User talk:Raeky/Archives/2012/November

WikiCup 2012 October newsletter
The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to, our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: (2007),  (2008),  (2009),  (2010) and  (2011). Our final standings were as follows:



Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.


 * The featured article award goes to, for four featured articles in the final round.
 * The good article award also goes to, for 19 good articles in the second round.
 * The list award goes to, for three featured lists in the final round.
 * The topic award goes to, for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
 * The did you know award goes to, for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
 * The news award goes to, for 10 in the news items in round 3.
 * The picture award goes to, for two featured pictures in round 2.
 * The reviewer award goes to both (14 reviews in round 1) and  (14 reviews in round 3).
 * Finally, for achieving an incredible bonus point total in the final round, and for bringing the top-importance article frog to featured status, a biostar has been awarded to.

Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Wikipedia has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.

Next year's WikiCup will begin in January. Currently, discussions and polls are open, and all contributions are welcome. You can also sign up for next year's competition. There will be no further newsletters this year, although brief notes may be sent out in December to remind everyone about the upcoming competition. It's been a pleasure to work with you all, and we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Narrative inquiry
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Narrative inquiry. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The macroevolution edit that you undid.
To me, it's not worth the bother discussing this. Unless you want to take the time to read what the guy has to say (which seems fairly valid to me), I don't think you'll change your mind. Oh well. Koolokamba (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To be "valid" his ideas need to be discussed in peer-reviewed literature, a website is meaningless and not credible. — raeky  t  14:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As an aside from a passing editor, the use of the third person in discussing one's own work is in poor form. A past indicates that the editor and theory's self-publisher are one and the same.Novangelis (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the use of third person, but self publishing is all the rage nowadays, as you must know. To me, "valid" is anything that makes sense. However, the link was to a book that was, in fact, peer reviewed (see: http://www.macroevolution.net/complete-review.html) and, indeed, very nearly published by Oxford University Press. But this is a theoretical work, and theoretical works are different from conventional scientific publications because they attempt to communicate ideas and perspectives, not facts and methods that have to be verified by reviewers. So I would argue that such works do not even really need peer review. The Origin of Species, for example, was not peer reviewed, and I can only imagine what negative reviews it would have received from contemporary scholars if it had been. And yet, I think anyone would admit that that book was scientifically valid. Why deny users of Wikipedia even a link to an alternative way of thinking about the evolutionary process? It's not as if I tried to edit the highly biased content of Wikipedia's account of macroevolution. I do think though that Wikipedia's users deserve a link so that they will at least have the chance of considering a different, but fully scientific way of thinking about the issues discussed on that page. Anyway, about enough! What's really important is that I need to go to the gym right now. Koolokamba (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Correction, it wasn't peer-reviewed, it was rejected by Oxford University Press because it failed peer-review. The author is spinning the rejection to make it sound like his "book" is more credible than it is. Plus publishing a book from an academic publisher isn't nearly sufficient for inclusion in these articles, it would need secondary peer-reviewed reviews and if it was anything at all worthy of study by his peers there would be tons of followup studies, papers, books, and lots of talk about his ideas within the scientific community. Self-published is not a reliable source for a science article about science. Therefore this link also fails wp:el — raeky  t  16:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No. It didn't fail or pass peer review. There were six reviews, about half favorable, half negative. It was my acquisitions editor, who was a weenie, who made the decision to reject. He wanted everyone one to agree that it was great. But how likely is that. Anyway, must go to the gym now. Koolokamba (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like it failed to me, are you Eugene M. McCarthy? Definitely sounds like you have a WP:COI which means adding this link is probably WP:PROMOTION. — raeky  t  17:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Back from the gym. Whether it's a conflict of interest would depend on the motive for putting the link there. Mine is purely to inform. It's not like I'm making any money off of this. It's merely that I taught and read about biology and genetics for years and it became clear to me that there are some fundamental problems with standard evolutionary theory, which is the perspective expressed in the discussion on the page where I put the link. I did not, however, try to alter the discussion in any way. And I certainly wouldn't make any money or benefit in any other way from people following that link. Do you really consider it a bad thing, or somehow a conflict of interest for people to consider an alternative viewpoint? If so, then Wikipedia has a real problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koolokamba (talk • contribs) 19:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I just checked, and the amount of traffic to my website from Wikipedia is minuscule. In the last month it accounts for a mere 732 visits out of a total of 268,818 visits to the site. Do you really think I'd compromise myself for that? Nonsense!
 * Sorry. I forgot to sign the previous two comments. Koolokamba (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't accuse you of anything untoward, I just stated what our policies are. Monetary benefit isn't the only reason people engage in WP:PROMOTION. There is no reason why you can't contribute to these articles, but you linking to you your self-published book would generally not be accepted at Wikipedia. If there are fundamental problems with our Macroevolution article which simply states Macro=Micro=Evolution and the distinction between the two is creationist mumbo-jumbo and MOSTLY only used by them. Then feel free to point those out on the article's talk page. — raeky  t  19:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I linked to my book because it clearly explains what the problems are with that page. But in short, the problem is that the perspective expressed in Wikipedia's discussion of macroevolution is theory laden, and thus biased. What tells you whether that bias is reasonable or not, is the validity of the axioms that underlie the theory. I can talk to you all day, but it won't change the axioms you accept. The only way I can possibly accomplish that is to refer you to my book and hope that you choose to read it and consider the arguments expressed there. Believe me, I'm only talking about this because I genuinely believe that there are basic errors in conventional theory, and I think it would be wrong of me, on such an important issue, not to point those problems out. I gain nothing by trying to communicate those errors to others. In my view, being a scientist and doing science is an ongoing process of improving our understanding of the world. My duty as a scientist is to aid that process. That's why I linked to my book. Let's just say this: I really doubt that you would have said any of the things that you have if you had taken the time first to read the material that I linked to. I challenge you: Start reading it at the beginning and read it to the end. If you do, I bet you'll drop all your objections. Koolokamba (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Without reading the entire book, and lets be honest because that will never happen, I just skipped to your conclusions at the end:

"To me, the various living forms have a far greater value when they are seen as ancient and unchanging, existing today much a they did when they came into being long ago, in the remoteness of time. They become something more than mere pawns, forever changing at the behest of a tyrannical environment. When a new type of organism comes into being via a stabilization process, the primary selective factor is reproductive stability — a stable reproductive cycle must be established or the new form will fail to maintain itself in existence. If it survives, the new type spreads into all geographic regions to which it is suited and has access. If it ceases to have access to a suitable environment, it simply goes extinct. It does not gradually change into a new type that can tolerate a new environment. Under this view, a form's genetic make-up plays at least as great a role in determining its characteristics as does the environment. In fact, it generally plays a far greater one. Once a new type of organism has stabilized, the environment may place limits on growth, health, and activities, but it does not significantly change the nature or potential of that type of organism, even with the passage of time on a geological scale. Living forms, under this view, are beyond and above the environment."
 * That pretty much tells me all I need to know, it sounds like Creationism, that all things are created within their kinds, can't change from their kinds, all that mumbo-jumbo. The logic in that paragraph is that nothing changes, therefore no new forms (kinds) can come to be, it just survives, moves or goes extinct as the environment changes. It also means it's throwing away with the bulk of the current synthesis which is bat-shit-crazy wp:fringe. Unless reading your conclusion section of the book leads one to draw completely different conclusions than what the body of the book said, then it's plainly obvious why an academic publisher would run from this book once the reviews came in. It's not a matter of making shit up in scientist's heads that came up with the current Theory of Evolution, there's crap tons of actual observed real data and events in there as well, that populations of organisms change over time as the result of changing environment isn't just a hypothesis, it's observed fact. Your whole book seems to want to refute the facts of evolution? Am I making a big misscharacterization of it? — raeky  t  20:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm no creationist. Bring me a cross and I'll spit on it. But the fact that the typical fossil form appears abruptly in the fossil record and persists unchanged for millions of years before going extinct (punctuated equilibrium) is not something I've made up. It's a documented fact that does need to be explained. (One obvious example is the horseshoe crab, which hasn't changed in any significant way in the last 400 million years. This is an extreme example, of course. Most only hang around about 10 million before going extinct.) And I'm not fringe, I taught biology and genetics at the University of Georgia for fifteen years and I have a PhD in population genetics. Suppose, just suppose, that your whole perspective on evolution was flawed at an axiomatic level. In that case someone with a correct point of view would seem insane to you. You jump to the end and quote my conclusions out of context without reading any of the reasoning or facts that led me to those conclusions. So, of course, from your viewpoint it would seem "bat-shit crazy." I admit that out of context, they do sound wacky and do smack of creationism. But they certainly do not if you take the time to absorb the context. Any new theory seems nutty to people that are unfamiliar with the reasoning that underlies it. But some things can't be fairly decided in a moment. They have to be thought about and discussed in detail. The only way that you will be able to make a fair decision about this is to begin at the beginning and read through what I say. Of course, there's no requirement for you to be fair, and if you think you already know everything you need to know about this issue, then just say so and I will disturb you no more. I can tell you though, that I've studied this topic now for more than thirty years, much of that time in a formal academic setting, and I might just know something that you don't. Koolokamba (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd add in response to your comment above that in my book I do not try to refute the facts of evolution. What I do is try to offer an improved genetic explanation of them. Koolokamba (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That may be, but it's not readily apparent by your book. Have you published any journal articles on these ideas? Horseshoe crabs are an interesting example, their skeleton being made of chitin did not preserve very well, so few examples exist if I remember right and mostly are just the carapace and telson, and the species that exists today is definitely not the species that is fossilized, same genus probably but definitely not same species, so it's inaccurate to say that they're unchanged for hundreds of millions of year's. It wouldn't be hard to believe that there has been nearly as much genetic evolution and speciation within the Xiphosurida as any other slowly evolving species. Fossils are extremely rare events, and only a small fraction of species that ever existed left fossils behind, so it's hard to make such generalizations about the fossilization record that you seem to be making. It's pretty clear that if the environment isn't changing much then organisms do not change very fast, but in rapidly changing environments, there can be rapid evolution which likely would never show up in the fossil record which is why we see one form then another form with rarely a great gradient between the two. We can clearly see A and B are very similar. Only in some pretty unique situations do we get a near perfect timeline of fossils as species change, like microscopic organisms in marine sediments. — raeky  t  21:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything that you can see in ancient fossils of horseshoe crabs appears identical to the living organisms today. Why then would we suppose that the features that weren't preserved were different? I've never understood why anyone would think that. Stasis is a big problem for conventional theory because the same type of organism often exists in a broad range of environments and persists unchanged despite changing environmental factors. And it's not just the horseshoe crab, which is an outlier, a type that has been especially stable for an especially long period of time. Most other fossil forms are the same way; it's just that they don't survive as long. And as for fossils being rare, yes, of course they are. But they are all that we really know about the nature of past life on earth. And even if we suppose that new forms arise in the fossil record, as you seem to suggest, via brief periods of change in which shifts in population frequencies rapidly occur, it's hard to see why such shifts do not continue to occur during the subsequent millions of years of stasis (at least it is under conventional theory). It's not enough to say that the traits are constrained by the environment, since as I've already mentioned the same type of organism often exists in very distinct types of environments. For example, the killer whale exists in all oceanic waters from pole to pole. Are we to believe that tropical waters have the same formative influence as arctic seas? That seems implausible to me. Besides, the notion of an environment influencing the form of an organism is largely hypothetical in comparison to the well-documented stabilization processes that I describe in my book. One such process is hybridization. One example is dawn redwood x sequoia = coast redwood, the tallest tree on earth. That's a documented fact. But when you don't know it, you might suppose the coast redwood arose gradually under the influence of natural selection. And it's not clear that there is any correspondence between the rate of environmental change and the rate of evolution. This is obvious from the example that I just gave. The coast redwood came into existence as the result of hybridization, not as a consequence of some change in its environment. And yes, I have published on this topic, but it's a theoretical highly mathematical article that I'm not sure you'd be interested in. I can give you the reference, though, if you want. I really think, though, that the ideas that I'm trying to put across are much easier to understand when expressed without mathematics as I do in my book. It's all documented and clear. And, finally, in response to your dig about my book, they didn't run from it at Oxford: It was actually under contract with them for a year and the reviews were mixed. I think the main problem, besides my editor being a weenie, was that I was unwilling to compromise and introduce statements that I considered erroneous simply to placate a couple of the reviewers. Koolokamba (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, in case I don't respond until tomorrow: This discussion is taking way more of my time than I planned or expected and I have two little girls that I have to spend time with right now. Think about what I've said and if you make any further comments, I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Koolokamba (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There's some fundamental mistakes here, for example there are four extant species of horseshoe crab that are quite easily identifiable from eachother, and it's clear from any taxonomist that the fossilized specimensare not the same species as those for. There's tons online about horseshoe crab evolution, and the myth of "living fossils" (there are none, btw). As Gould states in his 1989 book "Wonderful life: The Burgess shale and their nature of history" on page 43 the current genus Limulus only developed about 20 mybp. In Prothero's book "What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" on pages 189-191 he outlines the evolution of the horseshoe crab from Aglaspis eatoni (Cambrian) -> Pseudoniscus roosewelti (Silurian) -> Belinurus alleganyensis (Devonian) -> Prestwichinella rotundala (Carboniferous) -> Paleolimulus avitus (Permian) -> Mesolimulus walchi (Jurassic) -> Limulus polyphemus (modern). It's pretty clear to taxonomists that these older fossils are so fundamentally different in morphology that they don't put them in the same genus as modern Limulus and your assertion is clearly baseless and demonstrably false even by a non-Ph.D. undergrad as myself. I don't see any peer-reviewed research that back's up your claim that the modern Limulus is essentially the same species going back hundreds of millions of years, all reputable scientists clearly identify "living fossils" as myths drummed up by creationists. I'd love to see papers that say otherwise? As for large predatory aquatic mammals, like the Killer Whale, of course it would take advantage of any habitat it can find food at globally, but it's not an old species, the Killer Whale group didn't evolve until about 35 mybp and whales as a whole are pretty recent only showing up as what we'd consider a whale about not much earlier then that anyway. Whale's are a wonderful example of rapid evolution from a land animal, and we have wonderful transitional fossils showing the whole process... so I'm not sure what whale's have to do to support your hypothesis, they're clearly evolving, and fast. Even Killer Whales are evolving toady quite rapidly, a lot of papers on it now. Plants are a whole different bag of worms though for evolution, hybridization and polyploidy are quite common and give arise to new species on the drop of a hat. It's not quite comparable though to animals since they're evolution isn't like that. Myself I'm considering specializing in plant taxonomy for my graduate work, University of Georgia is one school I was looking at, lol. Sequoia sempervirens (D. Don) Endl. known as the Redwood, California Redwood or Coast Redwood arose via a polyploidy hybrid of some unknown extinct ancient species (Sclarbaum, S. E., and T. Tsuchiya. 1984. A chromosome study of coast redwood, Sequoia sempervirens (D. Don) Endl. Silvae Genetica 3(2/3):56-62.) and not a hybrid that you seem to state, where is your source on that? — raeky  t  01:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see a lot of problems with what you said in your last post. But before I respond, please answer this: Are you rejecting the whole idea that punctuated equilibrium is the characteristic pattern in the fossil record? Or are you merely rejecting the claim that living fossils exist? Thanks. Koolokamba (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I've seen no response to my simple question, I'm thinking now that you imagine you know it all and have somehow won the argument by avoiding answering my questions. If so, that's okay. There are a lot of people like that and I can live with them (it's the age-old ostrich mentality), even if I can't respect them. However, if my assessment of your character is mistaken, and you do in fact think there's some possibility that you might be wrong about some of your beliefs, then send me an email (http://www.macroevolution.net/contact.html). I'll be happy to continue our debate. I will not, however, be coming back to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koolokamba (talk • contribs) 23:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, I was just at school all day and just got home, so didn't have a chance to answer, but no I don't reject PE but do reject "living fossil" which I think the majority of science rejects that term. — raeky  t  23:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. Sorry I misjudged you. Actually, it's lucky I saw this last post of yours--I had only come back to replace my email address with the contact URL for Macroevolution.net so that I wouldn't get spammed. Anyway, to get back to what we were talking about, I don't see how you can be consistent in your thinking if you accept PE and yet reject the existence living fossils. As I understand it--and I do think this is correct--PE is really just a broad description of the nature of evolutionary dynamics based on fossil data, and that observation, in short, is this: The typical fossil form appears abruptly--at a certain lowermost level or stratum (and therefore at a certain earliest known date)--and then persists unchanged, typically for millions of years before it goes extinct (stasis). These are the two main points that Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge, coiners of the term punctuated equilibrium, harp on in all of their writings. So if you accept this, I don't see how you can possibly fail to accept the existence of living fossils, because given the above definition of PE, living fossils would merely represent extreme cases of PE, outliers in which the form in question persists unchanged for far longer than does the average fossil form. I realize that a creationist might choose to say that the lack of change in living fossils seems consistent with religious claims of immutability, but I think to a scientist they merely represent exceptions to a norm that is entirely inconsistent with religious notions of immutability. So, before we go further do you agree with the assessments in this post? If so, then we can say that there are in fact living fossils, and we can return to other, more specific points in your post above (the one about horseshoe crabs). If not, please explain how living fossils could fail to exist if PE is the rule. I really don't see how that could be the case, but I'm willing to listen. Once again, please accept my apologies for what I now believe was an unfair assessment of your character. Koolokamba (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine, couple days a week I'm in class until quite late... heh. You're forgetting things like genetic drift which we know that even in times of "stasis," a term you like, that populations change. And there are no "living fossils" as your describing it I don't think. There are plenty of things that are called living fossils (Living_fossils) but generally they're living examples of that grouping of organisms that are represented in the fossil record, and your example you like, the Horseshoe Crab, the Atlantic horseshoe crab is not found in the fossil record. You can't assume that just because things look similar in the fossil record that they're the same species. One of the key characteristics of the (generally most common given definition for) a biological species is that they interbreed, it doesn't take much genetically or behaviorally or spatially to prevent that which would make them different species. A skeleton, or a carapace isn't enough information to confirm that it's the same species or not, just that it's similar. Theres paleontologists and taxonomists at UGA, I's suggest you discuss your theories with them, I kinda doubt they're going to widely very from what I'm saying, but you never know. I do agree that PE is a component of the current synthesis, but not a huge component. Even Gould himself states that people misunderstand PE to be what your stating "an unchanging stasis." Organisms change over time, slowly, even without evolutionary selective pressure, and these do show up in the fossil record, just not as often because these changes may not always reflect something that can be preserved as a fossil. We know from living examples that it happens. So again I'm confused, you seem to be arguing for a near complete stoppage of evolution during your "stasis" time which is NOT the current understanding of evolution... — raeky  t  13:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't get back to you today. Too much correspondence. I'll post something tomorrow morning. Goodnight.Koolokamba (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The first thing I should say in response to your comments is that I am obviously much older than you. I'll be 58 next Wednesday, whereas you, as an undergraduate -- unless you are an older student -- must be in the 20±2 range. More than thirty years difference. When I was your age, I was majoring in math (my undergraduate degree is a B.S. in mathematics). But I switched to genetics, in which I first got a masters and, eventually, a Ph.D. It seemed to me that there was a lot more to find out in biology than in mathematics, also I've been interested in evolution and human prehistory since I was in about the fourth grade, which led me to focus on population genetics. But it was about thirty years ago that I first really got into studying evolution in a formal setting. In the time since, of course, I've had innumerable conversations about evolution and evolutionary theory with friends, colleagues, and students. I've also read, probably, thousands of papers and books bearing on the topic. I've also spent a large part of those years thinking and writing about this subject. Given all this, you'll probably believe me when I say that very little of what you have said is, in any inherent way, new to me. Perhaps the only thing that's new there is the way that you've phrased your claims -- the exact sentences that you've produced are new, but the basic claims are things I've heard many, many times before. Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing you. You're young and it's not easy to come up with anything that's really new in the field of evolutionary biology. There are plenty of brainy people who have tried for years to do that and failed. Now, given all this, perhaps you can imagine -- simply because I have had far longer to study and think about these issues than you have -- that I might see what I think are flaws in your way of thinking about evolution. So I'll just say that, if you want, I'm perfectly happy to explain the problems that I see with your ideas. But they'll have to be dealt with one at a time, and in a certain order. I can easily imagine, too, that you might just consider me arrogant to say all this, and not be interested at all. But if you want to do this, then the logical place to start, in my opinion, would be a discussion of the term species. In your last post, you placed a lot of emphasis on this word, but I notice also that even you yourself are aware that there are problems with defining species. The first question I would ask you, then, is: Do you think it's sensible for people to reason with each other using arguments that depend on terms that lack any clear and consistent meaning? Koolokamba (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm 34, so I'm an adult learner going back to complete my Biology degree. ;-) You're more then welcome to say what you think is wrong with my way of thinking. If you note I said the "common" biological definition for a species, but yes, I'm well aware of the "species problem." My friend is plowing through Jerry Coyne's book Speciation in an independent study this semester so I've picked up quite a bit of that very thick book, it's not a simple problem defining what a species is, and no one definition works for all taxa. — raeky  t  22:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I have to reiterate the question I asked on Friday (I don't think we'll get very far until you answer it): Do you think it's sensible for people to reason with each other using arguments that depend on terms that lack any clear and consistent meaning? By the way, I'm cited--in a complimentary way--in Coyne's book. Koolokamba (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You've accused me of breaking rules and gotten me in trouble with the faceless Wikipedia administration (although I admit their retaliatory measures haven't really hurt me in any significant way). But you know, I've come to realize that you, too, are a rule breaker. At the top of this page one of the primary rules of Wikipedia is listed: Assume good faith. I went to the Wikipedia page about this policy and it says, "Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." You haven't done this. And I know, even if you don't, that I have always been trying to help Wikipedia and its users, not hurt them. So that means you've broken one of the basic rules at the top of the list, not one of the minor ones that I, according to you, broke. To me, self-promotion can only be self-promotion if you are thinking about promoting yourself. I rarely ever do that and when I do, I'm not good at it. I promote ideas and facts. That's the only thing I'm good at. Sadly, my recent interchanges with you and your cronies has convinced me that Wikipedia can never, ever be a first-rate, reliable source of information. That can never be in an organization governed by a lynch mob. So I'll just look at the time I've spent here as a learning experience and move on to other things. Certainly, I will never again try to improve Wikipedia. I now look on that as a waste of time. Koolokamba (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not my fault you shot yourself in the foot, that you misrepresented who you was previous to this conversation on other parts of Wikipedia. It's obvious if your hiding that your the website owner that you're aware that it's not appropriate. Way up in this conversation I linked our policies like WP:EL and WP:PROMOTION. It's also plainly obvious that you're views on evolution constitutes WP:FRINGE. The fact you have a Ph.D. is meaningless to any of these conversations, it's an appeal to authority. I definitely didn't break WP:AGF, when I first encountered you I reverted your link telling you to discuss it on the talk page, in accordance with WP:BRD, there is no admin that would fault me for that revert or suggestion and that's typically how we handle editors who add something that appears against consensus. — raeky  t  16:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say who I was originally because someone I knew had come on Wikipedia defending my theories and was getting cut to pieces by anonymous critics. He needed some help pointing out the flaws in their arguments. I didn't even know that he was going to do that and I didn't really think that much about how I was presenting myself. I was thinking more about his situation than how I might appear. Really, until he came on and started that debate, I don't think I've ever engaged in any discussions on Wikipedia. There might be something, but I don't remember. Anyway, none of this changes my opinion that Wikipedia will never be a reliable source of information, not like my website is. The issue of how I've been treated is only one factor that leads me to that conclusion. I remember trying to change some basic errors in one of the pages, for example, I think it was about mitosis and the errors were actually locked in because the page had for some reason been under attack by the Mormons! I can assure you that issues like that never come up on my website. There are other pages, like your Macroevolution page, where a pack of biased individuals hover over it making sure only one viewpoint can ever get across. Maybe you guys should think about bringing back the Inquisition. Probably if you could physically torture me like that I would think twice about opposing your conformist views. But really, all makes me think that I should focus on my own website and do what I can there to overcome the false ideas put out by this herd-driven, monolithic, political bureaucracy that calls itself an encyclopedia. The "wiki concept" is now anathema to me. You needn't bother to respond to this. It's my final message. I've just made myself a solemn promise never to look at anything on Wikipedia again. I find it too contemptible for words. Koolokamba (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Takes America/Chicago images
Unless there are further developments, you will only need to examine the claimed contributions at the following pages:


 * 1) Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes America/Chicago/User:TonyTheTiger-Photos
 * 2) Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes America/Chicago/User:Taric25-Photos
 * 3) Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes America/Chicago/User:Thshriver-Photos

Basically, we need you to note any changes that did not augment the encyclopedic content of wikipedia. Why don't you comment at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Takes America/Chicago regarding any claimed contributions that you think diminished the encyclopedic content of the encyclopedia. I think there will be a few claims that are problematic. Among the problems that you should be looking for are the following once the month ends.


 * 1) Adding a picture to a page that one should not.
 * 2) Replacing a picture that one should not.
 * 3) Displacing a picture to a less prominent place when one should not.

Thanks for your assistance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'll get it done in the next few days. ;-) — raeky  t  15:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took me so long to get too it, had a lot of things going on. Taric25's pictures seemed to be mostly unhelpful in the articles he put them in, that and he consistently put a REF source to his twitter feed in all those pages which I deleted what I found, I don't think that is a WP:RS and probably definitely spam or some sort of promotion. Ended up deleting a lot of his additions to articles because he was putting FAR to many images in stubs and it wasn't at all adding value to the article. No issues with yours or Thshriver's images. — raeky  t  13:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Derek McCulloch
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Derek McCulloch. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Shouting at FP
Per WP:SHOUT, please don't uppercase or bold your words. It comes across as shouting. It makes your comments agressive. And it makes you look silly when it turns out you are wrong (e.g., copyright of flat carpets). I'm reminded of the Annkathrin Kammeyer FP where you and Plutonium had a complete sense-of-humour failure at my Sharbat Gula joke (didn't spot the smilie did you, too hot in the head to notice). You were wrong there too, wrt historical precedent of headshot portraits. Yet somehow you thought your argument would have more weight if written uppercase. Folk will disagree at FP and that's fine. Having a discussion about it is also fine, and should happen more often IMO. But please stop shouting. Colin°Talk 13:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * THIS IS WP:SHOUT AND OVER THE TOP, AND UNACCEPTABLE. BUT TO USE JUST STRATEGICALLY PLACED BOLD WORDS OR CAPITALIZED WORDS PUTS EMPHASIS ON THE LANGUAGE, AND ISN'T AGAINST POLICY OR RULES. I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS AND WHAT WAS DONE AT FPC? — raeky  t  13:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Which part of "CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate" are you having problems with? -- Colin°Talk 13:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What part of that is a policy stating you can't emphasize words in a statement? It says there are better ways to go about things, but I HIGHLY doubt (see what I did just there) a rational person would consider what I did as "shouting" and aggressive. So what point is it to come to my talk page to complain about it? You want go report me to someone about my inappropriate behavior on FPC? Go ahead. Here, on my talk page, I am allowed a bit more leeway when it comes to being pointy and curt with people. — raeky  t  13:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about what you do on your talk page? I'm talking about FP. And ask any rational person about your comments at FP and they will conclude you are shouting and agressive. You are emphasising key words IN A LOUD VOICE to signal that clearly the other person in the discussion is a bit dense. Your "report me" comment is just typical of how you seek to escalate a situation rather than calmly discuss issues. Find another way to get your point across. Colin°Talk 14:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Suicide of Amanda Todd
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Suicide of Amanda Todd. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 08:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Takes America/Chicago
Thank you for your comments for our photo contest. I read over all of them, and to address some of your concerns about copyright, I e-mailed OTRS in order to clear any discrepancy. They issued Ticket # 2012111310011563, which I added to each of the image description pages on Wikimedia Commons with the OTRS template.

Otherwise, you did bring up some valid concerns. Before I address them, I would like you to invite you to go over them yourself. There were a few gramatical errors you made, and I noticed a tone that was more negative than constructive criticism. I understand you probably didn't intend to write that way, so since we have never written to each other before, I would like to get off on the right foot in order to avoid turning this into some of the shouting matches I see at AfD with editors talking about grammar and tone of voice and how many times the same editior bring up the same concenrn over and over again, etcetera instead of the content itself, thanks. ☺ Would you please leave a message on my talk page when you finish? Taric25 (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend them to come off to harshly, but I did get progressively more annoyed by your twitter link you kept putting in as a reference, which is directly against policies. The image in question File:Belmont-Sheffield Trust and Savings Bank plaque by Taric Alani.jpg is a picture of a text plaque, the copyright is the text held presumably by the Chicago landmark commission, or some other entity that wrote it, the OTRS would have to be FROM the person/group that wrote the text on the plaque, otherwise it's a copyright violation. Grammatically it may not be the best comments I've ever written, I was a bit rushed reviewing all for that event, but I'm going to assume my point came across. If you want to discuss any of the issues I found in your image placement or overloading articles with pictures, feel free. I prefer to respond on my talk page when someone starts a conversation there. — raeky  t  00:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, I didn't see you edited any of your comments. If you prefer not to cooperate, would you please recuse yourself and redact your statements so that we can find someone who is more familiar with the subject matter? Taric25 (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Which comments you think should be editied, the tone is intentional because you was violating policies... after looking through your history it looks like you have a thing with putting your twitter as references on pages, so far I haven't had time to address that with the appropriate notice board yet... I said if there was any of my comments you dont understand I'd explain it, but I'm not going to edit them to be nice and hold your hand. — raeky  t  14:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not asking in any way shape or form for you to hold my hand. Again, you brought up some good points. I simply asked if you would edit your comments for repetition, tone, spelling and grammar. You do not have to cooperate. That is your choice, and if it is, then I request you recuse yourself and redact your statements so that we can find someone who is more familiar with the subject matter, such as a Wikipedian who lives in Chicago. Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's seems as if you want me to redact my comments about your improper use of the images, WP:NOTGALLERY and improper use of inline citations to link to your twitter account... I'm not going too.. so again, is there anything you don't understand in my grammar or spelling you need to me clarify, specifically. As for requesting someone else to do this task, feel free, but no-one else even bothered to comment to Tony's request, so good luck. You're starting to get on my nerves, and after a VERY brief look at your editing history it seems you don't understand how to use inline citations and this twitter thing is a common occurrence. Maybe an appropriate notice board would be where we should take it? — raeky  t  08:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Paul Watson
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Paul Watson. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Featured_picture_candidates/The_Early_Poems_of_Alfred,_Lord_Tennyson
Done, but after spending 4 hours wrestling with that detestable upload wizard, I think I hate you a little. ;) Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * lol, I just think its useful for restorations. Thanks. — raeky  t  18:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, aye. It's just that uploading a set is a pain, even before you discover that you had accidentally uploaded copies of some (but not all!) of the originals a few years ago, which makes the upload tool give errors. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, did you mean to vote? Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)