User talk:Professor marginalia/Archives

Talk archived automatically after 7 days:

Invitation to join a Project
Dear Professor, I am starting a project to overhaul and balance the article on Waldorf ed. I would like to invite you to take part because of your ongoing contributions to the page. Please le me know at my Talk page if you would like to participate. Wonderactivist 16:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Professor,

I appreciate your questioning the need for a project - it is an important step. I plan to use "requests for comment" as Longhair suggested in his note back to me. I also pla to continue getting input from him and other Wiki admnistrators. I think that at some point it is going to have to be clear that the page on Wikipedia has to be concise, clear, and unbiased - on both sides.

I think a project will help to move some of the in-fighting off of the page's discussion section and onto a project page - and then with admin help, it can hopefully end the disputes.

Thanks and I hope you'll join the team! Lucie Wonderactivist 14:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

New Project Page and Invitation
Dear Professor M, I just want to again invite you to join the project - the project page has been moved to its proper Wiki place (I am here a year and still a newbie really), User:Wonderactivist/Waldorf Project Team Page. I really think you have a whole lot to offer this project and with the help of unbiased Wiki editors, I believe we can end the ongoing edit wars that have been the waste of so much time for so many really good people. Please do join us, we're currently talking about the introduction. Wonderactivist 02:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Rudolf Steiner, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Hgilbert 08:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 12:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC).

Blanking of Lydia Jackson
Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Schutz 18:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this standard template was probably a bit harsh; your edit, even though you actually blanked the page, was probably done in good faith and was not vandalism, as discussed on my talk page. Schutz 00:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring
This was many reverts over several days, but with further investigation of Pete K, the block on you does not appear to have been warranted. Keep in mind, however, that repeatedly reverting is is not a solution to any dispute regardless of the character of the other party. A revision is not going to be implemented simply by reverting. If Pete K continues with personal attacks, edit warring, or other disruption, please report it to me on User talk:Centrx or to another administrator, such as on Administrator's noticeboard. —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration
There is a current request for arbitration relating to the articles Waldorf education, Anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner and Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity. Hgilbert 01:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 01:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education
The above entitled arbitration case has closed, and the final decision has been issued at the above link. Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and the extended family of related articles such as Social Threefolding are placed on article probation. Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications. It is anticipated that this process may result in deletion or merger of some articles due to failure of verification by third party peer reviewed sources. If it is found, upon review by the Arbitration Committee, that any of the principals in this arbitration continue to edit in an inappropriate and disruptive way editing restrictions may be imposed. Review may be at the initiative of any member of the Arbitration Committee on their own motion or upon petition by any user to them.

For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 23:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Reopening of arbitration
I have reopened the arbitration case concerning this article for review Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review. Fred Bauder 15:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review
The reviewing of the case has finished. You may view the decision at Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 18:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Bill Atessis
Heyo. You placed an A7 speedy deletion tag on the article for former NFL player Bill Atessis on one of your recent vandalism patrols. All professional athletes meet the current notability guideline, so I removed the tag. You'll want to watch out for the hair-trigger on Twinkle. :-P Regards, &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 04:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of Vandalism
Hi, thanks for reverting the vandalism on my personal user page. I appreciate it! --Skb8721 15:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you X 100
{| style=" background:white; padding:3px; font-family:arial" align=center | T hank you very much for supporting my RfA, which closed successfully yesterday... W00t! I hope to be a great admin (and editor) and I'm sure you can tell that my use of a large, boldfaced, capital "T" and a big checkmark image in this generic "thank you" template that I swiped from some other user's Talk Page that I totally mean business! If you need anything in the future or if you see that I've done something incorrectly, please come to my Talk Page and let me know. So now I've got a bunch of reading to do.... see you around! - eo 13:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ryan Sheckler
No, what happened is that you made the correction as I was changing the vandalism edit. So when I saved it it went back to the vandalized version. It was accidental. You saw the error before me. Fighting for Justice 03:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've had this article on my watchlist for a long time now.  It is constantly vandalized by pre-teens.  Fighting for Justice 03:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Lumos3 18:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thank you for the welcome..Do I sign like this? Professor marginalia 01:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism on Prohibition in the United States
Hi there. I noticed you removed large chunks from this article on the grounds that it was plagiarised from other sources. Can you provide any evidence? The bulk of what you removed claiming it was taken from a blog, by checking back through the dates you can find that it appeared on Wikipedia long before appearing on the blog claimed to be written by someone else. As for the other bits, can you please provide evidence to support the claims of plagiarism? Ben W Bell  talk  12:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. See Talk:Prohibition in the United StatesProfessor marginalia 17:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I just seem to have latched onto the bit that was actually okay. You've done great work, keep it up it's great to have you along. Ben W Bell   talk  23:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Johann Hari
Hi. This is a quick note about the editing of the Johann hari page, which I know you've taken an interest in.

As reading though the page's history will show, the user Felix-Felix has described Hari as "a self-publicising careerist, and an especially unpleasant one at that", accused him of being in favour of "the destruction of Untermenschen" (when in fact he is an Amnesty International award-winner), inserted fictitious claims he went to the most exclusive public school in Britain when in fact his father is a bus driver, and, most crucially, inserted poorly sourced claims that he "fabricated" a story he wrote about.

This is a pattern of falsehood and animus that really worries me. This user is now insisting on his right to reinsert the claims that hari farbricated a story, sourcing them to a magazine that wiki administrators have already said is not reliable. What can I do in this situation? - DavidR81.129.156.202 12:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the above. Dave r has been smearing me with these accusations, one of which is false, the other taken out of context, and utterly irrelevant. He has also posted this defamatory message on multiple other user talk pages; . This is starting to feel a little like harassment, and not in a good way.  Felix Felix talk 14:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Daikon names
Howdy. This is kind of obscure, but you made an edit in January to daikon, linked here. It added a number of foreign synonyms of Daikon, with an "Encyclopedia of Asian Food" as the source, to an existing sentence. I am wondering if the source confirmed the other, exisiting names, or was intended to apply only to the newly-added second half of the sentence. (That gets confusing in Wikipedia, when a footnote supports only part of a given sentence). I'm skeptical about the earlier-added name "winter radish" as a synonym, but don't feel like hunting down the cited book to challenge it. Best regards. -Agyle 06:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

DRV
There is no problem really, just the original author wanted it to be kept even though it is about a Non notable person. He is the one making all the socks. It should be closed to stop all the nonsense. Make sense? Reply on my talk page. Thanks- Rjd0060 18:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It sure is a waste of time. I believe (but I am not 100% certain) that the previous resurrections were just recreations.  I know that one user (maybe admin, maybe not) suggested SALTing it on the Deletion Review, but as of this list, it has not been SALTED.  It should be IMO.  I am going to add a note on the Administrators Noticeboard to see where I could suggest the SALTing of this article. - Rjd0060 21:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Posted to Administrators' Noticeboard. See Administrators' noticeboard.  We'll see what happens from here. - Rjd0060 21:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you saw but it already was salted. That was a lot quicker than I expected. - Rjd0060 21:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Greek mythology.
Done. · AndonicO Talk 00:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Nice userpage, by the way. :) · AndonicO Talk 00:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite a nice user page, I agree. I do believe, however, that the expression is "...nonsense up with which I will not put!"  As in to put up with, to tolerate.  Hope you don't mind me stumbling in unannounced.  Cheers! --JayHenry 06:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Prohibition - film
I agree "hilarious" should be removed from before "Some Like It Hot"... I just removed the incorrect capitalisation that was already present. AirdishStraus 09:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

American Prohibitation
yeah, 1657 didnt seem right so i changed it to 1857 and then got confused and made it 17 before changing it to 1857. sorry 219.88.79.63 (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation templates
If adding references to a page that already has them, please use the citation templates - they're easy to fill out and there are numerous resources that let you do so automatically for books, peer-reviewed journals and certain other template types. Also, your recent edit to Gish duplicated some text, you may have already corrected it.

Thanks,

WLU 22:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * rather than harvard refs, i prefer to use the footnotes w/ ref and ref name. WLU 00:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, feel free to ask me if you have any questions about them. Once you figure them out they're pretty easy to use, but the formatting is pretty precise.  WLU 00:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, it's horses for courses, and there are two slightly different types of citation templates depending if Harvard referencing is preferred (for multiple references to different pages of the same documents) or the footnote system suits better. Have added a note to Talk:Duane Gish. .. dave souza, talk 10:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Project
Hi, I'm trying to ensure that the Neutrality Project has not become inactive. If you would still like to participate in it, please re-add your name to the Review Team list. Jame§ugrono 07:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yamashita's gold
Greetings…I noticed at one time you were very active on the Yamashita’s gold article. That article is now ‘protected from editing’ and into editing negotiations (POV pushing issues and such)

Please stop-by and give it a read. Jim (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point


—— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Creation Science
Whatever you may say about the edits I made, they were NOT personal opinion. I am, I admit, biased, but so is everyone on earth. There is no such thing as an unbiased scientist...

If you would look at the facts, you would realize the absolute STUPIDITY of the evolution THEORY(it is NOT a fact...) The article mentions that creation is unprovable, yeah, whatever, it might be... but so is macroevolution! I believe in microevolution (i.e. survival of the fittest), and that IS testable but how can you possibly test macroevolution?

I was simply relating the facts to a blinded society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.6.121.48 (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for my harshness... but this is a subject that I am very passionate about, as you have most likely observed. If you were indeed referring to "unpublished" then I will agree to that... but it was not merely personal opinion in the sense that I thought that was true and it was original in origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.6.121.48 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 29 November 2007

Warning templates
Hi,

Were you aware of WP:WARN? I noticed you added what appeared to be a home-made warning template (which did the job very adequately) to Anon IP above's talk page. WP:WARN contains pre-written user warning templates which make warning users much quicker - just a cut and paste. They're simple enough that I've memorized the ones I used regularly and they save a lot of typing. But if you like the personal touch, I can respect that. WLU 19:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do have a couple of suggestions/comments


 * 1) Make your archive accessible - I can't see any archive boxes on your page despite having a template. Archives are useful for you, but also for others.  I've never used that particular template before and archive manual, it's possible it's just broken or I just don't know how to access it.
 * 2) pubmed/isbn Diberri's template generator and the Google scholar autocitation. I don't know if you're aware of either, but both are incredibly handy.
 * 3) User:SandyGeorgia is fucking amazing, a brilliant editor. On the user page are tools that might be handy, I've only looked into a couple.  If you find any really sweet ones that are browser-independent, please let me know!
 * 4) You're newer than me, but seem dedicated and interested in long-term editing. Would you mind having a gander at an essay I wrote for noobs?  I'm thinking about taking it for wider comment but would like some feedback. Most of the people who have commented to date are very experienced, so it'd be nice to have comments from someone closer to the audience it is aimed at.  WLU 19:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I tweaked your archives and gave you a nice archive box, though feel free to revert. You had an external link, which is unnecessary, and this way allows you to add multiple pages within a single box (given the page name you have so far, I'd suggest Archives 2, Archives 3, etc).  Just add a new bullet and a /Archives 2 box, then paste into there.  The front slash automatically creates a sub-page of the current page.  Feel free to revert.  WLU (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration
Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. CO GDEN  00:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Louisiana Baptist University-AFD
Though I don't give a fig if the article is deleted or not, I wanted to point out to you that it has not been recently "abusively gutted". It has recently been stripped of information which was improperly sourced. The article has been a magnet for editors from one side trying to put a promotional spin on the article, and editors on the other trying to provide some balance to the hype through unallowed original research, speculation, and a self-published source. Unfortunately when there are few independent sources available, editors are often impatient to ignore WP:RELY, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH to fill gaps in the article space. Gaps in the available sources do not justify the abandonment of core policy. Removing non-compliant content is not "abusive", it's essential. And what should happen next is that editors source all edited claims, properly. If you can't source it, you can't say it~that simple. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While I heartily disagree that there is original research or synthesis in the Louisiana Baptist University article, I question the timing and means of the removal, as well as the failure to observe Wikipedia policy in a spirit of collective work that would have had you tagging the specific issues that you felt needed to be addressed and simultaneously documenting these issues at greater length in the article's talk page. There is no evidence that you had performed any of these steps before removing approximately two-thirds of the article and a greater percentage of its sources. If you believe that the article in its entirety should be deleted, I encourage you to state your case at AfD. Removing sourced content on personal issues that have not been raised elsewhere in detail, and doing so during the AfD, strikes me as lacking in the basic spirit of cooperation and consensus-building that Wikipedia requires. Alansohn (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to say the timing issue seems not to be problematic. If one strips an article of the original research, which I think is easily demonstratable here, and is left with something that looks unnotable, then why not send it to AFD to see what others think? David D. (Talk) 16:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Intro to E

 * Thank you for your kind words regarding Introduction to Evolution. As you can see from our talk and as I can see here it can be a passionate topic. I probably should have started my Wikipedia career with something else. Just mentioning Darwin's finches lead to that un-Godly long diatribe on the Talk page. I'm hoping Sex and its requirement will not get as winded. I too wondered about the dismissal of asexual reproduction. Rapid cell division -- even if it is mitotic --- introduces tons of variation via mutations; bacteria and antibiotic resistance is my favorite example to share in class. We'll generate pages on this and eventually sane minds prevail. Ironically, we have yet to touch off those types of attacks (above). Guess they have not found us yet. Again Thanks the vote of confidence and affirming our hard work was not in vain. --Random Replicator (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to intrude again; however, you disagreement on the importance of sex lead to an explosive serious of commentaries Talk:Introduction to evolution which spilled over onto the FA page Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution. If I may I would like to state here that at no time did I recruit you to support a view that would contradict User talk: Amaltheus. I am concern that the conversation thread above might be taken out of sequence. It came after you posted your position on sex and evolution. To my knowledge you have never in the past contributed to the article or offered an opinion on the discussion page. Sorry you were cast as part of the Wiki-gang for your disagreement on another's position.  (Sigh) ... less politics and more editing would be good; and normally I would let this ride; but when it hit the FA page I was somewhat forced into a more defensive posture. If you are uncomfortable with this post to your message board that please delete it. --Random Replicator (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course you didn't recruit me. I've never spoken to you before I gave my support to the FAC, and our conversation since has never, at any point, been directed to Amaltheus.  I hadn't even paid any attention at all to who had proposed or responded to the suggestion about sexual reproduction, and further, for my part, my reason for disagreeing to the suggestion had nothing to do with the age of its target audience, which I personally think is irrelevant to the question.  I'm steamed myself when disputants start throwing ad hominem arguments at each other on the talk pages, even disputants who I'd otherwise agree with.  Professor marginalia (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Re What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know! discussion on appropriate sources
Talk:What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!%3F

Hi! The position that I understand you to be taking in this discussion strikes me as so bizarre that I feel I might be misunderstanding you. Are you really saying that you don't believe a factual science book to be an appropriate source on a question of scientific fact? Have a good one! -- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Creation Research Society
I'm having a problem with an editor on this article who's contesting the reliability of Numbers' account of this organisation. I don't think he has any legitimate basis for his dispute, but it might be helpful if somebody such as yourself (with access to a wider range of accounts than merely Numbers) could venture an opinion. HrafnTalkStalk 08:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I will not step in here again since you asked me to stay away. But this one is all yours.--Filll (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to evolution
We may have a concensus version of the problem paragraph. Freely edit the User:Dweller/evol. Don't be shy. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration notice
This is to inform you that you have been included as a party in a request for Arbitration here —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto
Regards this edit, I've the same distaste, though on heavily contested pages, it's sometimes necessary. One thing I did with dissociative identity disorder today was removed the uglifying reference link if, say a largish block of text was all linked to multiple citations of the same source. Instead, I sourced (in this case, twice) the book, but for future editors, added like this :   that way readers don't have to see the citation, but editors still know what sentence is sourced to what reference. I don't know if this is supported by policy or guidelines anywhere, but it's handy. Doesn't make the editing any simpler 'cause there's still large blocks of text interrupted by comments, but you run into the same problem with citation templates and ref tags, and there's always the preview button. WLU (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, I think it may be worth spamming on a couple pages like WP:CIT or WP:FOOT to see if it's an acceptable alternative to refname for heavily footnoted and disputed pages. WLU (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism and Copyright
Thank you for your friendly note, but I do not agree with your understanding of policy. You state : "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted." There is never a fair use word-for-word copy of someone else's work here that is not clearly identified as a "quote" to its source. At wikipedia we don't lift other's work, we cite it in references and write our own copy."

Your assertion that we cite something and rewrite it, is not correct. Our policies pages, see for example verifiability and original research clearly state that we can quote sources. And in fact give examples where sources are quoted. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase your above to include this issue more clearly. Wjhonson (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've struggled with the use of quotations myself. What I've managed to garner is an essay WP:QUOTE, and that the use of quotations can sometimes be see as placing undue weight on what is being quoted - since generally quotes are rare on wikipedia.  Accordingly they stand out when used.  My 6 yen... WLU (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've now added the template to the top of the article to make it more clear to new editors that the article is undergoing various substantial rewrites.  Feel free to remove it, if there have been several hours of inactivity.  Thanks, have a great day. Wjhonson (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

RR
RR had been so harassed by certain disruptive elements during the FAC process, and had received so little community support, that he quit and had his account deleted. It is too bad, but on the other hand, RR quitting (and another) and the AfD is probably what it took to get the article enough attention to make FA, in my opinion. --Filll (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Like a barnstar, but different


WLU (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks Prof Marginalia for the diligent work you did on the Anti-frogman techniques article. It is better now, and I have a better understanding of the NOR policy. N2e (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Check it out...
So all of our brilliant ideas are for naught. Check out what it says in cite book under the Description of fields. Of course, that only counts for the first reference, and if the book is used multiple times, we still have a problem. WLU (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflicts on new section
If you want to add a new section to a talkpage without getting edit-conflicts ("trying again"), you should use the + -link at the top of the talkpage to create a new section, rather than appending it directly onto the last section. Just a tip. :) HrafnTalkStalk 15:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

expelled
thanks for your trying to improve the Expelled article. But the tone will not change, I am afraid. Northfox (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And I have been meaning to drop by and say you brought up some very good points. It's unfortunate that about the same time we had an onslaught of POV pushing folks who were/are wholly unfamiliar with ID and the subject matter which makes good for nothing productive and your suggestions went by the wayside as everyone was focussing on the riff raff.  Bad timing happens.  For the moment (and I do mean moment) things have calmed down, the folks causing the distractions seem to have found something else to occupy their time.  I was going to suggest that you bring your ideas on improving the article to the talk page again.  I suggest you take one small bit at a time and be as specific as you can.  Angry Christian (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In case you are interested in Expelled, please see User talk:Merzul/Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/rewrite. (It is a co-incidence that it ended up on my user page, I'm not in charge). It is meant to be an opportunity to experiment with different structures and different tones of voice. Also, since it's not live we can allow the pro-ID crowd to basically do what they want without immediately reverting and without losing our temper. I assume you are yourself against ID, but raised issues about the tone? I had similar concerns, so feel free to check it out. (This rewrite is not intended to replace the main page; but if it succeeds, the idea would be to show editors, such as Guetterda, who asked to see something different, what an alternative to the current page would look like). Merzul (talk) 07:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Expert opinion needed
Request for comment on Talk:David Snoke. It would be great if you could help with this. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson
I'm wondering if you can help me with getting the article on Woodrow Wilson to Featured Article status.--Briaboru (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson
No, just myself at the moment. Perhaps i should recruit more mebers' services.--Briaboru (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

True-believer syndrome
I share your concerns about tagging articles with this possibly not notable category, especially since many of the articles are not associated with paranormal. It seems not well documented the extent that: "It has since been applied, more loosely, to refer to any belief without empirical or logical foundations." Ward20 (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I may have gone over the top with turning this into a category. I would like to continue the discussion on the True-believer syndrome discussion page to give other interested parties a better chance to find the discussion and contribute.--Kenneth Cooke (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Here would be best: Category_talk:True-believer_syndrome. You could post a notice on the article talk page, but a discussion of the use of the category probably belongs on the category talk page. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I had already started my rant on the True-believer syndrome talk page before you suggested this. There is probably little point in persisting with the category if I cannot substantiate the term True-believer syndrome as being in notable usage.--Kenneth Cooke (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments on your talk page. Thanks.  Professor marginalia (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

auto-lemon
Hi, please note my reply here. TONY  (talk)  02:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

ID
Prof M - I've done a revision of the lead and overview for the ID page, here, per various requests. mostly it's shuffling things around for tone and structure, plus a couple of points I'd like to delete, and one that I'd like to repatriate, but can't quite figure out where, yet. tell me if you don't think this makes for a more neutral read. if I can get your feedback (and the feedback of the others I've copied this notice to), then I'll take it over and offer it as a suggestion on the ID page. -- Ludwigs 2 22:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

article proposed for deletion
==Proposed deletion of Hanksville quarry== A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Hanksville quarry, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Lakinekaki (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

please provide reason for inclusion, and references that would support it. Lakinekaki (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Because you provided solid references, and because the topic talks about recent discoveries, I replaced 'prod' tag with 'current' event tag. Lakinekaki (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war
The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.
 * Evidence for the arbitrators may be submitted at Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence. Evidence should be submitted within one week, if possible.
 * Your contributions are also welcome at Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny  ✉  21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool
That is a neat picture, and I'm always pleased to have another barnstar! Thank you kindly and I'm glad you saw the greatness of citation templates. You're using Diberri to generate them, of course? WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 19:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn
PM, Where did Hrafn go? There was a proper method to retire from WP, but he did not use it. Instead, it sounded like he was depressed and wanted an Admin to do it for him. It would be nice to have him back, and, as his friendly nemesis, I have asked him to come back. Perhaps your should do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.31.116 (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Flood Geology RfC
There is a RfC on Talk:Flood geology regarding a statement in the lead of the article. You seem to take a balanced approach in the edits that I have seen in various articles (I'm pretty sure you've reverted me once or twice), particularly with respect to verifiability, and I would appreciate it if you would look over the discussion.LowKey (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yamashita's gold
You made a comment on the Yamashita’s gold talk page (thanks, by the way). The IP Editor has taken the liberty of drawing a conclusion to your comment. If you have the time, I would appreciate it if you would comment on the talk page if your comment was in support of the IP version, as indicated by the IP Editor. Talk:Yamashita%27s_gold

Here is the comment you made, with the IP Editor's conclusion:

Third opinions in support of IP material:

"I've been involved in content disputes over citing court documents before. In general,there is no problem using court docs per se, but there is a problem when editors take liberties drawing conclusions from them. Disputes in this article won't be resolved if they're shaped as a battle between two alternative "conclusions" to be made about the outcome of the trial. The article simply needs to report the story about the trial, beginning, middle, end, and not try to go further, using the trial papers to "prove" or "disprove" that the treasure really existed. To do so at wp would be a misuse of primary sources." Professor marginalia (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC) -- (This general statement of WP policy is actually in support of the IP position, because the IP material clearly identifies allegations as allegations and identifies the decision of the court as a decision of the court. Nothing in the IP material suggests that the treasure actually exists. It merely relates that a US court has awarded Roxas a judgment against Marcos for theft of a portion of the treasure -- which is an established fact.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.94.213 (talk)

Jim (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to add that I used your comment as "against"...and will remove it if you wish. Sorry. Jim (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Chemtrail edit summary
I'm guessing the "fu comment" means further - but it is open to other interpretations! :) Verbal   chat  18:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Special creation
Could you take a look at Special creation? The article is an incoherent mess. I made a brief attempt at clearing out some of the worst waffle in it, back lack good sources for a more coherent explication. Thanks. HrafnTalkStalk 14:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Response to you last message at WP:NOR
Hi. I responded to your last message at WP:NOR New footnote at end of first paragraph. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I made another response. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again for your response. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the heads up on NOR --PBS (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice
Thanks for letting me know, I do see this as a serious issue. Jayjg (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in in recent weeks at WT:NOR. It was very much in need of another experienced commentator intimately familiar with the content policies and guidelines. Kudos. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And thank you too. Discussions about policy are important, but can be taxing, can't they? Professor marginalia (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
for the lengthy investment of time and thought you provided in articulating many of the issues that come into play at WP:NOR, in particular at WP:PSTS. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. I think it's clearer at this point there is community support for a PSTS clause despite any flaws it may have in its current form. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
I was rather surprised that an issue that I though was relevant to a matter of policy was not being addressed. I will respond in more detail soon. Paul B (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue is currently under discussion at the OR board. Paul B (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your participation, though I confess I find the discussion incredibly frustrating. As I hoped my first comment her made clear, it is not actually very important to me whether this goes in the article or not, what matters are the tactics being used to exclude it. What seems important to me is the principle of how Soupforone is trying to define OR. Note that the discussion has gone on beyond your initial comments today. Paul B (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I understand. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Help possibly needed
I'm away for a few days, but when I get back, are you at all interested in helping me see if anything should be done about an editor who after quite a long time of being told he is doing OR (including some blocks) carries on? If you look at for instance Talk:Exodus or Talk:Mount Horeb you should see what I mean. If this doesn't interest you, no problem. dougweller (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't promise much but I'll try. I can't say I have any magic answers, though. When an editor refuses to "get it" after it's explained, disputes can go on and on. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Very relevant to the discussion about primary sources is his statement that the Amarna letters, being translations are not primary sources -- and his comment about 'due diligence' at Talk:Habiru. I would like your comments on that if you could take the time. Are the Amarna letters secondary sources? Do we need to mention translations at WP:NOR? Is his 'due diligence' OR? Thanks. dougweller (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: RFC template
No worries, honest mistake.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 22:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Expand summary on closed articles at WP:NOR/N OK?
Hi! I noticed the good work you've been doing with templates like  at WP:NOR/N. What do you think about editors adding to your very brief summaries? Here's an example from WP:NOR/N with a proposed added summary:

Commenting on a graph
Would I be correct that it would be considered original research to in this article say that shows that the number of new cases per week/month has remained similar since mid-November 2008? Babakathy (talk) 06:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I presume you mean that the rate of increase in new cases per week has been about the same since mid-November. In other words, the number of new cases per week in November is about the same as the number of new cases per week in December, ...etc. That may not even be correct since the number of new cases seems to be accelerating, as indicated by the graph arching up, rather than a straight line going up. So the statement may not be true and it isn't easily seen by the reader, whether or not the rate of new cases per week is increasing each month. Graphical analysis that is beyond what the typical reader could do, might come to some conclusion about whether or not it is true but that would be a violation of WP:NOR in my opinion. But more fundamentally, I don't think one would want to put that statement in the article because it may not be true. In any case, the answer to your question is yes. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. You confirm my suspicions in both aspects of your answer, aprreciated. Babakathy (talk)

I'll look here on your talk page for any response that you might care to give. Thanks.--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, thanks. I have no problem-anytime. I was just trying to bring better order to the page--it gets so lengthy sometimes that discussions are too easily overlooked.Professor marginalia (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Woodmorappe article
Could you possibly look over John Woodmorappe and the Talk page and give an opinion? I am seriously attempting to improve the article - the NA:AFS section in particular - but Aunt Entropy has now reverted all my changes twice without discussion, and with two different reasons given in the edit summaries. I really don't want to edit-war; I just want a good quality article, and I would value another opinion (or an opinion to be precise) of the changes I made. I am asking you because I respect your approach to sound content and I believe Aunt Entropy does as well. I'm not looking for an arbiter, just some input so the article can move forward. LowKey (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Joined comments
Your recent edit to Talk:Creation-evolution controversy was split and kinda messed up the header - so I combined the two segments. If I've mis-interpreted what you meant to do, then please redo and sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Info re show-hide templates, etc. for WP:NOR/N
Hi. I just reduced a discussion to show-hide mode at WP:NOR/N using your previous work as a model. Here's the diff. (I didn't have to add because it was already there.) Could you direct me to where I can find  info re the templates? For example, I wasn't sure of the purpose of at the end.

I'll look here on your talk page for any response that you might care to give. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure-there's Template:Hidden archive top and Template:Hidden archive bottom. I think of the two as opposite bookends for the section archived. They mark the beginning and end points of the discussion that will be rolled up and down by clicking the "hide" and "show" buttons.  Thanks for all your help on the noticeboard! Professor marginalia (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The Business and Economics Barnstar
Economics articles are looking a lot better today than they did a year ago, and your efforts have made a major contribution to that. --LK (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Help:Archiving a talk page
I think you were confused because your last edit to Help:Archiving a talk page seems to have been an attempt to save an archive of another talk page probably information cut from Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory --PBS (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You probably want to save it to Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory/Archive 2 if you do then remember to add it to the archive box in Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory and remember to add talkarchivenav to the top of Archive 2. --PBS (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to add the archive to the archive box because it has the auto flag set (  see archive box) --PBS (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Kosher tax
Thank you for your lucid and thoughtful remarks. Jayjg (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Inflation RM
You previously participated in a discussion at Talk:Inflation. The article has been moved again so, if you care to clarify of reiterate your position, please participate at Talk:Inflation (financial). —  AjaxSmack   23:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Help with Robert Sungenis Article
Hi, could you please check out the talk page for Robert Sungenis's article? I'm trying to follow the rules, but I can't understand them - at least as presented by Slp-1. Please take a look at what I wrote last about quotes from Sungenis and how some are allowed and others are not. I'm sure there is some logic to be followed in the wiki rules, but I just need to see them somewhere or have them explained better.

Thanks! -- Liam Patrick (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Slp-1 came back with more information that helped and I brought some quotes into line with the new article from Sungenis that he cited, so I think everything is fine. Thank you anyway.  Liam Patrick (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I asked Slp-1 to comment on the Robert Sungenis talk page about the Notability message. He hasn't commented, but I see you've had some interest. Please check out the discussion page there. I'm tempted to remove the Notability template at the top of the article if there isn't further discussion, on the idea that his mention in the Washington Post is sufficient to establish notability. Delrayva (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD
Please see: Articles for deletion/Special creation. Borock (talk) 07:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Intro to genetics
I'm aiming to keep this article focused on using human examples, since that is the organism people are most familiar with! The major problem is that you are writing at much too high a level, using phrases like "The various formulations of a given gene are identified as alleles of that gene", "these various alleles determine the development of individual organisms ". This is fine in the genetics article, but the into article is aimed at people with no background in science whatsoever. If you wanted, you could list problems on the talkpage and I could try to change the text to deal with these issues without raising the reading level to the point where this article fails to achieve its aim. Alternatively, I can just edit and simplify your additions, but I may not always understand which issue you were attempting to correct. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. This article has been very tricky to write. It is frustrating not to be able to use a term without defining it and search for simple analogies for processes that are easy to describe in a few technical terms. I still haven't managed to remove all of the past, passive tense, that is work in progress. I find it helpful to imagine that I'm talking to one of those people that come up to you and ask "What are these things called genes anyway?" Tim Vickers (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see what you mean. It's tricky I agree.  Professor marginalia (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

letting it slide, but...
please don't archive discussions because you are personally tired of debating the issue. I wasn't disagreeing about the pointlessness of the quote, but the bigger issue about how to use wp:OR was worth pursuing. frankly, I think you're in the wrong there.

I'm sure it will come up in another context. though, so no worries. -- Ludwigs 2 01:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The NOR notice board, and should not be a fork to draw debate which belongs on the article talk page. The question was well answered. When the discussion deteriorates into debating broad claims about the relationship between creationism, Judaism, and Jesus Christ and resort to the Council of Nicea to back those claims, then we're simply adding to the problem. We don't make new theological claims here.  When sources on the outside publish claims about this or that, we write about them and cite them.  But these arguments can't be newly minted at wikipedia. Right? Go get a source that makes the claim. It isn't our job. Editors can't do that job here. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * without disagreeing that the discussion went afield, I don't happen to believe it was well answered. I think it was given a highly restrictive and narrow interpretation of the policy that would not be offered (or used) under other circumstances.  but as I said, I don't want to bother you with it now (unless you want to discuss it), because we will undoubtably run across the issue again.  I just wanted to ask you not to archive discussions in the way that you did.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try to put it more simply then. The article is about Creationism. The claim made was that creationism owed a greater debt to Judaism than Jesus Christ. What the editor used to back up the claim was this: 1. Creationism is based on the creation story in Genesis; 2. Genesis was a Jewish text long before Jesus came along; 3. the Bible doesn't show Jesus talking about creation--so therefore creationism owes a greater debt to Judaism. And that's synth, that's an original claim made from drawing together 3 unrelated, independent facts and assembling them to arrive at a novel conclusion. It doesn't matter whether those three facts are themselves sourced or self-evident. Using them to come to a novel conclusion like this is prohibited in the original research policy.  You need a source that itself makes the conclusion. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * in my opinion, you are confusing synthetic reasoning with flawed reasoning. synthetic reasoning (as you say) involves the creation (or better put, the promotion) of a novel idea through a process of inductive reasoning.  what you have here with Hauskalainen isn't novelty, though, it's intellectual sloppiness.  clearly points 1, 2, and 3 are factual, but Hauskalainen made an error of logic by assuming that Genesis in Judaism is the same as Genesis in Christianity (equivalence≠identity).  If we talk in terms of simple literary elements then yes, creationism owes a debt to judaism for the story itself (since it was a judaic story adopted by 4th century Christians) - that is simple (almost banal) deduction.  if we talk in semantic terms then no, creationism owes almost nothing to Judaism, since the meaning and symbols of then genesis story are radically different in Christianity.  I don't think he's engaged in anything sophisticated enough to be called synthesis.-- Ludwigs 2  02:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He may have used flawed logic. The point as it pertains to OR is that editors aren't invited to apply logic to form all-new conclusions in the first place. We can't use syllogisms to support conclusions of this kind. The conclusion he came to presupposes a) that one of the two, Judaism or Jesus, is of greater significance to creationism (both may be relatively insignificant compared with other aspects) and b) we can logically identify which one of them is the more significant with a look in the Bible. The problems with this line of thinking might be easier to see with other examples. Take a claim like "Seventh-Day Adventism owes a greater debt to Judaism than Jesus Christ because the commandment to rest on the seventh day was delivered to the Jews via Moses 1000 years before Jesus." A statement like, "America's love of the automobile owes more to plankton than to Henry Ford because they created fossil fuels long before Ford was born" wouldn't fly either. I have no doubt that somebody, someplace, made an argument much like this. But wouldn't we need a source to attribute this opinion to?, and eliminate all pretenses this is some kind of evidence based, and logically consistent, fact claim?  These sweeping conclusions are opinions, not logically derived facts. And I don't know what value the synth clause would have at WP if not for cases like this one. Creationism, even creationism narrowed to the Judeo-Christian strains, can't be neatly sorted out via simple syllogisms. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, and I could (almost) even agree out of deference to some imaginable socratic utopia. But the fact of the matter is no one ever obeys the rules you suggest; it's impossible.  Most any time any person puts two sentences together, they are on some level engaging in what you're calling synthesis.   if language builds structures of knowledge then sentences are the bricks and unspoken implications are the mortar.  really, If I were to follow what you've outlined in a literal fashion I could take any article on wikipedia and reduce it to ruin in a mater of minutes, by flagging every minor unsourced logical assertion that someone made as a violation of SYN.  If I can't find one or two in just the first paragraph of any random article you'd care to suggest, I'd be very surprised.
 * On a civil article no one ever does that: everyone gives everyone the benefit of doubt, and it all floats on common knowledge. what's happened with this guy (and what happens on a lot of contentious debates) is that people get offended and everyone starts getting super-picky.  OR gets pulled out in cases like this (IMO) because OR accusations are effectively impossible to refute (it effectively says "show me evidence for your position that I can accept" when it has already been decided that there is no acceptable evidence for that position).  Personally I think synthesis should be reserved for those people (I'm sure you can think of a few) who are actively trying to push a program or agenda of some sort, and not on people like this guy, who just seems to be making a fairly mindless point in a ham-handed fashion.
 * As you can see, I'm less concerned with this particular case than with what I see as a misuse of policy.  it's just a bad (and all too common) precedent. -- Ludwigs 2  08:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Introduction to Evolution
Regarding the Introduction to Evolution. I performed a superficial critique and generated a list of concerns that should be addressed. I'm not certain I'm the best person for the task; both in depth of knowledge and the bias to which I likely suffer. However, if I even remotely sense support in restoration of the FA version, then I will revert. Your thoughts on the article talk page would be both respected and appreciated.--JimmyButler (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"Expelled" merge
I'm looking for help on what to do next for the merge, which looks to be okay to go ahead and do. I'm assuming that as a non-admin, I actually can't do the merge myself unless I can just go ahead and move the information as proposed and then nominate the merged page for deletion. Seregain (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I saw you merging material, but do we really need to keep the defunct article even as a redirect? There are no major links to it. Seregain (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I saw both your and SarekOfVulcan's explanations regarding licensing. Yes, it seems pointless, but, well, that's the point of licensing. < > I've withdrawn the nomination. Thank you. Seregain (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC).

Genesis creation myth
You are doing a yeoman's job on that page. I've almost abandoned it to the ownership of User:EGMichaels, but if he doesn't stop calling you a vandal, I will make a report on him. (He even claimed the archiving bot "vandalised" his comment!) I warned him, but he ignored me an called it "vandalising" again. You are a good editor that doesn't deserve such treatment. In fact, I think you have the temperament to be a good administrator here. So, keep up the good work, and you have my back when you need it. Auntie E. (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Genesis creation myth-source check
Hello Professor, what references did you check and which references were you unable to check due to a lack of access?Deadtotruth (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you're okay with the philo and augustine citations concerning ex nihilo. Below, I've posted several refs with the quotes that you would like more info on. Some are new and represent biblical commentators. The best quote from the scientists is the quote from George Smoot, the 2006 Noble prize winner in physics. Ex nihilo is not simply a religious concept - it is primarily a philosophical concept and secondarily a religious and scientific concept. I hold the view that Genesis was written by Moses from a philosophical perspective - a view that is shared by Philo, Josephus, Clement of Alexandria, etc. Since we are discussing the genesis "myth" it is important to understand how the symbols in the "myth" are understood by philosophers, theologians, scientists, etc. and how they relate efforts in their fields symbolically to their understanding of the "myth." This doesn't mean that they are right or wrong in their understanding of the "myth" nor is that relevant. For instance, the concept "nothing" to a theologian does not mean the same thing to a physicist nor does it mean the same thing to a philosopher. Nonetheless all of these groups of individuals are aware of the Genesis "myth" and some of them from each of those fields believe the symbology used indicates what to them means creation from nothing others in those same fields believe it means creation from something.

The quotes:

Wrinkles in Time, George Smoot and Keay Davidson, New York: William Morrow and Company, 1993, (p. 17: “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.”)

God and the Astronomers, second edition, Robert Jastrow, New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1992, (p. 14: “the essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”)

Before the Beginning – Cosmology Explained, George F. R. Ellis, London and New York: Boyars/Bowerdean, 1993, 1994, (p. 97: “To make sense of this view (design as opposed to accident), one must accept the idea of transcendence: that the Designer exists in a totally different order of reality or being, not restrained within the bounds of the Universe itself.”)

Quantum Reality—Beyond the New Physics, Nick Herbert, Garden City, New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1985, (p. 177: “Einstein wrote not only of the necessity for a beginning, but of his desire “to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thought, the rest are details.””).

“Forty Minutes With Einstein,” Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, Vol. 50 (1956), A. Vibert Douglas, (p. 100: “Einstein tried to avoid such a beginning by creating and holding onto his cosmological “fudge factor” in his equations until 1931, when Hubble’s astronomical observations caused him to grudgingly accept “the necessity for a beginning.””)

Matthew Henry Commentary on Genesis - “The manner in which this work was effected: God created it, that is, made it out of nothing. There was not any pre-existent matter out of which the world was produced. The fish and fowl were indeed produced out of the waters and the beasts and man out of the earth; but that earth and those waters were made out of nothing. By the ordinary power of nature, it is impossible that any thing should be made out of nothing; no artificer can work, unless he has something to work on. But by the almighty power of God it is not only possible that something should be made of nothing (the God of nature is not subject to the laws of nature), but in the creation it is impossible it should be otherwise, for nothing is more injurious to the honour of the Eternal Mind than the supposition of eternal matter. Thus the excellency of the power is of God and all the glory is to him.”

Wesley’s Explanatory Notes - “The manner how this work was effected; God created, tha tis, made it out of nothing. There was not any pre - existent matter out of which the world was produced. The fish and fowl were indeed produced out of the waters, and the beasts and man out of the earth; but that earth and those waters were made out of nothing.”

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown - “created--not formed from any pre-existing materials, but made out of nothing.”

John Calvin Commentary on Genesis Volume 1 - “In the beginning. To expound the term “beginning,” of Christ, is altogether frivolous. For Moses simply intends to assert that the world was not perfected at its very commencement, in the manner in which it is now seen, but that it was created an empty chaos of heaven and earth. His language therefore may be thus explained. When God in the beginning created the heaven and the earth, the earth was empty and waste. He moreover teaches by the word “created,” that what before did not exist was now made; for he has not used the term יצר, (yatsar,) which signifies to frame or forms but ברא, (bara,) which signifies to create. Therefore his meaning is, that the world was made out of nothing. Hence the folly of those is refuted who imagine that unformed matter existed from eternity; and who gather nothing else from the narration of Moses than that the world was furnished with new ornaments, and received a form of which it was before destitute.”

Deadtotruth (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding-let me explain some of these:
 * "**"Wrinkles in Time - the page given in the cite was p30. p17 causes another problem-besides the fact that few Big Bang scientists would characterize it as ex nihilo (Big Bang is not "from nothing"-it's from a "singularity"), the phrase immediately following this one reads, "Creation from nothing does not appear in the Bible as such but was formulated later to exclude Gnostic teaching...)-in other words, it doesn't verify the claim that ex nihilo is actually in Genesis.
 * "**"God and the Astronomer-that one misunderstands ex nihilo as a flash of light and energy, compounded by the fact that on p10 it comes right out and said that the Bible talks of creation out of "formless matter". That's not ex nihilo - is "no primary matter" or material, not bringing unformed matter into form.
 * "**"Before the Beginning-this isn't about ex nihilo either and doesn't say anything about the Genesis creation in particular. It's hard, but we have to take care not to read ideas into claims that aren't there.  The ex nihilo is not a "by accident" claim ("by accident" vs "by design" aren't the ex nihilo argument), and pre-existing matter does not limit a non-ex nihilo creator from having the power to form it miraculously, contrary to any natural properties.
 * "**"Quantum reality a very well veiled argument from design maybe, but certainly not an argument ex nihilo
 * "**"Forty minutes-no Genesis, no ex nihilo. Ex nihilo is a "from nothing", not a "from some beginning".
 * This is the first I've seen of Jamieson, and won't go into it here. And I'm unclear where you found the Calvin quotation, so I'll wait for your clarification.
 * But that leaves "**"Parker's creation: the story of the origin, Creation Ex Nihilo by Fain, and "**"Show me God by Heeren, (assuming while waiting to hear that maybe Calvin appears in Clontz) unexplained.  Although I think I have a very good explanation-all the "**" (not Fain which maybe yours or egmichael's sources) came from here, didn't they? I think it's pretty clear they did-lifted with page numbers and all.  If so, this doesn't work, and I hope now you can appreciate why, how you really need to review the source material itself for yourself and focus attention on the references that are most relevant and notable to the subject and claim itself.  If not, we can pursue this further on the article's talk page, but I'm willing to end it here if you're willing to let us get on with removing those references. You make the call. You let me know. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Professor, I've included the quotes with web addresses for the biblical commentaries including Calvin below which should help you view the reference:

Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, Unabridged, Genesis to Deuteronomy, by Matthew Henry see http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc1.Gen.ii.html - “The manner in which this work was effected: God created it, that is, made it out of nothing. There was not any pre-existent matter out of which the world was produced. The fish and fowl were indeed produced out of the waters and the beasts and man out of the earth; but that earth and those waters were made out of nothing. By the ordinary power of nature, it is impossible that any thing should be made out of nothing; no artificer can work, unless he has something to work on. But by the almighty power of God it is not only possible that something should be made of nothing (the God of nature is not subject to the laws of nature), but in the creation it is impossible it should be otherwise, for nothing is more injurious to the honour of the Eternal Mind than the supposition of eternal matter. Thus the excellency of the power is of God and all the glory is to him.”

John Wesley’s notes on the whole Bible the Old Testament, Notes On The First Book Of Moses Called Genesis, by John Wesley, p.14 see http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wesley/notes.ii.ii.ii.i.html - “Observe the manner how this work was effected; God created, that is, made it out of nothing. There was not any pre-existent matter out of which the world was produced. The fish and fowl were indeed produced out of the waters, and the beasts and man out of the earth; but that earth and those waters were made out of nothing. Observe when this work was produced; In the beginning — That is, in the beginning of time. Time began with the production of those beings that are measured by time. Before the beginning of time there was none but that Infinite Being that inhabits eternity.”

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, 1871, Genesis chapter 1 see http://www.ccel.org/ccel/jamieson/jfb.x.i.i.html - “created--not formed from any pre-existing materials, but made out of nothing the heaven and the earth—the universe. This first verse is a general introduction to the inspired volume, declaring the great and important truth that all things had a beginning; that nothing throughout the wide extent of nature existed from eternity, originated by chance, or from the skill of any inferior agent; but that the whole universe was produced by the creative power of God.”

Commentaries on The First Book of Moses Called Genesis, by John Calvin, Translated from the Original Latin, and Compared with the French Edition, by the Rev. John King, M.A, 1578, Volume 1, Genesis 1:1-31 see http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom01.vii.i.html - “In the beginning. To expound the term “beginning,” of Christ, is altogether frivolous. For Moses simply intends to assert that the world was not perfected at its very commencement, in the manner in which it is now seen, but that it was created an empty chaos of heaven and earth. His language therefore may be thus explained. When God in the beginning created the heaven and the earth, the earth was empty and waste. He moreover teaches by the word “created,” that what before did not exist was now made; for he has not used the term יצר, (yatsar,) which signifies to frame or forms but ברא, (bara,) which signifies to create. Therefore his meaning is, that the world was made out of nothing. Hence the folly of those is refuted who imagine that unformed matter existed from eternity; and who gather nothing else from the narration of Moses than that the world was furnished with new ornaments, and received a form of which it was before destitute.” Deadtotruth (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are new references (Wesley, Jamieson, Calvin)-and should be discussed on the article talk page, not here. They aren't the one's you already added to the article that I'm now asking you about. Please just focus on these alone that appear in the Current Footnote #4:
 * Douglas 1956
 * Smoot & Davidson 1993, pp. 30, 189
 * Herbert 1985, p. 177
 * Parker 1988, p. 202
 * Fain 2007, pp. 30-36
 * Heeren 2000, pp. 107-108, 121, 135, 157
 * Clontz 2008
 * Jastrow 1992, p. 14
 * Ellis 1993, p. 97
 * Thanks Professor marginalia (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And is this also your edit? If so, how would you justify it? Thanks. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Professor, I'm still waiting for a response to my earlier questions: 1) which sources do you not have access to that you need quotes from. I posted some of the easier ones to get things rolling. 2) You introduced a new criteria that you would like the refs to meet and I have supplied four additional refs that I believe meet your new criteria to add to the group. This is now the third request for a response concerning the four additional refs. Also you asked for the info on Calvin and now that I have gone to the trouble of supplying the info a response would be appreciated. I don't necessarily agree with your criteria for the refs since it comes from a specific POV IMO, but I am willing to try to accomodate you if I can in order to reach a consensus. Unless I hear a reasonable objection from you concerning the four additional refs I will add them to the article on 4/5/10. I am trying to understand your criteria and a response concerning the four refs that I believe meet your criteria would be helpful in trying to understand your requests concerning refs for ex nihilo.Deadtotruth (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Brooke, George J. ref is not my edit.Deadtotruth (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks re: Brooke. The editor who made the change was identified as probably you by egmichaels when the request for investigation against you was opened to determine whether you and he were WP:sockpuppets.  EGMichaels used the IP's restoration of these dubious refs to support his assertion that you belonged to the IP. And although you commented after this on the page, you didn't correct his misrepresentation that it was you--yet because this IP was identified and uncontested as you, the sock investigation was dropped.  Given EGMIchael's linking you and the IP, and you're not correcting him, you can see how someone like me would be led me to believe that was your edit.  The reason I bring it up is because it is a perfectly suited source.  The reason given to remove it in the first place was bogus.
 * Further - the quotations you produced from the sources you added and reverted repeatedly to keep in place failed to support the claim attributed to them, and those that you've yet to produce (despite my several pointed requests) I will assume don't either. They need to be removed, period.  And I'm going to assume, given you've moved on to discuss potential references instead, you won't be resisting their removal. My comments on Wesley et al will be put on the article talk page, where they rightfully belong. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Well Meaning Advice
Professor -- as you can see from Aunt's comment and from mine, you have walked into a landmine here. I do hope that you can stay around because you started well. I finally caught up to your initial comments and see that you impressed Alastair as well. As I said, you STARTED well by beginning a discussion to a talk page. I did the same when I came here and was played in a number of circles with bogus ANIs and bogus sockpuppet accusations, neither of which were ever taken up by an administrator because they lacked any value. I apologize for mistaking you for Pico.

That said, it's important to follow through appropriately. Having STARTED well, you've been made aware of some of the history here, and you've been introduced to the editor you have the most problem with -- Deadtotruth.

I can only defend other editors from arbitrary deletion. I cannot defend individual sources I do not own. But I can work to maintain mutual respect between editors and request they work together rather than (whever-you-want-to-call-it-to-each-other's-work).

Now you've been given the advantage of knowing who made the edits. You have an opportunity to actually work WITH that other editor (aka collaboration).

Notice that Aunt's trouble is the term "vandalism." Fine. How about "deletion without discussion with the editor in question"? Granted, a talk page is the place to start, and in most cases is sufficient. Now you've been given the opportunity to discuss this with the actual editor who researched these refs. He could perhaps agree with you. Heck, knowing a bit of the history here you could perhaps suggest better ways (and even help) to anchor the contested subject.

I apologize for using a term you didn't like. Will you at least stop deleting another editor's work without at least discussing it with him (by whatever term you DO like to call this action you wouldn't want done to you)?

While I do appreciate your attempting to discuss it with me, I don't have those books (well, I have one), and these are not my edits to defend. It would be as useless getting my agreement as it would be getting Alastair's. Dead may have seen something you missed, or you may have seen something he missed -- but no one will ever really know if you don't discuss it with the appropriate person.EGMichaels (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No. This is what I agree to. I agree that I'm not after you, or Deadtotruth, or anyone else. I don't have a problem with either of you, I don't have a dog in this fight, and I'm not at all into the whole wikidrama thing. It sneaks up sometimes-but I try my best not to get sucked into sandbox warfare. But I'm not going to agree to hunt down the original editor to every change I make in an article.  Not gonna happen.  If this helps bring you some peace of mind, I don't throw things overboard without having a reason.  I try always to have a solid reason first.  And if I don't make that reason absolutely clear up front, I'm certainly not shy about defending it better after.  Professor marginalia (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You're spending a whole lot of energy avoiding a little bit of effort. You know what?  Courtesy does require an extra five minutes, but it saves five hours, or days, or weeks of Wikidrama.  Try it for a change and see what happens.  It's not as exhilirating, but it gets a lot more accomplished.  I've already acknowledged my mistake caused by a landmine you walked into between Pico and myself.  I've even apologized for not having the extra few minutes you would have appreciated from me.  But I don't see you budging here.  As I said, these aren't my edits.  You can posture with me and Aunt can threaten -- but they aren't my edits, and my agreement ultimately does no good.  There's an old saying in the South: "the hurrieder I go, the behinder I get."  It's quaint, but there is a lot of wisdom to it.EGMichaels (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this a temper tantrum? It sounds like one. Stop pretending you're my mother and are just lecturing me to "mind my manners". Seriously. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Professor -- as I said before, stop sparring with me and try to collaborate with editors when you wish to, er, improve their work. That's not a temper tantrum. It's a simple request for collaborative editing (it's the way Wikipedia works). As for Pico, you can't be left out of something that you are participating in.EGMichaels (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me show you to the door, Mr. Michaels. Good day. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384
Have you lost your mind? I have violated absolutely no rule at "Genesis Creation myth". Don't you dare ever come near my talk page again.Mk5384 (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence history
Thanks for your help with this article. The discussions can be contentious, but the more editors we get involved with this process, the better. David.Kane (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What part of "Yes" do you have a problem with?
I'm not sure what you're after. I took your word for it that you wouldn't delete ex nihilo altogether and even unwatched the page based on what you SAID you were going to do.

As for elimination of ex nihilo, this was a typical PiCo edit:. You'll note that there is no remaining support for the view, no mention of ANY scholar holding it, and merely two statements that it's not in the text. While I have no problem giving pre-eminence to the chaos view (and have stated such several times), I DO have a problem treating either view like it isn't held by anyone.

However, your continuing to press this after I invited you to make the adjustments we discussed leads me to suspect that you actually don't want to make those adjustments. Other than merely arguing, what are you after?EGMichaels (talk)


 * Still holding firm to revisionism? I've responded here. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's hardly revisionism -- as you yourself said, you only looked AFTER PiCo stopped deleting EVERYTHING. I merely went to his LAST deletion, and it took me all of five seconds to find it.


 * Well, of course it doesn't occur after the last time -- that what the word "last" means.


 * You're really being weird here.


 * As for rules... I have better things to do with my life than to be insulted when I suggest we be courteous. You really have a need to delete any view you don't agree with, by hook or crook, and I don't have time to sit around while you try to justify it.  I've invited you several times to leave both views in the text, sourced, with pre-eminence given to your favorite view and sources.  And this is some kind of bizarre demand on my part?  Again, what part of "Yes" do you have a problem with?  Or do you just have an emotional need to argue with people?


 * You're stuck on "revisionism" even after I proved I wasn't revising anything at all.


 * As for PiCo being "100% correct" -- no, his edit is not even marginally correct because it doesn't even treat the prevailing historical view with more than a slight. The MOST that can be said for chaos is that it is possible in the unpointed text (as is ex nihilo), absent from the LXX, and certain in the Babylonian texts which have similarities to this text.


 * Heck, you even belittled my insertion of a chaos source or two, when that is closer to my own view of what the hypothetical Ur text probably was.


 * You really don't get the NPOV thing. Every notable view must be fairly sourced and represented, without edit war and posturing by editors like yourself.


 * I'm only slightly curious to see whether other editors come back to restore their work. But I'm disinterested in yours.  The POV pushing and posturing is boring.EGMichaels (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A complete misrepresentation of what I said and what the record says, again. Response here Professor marginalia (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

On Jensen (1969)
Did you catch my last comment here ? One of us is using the wrong version of Jensen (1969). Is it me? David.Kane (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

EphBlog
The EphBlog article is a draft. It was deleted after an AfD a while ago. One of my longer term projects is to clean it up and resubmit it at some point. I was told that it was perfectly acceptable to work on such drafts in my own userspace. Do you disagree? David.Kane (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case
I'm hoping this can get things moving in the right direction:

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvcx (talk • contribs) 13:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

RFAR Race and intelligence
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Your proposed principle
I think you accidentally duplicated some of your material in the previous section of Xxanthippe, at least the same sentences appear in both. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Mediation
I have started a mediation page as a last resort effort on the conflict between pro-literal (or YEC) and pro-secular (or evolution) bias in the articles Objections to evolution and Genesis creation narrative. Please participate by following this link Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Narrative.-- Gniniv (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected
The Request for mediation concerning Genesis Creation Narrative, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For the Mediation Committee, AGK  22:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC) (This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

It's good to see you editing Race and intelligence again.
I see you have been taking great care to make sure that the article content is encyclopedic, verifiable, and neutral on the Race and intelligence talk page. I'm learning a lot from how you analyze the sources. Keep up the good work. I'll try to get some better sources into that article soon. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm about to head off on a wikibreak for a few days, during which I will be reading some newly published academic secondary sources. I continue to be impressed by your thoughtful editing and observation of other editors' edits on some of the more controversial articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Creation myth
You've done great work on the article. I'll see what I can do to help with the new one.Griswaldo (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What are your thoughts on the current lead? I think its too long, but the information in it is clearly good.  I was thinking of starting to break it up but didn't want to step on your toes before asking.Griswaldo (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made some meager changes to start. I might be able to do a little more this evening, but otherwise I'll be off the Wiki until next week.Griswaldo (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOV proposal?
Prof, I think the NPOV policy needs to provide more guidance about how properly to identify a view. I would like to know what you think. I want to propose something to the NPOV policy along these lines: that (1) we should identify the POV of texts, not authors (as we cannot read people's minds only what they write) and (2) POV should be detemined by explicit statements about one's view made by the author of the text, or descriptions of the the text's point fo view found in another reliable source. (3) one cannot assume POV based solely on biographical information about the author; the value of biographical information depends on (1) and (2). Do you see the sense in this? If so, could you take a stab and coming up with an elegant, clear, and appropriate way of wording it? Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the Jensen article
Any other changes you wanted to make, especially those to remove any POV taint, would be much appreciated. David.Kane (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent evidence follow-up in the ArbCom case.
I see from following diffs on my watchlist that you have been updating [| your evidence submission] in the ArbCom case. In the off chance that someone who needs to see that helpful evidence isn't following pages the same way, you may want to follow Roger Davies's suggestion and add the word "NEW" to the title of your section. Keep up the good work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I beg your pardon?
What is this all about? We're in the middle of an arbitration--we're expected to back up our arguments with diffs. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't disrupt my talkpage with your dispute, if you want to talk about it please do it here on your talkpage. So, look, I disagree with your claims, your POV and your attitude, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yours is an awfully extreme reaction against another editor who simply disagrees with you over the legitimacy of the content in question. I've never even talked with you before, yet you feel justified to rudely object to my "POV" and my "attitude" as well as my diffs??  I take it, in other words, you don't have have a good explanation for this, so I guess we're done. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Its a spelling mistake, a spelling mistake. No I have never spoken to you before, but talking to you today has allowed me to easily form these positions. Off2riorob (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I meant the entire post. Not the spelling correction.  I wasn't trying to be snarky over a typo-I'm asking why you feel justified to characterize me as "spouting" and "bombarding" and "confusing" because I've actually taken appropriate care to backup my claim? The content was not original research, it was not a misrepresentation of the source. As I said, this isn't about whether or not David.Kane's inquiry was reasonable.  But to mischaracterize the disputed claim as OR or falsely sourced not only confuses the issue but is unfairly attacks the editor (mathsci in this case) who put it there. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, thanks for that a spelling mistake thank it was not the issue. Please leave me out of this POV single purpose users issue, I hate it, I would block you all, at least topic ban you all so that you either go away and stop disrupting wikipedia or that you get the wikipedia idea and start improving the wikipedia instead of simply attempting to assert your POV on the wikipedia, try this...help on some football articles or something independent of your single POV. I strongly support all my comments at that Arbitration requests race and intellegencenoticeboard and will defend them anywhere, please forget about me and carry on regardless. Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously this has hit some kind of a nerve with you that has nothing whatsoever to do with me. You know nothing about me or my editing (as you yourself have admitted your opinion of me is based on a snap judgment on your part).  I didn't pull you into this debate.  David.Kane asked you to step into the middle of this arbitration, not me.  And David.Kane's request doesn't entitle you to hold the floor all by yourself.  So I'd suggest that if you do feel so tempted to return to the arb discussions and support your comments there, then please remember to focus your remarks on the content.  Professor marginalia (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:


 * Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles.
 * The following editors are topic-banned from race and intelligence articles, broadly construed:
 * Mathsci (by consent)
 * David.Kane
 * Captain Occam
 * Mikemikev
 * Mikemikev, who was indefinitely blocked as a result of an ANI discussion during the case proceedings, is site-banned for 12 months. Until his ArbCom ban expires, he may only appeal his block to the Arbitration Committee, via the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. After 12 months, he may choose to appeal the ban to either the Arbitration Committee or to the community.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

NW ( Talk ) 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

ID
Hi PM, I noticed you said on talk that you'd read some philosophy papers about ID. Could you let me know which ones? I'd like to compile a list of the recent academic philosophy sources the article could be using, so I'm asking anyone who might have suggestions. Cheers, SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Flood myth
Prof. M, thanks again for the spectacular work you did at Creation myth. Flood myth requires similar attention. I have started the job and asked for help elsewhere but I thought I'd let you know as well in case you had any interest. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

socks
can you find someone appropriate to do a checkuser on Ferahgo and Captain Occam? I have not followed this user closely and do not know the evidence but share your suspiciopns; maybe you can provide a reasonable case at the checkuser page and we can settle this Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Galton, Baker and Jensen
The description of Galton's claims about the intelligence of various groups is based both on Baker and Jensen, whereas the quote about Jews is only in Baker. For this reason, it's best to cite both of them at the end of the paragraph; otherwise, Baker must be cited twice in consecutive sentences.--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Race and intelligence and our new IP editor 68.96...
Thanks for collapsing that thread just now. I was wondering how that behaviour should be tackled. Won't be surprised if he or the same material pops up again very soon.

What that behaviour reminds me of is a couple of people I know with Aspergers Syndrome, who are both very intelligent, and very interested in the collection of knowledge, but very narrowly focussed at any given time. There is no ill will in their enthusiastic sharing of that narrow band of knowledge with anyone who will listen, and if the right platform exists for such expression they can be very valuable contributors. A diplomatic approach is going to be needed here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

@Professor marginalia: You have patiently explained things to the IP, but this is almost certainly the person who has conducted edit wars and talk page dumps in order to promote their POV. See Talk:Human evolution/Archive 3 and Talk:Human evolution history and 71.68.251.54 contribs and 68.222.236.154 contribs for examples (last two IPs blocked for a year). Past experience shows that no amount of discussion satisfies them because they have interpreted "anyone can edit" to mean they can periodically post their stuff indefinitely. The only way to handle this person is to firmly remove their material because leaving it displayed, even on a talk page, is a victory as far as they are concerned. Perhaps I could archive the stuff at Talk:Race and intelligence (i.e. manually delete it and move it to an archive page)? Or do you have a suggestion? I will look here for any reply (no need for talkback), or post at my talk if that is your preference. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. No, I have no magic answers. Your remedy sounds just fine to me too. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom Holzl
I respect you a lot. But Tom Holzl is just a troll using the web to self-publish his own views. Please, just do not feed him. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on my edits
Hi, Professor marginalia,

I see you have been keeping an eye on several chronically contentious articles while I have been reading new books on the subjects I try to cover in source lists to share with you and other conscientious wikipedians. There seems to be ongoing off-wiki stirring the pot keeping those articles contentious, and thus it appears I will have to take up active editing again now that I have done more reading. Because you have been on board longer than I have, I will be glad to hear your advice on how effectively to collaborate with conscientious editors who have the policies of the project at heart as we all work together to build an encyclopedia. Feel free to keep an eye on my edits and to give me advice at any time. Wishing you all the best for a very happy new year. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Letter to The Economist January 29th–February 4th 2011
The ArbCom case on Race and intelligence is mentioned in a letter to The Economist. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been brought to Jimbo's attention. Johnuniq (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. The proposal is to implement a new layer of administrative appeal or peer review against admins and arbitrators who don't impose sanctions against other editors? Well--that's an ~interesting~ suggestion, one that would predictably expand the number of pissed off editors here despite its pretenses to do just the opposite.  Professor marginalia (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

r&i
please note the recent discussion on the subject.-- mustihussain (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution for Usage share of operating systems
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Usage share of operating systems, Usage share of web browsers". Thank you. --Jdm64 (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
As advised by ItsZippy at Dispute resolution noticeboard‎, applied to Mediation Cabal. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation
Dear Professor marginalia: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Mediation Cabal/Cases/13 November 2011/Usage share of operating systems.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, thehistorian10, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Appreciation
I don't know that you were ever shown appreciation or recognition for your thorough efforts to clean up plagiarism and POV-pushing in Creation myth, with all the mucking about with "cosmogony" and "myth" terminology. Anyway, I found myself revisiting some of the 2010 and 2011 discussions in the archives and recalled you taking out time to extensively comb through the article. Your efforts are much appreciated. John Shandy`  &bull; talk 16:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Steve Austin (creationist) merger proposal
You stated that "He's not addressed in the ICR article", implicitly objecting to the proposal. However, as I have since pointed out, he is mentioned in Institute for Creation Research ("...with Geologist Stephen A. Austin, working as an "off and on" visiting scientist until taking a full staff position in 1979, single-handedly conducting most of its non-literary research."). I would therefore appreciate if you could clarify your views on the proposal, in light of this new information. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for a scientist
Hi! When editors want to keep certain people or their credentials out of articles, they insist a "scientist" must be lettered in the subject at issue and must be currently publishing in that field. Scott's PhD is in anthropology; I'm unaware of any actual research she's published in peer-reviewed journals in anthropology or evolution or biology or anything else. (This, imo, doesn't count.) Nevertheless, I believe she is a qualified professional at NCSE. I'm quibbling because I get annoyed with doorkeepers who have double standards; you may not be one, but I've run across this often. Take Dembski, for example, who WP will not call a mathematician.

I explained on the article talk page that I wasn't thinking of providing a voice in unison from the scientific community, but the various responses, which is why I started out with, "Within the scientific community, reaction has varied from quick dismissal to sarcastic rebuttal to constructive public education." Now that I've found the deleted text, I see you are aiming for a consensual voice. This is not a sticking point with me, despite my druthers. I'm short on time; if you have time to reinsert that into the article, I'd be grateful. Yopienso (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ?? What is this then? Critical fat, menarche, and the maintenance of menstrual cycles: A critical review and Dental wear scoring technique A more thorough cv is found on page 31 in this I agree that the petulance over mentioning the qualifications or degrees of Dembski or Berlinski is uncalled for. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, current research in her own field. Her CV (and thanks for pointing me to it) shows where her career took a new direction; note the hiatus in publishing as she regrouped and undoubtedly educated herself:
 * 1996 Dealing with antievolutionism. In J. Scotchmoor and F.K. McKinney, eds., Learning from the fossil record, Paleontology Society Paper Number Two, pp. 15–28.
 * 1987 Anti-evolutionism, scientific creationism, and physical anthropology. Yearbook ofPhysical Anthropology 30:21–39.
 * 1986 Science, nutrition, fat, and policy: Tests of the critical fat hypothesis. (F.E. Johnston is second author.) Current Anthropology 26:463–473.
 * Again, I respect her and accept her assertions. She does not stoop to rudeness or sarcasm, except for the "Steve" project. She is thoroughly professional in every sense of the word, except she has no earned degree in biology. I'm just pointing out a grave inconsistency at WP which I see you are fully aware of and disagree with like I do. Another area is if blogs are RSs. Well, it seems to depend on who likes what they say. (This is developing as blogging develops.)
 * Very best wishes to you; I must click out of WP now and get to work. Yopienso (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No quibble with you there that she underwent a career change and that her later publications are more advocacy than peer reviewed research. But physical anthropology is a scientifically based discipline that concentrates on on human evolution, so I think the objection "no degree in biology" is nitpicking. Geologists and astrophysicists too are scientists who don't have degrees in biology.  This isn't really about her, is it, but I sense that it's about who is the most notable or representative "scientist" to highlight in the article.  I'm saying that the most notable, representative voices to highlight are those who carry the most clout in the ID issue.  I'm less inclined to highlight those who are simply the most provoking or blogbuzzy. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Evolution as fact and theory
Hi-- I've added a few comments to the talkpage for this article, and invite you to take a look. Thanks. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a note
Greetings. Drop me an email if you need access to Human evolutionary genomics: ethical and interpretive issues. Cheers. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Review
Please be advised that the Arbitration Committee has now opened a Review of the background relating to the Request for Amendment at which you submitted a statement. A Review is a streamlined version of case, with a short window for presenting evidence.

The Committee invites any evidence you may wish to give directly related to any of the following matters:


 * 1) Is Mathsci engaging in improper conduct in respect of Ferahgo the Assassin?
 * 2) Is Mathsci being harassed by socks?
 * 3) Should Mathsci be pursuing socks in the R&I topic?
 * 4) Are the contributions of Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam, outside of article space, functionally indistinguishable?
 * 5) Should Ferahgo the Assassin be site-banned coterminously with Captain Occam per WP:SHARE?

Evidence should be presented on the review evidence page and should be posted by 26 March 2012 at the very latest.

For the Arbitration Committee

Mlpearc ( powwow ) 16:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me good sir
But could you tell me how to deal with this individual AndytheGrump who follows my every contribution and even deletes my talk page entries on pages not even relating to the topics that initially brought him and I into a confrontation. Thank you. RhymeNero (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey
Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,

the wub (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Signature needed
I like your comment at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, but you hit ` instead of ~ for the signature. I know you'll see that in due course, but I thought I would alert you (no need for a reply). Johnuniq (talk) 11:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Clarification
Hi. This may be unwise but I was just wondering if you would clarify this sentence you wrote as part of a comment on a recent arbitration process here:

It's wonderfully articulated but to whom are you referring? Thanks FiachraByrne (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also could you generalise about how prevalent sock puppets tend to be on R&I related pages? FiachraByrne (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Case Comment
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Weaponbb7 (talk)

Request for comment on Talk:Race and genetics
Hello. Your input is requested for RfC at Talk:Race_and_genetics regarding Dawkins' position on Lewontin in the article. Your assistance will be appreciated. You have received this request if you have previously edited the section “Lewontin's argument and criticism” of Race and genetics or participated in WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the topic. BlackHades (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Abington School District v. Schempp
Hello,

Why did you revert my contribution on Abington School District v. Schempp?

Thanks ModelUN (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Assbaggery, and your recognition thereof
What, ye doubt the assbaggery thereunto attested?!??! 65.111.186.65 (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=586596905 your edit] to The Best Show on WFMU with Tom Scharpling may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * | last_aired        = December, 17 2013