User talk:Schmitty120/Archive 1

Hi Schmitty, I am a medically retired teacher and writer of manuals,in Australia. I too like to do some proofreading. The one on the supernatural does need a lot of work, and I have reworked the first pars today. Saw your stuff and approved. Hava a look and, if you like, get in touch and we'll see if we can drum this into shape. I've also done a fair bit on the "Twin Paradox", "Elephants" etc. Keep up the good work. --Myles325a 05:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Impressed
Hi Schmitty. I have taken a keen interest in your edits all over Wikipedia, and I must say that you are remarkably knowledgeable, eloquent, and well-versed for a "high school student" -- particularly an American one! You ought to encounter no trouble at all getting into the undergraduate university of your choice. Do you have any favorite subjects? Physics is an interesting one. TxMCJ 22:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you-those are some pretty high complements. Yes, I am, in fact, a homeschooled high school student. I am passionately in love with encyclopedias. My favorite subjects of study vary...it used to be math, now it is mostly science and history. I tried my hand at some physics earlier this year but found it a bit over my level. My parents let me have a rather free-form schedule, so I decided I would do biology. Sifting through the creation/evolution controversy has worn me out mentally...I think I will pick up more biology next year, since this one's almost over. I am strongly inclined to believe that evolution is correct, and that science cannot use supernatural causes as explanations for phenomena. So, again, thank you, and good day. Schmitty120 22:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Even more fascinating, and I daresay almost incredible, even bordering on suspicious. Homeschooled students tend to be, more often than not, on the lower-end of the spectrum of knowledge and eloquence, rather than the higher-end.  How you are learning about things like falsifiability and pseudoscience and evolution AT HOME, at the age you claim to be, is beyond me!  Passionately in love with encyclopedias, huh?  Interesting!  I am also curious (if your favorite subjects are science and history) why your only Wikipedia interests seem to be in the Supernatural, and arguably non-scientific suggestions to the article on Evolution?  Also (curious again), what you mean by "this year's almost over" -- are you saying that your homeschooling has an "academic year" like other schools?  Not trying to give you the Spanish Inquisition here, but the background you claim to have is really quite incredible. TxMCJ 23:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're not trying to give me the Spanish Inquisition, then don't, because the way you are hinting at possible ulterior motives on my part hurts my credibility as an editor. Put yourself in my shoes. Suppose that you had made some unusual posts and someone accused you of not really being an evolutionary biology professor. Fortunately, you could probably produce some evidence from your university's website showing that you are telling the truth. I have no such luxury. Burden of proof should not be on me to demonstrate that I am not engaged in underhanded activities on this Wiki, so I don't see the need to answer your probing questions. But I think you are seeing patterns that aren't there. If you're going to insinuate that I have some kind of grand agenda, then take a really careful look at all my contribs, for I have made some comments that would be superfluous and/or counterproductive if that were the case. Schmitty120 13:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your credibility as an editor on a scientific article like evolution is not hurt by my "hinting", it is hurt by some of the comments you post on the talk pages. I did look at some of your other edits -- such as on the supernatural talk page, where you seem to think a citation is necessary to justify the self-evident maxim that science can and does not address the supernatural.  Again: expressing that kind of doubt or comment is what hurts your credibility as an editor on a scientific article -- not others questioning your motives.  Anyway, I am not asking you for answers or proof, I just think your account (and its complete history) looks a whole lot like a sockpuppet for someone who's been editing at Wikipedia for much, much longer.  That's not an accusation, it's just an opinion, but I also don't believe that you are of high school age or education either.  Again just an opinion, based on lots and lots of experience I've had with students at all levels, but all of that aside: if there's one thing that *I'm* passionate about, it's keeping a very, very watchful eye out for any sneaky editing and POV-pushing tactics on socially controversial science articles.  Note that socially controversial DOES NOT MEAN scientifically controversial.  We just went through a nightmare situation over at Evolution earlier this month with another editor (which you must certainly know about), so things are a bit touchy and testy over there right now.  The initial question you ask about "scientific acceptance of Evolution" and the kinds of persistent requests you made for changing the FAQ are *classic and typical* of agenda- and POV-pushing editors that drop in and out of Evolution all the time.  We've seen it before, and we'll see it again.  You have my sincere apologies, truly, if my suspicions of your dishonest identity or motives are off-target or unwarranted.  But all of that aside, my advice to you is: if you want to keep editing over at Evolution, you'll enjoy a much longer experience of that if you adhere to the science instead of the social controversy.  There is no scientific controversy, period.  And since there is no scientific and falsifiable alternative to evolutionary theory that explains the data, you are simply wasting everyone's time (and looking a whole lot like a creationist) if you even spend a single moment suggesting that there might be.  My sincere apologies again, and I look forward to reading your future contributions.  TxMCJ 17:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * All right. First I will offer my own sincere apologies because I believe I have indeed gone over my head and eaten away at other's time. I really am acting in good faith, truly. I'm going to just put this whole business down. For the record, if it helps you might want to have a look at my picture. I'm sorry and I feel rather stupid, though I am, in fact, high-school age. Good day. Schmitty120 21:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, no hard feelings -- I don't want to scare you away from Wikipedia or discourage you from editing, but you ought to know (and understand) that Evolution is constantly under attack from individuals with dishonest social or political agendas, and many of them cleverly masquerade as intellectuals and "impartial non-POV" editors. This is why editors like Orangemarlin and Silence and myself have recently tried to maintain some razor-sharp vigilance over at that article.  As you hopefully understand by now, there is no scientific controversy about Evolution whatsoever, but there is a huge social controversy -- but most people do not know the difference between a social controversy and a scientific one, and thus are constantly trying to shed light and get "equal time" for the social controversy, which is not science and thus doesn't justify equal time in equal venues as science.  That's the main issue and it is often all we can do to maintain and preserve the purity of the Evolution article as a science article.  Thanks again -- and my apologies again -- and I hope you continue editing and learning from the process. TxMCJ 23:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I accept your apology and thank you for your compassion. Schmitty120 00:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)