User:Silence/Archive0012

 Pulvis et umbra sumus.
 * ―Horace

FNORD
Hi! This is Icarus!, being non-Wiki (I'm not logged in...), saying thanx for the work on the Discordianism page! Keep it up!24.176.20.60 16:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Evolution and stress
Hi Silence, I was just reading the FAR discussion for Evolution. I'm thinking of working on the article. I'm good at explaining stuff to laypeople and I love the topic. However, from the FAR and from looking at the current mess of an article, it sounds like it's a heck of a stressful place to be. It sounds like pushing a string uphill. Can you tell me, frankly, what to expect if I go in there and start to suggest major changes? Thanks and take care, Kla'quot 08:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW I don't mean to put you on the spot there :) From what I can see so far it looks like it's more work than I'd want to get into at the moment. If you don't want to answer I'll just take it as it comes. Kla'quot 04:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WTF?
Here, here and here. What have I ever done to you? Orangemarlin 00:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you're talking about. I would have made the exact same three comments if three completely different editors had done the three things I was criticizing. Please don't take things so personally. When editors criticize an action, it's generally because they disagree with an edit, not because they are nefariously plotting revenge for some past offense. The vast majority of your changes to evolution have been exceptional improvements; I'm particularly impressed with your edits to the References system, which was probably the biggest deficit in the article and which you've done an excellent job of bringing up to snuff. However, you made a few mistakes in your many changes, both of which resulted from your not participating in the ongoing discussions on these topics at the time&mdash;which is understandable because they're long, but a simple page-search would have shown you why "Evidence of evolution"; reverting the changes of dozens of editors should not be your first reaction to an anomaly! Gathering information should be. I pointed out those two mistakes (deleting the "academic disciplines" section without discussion even though 2-3 editors had objected to it, and reverting the ongoing integration of "evidence of evolution" into the "common descent" section) solely in the interest of having them remedied, not because I have some vendetta against you. Don't be so melodramatic. Even the best editors make mistakes; or if you don't believe they're mistakes, then simply explain why and I'll reconsider. Either way, there's no point at all in, again, failing to assume good faith on the other editor's part. -Silence 01:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi there, Silence. Could you do me a favor and please try to be a little more polite to other editors? The evolution talk page is acrimonious enough without over-harsh criticism of other editors' actions adding to the conflicts. TimVickers 02:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * None of my comments about "Evidence of evolution" were meant to be critical of Orangemarlin, or any other editor; they were solely meant to be critical of detrimental article edits. However, your request is a reasonable one, and I probably could have worded the criticism more delicately; I'll tone it down. If I was unnecessarily harsh, it was solely to focus editors' attention on the problem, not to cause anyone offense. -Silence 02:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I appreciate it. The talk page has been getting me down recently. TimVickers 04:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I made no reversion with respect to "Evidence of Evolution" unless you consider this edit "reverting." I rarely revert other editor's writing, unless it's obvious vandalism or it's POV pushing.
 * Yes, the talk section is long, but I read it several times a day, and if I thought that I was reverting (which I still claim I hadn't), I surely would have checked on that. Once again, I don't feel that I know the "science" of this article as well as many other editors, so my job, as a reasonably educated person, is to check if it passes the sniff test.  The section was confusing to me, so I just changed the section headers so that a normal reader would understand it.  If someone wanted to revert my section headers, trust me, I wouldn't have cared.
 * Melodramatic? No, I put up with the crap from Creationist editors like Rbj and others.  I get truly pissed off when an individual that's on "my side" appears to pissed off at me.
 * I didn't consider it a mistake about the academic disciplines. I didn't like the section.  However, I'm not going to fall on a sword about it, because it was "clean up" rather than someone shoving a POV up my intestinal tract.  I didn't think anyone cared.
 * Your comments appeared to be an attack on me rather than the edit. That I took personally.  If you're saying you didn't mean it, then I accept that.
 * I appreciate your comments about the References. I think that an article like Evolution should be exceptional.

Otherwise, the last thing I want to do is fight with you, especially since you're one of the good guys. I thought I had offended you in some way given your rather pointed responses in each of those cases. OK, like Tim Vickers says, these articles do get me down. Orangemarlin 05:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The point I've been trying to make is that I'm not one of the "good guys". Wikipedia is not some dueling ground between "good guys" and "bad guys"; it is not a crusade. It is an academic, encyclopedic, general-use resource. What matters is the quality of a user's contribution to the encyclopedia, not the personal ideological views of the editor. Any creationist is just as able to be a "good guy" as a non-creationist, as long as he respects Wikipedia's policies. Hell, you can believe in a Flat Earth or that the world is supported on the back of an elephant, for all I care, and still have just as valuable contributions as a brilliant physicist; all that is required is that you not interject your personal views into the article. Non-partisanship in editing is one of the greatest Wikipedian virtues; judging fellow editors based solely on their ideological leanings, rather than on their contributions, runs directly contrary to this principle. I don't mean to be harsh, but I really want to be sure that you recognize this, in order to avoid unnecessary future conflicts. Save the righteous wrath for people who are clearly harming the encyclopedia; don't waste it on people who merely disagree with you. -Silence 05:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I do consider it a reversion, because it was a reversion. You reverted the section's title and layout. That's a reversion by definition. But it hardly matters what the nature of the change was; my point was only that it was a bad change. Whether it was a reversion or a novel edit is immaterial. I mentioned reversion only to note the motivation behind it, to show that it was based on faulty information rather than being a deliberate, informed change. "Reversion" is not a dirty word; indeed, most reverts are good and important changes. Thus I find it bizarre that you are trying to defend your edit from being called a "revert", as though reverting was in itself some great offense; what matters is that your edit was a mistake, not that it was a revert.
 * 2) I'm in a similar position to you: I am primarily on evolution to improve the way it delivers it contents, rather than the contents itself, since I am not an evolutionary biologist. However, my point stands: you saw that "evidence of evolution" had been renamed and reorganized in the overall article layout. Rather than digging deeper and trying to find out why this was done, you simply reverted the change without any further thought, based solely on badly out-of-date article comments (specifically, mine) from months ago, without any regard for more recent and relevant comments from mere days ago. I have no problem with you making changes to try and improve the article's accessibility, but I do have a problem with you making major "auto-pilot" changes to the layout without reading over the relevant Talk page discussions. Especially shortly after many, many pages of painstakingly discussing every single minute aspect of the article's layout had been completed, and while the Evidence of evolution article was in the middle of being moved to Evidence of common descent, itself a clear sign that something was amiss! Continue making the changes you've been making in the past, but be less sloppy about finding out why puzzling changes have been made. The fact that you don't currently understand a change doesn't mean that there was no reason for the change!
 * 3) There are only two "sides" with respect to Wikipedia: people who want to improve Wikipedia and people who don't. Most regular creationist editors on Wikipedia want to improve the encyclopedia; consequently, they are on the same "side" as you. Wikipedia is not a battling ground for waging your own personal crusade, no matter how justified or noble that crusade may be! Wikipedia's purpose is to provide valuable information, not to attack creationists! And you should expect, indeed, you should demand, that you receive equally harsh criticism from creationists and non-creationists; if you do not, then something is horribly wrong with the system, as it means that either creationist editors are being belligerent (in which case they should be banned), or, even worse, non-creationist editors are avoiding making important criticisms just because you're "on the same side" (an attitude which would utterly destroy Wikipedia if it were allowed to flourish). Acting like non-creationists don't have the right to criticize your mistakes is worse than melodramatic: it's contrary to the entire spirit of Wikipedia, which is not a partisan vehicle for any "side".
 * 4) Your mistake wasn't deleting the section; that was an editorial decision you make, and while I (and many others) disagree with you on that, it was at least not a change made in obvious error. Your mistake was not sufficiently discussing the change, and, again, not consulting the Talk page (even though, again, they were mere days old!) on the relevant subject. Deleting an entire major section that's been around for years on one of Wikipedia's most prominent articles just because one other editor had agreed with you (and at least 2-3, and probably dozens in total, disagreed) is hasty at best. It's perfectly possible to "be bold" without being hasty.
 * 5) I didn't mean it. Just because I mentioned your name didn't mean my criticisms weren't all directed to the change itself. They had nothing to do with you personally; at most, they had to do with you as a Wikipedia editor, and you should take such criticisms purely as a learning exercise. But mainly, they just had to do with the article.
 * 6) I agree.

Image:Mkdw Internet Explorer Test.jpg
Hello, Silence. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Mkdw Internet Explorer Test.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Silence/Archive0010. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 06:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mkdw Safari Test.jpg
Hello, Silence. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Mkdw Safari Test.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Silence/Archive0010. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 06:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Tags
Hi Silence, I think we all agreed on the talk page that the Darwin quote you found POV added little to the aticle. I therefore removed both the quote and the tag. I hope this was OK. TimVickers 22:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

More tags
Hi again. Although I respect your concern for accuracy, the placing of "disputed" tags on articles based on minor disagreements about the content, rather than major factual inaccuracies (see Accuracy dispute) might be seen as a little disruptive. Please consider discussing your points on the talk page and only if your concern cannot be resolved, adding more tags. I am genuinely trying to improve this article, so this rather confrontational style of approaching discussions is not really necessary. TimVickers 20:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Characterizing common ancestry as an outcome of evolution is as inaccurate as characterizing the Big Bang as an outcome of stellar evolution. In my view, this is one of the most major factual inaccuracies the article has ever contained. It is therefore crucial, considering that the discussion may take a while (which is fine by me), to leave the tag on the page until discussion has resolved this issue; otherwise, we will continue to propagate the inaccuracy until it's fixed. There is nothing "minor" about having one of the most important sections of the article be layed out in such a way so as to directly imply the complete opposite of one of the most important truths about evolutionary theory. The tag is not meant to be confrontational; it's meant to avoid us having to get into a revert-war over the error until we've come to an agreement. -Silence 20:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I would not revert war over a minor difference of opinion about classification and layout. Please put your mind at rest! TimVickers 21:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg
Hello, Silence. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Silence/Evolution. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 23:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:KatamariDamacybox.jpg
Hello, Silence. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:KatamariDamacybox.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Silence/Katamari. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 16:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sandman no.1 (Modern Age).comiccover.jpg
Hello Silence, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Sandman no.1 (Modern Age).comiccover.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Silence/Workshop. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 08:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Unintentional humor
Thanks for the laugh, but when you wrote "our primary concern should be to avoid spreading information" I'm sure you didn't mean this! :) TimVickers 18:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Avoid spreading misinformation. :P I rewrote the sentence and accidentally left "information" in both parts of the line. -Silence 18:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks anyway, I didn't even notice the first time I read it! TimVickers 18:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there
Sorry if I became a bit grouchy yesterday, that circular tree was about two hours of solid work and I felt quite attached to it. I'm very glad we've found a way that should eventually produce something scientifically-valid, referenced and reasonably simple. TimVickers 20:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please
Moved from Talk:Evolution:


 * Can you please stop accusing others of logical fallacies? It's unnecessarily aggressive (which I don't think is conducive to constructively improving the article) and I think you're equally prone to making fallacious arguments yourself. I can't bring myself to read the rest of what you're writing when you start out with statements like that. Sorry. Madeleine 20:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This comment isn't relevant here; please move it to my Talk page, as it's distracting from actual discussion of the article. In exchange, I'll promise to mention fallacies less. But surely it is the content of my argument, not its form, that matters. Disregarding my argument because I used a certain word ("fallacy") is pretty fallacious, no? :P Just kidding, but come on, either read (at the very least the summarized version) or don't respond. -Silence 20:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't just about the accusations of logical fallacy. I didn't start out trying to disregard your statements, but you're being extremely long-winded and starting out statements with really offensive things like "your argument is 100% irrelevant". If you're going to treat me (and others) like that, I'm afraid I can't give your contributions the attention you want them to receive. Madeleine 20:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I'll avoid talk of fallacies. I apologize if I offended with any of it; I did it only out of time concerns, and if my counter-arguments were sometimes terse it was only out of concern for making my responses even more over-long. -Silence 21:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Friendly invitation
If you have time, I'd be happy if you came and played with the "Simplicity and Complexity" section in my sandbox. All the best. TimVickers 23:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Take care!
I hope your break goes well, and that it doesn't indicate any problems. Hope to see you again soon! Adam Cuerden talk 23:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi there, hope you are doing OK. If you have time when you get back, your input would be appreciated at Featured article candidates/Evolution. Thanks! TimVickers 18:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Vestigial structures
Could you please comment on the discussion about 'use and disuse'. I'm still not convinced of your view - you have read Darwin's main works, right? Please highlight some passages of the book that could support your view. Richard001 07:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Miss your Vulcan logic
Silence I miss your Vulcan logic in the evolution article. I too am retired and getting to the age where I must have sat on some self-destruct button no one bothered to tell me about. I give up on this Wiki and I am exploring digitaluniverse.net and citizendium.org. I find this process infuriating. I must be losing all my patience and the often uncivil attitudes are distracting. Hope you have a great break and enjoy good health. You have gained my respect and admiration despite your big pointy ears-beam me up Scotty. GetAgrippa 23:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Mkdw Firefox Test2.jpeg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mkdw Firefox Test2.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Mkdw Firefox Test2.jpeg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Mkdw Firefox Test2.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. WHOOOOOOOOOOO!

Since you started this article ...religion in Europe
You may still be interested in improving religion in Europe. See you there hopefully. Thanks, Andries 03:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Snow Leopard
Since we had traded posts on the Snow Leopard talk page, I wonder if you could take a look at Talk:Snow_Leopard. Thanks. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  14:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Stardust
Thanks for trimming the plot appropriately at Stardust. I would have done so myself, but I have yet to see the film. A lot of these new film articles tend to have editors that write about films' plots in massive detail, so I thought it was appropriate to discourage mindsets that it's OK to keep a blow-by-blow account of the film. Happy editing! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Jewish atheists up for deletion
Hello, I came across your name in the edit history for Atheist Jew and saw that you made a significant edit, so I thought you might like to know that Category:Jewish atheists has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_25. The discussion is now in its third day, so don't delay if you would like to participate. Cgingold 15:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Chair of WikiMedia Foundation wants to know
"What is that anti-webcomics agenda he is talking about ?" WAS 4.250 21:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dominionism
As you participated in the prior TfD, I thought you would be interested that it has been proposed for deletion once again. You can find the discussion here. SkierRMH 02:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Accidental mass revert
Oops. Yes, absolutely unintended. My thoughts? Just this: BRAVO, and many thanks for your high-quality copyediting at Barack Obama. More please!! --HailFire (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
  Blessed editing, and...  Happy Holidays from Marlith  T / C

Credits: This card was inspired by Macy's123, assistant of V's Shop Marlith  T / C 05:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Gialogo-1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gialogo-1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of True self
An editor has nominated True self, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Catullus 1
Wow! The way you wrote out the scansion for for Catullus one is fantastic! It contains everything! Maybe in the future I will be able to fill in more of the poems in that way- it gives an example. David G Brault (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Userloc
A tag has been placed on Template:Userloc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Barack (brandy) move request
Bringing this to your notice in case you have further suggestions about it. Ideally, I'd like to see it gone from the top of the Barack Obama article, reason being that first names are not a typical search term (and it looks silly there sitting at the top of the FA). --HailFire (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's actually surprisingly common for people to search for the first name, as long as it's a distinctive and well-known first name. cf. Elvis, etc. The only reason not to have a dab page for "Bar(r)ack" would be if "Barack" didn't redirect to Barack Obama, a solution you surely wouldn't desire, although it would be consistent with your claim that first names are not typical search names. If you want to make it more useful, I recommend replacing the link to Barack (brandy) with a more general dab-link to Barrack, which includes links to the brandy as well as to Obama. If you want to make it less "silly"-looking, make it more compact by combining the two separate dab lines (for Obama and for Barack) into one line. -Silence (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Human
An editor has nominated Human, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Frances says Thanks! (or he would, if he wasn't mute)
Your interpretation of Frances the Mute is simply splendid! For that, I award you this:

Richard Dawkins FA
Hello Silence. Thank you for your comment. If you think that the article Richard Dawkins is good enough for the FA status, please support it. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Silence, I like your user page. I also noticed that you have made over 10,000 edits. Great job. You were not that active on Wikipedia from June 2007 to March 2008. I hope you will spend more time on Wikipedia this month. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Silence. Thank you for your comment. Silence, many creationalist don't believe in intelligent design and many people who advocate ID rejects other types of creationism. Dawkins said in an interview that he understood evolution at the age of about 16. Dawkins also said that he "got heavily involved in all of that." You have made some interesting points. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Silence, I think you should also edit the article Richard Dawkins. I have noticed that you have contributed to two FA articles (Evolution and Atheism). Your contributions will be helpful. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is true that many creationists don't believe in ID and that many ID supporters reject "other types of creationism", but that doesn't make the formation "creationism and intelligent design" have any content that "creationism" on its own doesn't. It's problematic for the same reason a formation like "Americans and African-Americans" would be problematic in its implications. Just because all X are not Y, and all Y are not forms of X other than Y, does not mean that all Y are not X. -Silence (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok! You have a point. What's the solution? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins FA candidacy
Hello Silence, I have finished working through your criticism of the Richard Dawkins article at Featured article candidates/Richard Dawkins. I appreciate your taking the time to look at it, and you made some very valid points. If you could just let me know which issues you feel I have resolved, and which issues I have not, then that would be great. Regards, AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 19:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yo
Just dropping by to say uh..your cool. Or at least that's the impression i get from your page.
 * It's an illusion. -Silence (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

QL
I'm not quite sure that agreeing with yourself is allowed... Simply south (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Hello, Silence. Based on how you describe yourself, you seem (at least to me) to be an extremely insightful person with whom I would enjoy conversing (and, possibly, debating). If what your page claims is accurate, I believe we have many beliefs and interests in common. Spero ut porro dicamus. Sapiens23 (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

(Also, I believe you have a typographical error in your last sentence in the third paragraph of your Interests section. Either that, or I use "be" too little in my writing.)

Barack Obama
I reverted your addition of Obama to Category:converts to Christianity, based on a source that quotes Obama saying "I have always been a Christian" His father was not religious, but he was raised from the age of 2 by a Christian mother. Wnt (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Creationism2
Template:Creationism2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Neelix (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Improvements necessary to keep Rosa Parks as a Featured Article
As with most articles promoted so long ago, this article does not currently meet the Featured Article criteria. Since you have been a major contributor to the article, I would appreciate your help to bring this article up to the current standards. Please don't take this as an insult to the article, as it is well-written and there shouldn't be a lot of work necessary.

I have listed my concerns on the article's talk page. I would like to get this up to the current standards without going through a Featured Article review, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments on Human page
Hello, I'm in a long inactive phase of Wikipedia, as I'm on dialup and pretty resourceless and timeless for the time being. I'm a third generation atheist and non-conformist and came upon your clear and insightful posts while searching for human evolution (in the larger sense) info between 10000 BC and the Egyptians. I am extremely surprised to find this period exactly empty on the Human page, and instead had to wade through an onslaught of "people" and civilisation paragraphs that I really feel do not belong there. And although I was dissatisfied with approximately half the article, one point that really boggled my mind is reference 33 used to state "normal" human weight, from an article discussing "normal" BMI. Most university level physiologists (as opposed to college level dieticians) know how innacurate and innapropriate BMI is to assess human health. By those standards, some pop culture examples such as are Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Scharzenegger are both overweight, as would be most hard working women, such as firefighters I don't even want to go near editing on that page as the anthropocentrics and "all views are equal" types are roaming around it like sharks around drowning men. I thought maybe since you already have experience on that page, you may have more success than I on removing such innaccuracies. Either way, keep up the nice work. Cheers--Tallard (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Human picture
Judging from the latest comment on the get-the-pictcha-question (Human article), it seems you're very much "liked" by certain people and this discussion will drag on for... "a little longer." Just telling you you've convinced me, but as a non-Biologist, I have nothing more to contribute -- and after my experience with the other "rants" I had to read through (white people, black people, uyghur,...) I don't think I can take this stuff one more time or else I could easily "lose it." Hold your ground, though. :) Seb az86556 (talk) 10:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia


I've been reading your user page and the comments under the 'WTF?' section about Evolution. You need to lighten up, get a hobby and stop taking Wikipedia so damn seriously. You're taking its rules to the extreme now; its a website, stop being so addicted to it and stating rules and.. ugh. Just have a bit of humour in your life. You want to delete all the humurous pages from Wikipedia? You sad, sad man. Your taking Wikipedia like a law you have to follow; please, find something else to do, because I feel Wikipedia has taken over your life; and not for the better either ;) -- Flash flash  ;  07:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL :D I like you. You are a subtle ironist indeed. I'm glad my comments from 27 months ago were able to entertain you!~ Best wishes to you and yours, Love, Your Friend and Mine Silence. -Silence (talk) 07:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I replied. Are you watching my page? -- Flash flash  ;  08:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Islam and the fascism analogy
Hi, just wondering what you propose regarding this page. (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Łobżany
Could you correct any mistakes plz? Thanks ;) Timpul my talk 17:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :) Timpul my talk 18:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem! :) -Silence (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Archives
Hey Silence, I see you've changed the bot's instructions from 5d to 10d. Premature archiving was something I was worried about, and I actually meant to do minor edits or something to avert it but never got around to it. I did check the MiszaBot help page and was unable to find any way to tag a specific section for special treatment, which seems absurd. (Either that should be possible or the bot should automatically skip sections with RFC templates.) Anyhow, I really want the contents of Archive 29 back until the RFC closes but am unsure about the best method. My inclination is to paste it back in at the top of Talk:Human and ask you (being of the mop-wielding caste) to speedy-delete Archive 29, but I don't want to screw up future archiving or leave a redundant or blank page. (Still chewing over this, btw, and don't mind telling you I am seriously conflicted over it. You haven't convinced me but you have chiseled away at my position to the point where I'm having to reevaluate its bases.) Rivertorch (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but it looked like the RfC had pretty much died down, unfortunately. If you want to return it to the main talk page, you might ask User:Misza13 if a simply copy-paste from the archives will screw up the bot's protocols. I'm wary of speedying Archive29 without knowing how the bot works because that might make the bot start archiving to nowhere, live it did back in '08 when the Archive27 catastrophe occurred.
 * Anyway, I'm glad to know I've at least partly convinced you, even if you still have reservations. I'd love to know both what is helping persuade you, and where I still haven't sold you, when you have the time to respond. Since there seem to be very few editors currently active on Talk:Human (who have an interest in this image issue), it doesn't seem like much progress will be possible until we've actually made the initial image switch on Human, since I think that will be the only thing that can provide the needed impetus for editors of all sorts to converge and start tearing apart the candidates, and proposing new ones (as well as probably providing new and interesting, even if misguided, defenses of the Pioneer plaque). Then the real fun begins. :) -Silence (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I have asked Misza13. Agree that RFC has died down, but someone else may wander in yet, and the discussion really should be all on one page. I see that the link at Requests_for_comment/All now goes to Talk:Human/Archive 29—not sure if that was changed by bot or by human.


 * I do have more to say about the image, just not quite yet. Incidentally, I'm removing the duplicate section from my talk page. Not sure what your rationale was, but suffice it to say I have watchlisted your talk page. Rivertorch (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Update Before I could act on Misza's suggestion, I noticed that the entry is gone from the RFC list. Any idea what's up with that? It hasn't been 30 days. Where would the record be of its being closed manually? Anyway, I don't want to pull something out of the archives (leaving a blank page, no less) if the RFC is officially over. Rivertorch (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just covering the bases in case you didn't have this page watched. In the old days, I used to have cross-posted discussions all the time. 'Tis great for archiving! :)
 * In any case, I've restored the RfC on Talk:Human, deleted it from the archives, and reposted it on the RfC page. I've also posted a very brief summary of the discussion at the bottom of the RfC (I hope 'on the fence' is a fair characterization of your position; I'm not 100% sure which way you and the other 2 are leaning, so I didn't want to speculate). -Silence (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Given my comments in the RFC discussion to date, it would be appropriate to lump me in with Lulu et al if you must lump me in anywhere. Better still, might I suggest that rather than attempting to categorize other editors' stances, especially those who are attempting to wrestle with every conceivable aspect of the question, we do the straw poll thing and let editors categorize themselves? That would make it easier to keep track of the count and will also allow newcomers to concisely put their two cents in without refactoring what you wrote. Rivertorch (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If anyone wants to do the poll, feel free to. The only reasons I haven't done it myself is because (1) as you just mentioned, some people are still trying to work out what their opinion is; (2) discussion, not polls, are what's most likely to solidify those opinions, and discussions rather than polls are what determine consensus; (3) as I mentioned from counting 15 'pro-pioneer' and 30 'anti-pioneer' votes in the last 30 months, I expect that a poll would be inconclusive and just further delay our trying out a new solution; and (4) unless we tried hard to popularize the poll outside of this Talk page, I expect that the vast majority of voters would just be people whose opinions we already know. The only way to generate a huge surge of new users' input would be to actually change the image. But a straw poll might be interesting; I just don't think it will resolve anything. The only reason I bothered "counting" the votes so far was to test whether certain editors' claims of having "consensus" on their side was plausible. -Silence (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Your views are awful
Silence, you are nothing more than a left-wing sycophant. DavidSteinle (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Good to know, I'll keep on eye on that. Have a nice day, sirrah! :) -Silence (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Definitions of Humanism
Wonderful work on the color-coded table of definitions for humanism (talk page)! It really should help the discussion, but I'm afraid that there are some who are at their core POV. No amount of rational argumentation will change them. Thank you so much for your interventions. Wilson Delgado (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Aren't/presciption
And again:

Non-Moles
Please help. Please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mole#Non-moles and tell Richard what you told me. The mole article people don't want it to have the job of disambiguation of the non-moles from the moles, and the DAB people don't want that information in the DAB page. Chrisrus (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)