accept that.--Filll 20:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Help on Angioplasty

I usually stay away from articles that I actually know something about, because the writing ends up being filled with POV. As you know, I'm a Cardiologist. I went to get some information about Angioplasty, and I found a poorly written article that was, in essence, an advertisement for certain companies. I've cleaned it up, but I realized that I could be writing way over someone's head, and it does not make sense. I've only completed about 1/2 of the article (and if you want to contribute, be my guest), but please read it, and make any clean-up that makes it clearer to you. This was hard to write. Orangemarlin 00:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I am the same way. I stay away from stuff I know too much about. I am even half afraid that there might be articles here about me and my friends and colleagues. I am not sure what I would think to see an article about myself here. I might feel inclined to edit an article about me, but then is that too POV? I am sure I wouldn't be comfortable with it no matter what. So I studiously avoid areas in which I really know too much. I will look and see if I can understand angioplasty, which I know almost nothing about.--Filll 20:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Cough, cough. Uh, so there's an article about you on here? Do tell? Orangemarlin 16:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I would not be surprised. I just do not want to know. Would you want to see an article about you on here?--Filll 20:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of Humanity

Please join in. Orangemarlin 15:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a little self-tooting my horn

I was allowed to stand with the obnoxious paparazzi ("Who do you photograph for?" "Wikipedia." "Oh, Wikipedia...do you have some kind of card or anything?" "Not really...." "Okay, go ahead.") and photograph Angela Bassett and her husband Courtney Vance - I am pretty happy about the results, and had to share them. Check out their pages. Dave --DavidShankBone 01:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. I think that being photographer for Wikipedia gives you a lot more credibility than most other media, frankly. However, that is my own biased opinion.--Filll 02:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Missing fun

You have not been participating in the newest Creationists who have run amok in the Evolution and Intelligent design articles. We need your helpOrangemarlin 00:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow, are they at it again? The same ones or new creationists?--Filll 00:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Get back here. There are a number of articles being assaulted by the creationist crowds, including sockpuppets of Raspor. HELP!!!!!! Orangemarlin 05:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

For creationists who want to have an uncritical place to write

• [2]

--Filll 22:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You know what's funny is that I think Wikipedia is hotbed of conservative, Christian, and politically correct thinking. I'm not sure why these conservatives need a website, but I guess they can then put out articles that have absolutely no meaning at all. But I didn't know Evolution was a political way of thinking. There are biology professors that I know who are absolutely behind Evolution, and are politically behind Bush (except for all that Christian stuff he spouts). Orangemarlin 19:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

They want the ability to just put out meaningless nonsense and have no one challenge it for what it really is.--Filll 15:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Creation science#Lead Section

This article has become a jumble of arguments and counterarguments. The Lead Section was reading very poorly to me. I made an attempt at cleaning it up, so if you could give it a read, make your comments, and then I can replace the original lead, I'd appreciate it. Orangemarlin 17:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Not Again!!!!

Check out this dif Who????. You want to take a bet on whom this may be?Orangemarlin 17:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

He sure fits all the patterns. The mis-spellings. The same claims that "I am not a Christian but...". And so on.--Filll 18:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Missing fun

You have not been participating in the newest Creationists who have run amok in the Evolution and Intelligent design articles. We need your helpOrangemarlin 00:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow, are they at it again? The same ones or new creationists?--Filll 00:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Get back here. There are a number of articles being assaulted by the creationist crowds, including sockpuppets of Raspor. HELP!!!!!! Orangemarlin 05:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Forbidden City

Hey, thanks for your help with Forbidden City. I have moved over what I have written so far, which covers the contents of the previous version of the article. I still have to do the "Collections" part to do with the Museum. If you have time, please take a look at the article and make any changes you think appropriate. I think the image placement still needs work, and some of the sections are probably a bit too long. --Sumple (Talk) 02:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

He might be back

I don't know, but the IP address and the writing style is reminding me of someone. diff —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orangemarlin (talk • contribs) 21:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

I wish you were still around to help me with the Creationist types. Help when you get a chance. Orangemarlin 02:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow. They are sure upset but I am not even sure what they are upset about. Wow what a bunch of whining.--Filll 00:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've given up on the articles. There seems to be one or two Creationist POV'ers who are causing trouble. You're not around to help, and there seems to be spotty attendance from the traditional "cabal" of rational science types to manage the articles. I just don't have the patience to manage these articles, and it worries me that Wikipedia articles, often being the top response in any Google search, and the POV-pushing from the Creationists is so harsh these days that I'm almost certain that these articles will soon say, "Evolution is merely a theory and not very well done one at that." Orangemarlin 02:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't give up! It is bad, but this is probably just a momentary thing with others busy. Sometimes other events intrude and make things a bit tough to be as well monitored as they deserve. Sometimes a wikibreak is just what is needed...I do have a question for you I will email.--Filll 19:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand. Still, I was going at alone with certain editors. Check out Evolution, Intelligent Design, Creation-evolution controversy, this edit, and other items. I just gave up at this point. An editor filed an ANI against me because I called him/her a whiny Creationist (which ranks about 200th on the level of stuff I've read criticizing editors). I'm so tired of this garbage. Orangemarlin 20:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Lukas19

Hi, you have had some dealings with this editor. I'd appreciate your opinion regarding a suspected sockpuppet if you have time. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lukas19. Cheers. Alun 14:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you back

The past few weeks, I felt kind of alone. Some of the usual suspects amongst the "good guys" have been noticeably absent. But I see puppy is back, FM is doing his usual "shoot first, take names a lot later", and you're here. But we need your help. Check out Intelligent design most importantly. We can't get consensus, and we're getting a weasel-worded POV statement as the lead. I'm depressed about it. Orangemarlin 00:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Report

I've blocked the first one as a banned user attempting to evade ban. I'm not touching the second since I'm not convinced he's done anything block worthy (and while I'm at it, Fill please try to stay on topic on talk pages. Even if someone else is going off topic it doesn't help matters to do so also). JoshuaZ 14:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

My talk page

Filll, buddy, you really need to relax. This edit is going to get you into trouble. Geez, I called a twit a "whiny creationist" once, and I got reprimanded harshly by an admin. Your comments are going to get you blocked. The nutjobs who try to start arguments can be slapped around. But this guy was responding to something I left on his talk page about the 99.4% number. Most of these creationists have closed minds, but some may not. Who knows, maybe our conversation will "convert" someone understanding that faith and science are not mutually exclusive. But when you get so combative, you get them all riled up, and we have no hope. Anyways, suck it up, apologize to him, then engage in civil conversation. Trust me, when the POV warriors show up, let's fight hard. Check out the one trying to get his pseudoscience put into an article I got to GA status at Herpes zoster. Now that requires a war. Orangemarlin 19:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Better. Just be nice, because there are so many battles to fight to keep the POV warriors from winning. If you get blocked or pushed aside because you appear to be a POV warrior yourself, we lose an ally. I get pissed as often as you do. I slip way too often. Orangemarlin 19:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

Houston, we have a problem.--Filll 05:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Vanished user vandalism

Please see the creation-evolution controversy article, and weigh in on his removal of the section on falsifiability. Thanks. StudyAndBeWise 05:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have briefly glanced at it. I am very sorry that somehow this seems to be getting blown out of proportion. I am confused about what is going on. I am not sure what I can do to calm things down.--Filll 13:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Good question - when I tried to explain to SABW that this was not vandalism, s/he pretty much had a melt down, unfortunately. Guettarda 13:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm... not sure myself, to be honest. I moved a section to the talk page for editing and fixing up, because it was pulling down the rest of the article, particularly by gross misrepresentation of Karl Popper's views on evolution, done by OR-ish implication. SABW threw a fit over this. Mind ye, they did seem to be having rather extreme views towards suggestions even before then, and the rearrangement of the article, with splits off of some parts into sub-articles, probably didn't help. Vanished user ^talk 15:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Filll, I don't want you to take my side or even participate in the dispute. Rather, I want you to offer your opinion on the falsifiability section that Adam had cut as being unfair to science. Do you agree totally, partially, not at all? StudyAndBeWise 02:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL

Thanks for watching out for me. I must have been on a rant! Orangemarlin 16:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah ... your true mission is revealed. Charlatan :) --Random Replicator 23:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It is hilarious how many times people have accused OrangeMarlin and me of being covert creationists here on Wikipedia with secret missions to advance the anti-science, creationist and/or fundamentalist Christian agendas. Looks like our cover has been blown! --Filll 16:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is my post on the AP Biology message board and a copy was sent to the National Center for Science Education [3]as you suggested. It is a little dramatic; but I was in one of those moods. --Random Replicator 02:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps many of us have lost sight of the significance of the events unfolding regarding the ID-Creation / Evolution debate. This is not just the annual diatribes submitted by both factions. The initiation of the required syllabus to the College Board has changed all of that. Please allow me to explain:

1) The College Board by virtue of requiring an approved syllabus for AP credit has taken it upon themselves to monitor and validate both curriculum and methodology. They in fact reject syllabi that do not conform to their standards in regard to content and scientific validity.

2) The approval of a syllabus that includes both ID-Creationism and Evolution as being equally plausible implies validation of ID-Creation as an alternative scientific explanation. I am not referring to a syllabus that draws attention to the controversy but to those that specifically give equal credibility in the light of science to ID or Creationism.

If the College Board chooses to be silent in regards to this issue and continues to accept ID-Creationism driven curricula then we can assume their approval of ID-Creationism as legitimate science. This seems to be just the type of validation that the ID-Creation movement has been seeking. The implication in future court confrontations is profound. “College Board validates syllabi that support Intelligent Design”. THIS IS A POTENTIALLY HISTORIC MOMENT.

The significance of this moment is well beyond the message board exchanges in which we attempt to sway each others views. The College Board, by demanding a syllabus for approval has placed themselves in the middle of the debate. It is now their decision to make in regards to the legitimacy of ID-Creationism.

I have written to the National Center for Science Education http://www.natcenscied.org/ an advocacy group that opposes the incorporation of ID-Creationism into the Science curriculum in hopes that they will intervene on behalf of those of us who see what a setback to science education this moment represents. For those of you who understand the implication of the College Boards approval by their silence, I strongly suggest you email this group to voice your concerns.

ncseoffice@ncseweb.org Att: Eugenie C. Clark Executive Director

For those that are rejoicing over the silent approval of the College Board in regards to ID/Creationism; I offer you this web site. http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Ken Ham effectively advocates for the Creation movement and has one of the most visited sites on the internet. He may be interested in this situation that is unfolding.

The debate is no longer between the teachers; it has been elevated to an entirely new level. It will be very interesting to see how the College Board responds. A response is certainly in order.

Talk:Tessarakonteres

The mythology/not debate is getting well and truly underway. I see you edited for mythology and - though I would disagree with what you say, I will defend.... etc - thought you might be interested in weighing in. Neddyseagoon - talk 09:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent comments on ID

Filll, I know that dealing with the same or nearly the same comments on the page can get frustrating, but please try to remain civil and remember that the people who bring up the same points are different poeple who generally mean well. JoshuaZ 17:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Buddy. You really need to tone it down just a bit with your comments to the creationists. Calling them lunatics or their ideas "BS" is attacking them. That their ideas are unsupported by any science or scientific method is certainly acceptable. I don't want to go to an ANI supporting you because one of "them" decides to destroy you. We need you here, so please please please take our advice. I go over the line occasionally, and of course, it is so frustrating. I was watching ProtoCat get into with me and other editors, and I decided that he was a sockpuppet, and he promptly got banned. That is much better. There are smart creationists out there, and if you attack so much, your words in a debate with the smart ones aren't going to matter. You know I want to type the same thing. Joshua does too. But we need to take the high ground. And really, I don't want you to get blocked or banned. Orangemarlin 16:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you are right. I should remove it I guess.--Filll 17:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit to level of support for evolution article

You cannot believe this one. Orangemarlin 14:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Three times? I mean, the article is not perfect. I would revise it a fair amount myself. But to drag out the same tired arguments again and again? I wonder if this is another sock puppet.--Filll 15:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. I have issue with that article that appear to be distinct from those raised by SA, for example. Anyway, prod'ing the article is silly. Guettarda 17:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please ignore this section

Some anons who failed to realise the difference between a user page and a user talk page tried answering your rhetorical question about the supernatural. Here they are for you to ignore. May the good Easter bunny be with you, .. dave souza, talk 21:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• i think most people would not have a problem with that reasoning. just do not look down on the supernatural or assert that science is superior.71.232.108.228 04:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That is a silly example. Including the supernatural does not mean you can exclude logic. And it depends a lot on how one defines 'supernatural'. Is prayer, thought, telepathy, precognition, astral projection 'supernatural'? 68.109.234.155 20:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically, prayer, telepathy, precognition and astral projection have no evidence supporting them. So they might be properly classified as supernatural. "Thought" of course is well supported by evidence and can be measured in any number of ways. I expect that our measurements and understanding of "thought" will do nothing but improve in the future.--Filll 13:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You may want to read anon 68's talk page before you waste any further time answering it. Orangemarlin 14:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh brother. This is clearly someone mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or both.--Filll 14:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see you back. I nearly left this place permanently because of the frustration with certain users. RBJ is a current one, claiming to be some great Lord Ruler of the NPOV, accusing me and others of being "liars" if we state that he's pushing a creationist POV, and generally disrupting edits of articles. He's completely screwed up Intelligent design to the point where we've had two weeks of arguments about the lead paragraph, when the original one was perfectly written. There are a couple of other Creationists who are much more reasonable and working towards a consensus, so maybe it can be done, but your aggressive assistance is immediately required. Besides, a certain RBJ accuses me of not knowing anything about Math and Physics in the Fine-tuned universe article. Since I know you are a mathematician, how about helping out there? Orangemarlin 14:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Curious about editing discussions

Would there ever be any value to having a room or two to discuss editing on Skypecast? It is free of course.--Filll 22:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps editing discussions should be conducted in the open.DGG 05:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course they should be done in the open. I am not suggesting a closed session. There might be a value to discussions in real time, however. And it is a trivial matter to record the discussions and then have them universally available to anyone on the internet.--Filll 15:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Lost my patience

If you would like to comment, please do here[4]. Rbj went over the top. Orangemarlin 19:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Calm down

I understand that you strongly feel Rbj was wrong to edit Orangemarlin's comments, but this was over the top. Calm down; behavior like that will escalate the situation, not help resolve it. Mangojuice^talk 20:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The difficulty comes not just from editing Orangemarlin's comments to basically mock Judaism, but this follows from weeks and maybe even months of other uncivil behavior on the part of rbj. Unfortunately, many fundamentalists demonstrate antisemitic leanings, and it appears that either rbj does as well, or is using it as a device to taunt Orangemarlin. I think that this is very very bad form, frankly. Comparable displays targeting fundamentalists would be met with all kinds of screams of discrimination. What is good for the goose is good for the gander; this sort of nasty interaction has no place on WP.--Filll 21:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Mango, please see nearly every edit that Rbj places in discussions of contentious articles. He is the most uncivil editor I've ever seen. And his anti-semitic edits on my edits are not acceptable. This disturbed individual is the first to whine, yes whine, if anyone does anything that offends his rather limited POV on anything. Then, without provocation, he does something that in another context would be considered antisocial, to my viewpoint on religion. He's the first to complain if someone goes against his crude Creationist/Fundamentalist outlook, but he attacks with a vengeance against my Judaism. He needs to go, and I appreciate Filll and, frankly, many others who have stood up to his limited social skills, his crude behavior, and uncivil attacks on every editor who is not his "buddy." Orangemarlin 22:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have seen problematic behavior from Rbj in the past, which is why I noticed your edit. Responding to incivility with incivility leads to escalation, which is good for nobody. Mangojuice^talk 02:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Admins block him for a few hours or days, ask him to "think" about his behavior. He just returns with a vengeance. I think no one has patience for him.Orangemarlin 14:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case, you need to bring a "community patience" motion against him, and thus have him indef-blocked. WP:ANI is your friend, and make sure you notify admins that are interested in subjects touched by this user. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping he would apologize for his editing of OM's posts. I gather he reverted his edits. Did he apologize? I suspect he did not. I can understand some boisterous over-enthusiastic editing, but he really should apologize when it has been pointed out that he is out of line.--Filll 16:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies can only usually be had from people younger than 13 or between the ages of 17 and 21. Everybody else will just persist in arguing their way out of sticky points. So I wouldn't be disappointed. Most people are blockheads, that's just how it is. Those are my 2 cents, anyway. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I was raised differently. Probably because I'm not a Christian. LOL. Orangemarlin 16:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither so am I. But the main point is to express that Filll's efforts are still appreciated, even if he did rise to the bait on this occasion. Sometimes, it's hard not to. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I might have been a bit rough on him, but I wanted to deliver the message that this sort of thing is inappropriate. If you don't nip it in the bud, it will get much worse very quickly. I also wanted to extend an olive branch of sorts by asking him to apologize. However, the fact that he has so far declined to do so speaks volumes I think.--Filll 16:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Samsara's original point is more useful - Rbj has exhausted a lot of people's patience. FM raised the point of ANI about a week ago, but it drew far too little attention. You could bring it up again there (and maybe reference the earlier post) or try the community noticeboard. Guettarda 17:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to get back in the game

It seems that Wiki is under POV attack these days. You missed attacks at Jesus as myth, Noah's Ark, Creation science, Living dinosaurs, Intelligent design, Evolution, and Jesus-myth hypothesis. It's getting out of hand. Orangemarlin 03:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Darn! I think that we sometimes encounter a church or school group that agrees to assault us for "fun". I suspect that there is probably even approval or leadership from the educational and religious leaders. These sorts of people believe that science and reason etc to be "of the devil" and they mindlessly and visciously attack anything they see as contrary to their own beliefs. I should be helping out since the more of us that do it, the easier it is to slow them down.--Filll 12:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to barge in, I was going to leave a personal message for you here but it seems this bottom comment was enough. I'm not trying to start trouble, but don't accuse people of POV when you are clearly doing it yourself. Look at your comments. Insulting Wikipedia users like they're all sheep incapable of thinking for themselves, and you have some profound knowledge unknown to the rest of the community. You attack me, when I'm mostly on your side, and even reverted vandalism where someone replaced entire Wikipedia articles with scripture. I strongly urge you to read the policies/guidelines I sent you on the talk page of Evolution, and keep assuming good faith. We all(or most of us) are trying to do a good job enhancing the Wiki, without people like you making sad attempts to intimidate us with your talk downs. Wikidan829 14:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)