User talk:MrDarwin

I'm outta here
I have had many frustrations with Wikipedia but what finally told me it was time to leave was the "discussion" over including mentions of the homeopathic usage of plants in various articles, e.g.,here, here, and here. I have further summarized my thoughts here.

When editors with botanical expertise are not permitted to add neutral and factually correct botanical information from the botanical literature to Wikipedia's botanical articles, and editors whose sole interest in those same botanical articles appears to be censorship prevail, then something is seriously wrong. There are far, far too many editors whose interest in Wikipedia is not presenting factual information, but rather managing that information to validate their own POV. MrDarwin (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. And the botanical editors are really the targets these days.
 * Mr. Darwin, I've missed you. How can you leave, when I just got back?  But, of course,  I understand your frustration at having to contend with the utterly ridiculous in order to edit articles.  --KP Botany (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of Ethyl Meatplow for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ethyl Meatplow is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ethyl Meatplow until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. MSJapan (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)