User talk:Filll/Archive 16

Introduction to evolution
The pisser is .... he/she is right on nearly every point. My legacy can't be two failed banners. I printed the complete article and the "list". Give me a few days to work on it in a hard copy format.--Random Replicator 19:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That is why I was so glad to get such good feedback. The last time, we really had sort of lousy feedback, to be honest (hopefully that doesnt offend anyone). This is much MUCH more helpful, and will make for a better article by far. So I do not really count the last "failure" as a failure. Plus eventually we can compress these as they did on evolution so they do not take up so much space. It is a record of our efforts. I am quite excited that someone would put so much time and energy into a careful review for us. This is the kind of help we needed all along, I think. And I think things are looking very good!--Filll 20:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Filll, I am not sure I understand this suggestion from our critique; can you clarify.

Under "Some definitions" we read that it would be helpful to know some additional definitions in order to understand the complex definition of evolution. After listing all of the definitions, I think it might be a good idea to rephrase the definition using the words from the newly learned words - it helps readers retain the information and it reminds them why they were reading the list in the first place. --Random Replicator 12:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked at this. I think we have examples of all terms, but not of gene, gene pool, chromosome, and DNA. So maybe we need an example of these as well, not just allele and the others. --Filll 13:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Joy


has wished you well! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the WikiJoy by sharing the joy someone else, Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Red teeth and bloody claws.
RE: Introduction to evolution:

"Query: "Nature, red in tooth and claw" - from Alfred Lord Tennyson's In Memoriam A.H.H. (1849) - Why is this considered a reference to Darwin, when Darwin's Origin of Species wasn't published until 1859? Is it a reference to other evolutionary thought, perhaps? (To me, it looks like a reference to Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan.)"


 * Has that concern been addressed or corrected?
 * And
 * The format guys seemed to have improved the situation --- does it look good on your screen?
 * And
 * The incorporation of the key concepts within the article has had a powerful effect don't you think; especially dealing with the level of acceptance of evolution within science. --Random Replicator 19:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I made a stab at fixing the red tooth poem with a footnote. I thought about other things but I thought this was best. I have liked what you have done so far. I will check more. I have liked the graphics too so far on my system.--Filll 20:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

On the COI vio
Please go ahead and note it after my post, I'm done with that one for a while. Odd nature 23:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we done.
Filll, are we done? I was thinking maybe Tim V. might square us up some more; but he disappeared after a late night visitation of edits. I have tweaked it to the point of nausea.
 * I can't find any more errors; of course it is one of those "can't see the forest for the trees" no doubt. I don't know of any one to ask for a copy/edit. The English Department will not grade my paper! Beesides, Iam teh bess spellur I know.
 * I have not heard back about the dinosaur picture; I think the husband realized you just can't give away already copyrighted material on a whim. I'll wait a few more days and chat with Karen.
 * How do you call for a peer review? Getting help from the experts on the Evolution page is like squeezing blood out of a turnip. If I say "God determines Truth" I can get an epistle; when I asked for some suggested readings they remain silent. If that can be done; and it passes; then it would take a rather confident reviewer to add a third failed G/F at the top don't you think? Let me know what we should do, so I can sleep at night and stop staring at the damn screen?! --Random Replicator 00:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There's always WP:PR. You can get the feedback of a GA review without actually having to risk failing one. ornis ( t ) 01:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds like an excellent idea. Do any of us know how to set it up? --Random Replicator 03:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. It may take a while for someone to pick it up, but that's just how it goes I guess. ornis ( t ) 03:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: supportsummary2
Looks generally good. A few points: Hrafn42 14:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Prof. cred." probably should be relabeled "Res. cred." or "Sci. cred." as MDs etc are called "Professional Doctorates" and PhDs etc "Research Doctorates"
 * "Rel. No. (est.)" is a confusing title (too heavily truncated to get any meaning off it). "Bio/Geo PhD (est)" might be better. Why is it est[imated], incidentally?
 * Formatting points:
 * It's best for contents to have the same justification (left/centre) as their titles (or vice versa).
 * The "Petitions" & "Creationist Lists" titles would probably look better left-justified (and possibly bolded) -- where they are they break up the columns, visually.
 * Is there any reason why some lines are peach-coloured?


 * Wow interesting. Thanks.
 * Prof cred stands for professional credentials, since I wanted to list clergy for the Clergy Letter Project (which I might have to eventually remove) and also so I could drive home the fact that the "Physicians and Surgeons" list includes a lot of people that are not physicians or surgeons.
 * Rel. No. might be too abbreviated. Previous versions had it more expanded by I was trying to fit a lot in a small space, obviously. I wanted something like "relevant number" or "Number of signatories that are in relevant fields" with some definition of relevant fields. It is estimated because when I am going through these lists, it is very hard to tell who is a biologist and who is not, since there are so many biologically-related fields. Is a biochemist? Is a physiologist? Is a biophysicist? Usually I left all those out, but that might be incorrect. Where does one draw the line? This problem has to be confronted over and over and it is pretty difficult. I would not swear that I have not made any mistakes. Same with geologists; some work in areas relevant to this issue, and some do not. Is a geophysicist a geologist ? Is a geochemist? Is a meteorologist? Again, I left those all out, but that might not be appropriate. I also did not include physicists or astronomers, even though they are involved sometimes with determining the age of the earth or the universe. So it is all pretty difficult to determine exactly. In addition, I have excluded those with masters degrees, or those I cannot find confirmation of their PhDs. Some are PhDs from diploma mills or bible colleges, and I included those, although they are doubtful as well.
 * Try List of fields of doctoral studies Hrafn42 16:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I will try other justifications.
 * The peach/pink color or shading is to indicate which are lists of creation scientists/creationists and which are lists of scientists/evolution supporters. The fact that this was not obvious, even with the text underneath and the title tells me I am doing something wrong here. Hmmm.--Filll 14:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Eclectic Medicine
Could ye have a look at this article? I'm not sure about it: On the one hand, it's not all that bad, on the other hand, the sources are very poor. Vanished user talk 16:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, it is pretty lousy.--Filll 02:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Aye, but not half so bad as some of the other articles I've been tearing to pieces. (Royal Rife, Electromagnetic Theory, Georges Lakhovsky - all of which were about 90% unsupported POV-pushing woo, and had to be eviscerated. (If you think those are bad now, check out a version from a month ago.) Still, I'll have a go at that one. Vanished user talk 03:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not trust a lot of its claims. The references I have found, which are few and far between, do not really agree with the text.--Filll 03:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * True. I guess I'm just getting a little jaded. Vanished user talk 16:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It draws on Thomsonian medicine so I am trying to fix that article, which is also in horrible shape. Then maybe if that makes some sense, Eclectic medicine can be cleaned up. Part of the difficulty is that the sources contradict each other and it is a huge mess. Who writes this crap?--Filll 17:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Woos. Have a look at User:Oldspammer's contributions to article talk pages sometime... Vanished user talk 17:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Some articles that need help

 * Pharmacognosy
 * Eclectic medicine
 * Creation (theology)
 * Samuel Thomson


 * Would you object if I added Psychic surgery to that list? ornis ( t ) 03:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Eclectic Medicine
I found a really good source for this. Can you send me an e-mail, and I'll send you some scans? Vanished user talk 19:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Reflexology
Oh. My. God. Vanished user talk 09:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

hardy-weinberg
Filll, I've been brainstorming Weinberg. I need more time. Can you please move the entire section to above speciation but below evidence. It would make more sense there I think. When you get a chance.
 * A professor of composition ... I feel like I'm back in school! ... as a student. Not sure we will ever rise up to her standards; but I have learned a hell of lot from her. Eliminating "this" had an incredible impact on readibility.

And congrats on the paranormal banner ... I think?--Random Replicator 02:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Coordinates
Just wanted to let you know: thanks for reverting yourself on Carrizozo, New Mexico, as the format before you edited it and after you reverted is the standard one. Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I realized I was confused and so I better learn some more first. It does seem a bit strange to have the coordinates listed 4 times on one page however.--Filll (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

A friendly notice
Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the 3RR. Do NOT keep reverting this section. Reach consensus first, or there might very well be negative consequences. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Filll, I attempted to delete incorrect information. When I discovered that, apparently, there is a block of people who are adamant that a discussion of theories of gravity is necessary in the topic "Objections to Evolution," I made the best attempt I could to get consensus, and then to write text that incorporates everybody's viewpoint.  That text was then reverted, twice.  I am in fact aware of the 3RR, and if Snalwibma keeps on reverting my text, eventually I we're going to hit that limit, and at that point about the only alternative left is going to be to move to arbitration.
 * The current text is really, honestly, truly the best attempt I can make to understand everybody's point of view and come up with a compromise version that satisfies everybody. Can you tell me specifically what is wrong with it? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I will look at it but several others have expressed disagreement with it. I suggest that you do not edit the main page, but put your suggested changes on the article talk page so people can examine them and discuss them. Fighting over the text on the main page without consensus is pointless.--Filll (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Agf about Geoffrey A. Landis
I noticed this edit. I think in this case you might want to take a look at Geoffrey A. Landis. I have a feeling this guy went to MIT. Ra2007 (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, unless you have information that is not Geoffrey A. Landis, you might want to back down and maybe even apologize.  Ra2007 (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have my doubts, frankly. I know people that know the real Landis, and he does not behave in this fashion according to my sources. And the person making these arguments is just silly, not someone with the real Landis' reasoning abilities and rationality. This is probably someone masquerading as the real Landis. The real Landis would not devote an infinite amount of energy to such a stupid argument. If I am later shown to be incorrect, I will apologize, but still note that fighting is not the way to get one's way on WP. --Filll (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I do not know either way, but it seems likely to me. You could investigate by sending an email via his MIT web page:  http://mit.edu/aeroastro/www/people/landis/landis.html  Well, see you on the talk pages.  Ra2007 (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Introduction to Evolution
Maybe over confident... but I really felt like our last editor raised it to a whole new level. We have to try! --Random Replicator (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We will get a HUGE amount of feedback over the next few weeks/months about the article. And this should help to improve it, I think. I would not be surprised if it does not get beaten up a bit and if there will not be a fairly long list of things to correct before it makes FA, however.--Filll (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I incorporated much of the bulleted list into the text ... a weakness that you pointed out earlier. I have to agree that it reads better without bullets. A major re-work on the Hardy-Weinberg section. It may need a closer examination in regards to clarity without all the hypotheticals; however, I really feel that it too, flows so much better. As for the future reading. I am unsure what the specific problem is. The information is accurate, I even verified ever ISBN number. I did change the title format to all lower case based on my understanding of the APA syle. As for the reference section; that will not be a quick fix and unless there is a template, I'm not sure that I can. The 99.9% number got reworked? I can't remember how we lost that? Also. If this should turn into a conflict over content leading too far in the direction of increased complexity I say settle for GA and leave well enough alone! The tone, clarity, and amount of information, in my humble opinion, is very close to our original mission. I'll try to correct the technical criticism as they come up; I'll wait for clearance from you on any shifts in philosophy!   --Random Replicator (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you on being content with GA if we are required to make it too complicated to get an FA. The ratings of the articles are only valuable when they lead to improved articles. Many people want the most complicated articles possible, and do not agree with having simple articles for beginners and young people. The idea that these gold stars should be sought just for their own sake strikes me as a little silly. That is why I have not personally devoted a huge amount of energy to pushing articles to get higher ratings (usually, anyway). I have tried to improve the articles I have worked on when I thought it was appropriate, according to my own tastes for the most part (with a couple of exceptions).--Filll (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Filll --- I am both disappointed and irritated at the vague criticisms. I expected this to be a growth thing like before. Instead it is vague, dismissive comments. This process is not leading to a better article. --Random Replicator (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that most of the comments are pure nonsense. However, lets leave it open and see what transpires. If at the end we decide that some of the suggestions are just counterproductive, then we will not bother. We can try to go for an A rating, which I think is above a GA rating (not sure how to get one). And just not bother with FA. After all, the point of this is to get a better article, not necessarily to get a gold star.--Filll (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom
Please be aware that there are several factors that prevent current committee members from making offhand comments on the propriety of behavior of others outside the context of an actual case. Do not take my silence as either criticism or endorsement. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok fair enough. Point taken.--Filll (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
I have to go for the holidays. Two things, though....why this? I was thinking about changing my "vote" to delete. Also, I added some comments to the Talk:Objections_to_evolution page, and reverted again. I won't be around to revert yet again, but I hope you take the OR/Synth considerations into account. Ra2007 (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You know there is a rule about WP:STALK. And I will try not to tread on your toes since you WP:OWN all the articles on WP clearly.-Filll (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Vassyana just fixed it. Some (or sometimes many) of my edits get reverted to.  I jumped into Santa Claus article today without too much trouble.  Take a look at those edits, I think they were okay (they seem to be standing up, and the article's recent editing and talk page history looks quite contentious.)  I don't own anything on WP.  We all do.  Ra2007 (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No you clearly WP:OWN every article, especially those I edit.--Filll (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Expelled

 * Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed work

Good faith
Please Assume good faith in the Intelligent Design project. People who disagree with you are not "being disruptive". GusChiggins21 (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I am afraid you are confused and seem to be unable or unwilling to read the policies in any way except ways that agree with your position. And many people disagree with you.--Filll (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The same request for Homeopathy. This behaviour has to stop. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So you can ruin a GA article and turn it into an advertisement for Homeopathy? Please learn the policies of Wikipedia, or you will have problems here.--Filll (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've place an alert on Wikiquette alerts. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weren't you blocked recently for disrupting CFD. Oh that's right, you were.  So let me put this succinctly....LMFAO.  Fill ignore this troll.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

One sentence
This raises the question of what was the original (i.e. pre-Fall) function of such things as snake venom and spiders webs. YECs typically answer these questions either by postulating a non-lethal original purpose for these predatory mechanisms (eg. snake venom was designed to soften fruit), or suggesting that these mechanisms were miraculously added to animals by God or the devil at the time of the Fall.[28]

Genesis states: cursed is the ground thanks to you; in painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, but you will eat the grain of the field.

Genesis states "god" added pain and suffering until the end of mans life when he dies, again painfully. I wouldn't call a curse a miracle. I would call this SOAP. And a lie! Because Yecs answer this question with former not latter. Chris g79 (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A curse may not be a "miracle", but it is certainly a "miraculous" event, as that adjective applies to both beneficent and maleficent supernatural events (as there is no separate adjective for maleficent supernatural events). I would suggest you learn a bit more about the English language before making such wild claims. HrafnTalkStalk 17:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I have no idea what you are talking about.--Filll (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think he is responding to your "And what is not objective? Give me one sentence." on Talk:Young Earth creationism (though he failed to put quotation-marks around his first paragraph to let you know that this is what it is meant to be). However instead of proving the article's lack of objectivity, he is merely proving his own lack of literacy. HrafnTalkStalk 18:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about?
How can a challenge be "wrong" as you put it? Your belief that I am "wrong" is not grounds for reverting material! Talk about things on the talk page, and get consensus before you go reverting wholesale. GusChiggins21 (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette
I have filed a complaint about you at Wikiquette alerts. GusChiggins21 (talk) 06:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

My RFA
Thanks for your kind message on my talk page (and you support during the RfA!). The request was made on a whim, and I really don't see having access to the admin tools as being a big deal, so it doesn't put me out so much. I might turn my hand to it again in another few months if the idea takes me once more. --sony-youth pléigh 16:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

LaMarck
Your talk page makes for interesting reading. I have always admired your manner of being civil and articulate; guess I have yet to piss you off! Some are more sensitive than others. I did get a tad annoyed with the LaMarck issue; I need thicker skin as well. However, it was a little rude by the "Dragon" to to proclaim that numerous errors are likely; based on finding a gross error in the text which was clearly not an error. I am not an expert, but I clearly recall an extensive discussion over this with Snalwibma; before, we put that passage to ink. I was, IN FACT, surprised at the time to learn Darwin was a LaMarck fan. I wonder if they will print a retraction - not likely - but dave souza has cleaned the mess up so that's good enough for me. There have been a couple of supporting comments and more importantly a few legitimate, concrete suggestions for improvements. Maybe all the "big wigs" that pop up on the main entry are out on vacation; I would like some feedback from them in regards to accuracy. It will come out better; with or without FA status. Try to stay out of trouble. --Random Replicator (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome
Since you did not want to participate in a discussion to improve the article, I've submitted an Rfc. Pernicious Swarm (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Skypecast
We'll see--Simonfj (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for mentioning "Evolution and Christian Faith: Reflections of an Evolutionary Biologist" by Joan Roughgarden on the Talk:Introduction to evolution. I had never heard of her or the book before but your comment on the talk page intrigued me. I really enjoyed reading the book. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Judgement Day
I showed the movie in class a few weeks ago. It was difficult to read the students reaction. So many see it as evolution or God. I of course cannot discuss compromises, only the science. Discussions on philosophy will end my career. I think they were surprised at just how weak the Intelligent Design argument is.
 * It is very difficult to understand the challenge of teaching this topic unless you have been there. There are a lot of internal struggles. Conflicts between the information I share from a teacher they trust, and the religious dogma coming from home. The movie was awesome... I hope it does not get banned --- as did Al Gores movie --- from our curriculum. Great addition to Wikipedia. --Random Replicator (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Although in retrospect my elementary school and junior high school textbooks had an example or two of evolution slipped in surrepticiously, I never learned about evoltion formally. I never took biology in high school. A high school english teacher told us what evolution was. I was shocked it was so simple and obvious, after hearing so many rumors about it. So I was a bit similar to your students in that respect, I guess but about evolution, not intelligent design.--Filll (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Writing style in Wikipedia articles
Hi, I hope you've had an excellent Christmas and New Year. We've had a little discussion about style over at Talk:Cretaceous%E2%80%93Tertiary_extinction_event, and while I don't entirely agree with the approach you were supporting there I noted your "I agree that articles on Wikipedia should be accessible; this is something I have pushed for as long as I have been on Wikipedia." Now I've just stumbled across Featured_article_review/Evolution/archive1, which seems very relevant. Your comment there summarises your view on the core issue: "Yes the main article or at least the introductory paragraphs of each section and the lead should be accessible. The existence of an introduction to evolution article does not get one off the hook. However the argument has been made repeatedly that the editors can not be as technically precise as they want and use the jargon they want if it has to be dumbed down for the public." You already know my views, and especially how the phrase "dumbed down" is a red rag to this particular bull. But the passage I've highlighted makes me think think there's a decent chance that we can reach a fair degree of agreement. I'd be happy to discuss this via our talk pages. Philcha (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Your words, sort of
Filll, please see Theory and fact. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Karen Carr
Filll I had not realize you did an entry on Karen Carr. How kind of you. Should we insert her two contributions to Wikipedia?

I am not sure where to put them. On her personal article? I wrote it since I figured it was the least we could do given that she gave us some free pictures.--Filll (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would be ok to insert them as examples of her work and perhaps in reference to her interest in natural history illustrations? Does she know its there?--Random Replicator (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not know if she knows. I did not contact her. You can if you want. She can check for accuracy maybe.--Filll (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Heartfelt thank you
Dear Filll,

Thank you so much for always being there for me. I think you give me too much credit and think me better than I deserve; but I'm really grateful for you always looking out for me. It's wonderful to have supportive friends like you in Wikipedia.

I hope you'll forgive me for two things. First, I asked Durova to divest me of the royal purple, since I don't really have any Good Articles to my credit. Unfortunately, it's also true that I've earned only 1 DYK in my whole time at Wikipedia. Until things improve, I can't in good conscience accept a Triple Crown; I would be ashamed to be listed among people who really deserved it.

Second, I know that you and Random Replicator have been working like crazy on introduction to evolution. It reads really well, and it is a good introduction for high-school students. I'm terribly pained to say, though, that I can't support it yet at FAC because of scientific misgivings. It feels as though too much has been left out that could've been explained. But I've only read it once, and maybe my ideas will change; I'm still brooding over it. :(

I'm sorry to write such a "downer" letter; let me close by saying how much I smile when I think of you, and how I wish you every happiness in the New Year, Willow (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow it LOOKED that you had been part of a GA before, but maybe I misread it. I apologize for any embarrassment that caused.


 * It is a difficult thing to make an introductory article. If we make it as complete as some people want it to be, we might as well just copy over the evolution article itself. I personally am not totally enamoured with the article rankings. I think having articles useful to the readership is far more important. My goal is to eventually have a path that a person who is a complete beginner can follow, from elementary school level up through postgraduate level, using Simple Wikipedia, introductory articles and regular articles and then advanced daughter articles on special topics. If this means that not all of these articles get the Good Housekeeping seal of approval, but still serve the purpose, I do not think that is much of a problem. Thanks !--Filll (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Filll and thanks for your nice letter! :)

I didn't feel any embarrassment in asking to be delisted; I just would've been embarrassed to remain listed if I hadn't deserved it. I'm shy enough of attention as it is! :)

I completely agree with your admirable educational goal! I think people don't always appreciate how it's possible, even necessary, to write the same article pitched at different levels for different audiences. I remember that we've spoken of this before. You're also great for being so laidback about the FA nomination. You're right that the absence of an FA imprimatur doesn't rob an article of its worth; like Seneca says, a giant remains so even when standing in a well. (Colossus magnitudinem suam servabit etiam si steterit in puteo.) Willow (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comments at Jim62sch's Arb page
Filll, you should consider that, while it may be unseemly, there is possibly a reason why many people are criticizing Jim62sch and OrangeMarlin over at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch/Evidence.

I really think you should consider your own advice regarding: "People, the world is watching us. So be careful what you write." Part of the reason I have repeatedly been critical of your group is that you have not been particularly careful yourself at times. In my first encounter with you I found myself repeatedly insulted for just opposing a particular piece of wording in a lead (and I wasn't even that opposed to the change). While I don't hold a grudge for this (I'd planned on just forgetting it altogether), I'm not going to stand by when I run across instances of you, or your associates, treating others similarly.

I'm not interested in getting into a debate with you. It's not your goals I disagree with (education and science are worthy pursuits), but your means. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 01:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not getting into mud slinging with you, or compiling a list of 100s of violations of good faith and reasonableness by anti-science bigots in some tit for tat effort. Please vent your anger somewhere else. Thanks. Have a nice day.--Filll (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You do know that calling someone a bigot isn't exacly what I'd expect from someone complaining about the tone of other people's comments on the arb page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 01:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

big·ot (bĭg'ət) n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

[French, from Old French.]

I did not identify anyone by name. Clearly, from above, I do not intend to. I have plenty to say to you, but under the circumstances, I think it is best to do as Thumper advised. --Filll (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You are fond of the dictionary I see, fortunately my old french appears to better than my english and I do know that bigot is universally used as an insult, and I wouldn't have expected someone who keeps asking others to reign themselves in to use such a word. Anyway the reason I came here was to ask you to keep to the point on the Arbcom page. I've taken the liberty of making what I think was your point for you there. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As I am sure you know, the English you use day to day is very different than the English I use. The expressions and l'argot and phrases and idiom and meanings of the words in the UK and the USA are quite different. In fact, some English films almost require subtitles here since we cannot understand the penumbrations and shades of hermeneutics implied by assorted constructions common in English usage in the UK. For your amusement, you are invited to consult List of words having different meanings in British and American English and American and British English differences, for example. Cheers...--Filll (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Bigot of course isn't on the list though. I'm pretty sure it's an insult both here and over the pond, and I'm also pretty sure you intended it as an insult. But no matter. It's fairly trivial, centainly not something I am go to labour about. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I see you already saw that, as you were replying as I was writing this here. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Expansion
Filll, I will go with your instincts on whether to expand the topic. Willow did leave several specific suggestions on her talk page which merit review. I sense that Snalwibma is already concerned that some of my efforts to appease are pushing the bubble on the term "Introduction". Length may be a factor; although I did go through and break up some wickedly loooong sentences that had crept in and revised some really intense verbage. If you do see a need to add more content then maybe we should just let the FA pursuit expire first. Massive edits of content during such a review, I think would be annoying to those who have copy/edited the current text. Frankly, I have doubts at present that a star is in our future; however, I do fill obligate to make it the best it can be --- which I assume in Wiki-World means reaching for the star! --Random Replicator (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Tin Foil Hat Award
You win, I took the article off my watch list. Also, you should probably ground that hat if you want it to act as a shield. :) T able M anners U·T·C 06:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I just asked some very simple questions. I am not understanding your reasoning. And instead, you choose to engage in personal attacks. That is a good way to WP:AGF. You should be proud of yourself.--Filll (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the personal attacks. Heat of the battle.  You were not just asking simple questions, but it doesn't justify personal attacks, and so I apologize.  T able M anners U·T·C 08:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch/Evidence
Please do your best to assume good faith and respect your fellow editors. We are all interested in improving Wikipedia even though we may disagree on the exact implementation. Your recent comments, especially and  are uncivil and if you persist I will be you from editing pages in this arbitration case until you can be civil. Thank you. Thatcher 21:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I respectfully beg to differ, but I can see that the fix is in. Very white of you. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure the above was not intended to stop you defending your position but only to watch you tone a little. Anyway I urge you that if you do have evidence that should be added please do so. I have pushed strongly that Jim and OM have acted wrongly here, but never the less I want them to have a fair hearing. If you know something I don't, and if it may affect the outcome of the arbitration then please add the evidence to the evidence page. Note that everyone adds evidence to thier own section so there is no debate on the actual page. You wouldn't be argued with in the way I'm arguing with you on the talk page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)