Archives

Barnstars Humor Mainpage ToDo Staging Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

We have disagreed profoundly in the past, but I wanted to say that I agree with pretty much everything you have been saying about the current Arbcom fiasco. DuncanHill (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am very dismayed at this. I am just stunned at the lack of common sense. I made a blog post about it and I also commented on Durova's blog about it. --Filll (talk | wpc) 18:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add (partly in relation to the thread below) that I think you have been making a real effort of late (and not just in the discussion of the Arbcom Follies) to tone down some of your more impassioned and heartfelt posts, and it is noticed and appreciated, by me at least. DuncanHill (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I know you as a very reasonable person. Could you tell me what the context was for this statement? [1].

--Kim Bruning (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly it means he doesn't want to make potentially nasty comments but is obviously being forced to do so against his will... Minkythecat (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you will notice, I quickly thought better of that post and struck removed it [2]. I was and am frustrated at all these incorrect statements, accusations and attacks made on me and some of my fellow editors over and over. It is very hard to stay quiet and see these falsehoods repeated over and over and over. I am doing my best however in the interests of comity and peace to avoid returning fire, as these falsehoods are repeated again and again. As Minkythecat suggests, I do not want to respond and point out the mean spiritedness and inaccuracy of these attacks, hurting people's feelings and bruising egos. I do not want to cause trouble. I do not want to make anyone feel bad or insult or offend anyone. Eventually however, I might respond and mount a defense. And if I do, Sxeptomaniac and others will not like it, I am pretty sure. I apologize to anyone who saw the unstruck comment of mine and was offended or shocked. I am human, and it is hard to see the unfairness and not respond, although I am doing my best.--Filll (talk | wpc) 13:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comment was deleted - not struck - Lar's comments in reply remaining. The comment was :

"Well Sxeptomaniac, in this instance, as well as many others, you are not just wrong, but incredibly wrong. I guess before this is done, we will have to drag you through the mud and make you confront your "misunderstandings". I do not want to do it, but if it has to be done, I guess it will have to be done. I am very sorry about this. I wish there was some other way. Goodness gracious.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

Whilst you're saying it was a comment made in the heat of the moment, which I'd apply WP:AGF to, I'm confused by the fact you used the phrase "we will have to drag you through the mud"? Surely that needs further clarification, as less charitable people could read that as implying an organised campaign, which I'm sure you didn't mean. Minkythecat (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I deleted it. It ended up being struck because someone reinserted it, struck through. And of course, I was questioned on my use of the word "we" [3]. And I explained it at the time that this did not refer to some organized campaign or some attack by a "secret mythical cabal". I explained at the time [4], that was the "royal we" meaning me, and possibly whoever else agreed with me (which would have to be determined, if I ever decided to correct the editor's misunderstanding, which he had and has been repeating over and over and over to poisonous effect on Wikipedia).--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean me, I calls them like I sees them. WP:DUCK doesn't only apply to socks, you know. ++Lar: t/c 00:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This ultra sensitivity just boggles the mind. We are here to write a reliable reference work. Therefore, we cannot allow any content whatsoever. It would be nice if we could, but we cannot. Therefore, there is going to be some disagreement, because different people have different opinions about what the content should be. Ludwigs2 even disagrees with the two other newbies at the intelligent design page. If all regular Wikipedia editors disappeared except for the 3 newbies, they would not be able to agree on what the page should look like.

Dave was trying very hard to gently help Ludwigs2 understand why his suggested content violates some of the principles of Wikipedia. Ludwigs2 has been told the same thing by several different editors, several times, over several days. Ludwigs2 has continued to ignore what he has been told. Now, many who are not experienced with these sorts of controversial articles suggest just blocking him immediately. But we do not do that. We are very very very lenient in general on controversial articles; even allowing people to break the "rules" of Wikipedia over and over and over with no consequences, or advocate text that is just unallowable according to Wikipedia principles over and over and over.

To claim this is a bad thing to do, or that Dave souza was uncivil just is staggering. What amazes me is that those criticizing can be highly uncivil and nasty in their attacks. And be quite uncivil when complaining about purported incivility. It just creates a very unpleasant atmosphere.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filll, it's outrageous that you've been threatened and I applaud your efforts to keep thinks chill on these controversial articles. I think your suggestions are good ones, and I know from personal experience that sometimes suggestions are effective in the long run even if they're not immediately acted upon. I don't know much of what's gone on lately except there's been lot of heavy fire lately and a lot of stress. All I'm trying to do is focus on one thing at a time, sometimes it's just one issue at a time, and what I'm looking at now going on at ID is okay, annoying to editors in some places maybe, but nothing to stress about really. Editors won't always agree on every point, and in some articles they seldom will. But I hope the threats you've received can be handled appropriately. There's no call for it. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you've been spot on about it all along :/ Gwen Gale (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I had been wrong. But maybe now you are getting a little bit of a look at what it is like on these controversial articles. Not so easy huh?--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I knew they weren't easy and foresaw a bit of kerfuffle but as you say, there's something about the controversial ones which slips straight through our policies. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and a group of us have been trying to point this out for a long time. That is why I produced User:Filll/WP Challenge. That is why Raul654 produced his CIVIL POV pushing page. That is why Raymond arritt made his expert withdrawal pages. That is why I have been working on new techniques for studying controversial article editing. The atmosphere around these articles is just vile. And seems to be getting worse. It is also why I have stopped editing them myself (see above).--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've stopped editing those myself, mostly and yes, I've been startled to see it seeming to get worse lately. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is amazing to me is that people are so angry over just basically nothing. And so willing to fight to the death over this nonsense.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and so many readers see straight through it all anyway. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is only a free encyclopedia, created by volunteers. But it is so prominent and so vulnerable that it creates a massive target for people who have certain kinds of agendas.--Filll (talk | wpc) 23:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And neutrality somehow falls by the wayside because of the sheer number of editors involved, which is counterintuitive but there it is. The first step would be understanding why. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have started thinking about this and studying it.[5][6]--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than being not too thrilled with the notion of topic guilds, I think you've done some very cool work with this and I otherwise agree with your overall take on things. Some of this could be implemented into the form of algorithms for further statistical analysis. The limited stats you put up do seem to hint that there may be a way to quantify and identify controversial articles. What I'm wondering about now is, why do these articles tend to flip so solidly into a single PoV? It clearly has something to do (symptomatically, at least) with the number of editors involved and the edit rate. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<undent>Thanks. On stable equilibria around single POV: I think there are a couple of things going on. (1) It only appears to be true, because of assorted publicity by those who feel they are "losing" in a dispute. The facts can be quite different than the hype. (2) There is widespread misunderstanding of NPOV policy, and so POV warriors will try to drive out other views. (3) Some "debunkers" or mainstream proponents will try to remove FRINGE views from the encyclopedia and therefore make it "safer" from FRINGE views. They feel they are cleaning out nonsense that has no business in an encyclopedia, when it still might be notable even though it is nonsense. (4) A lot of people fall in love with their own theories and do not want others to appear.

Some of what is going on is caused by a deficiency in WP policy itself. Suppose there is a FRINGE position which has 0.1% support in the relevant academic field. Therefore, according to the provisions of WP:NPOV, the Wikipedia article can be 99.9% from the view of other mainstream positions. Unfortunately, this can make it difficult to describe some FRINGE ideas adequately. Also, proponents of these FRINGE ideas might view this as unfair. Remember that many FRINGE ideas might have 0.1% support in the relevant academic field, but might have 30% or 50% or even 80% support among the public (for example, consider assorted alien abduction theories or astrology). Therefore, the proportion of pro-FRINGE material is usually quite a bit higher on Wikipedia than NPOV would suggest.

Consider homeopathy for example. In the case of homeopathy, homeopathy has less than 1 percent of the world market for pharmaceuticals, and in the US constitutes much much less of the health care profession than that. Homeopathy is most strongly represented in India where it constitutes maybe about 15 percent of the health care profession (maybe even less than Ayurvedic medicine, let alone conventional evidence-based medical approaches). Nevertheless, to a practicing homeopath who wants to promote his profession, for the Wikipedia article to be only 1 percent or 15 percent or even 50 percent pro-homeopathy seems highly unfair. After all, they claim, should not an article on homeopathy be about homeopathy only, from the viewpoint of homeopaths, not from the view of their competitors, mainstream medicine or other forms of health care? So when a rewriting of the homeopathy article resulted in an article that was about 65% pro-homeopathy, this lead to howls of protest from the homeopathy advocates and homeopathy promoters and supporters. They felt that having 35% of the article devoted to debunking or critical views etc was far far too much. And this lead to an immense battle that lasted for many months, and the blocking / banning of many editors on both sides of the issue. In addition, many editors who were involved just gave up and abandoned the article in disgust. Now the current article is probably still more than half pro-homeopathy, even though by NPOV it could be about 0.5% pro-homeopathy.

Nevertheless there have been huge protests for months on end by homeopaths about how unfair things are. And so, the average Wikipedian has not investigated the situation in detail; it is too complex. There is too much to read. It is too ugly. All they know that there were screams of protest, and lots of people were banned or blocked. So it is assumed:

• the mainstream group was mean and nasty and unfair to the FRINGE promoters
• the article is highly biased and is all from the POV of the mainstream, since the FRINGE promoters said it, loudly and longly
• Wikipedia should drive out those mean nasty ugly mainstream editors who are driving away good editors like those FRINGE promoters.

In the case of intelligent design, again this is a tiny FRINGE position in the relevant academic fields. It commands no more than a tiny fraction of 1% of the relevant academic fields, but far more of the public's support than that. But there has been years and years of protests by intelligent design supporters who do not want the critical material in their article. Intelligent design supporters want a Wikipedia article to be like an article the Discovery Institute would write, not one that is similar to what the Smithsonian Institution or the University of California at Berkeley Biology Department would write. However, by NPOV, Wikipedia's article should be closer to the Smithsonian Institution article or the UCB Biology Department article than a DI article. However, there have been organized attempts over the years by the Discovery Institute and similar organizations to recruit meat puppets and send in sock puppets to edit Wikipedia in this area (see Durova's evidence at the Matthew Hoffman Arbcomm case).

However, although I have not measured recently, I suspect that contrary to the complaints, you would find the intelligent design article on Wikipedia was easily more than 1 percent pro-intelligent design. It is allowed to be far more negative than it is, because of Wikipedia policies, contrary to the complaints of many.

An extra complication is that many who are on Wikipedia only for political purposes such as trying to gain power or "defeat" other groups use those who are unhappy with Wikipedia editing in a given area as "weapons" against other groups. A perfect example is represented by the Rosalind Picard biography. The New York Times reported that she signed a controversial petition. And so this was included in her biography. And this created a firestorm of protest that still has not stopped. And many who have no real idea of what is going on, or what the history is, have joined the protests.

After a while, the protests just overshadow everything else. All people on Wikipedia know is that a group is angry and upset at those editing intelligent design. They have not examined the facts. They do not know the history of it. All they know is that they hear, over and over and over, "group X is evil". And yet, if the facts were examined in an unbiased neutral fashion, the evidence of group X being evil just does not exist.

That is part of the reason I created the User:Filll/WP Challenge. I have heard for a long time now that Wikipedia is not lenient enough and is far too rough on FRINGE proponents. But most people have no experience with these editing situations. They just hear rumors. They do not know what it is like to edit in a controversial area and confront FRINGE proponents. So I made a number of sanitized scenarios where editors could relatively painlessly weigh in on situations that are very similar to real ones that occur every day on Wikipedia.

Interestingly, many of the biggest proponents of leniency actually advocate far far harsher behavior towards FRINGE proponents on these sample exercises than that exhibited by mainstream editors on Wikipedia in practice. The leniency advocates just only hear cartoon versions of these disputes, and immediately jump to conclusions, supported by rumors, that there is a big ugly pro-mainstream group wreaking havoc on Wikipedia and being unCIVIL.

This is the politically correct view, but does it stand up to scrutiny? I have collected a handful of anecdotes about CIVIL and NPA violations here. What is interesting is that the standards for what is a personal attack and a CIVIL violation have changed drastically over the last year or two, and generally become far stricter. This has clearly been encouraged from the highest levels of Wikipedia. What is also interesting is that there seems to be some inconsistency in the application of NPA and CIVIL. It is politically correct for some groups to use unCIVIL language and not for others. It is politically correct for some groups to make personal attacks.

Another factor in the problem with articles written from a single POV is that the policies are not written clearly enough, and are inconsistent and spread over many documents. Many editors, including admins and even arbitrators, really do not understand things like NPOV and NOR and RS.

Suppose there are two main views in a given area, which each have about 50% support in the relevant community. If there is a misunderstanding that the article should be divided half and half between the two views, proponents of each side will try to make the article totally from their viewpoint. And the atmosphere becomes ugly and unpleasant. Eventually those who cannot deal with an ugly atmosphere leave. POV warriors get each other blocked. And eventually, one side or the other "wins" and the article becomes mostly from that viewpoint.

These are some of my ideas about why things seem to be all from one viewpoint or another.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've given this (along with your helpful comments) a lot of thought. Overall, I don't think Wikipedia's policies are being followed on controversial articles like this: If there is a strong consensus by PoV editors not to follow policy (which can be stirred up into a whirlwind of ugliness), this consensus will have sway over policy. I've seen this happen many times. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

. Another scenario worthy of consideration. I saw it in an article I'd been dealing with, but was amazed to see almost exactly the same situation in a more embryonic stage at Barack Obama at recent AN/I's. The procedure works something like this:

1. Starting situation - an editing environment with perhaps 6-8 editors, with different opinions but able to work together, on a high-visibility article. The article is broadly speaking balanced and encyclopaedic, but not anywhere close to FA/GA, so lots of gaps exist to be filled.
2. A couple of really egregious editors start tilting it, sometimes bringing in assistance in the form of other editors they have worked well with (ideologically compatible but maybe not aware of the purpose of the exercise) or alternatively just being chronically incivil on the talk page. These editors may have an offline agenda or some other driving motivation, and are usually quite literate (this is key to how they evade detection) and have a list of sources for their changes.
3. Whether attracted through ideology, stalking or whatever, a couple of the opposite number follow and an edit war begins.
4. First protection cycle of article.
5. A couple show up who do not appear to be particularly tilted, but are essentially there to lend a "respectable face" to the original new arrivals and argue out their opponents.
6. Because of careful avoidance of to-the-letter policy-non-compliant behaviour and characterising everything as a mere content dispute (even suggesting more reasonable minds of NPOV or BLP violations), the aggressive editors survive fairly easily. Those of the original group of editors who can see the problem unfolding are deemed to be "involved editors" and, with the building complexity of the situation, find it hard to explain to others what is going wrong or how, as the edits do *seem* like just a content dispute. Further limits on outside action may be created by the behaviour of the newer group of opposing editors, who may be just as aggressive and provide ripe fodder for complains to AN/I and other fora, distracting from the real issue.
7. Over time, the aggressive editors get to set the agenda and now effectively own the article, tandem-revert-warring any change they disagree with and achieving their aims by strength in numbers. Discussion on the talk page revolves around what they want to talk about. By this time, most of the original editors have left the article permanently, and those there have only known the conflict in its current phase. As such, the pool of genuinely neutral editors diminishes and it becomes increasingly a clan division based on allegiances, with people talking of "sides", "winning" and etc.
8. Ultimately, after 1½ - 2 years, the aggressive editors get pushed into a corner, react inappropriately (e.g. sockpuppeting or stalking), and finally get banned from editing. However the article left behind is a wasteland that nobody wants to edit filled with random irrelevancies and not covering key points of the subject. Even if editing can proceed, it has to do so with the worst starting position of a twisting and turning article with many opportunities for conflict, and a group of editors all too accustomed to (maybe even comfortable in) the conflict paradigm.

I'm amazed to find something like the above has occurred in about four or five high visibility articles since I started talking to others about it. I would love to think WP can think up a way of dealing with this sort of situation proactively rather than reactively. Orderinchaos 13:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orderinchaos, your post should be required reading for anyone who hasn't yet experienced an intractable ideological on-wiki battle. Antelan^talk 14:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of truth to this post. And this sort of situation is what has motivated Raul654's page User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing. I think we need to think creatively about what to do in these situations. I believe that the standard methods fail in these situations.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F, I just read your suggestion on the ID page regarding an article about the word "Theory" itself, and it's various applications. It's an excellent idea and one of those that seems absurdly obvious in retrospect. You're a very good writer, especially in this area, so I want to encourage you strongly to pursue this. I'll contribute where I can if you do  : ) Doc Tropics 01:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Orangemarlin and I made the first stab at it over a year ago. And there is a rewrite in a sandbox that both I and OM have fooled with. Part of the slowness has been a perception that any of this kind of activity draws attacks.

If you will notice, just in the last 2 months, there has been a HUGE angry fight at a BLP, several AN and AN/I threads, an outing threat against those working in this area made with apparent impunity, a few Wikiquette alert threads, three RfArs, repeated efforts to unban a very disruptive editor, an ongoing Arbcomm proceeding, a secret trial with summary convictions announced, charges of vote-stacking and cabalism and canvassing, 3 RfCs, calls for a FAR, and calls for further attacks from an offwiki hate site, all in this same area. And lots of suggestions by others that this is just the beginning; they are very disappointed that more has not been done. I have basically unilaterally topic-banned myself under this onslaught. It is just too much, and it has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. Remember, we are volunteers; why would any volunteer be enthusiastic about working under such conditions?--Filll (talk | wpc) 13:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Filll, I've had to take more than one wiki-break after getting burnt out by what seems a never ending struggle to maintain standards and quality. Unfortunately, editors and admins who lack personal experience with certain controversial areas have no idea what it can be like on a daily basis. Still, I think that an article about "Theory" could be useful. Not just as a standalone article of course, but as an article which could then be link to a rather large number of other articles and associated talkpages. Think how much easier certain discussions might be once people understand the terminology! I too had been avoiding a number of pages; not just articles, but even the talkpages of editors I really enjoy working with. That's over. I'm going to make a point of being on my best behaviour, but I'm gonna edit any damn article I want and talk to whoever I please...I am sick of the cabal bullshit and I refuse to let it influence me anymore. Whatever you decide to do, good luck and happy editing  : ) Doc Tropics 15:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filll - per your request, I've done a revision of the lead and overview for the ID page, here. 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. --Ludwigs2 22:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your comments on a particular matter as it looked like you were endorsing the view rather than quering it. If you would prefer to be placed under a neutral heading please create one, but I thought it was obvious you were disagreeing so should go under another header. Please let me know whether I was a bit presumptious - sorry! John Smith's (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it back. I basically support the initial statement.--Filll (talk | wpc) 13:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filll, I understand that the Atropa belladonna article is highly controversial right now, as are other articles in the Homeopathy field, hence the discretionary sanctions that are authorized via Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy. However, controversy is not helped by incivility. This statement of yours[7] was uncivil, an assumption of bad faith, and just plain unprofessional. On the other hand, I do encourage you to continue editing the article. If you don't like it, fix it! But please refrain from unprofessional language in the future, thanks. --Elonka 19:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I will leave it to those who know "better" than me. They are clearly proud of what they have and will turn it into. I know enough to stay away. Thanks awfully.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikipedia WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Filll. I've answered one or your two questions. I'll answer your second question in a few hours time. Please comment back. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 07:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. Where did you place your answers?--Filll (talk | wpc) 13:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get round to doing it because of me commenting on the Opposes. Sorry. D.M.N. (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can still answer one or more of the exercises if you like. The value of doing so is that when you next try for adminship, you can point to your completed exercises to show you have some exposure to these sorts of issues and have thought a bit about these kinds of problems that arise on Wikipedia. If you get some coaching, you could discuss your answers with your coach and change them as appropriate based on what you learn. It is never a waste to build your skills for further Wikipedia endeavors.--Filll (talk | wpc) 13:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still following your policy not to !vote in RFAs? The reason I ask is that you are still adding your questions to RFAs. It seems (to me, anyway) to be a bit unfair to have a candidate spend the time answering these questions if you aren't going to weigh-in on the RFA. And if others want to know, they can ask themselves. –xenocidic (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am still interested in RfAs. However, I have voted in very few RfAs ever. I have only ever supported 6 candidates, and opposed 13 candidates. Therefore, I have voted in fewer than twenty RfAs in total. Given that I have been threatened for voting in RfAs a few times, I have decided to not vote in any RfAs for the time being. I might restart voting in RfAs if I perceive that my votes would be welcomed and I feel free to do so without threat or danger of attack, or without hurting someone's feelings. However, why should I be obliged to engage in an activity that obviously offends so many ?

If you think I should be allowed to vote, or that it is unfair of me to participate in other ways in RfAs without being able to vote without threats or attacks, why not do something about it? I did not create this ugly situation. I want it to change. If you want it to change too, help change it. For example, see User:Filll/Peaceful Polling Pledge. Many have claimed that voting against anyone should be forbidden. Ah yes, free and fair elections, eh?

If any candidate does not want to answer my optional questions, they do not have to of course. That is what optional means, right? I will also note that often others request that the candidates answer the challenge questions, or explain their answers to the challenge exercises. So these answers are clearly valuable information for people besides me. And more information is always better, given the seriousness of these "polls".--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems to me as if the RFA process is being used as a wedge to compel people comment on your essay and participate in your challenge. This wouldn't be a problem if you were actually voting in the RFAs that you pose the questions on, but you're not. As I said, if others want to know their answers to the AGF or opinion on the PPP, they are certainly free to ask themselves, and sometimes do. In the particular instance I linked there, you didn't even notice, because you still pasted your duplicate question right below it, which enforces my feeling that you are more interested in driving traffic to your challenge than the RFA. Again, all this is all just my personal opinion but from what I've heard from others, I'm probably not the only one who finds this somewhat unfair to the candidates. –xenocidic (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly do not mean to duplicate any RfA questions. However, sometimes mistakes happen. I apologize for any offense that I caused by this mistake. It seems, people will take offense at almost anything here.

This is part of the reason I do not participate in RfAs at the moment; because it can offend people. I do not want to offend anyone, particularly while I am under scrutiny for voting on RfAs in a way that putatively offends people. In case you do not know, in the last month or so, there has been two RfArs connected with this, and 3 RfCs (including one that is currently active) associated with my RfA voting, a vacated Arbcomm proceeding associated with this and a current ongoing Arbcomm proceeding associated with my RfA voting. There was also a repeated threat to out me based on my RfA voting. I have also been attacked for voting at two RfAs I never voted on, over a year ago! In other words, people are extremely extremely FURIOUS with me for how I voted on these 19 RfAs. Ok if that is how the Wikipedia community wants it, then I reserve the right to withdraw for the time being. If you do not like my choice to not vote on RfAs for the time being, why not file an RfC against me? In fact, I challenge you to file an RfC against me on this issue if it is so important to you.

The reason that some said my questions were unfair was not that I was not voting but still asking questions (after all, a large group would clearly prefer that I do not vote, so I will not while I am not welcome to vote). The reason that it was claimed that my questions were unfair was that candidates were giving stupid answers and that people were quoting this as a reason to oppose the candidates. Well frankly, that seems like a poor reason to claim the questions are unfair. And it is even weaker to equate that with my reluctance to expose myself to further attack.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to weigh in here, I agree with Xeno. I've been wanting to AGF and all, but it seems that you are adding these questions in to get links to your question/pledge into a high-traffic area. I'm not seeing relevance of the pledge to an RfA itself, rather it deals with theoretical issues/problems with RfA and polls in general. Unless other people suggest to you that such questions are needed, and you dont plan to vote yourself, I'd rather you not continue to add them in. Of course its up to you. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I voted before. I reserve the right to vote in the future. If you want me to vote, make it possible for me to vote without threat or without attack.

I disagree with you about the Peaceful Polling Pledge. Given that RfAs are places to attack fellow editors and try to get them banned and to insult other users and to express hatred and contempt for fellow editors, and are one of the worst places in this regard on Wikipedia, I think that asking candidates what they would do about the situation is quite useful. Admins have to deal with conflict. RfAs are places of viscious hostile angry combat. So is this appropriate? Should it be encouraged or discouraged? What if anything should be done about it?

If you like the hatred and nastiness and threats, fair enough. It is of course up to you.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. This wasn't meant to be combative, and I agree with you on many current issues with RfA. I do not think there is any problem with you not voting. My only concern is that I think blanket adding those questions to many of the RfAs is not particularly helpful. In the past I believe I suggested to you that simply linking to the AGF challenge and asking candidates answer a few questions likely means most of those voting will never click on all the seperate links and read the answers. That's not your fault, its just laziness, and the way RfAs generally go. I thought picking one of your questions and writing it in full within the RfA would be much more useful. On the pledge, it's fine if you want to ask a question about the issues with polls, though I don't think linking to your polling pledge is neccesary, rather I think it is distracting to the RfA candidacy at hand. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may or may not continue to link to the Peaceful Polling Pledge, or ask questions about quelling RfA hostility. It is up to the candidates how they choose to answer the WP Challenge exercises; by a link, by posting a response on the RfA page itself, both, or just ignoring it altogether. It is optional, after all.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those weren't the comments from others that I was talking about. I don't really feel the need to file a(n) RFC, I thought about posting for input at WT:RFA but I decided it might be best just to talk to you informally about it. and I admit, I'm not familiar with the problems you mention with regards to your voting (but I agree that people should be allowed to express their opinion without fear of retaliation). Anyhow, my comments above still stand - if you're refraining from voting in RFAs, then it might also be appropriate to refrain from asking questions in RFAs. Of course, it's not against policy to ask questions with no intention of voting so the choice is ultimately up to you. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me. –xenocidic (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been an editor on Wikipedia for more than 1.5 years. I have more than 32,000 edits to my credit and several featured articles and DYKs as well. I have only declined to vote on RfAs for the last month and a half, after a threat of outing for RfA voting, a personal attack for voting incorrectly in two RfAs I did not vote in, and seven administrative actions filed against me or involving me (RfArs, RfCs and Arbcomm proceedings) at least partly about my RfA voting.

Let me ask you; if you were threatened over and over and over and attacked in 7 administrative actions for your RfA voting, would you feel welcome to continue voting in RfAs? I doubt it, frankly. And I repeat my invitation to you to file an RfC against me for not voting in RfAs. Since some are FURIOUS that I ever voted in RfAs, or at least voted the "wrong way", why not attack me for NOT voting in RfAs and see how it goes? I would welcome the chance to bring this ridiculous inconsistency to the surface. Do it.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I decided to stop voting in RFAs, I would also stop asking questions in RFAs. And I'm not trying to compel you to vote in RFAs, so I'm not going to open an RFC, I'm just suggesting that if you have no intention whatsoever of voting, then you shouldn't be adding questions out of fairness to the candidate. –xenocidic (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped asking questions for a while. I restarted. I might stop asking questions again. I might start voting again. We will see. I probably will not vote in an RfA while I feel that there is a figurative cocked gun pointed at my head however. Would you?

I am still very interested in RfA and how we decide who to promote and how we train candidates. It is not a popularity contest, like many seem to think. It is a deadly serious business and the future of Wikipedia basically depends on these choices. Part of the reason Wikipedia is such a disaster in some ways is because of our lousy choices at RfA. And by not asking these sorts of questions, I am allowing Wikipedia to get further off track.

Frankly, the first thing that should have been done when someone made a clear threat as revenge for previous votes on an RfA, and coercion for future behavior, is that person should have been banned. Just like that. No questions asked. Banned. And if we had Administrators that were not so frantic to treat this like a social club, instead of a scholarly enterprise, it probably would have been done.

I also think that those harassing and hounding people for voting the "wrong way" at RfAs should be warned once, and then stomped if they do not back off. People should be allowed to vote the way they want at RfA. Period. This politically correct nonsense is ridiculous, where no one is allowed to "oppose" for any reason. That is hogwash.

These issues, and many others, would be addressed if we had a different kind of attitude among admins. And most admins have zero exposure to the areas that are contentious on Wikipedia that they will have to rule on later. So therefore, my participation is my effort to try to shape things in a tiny way. I am not allowed to do this? Without voting, which I have been attacked for, over and over? --Filll (talk | wpc) 17:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. You might consider adding a short note with your questions that your current policy is not to vote in RFAs, so that the candidate is not put off when they put the time into answering your questions (which can take quite a long time) and you don't even comment. –xenocidic (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made it a policy not to comment about most responses to WP Challenge exercises in an attempt to avoid offending anyone. Given that I have had so many bad experiences with people so angry at me they would like to have me banned or outed or worse for what I have posted, I am reluctant to upset people any more than I have to. People get so incredibly furious about just nothing here. I would rather not have that directed at me, as much as possible. Thanks.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not going to vote a simple "Thank you for answering" would suffice. –xenocidic (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have thanked several, and I would be happy to thank others for responding.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Again, thanks for your time. –xenocidic (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Related) You've got mail. SQL^{Query me!} 06:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Filll, I was going through [8] out of curiosity, and I found the above page, which you haven't edited since last December. Why is my name there? Is there any reason to keep a big list of names around? For what purpose is it? Thanks. Neıl ☄ 10:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assume it's a list of people who may have disagreed with Filll et al, to be posted as evidence at an arbcom / trawl to see if any are socks? It's disingenuous, however, to have had such a weak disclaimer at the top. Minkythecat (talk) 11:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks, Minky, but let's not assume, and wait for Filll to reply. I had a (very) quick trawl through your archives to see if this had been asked before, Filll, and couldn't find anything. Neıl ☄ 11:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page was part of preparation for evidence at the Matthew Hoffman Arbcomm case. I went through all those who edited intelligent design during a single month (I think it was October of 2007). I listed every name and IP number that was not familiar to me as a regular editor of intelligent design. The plan was to go through this list and find out how many turned out to eventually be blocked as sock puppets or blocked for other reasons. This would then be used to back up the evidence that was presented by User:Durova. It was a large task. I never completed it. Just because you are on that list does not mean I or anyone else suspects you of being a sock puppet; just that you edited intelligent design during a certain time period and I did not recognize your username.--Filll (talk | wpc) 11:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, Filll. Does it need to still be there? Neıl ☄ 11:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to complete this study at some point, but perhaps the page should be called something else and some explanation added. I apologize for any confusion this caused.--Filll (talk | wpc) 11:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A renaming and a little explanation on the page itself would be very much appreciated, and should help anyone else who stumbles across their name in the list in future. Thanks Filll. Neıl ☄ 12:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I answered your questions at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shalom Yechiel, both regarding the peaceful pledge (on the RFA) and the AGF challenge (linked above). I put some time and thought into these, so I would appreciate it if you would read them and put the AGF challenge page with the other similar pages whereever you keep the list. Yechiel (Shalom) 14:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I will read them of course.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wish I'd heard about your efforts earlier, dude. I'm literally five minutes away from some of the world's leading aphid experts, and I know a fair bit about them myself. I've got fairly full access to the bulk of the literature discussing them as well. I'll start working on the article later on today, but let me know if there's anything in particular you'd like done. Jefffire (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been slowly adding material. I think the most important contribution you could make would be to start articles for the redlinks that appear in the aphid article.--Filll (talk | wpc) 11:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your message on Durova's talk page to something I wrote. Who is lenient? Durova seemed sensible, a balance of leniency and ruthlessness but she is no longer an admin. You mentioned that there are some admin who are lenient. Who are they? You can e-mail me if you prefer.

I am a very sensible person. However, I am reluctant to edit until I know a few admins who are sensible and would unblock me if I was unfairly blocked. I have looked at the unblock request board. That board is generally ineffective as requests are almost always denied, sometimes with sarcasm. I am not seeking protection so that I can edit badly. I am looking to know people who would defend me if I am wrongly attacked and blocked by an admin. Chergles (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. You want them to be lenient, but only to you. For others, you want them to issue blocks. Interesting.--Filll (talk | wpc) 02:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filll, this is not the case. I am not asking for leniency. I am asking for admin who will independently review situations and not be afraid to unblock if there is a good reason, even if the blocking admin is stubborn. I am not trying to get others blocked. I was merely asking a new admin to use the tools as there are many people to block and unblock, just choose one person.

Would you consider unblocking me if unfairly blocked but the blocking admin refused to admit it? Chergles (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You added Arnie Zane to List of HIV-positive people. (Looks like a good addition.) To remain on that list, a person needs to have an article. Are you planning to create an article about Zane? --Orlady (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am. I met him some years ago and he was a fantastic performer. I was very saddened to hear he had become ill and died.--Filll (talk | wpc) 02:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Evolution as theory and fact, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution as theory and fact. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ezra Wax (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you've made a few changes to Atlas (disambiguation), you might want to check out Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Individual entries as it has something to say re multiple blue links on Disambiguation lines. Jonathan Cardy (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there is something I am missing, but my impression was that it is suggested that one can wikilink to the same article once per section of an article. Is this different for disambiguation pages?--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see from the Manual of Style that this is discouraged. I am not sure I agree with this. As a reader, if an article topic is described in words I am not familiar with, I want to have wikilinks available to dig in a bit deeper if I want. I do not necessarily want to cut and paste the unfamiliar term to see that Wikipedia article.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting discussion, including the comments to this NY Times blog post--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing deletion of the entire set of articles on Neurolinguistic programming. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuro-linguistic programming. NLP is an extraordinary pseudoscience that is so successful at disguising itself as real science that it had many people fooled for a long time. I'm amazed this has gone on for so long but enough is enough. I would appreciate any help on this as there is bound to be a bitter fight - there are a number of commercial interests involved and there is evidence of some inside support in Wikipedia itself. I have a separate file of information if you are interested, but for obvious reasons that cannot go on-wiki. Best. Peter Damian (talk) 10:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion: NLP Modeling

Remember long ago you promised to be the techie for the copyediting podcast I wanted to do? If you are still willing to do that, please sign up here. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've got a finalized date and time for the podcast chat, so visit the page and sign up to confirm! Scartol • Tok 21:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never set up a Skypecast before. Are you willing to handle that aspect of it, or should I just suck it up and figure it out? =) Thanks for your help on this. Scartol • Tok 03:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just give me a time and I will be there to help you guys. It is not hard but first time or two there can be some gotchas that you need to be walked through. --Filll (talk | wpc) 11:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for being the tech guy. What's the next step? Should I make my recording into an mp3, or do you do that? Scartol • Tok 15:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my message on FT2's talk page and suggesting of mediation process. I think there are some important lessons to be learned from recent incidents, and would value your input. Let me know on my talk page. See also the points I discussed with Guy. Peter Damian (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on the NLP talk page describing the problem of identifying reliable sources for possible pseudoscience. Any help appreciated. Peter Damian (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Scientific standards

I have drafted a new proposal and would like help in clarifying, adjusting, adapting, and improving it. It is based on five years of work here at Wikipedia (not always the prettiest, I might add). I think it summarizes the opinions of a great majority of editors as to how to handle scientific situations. This proposal serves as a nexus between WP:NPOV and WP:RS for cases where we are dealing with observable reality. It is needed because there are a lot of editors who don't seem to understand what entails best-practices when writing a reliable reference work about observable reality. I don't pretend that this version is perfect, and would appreciate any and all additions, suggestions people may have for getting to some well-regarded scientific standards.

Note that these standards would apply only when discussing matters directly related to observable reality. These standards are inspired in part by WP:SPOV but avoid some of the major pitfalls of that particular proposal. In particular, the idea that SPOV even exists is a real problem. However, I think it is undeniable that we should have some standards for writing about scientific topics.

See also WP:SCI for another failed proposal that dovetails with this one. I hope this particular proposal is more in-line with the hole I see in policy/guidelines for dealing with these situations.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creation Evidence Museum. You better watch the article, I'm sure it's going to be fun. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...for your comments here.    SIS  22:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know your busy; however, if you need some light-hearted entertainment my latest project should generate some entertainment. Better explained on my talk page.--JimmyButler (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like it will be exciting. Not sure how I can assist or encourage, but if I can, I will.--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a couple of students have tracked a few threads from our Evolution efforts. There seemed to be a general sense of awe / fear regarding your exchanges. The quote was "Good thing he was on your side Mr. B.". I've just met them... but I'm already impressed with their judgment.  :) I told them if they end up in wiki-court (with their grade on the line) that your legal representation comes with a fee. If you can look over their shoulder occasionally if you get bored; hopefully, they will develop some confidence and skills even if GA is beyond their reach.Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008 --JimmyButler (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Talk:Zazen, you wondered what this phrase meant. I think it is likely that it comes from the title of this novel While I have not read this novel itself and there are probably other interpretations, based upon what I was taught, "opening the hand of thought" is a poetic way of illustrating the idea behind any one of a number of similar phrases that you often hear when learning Zazen— phrases like "Try not to latch on to your thoughts." and "Take note of your thoughts, but do not grab on to them or try and push them away." What we need to consider in thinking about how these sorts of phrases relate to the metaphore is to wonder what a "closed hand of thought" might be. I submit that a closed hand of thought would be one that is in the act gripping onto and/or unwilling to let go of these thoughts as they pass by. Even in trying not to grip, we do this. In Zazen we are tought that attempting to push these thoughts away is itself a sort of wanting and attempt at controlling; you're simply gripping at another thought: the thought of yourself not being bothered by your thoughts.

"Opening the hand of thought" would then refer to the act of releasing the grip on all of these thoughts. The "not pushing them away" aspect sounds paradoxical when considered as a practice, especially because we often want to see a striving or goal towards "improvement" within things that we term "practice" ("If there is nothing to practice, what am I getting better at?"), but this is a mistaken notion in the context of Zazen. You are not sitting to try and get better at not-latching-onto-thoughts. This will take care of itself as you continue to do the practice, and indeed many teachers will tell you that this is so.

This, I think, neatly illustrates another point: Zen (and indeed all Buddhism) is not just something I can expound upon intellectually on Wikipedia (though there is a certain amount of understanding to be gained from reading). You can only understand the smallest bit about Zazen by reading about it. Beyond that, you must do it. This might sound like a cop-out or an attempt to ascribe some special status to "true Buddhists" (as opposed to some notion of "untrue Buddhists who don't practice"), but it's not. It's simply a way of saying that Zen resists being split into the beliefs/practice dichotomy, and that some notions are so bound to practice that they seem meaningless when taken outside of that context.

Hope this helps!

∴Walkeraj 15:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks heaps for recording the podcast last week on a wide range of copy editing / content issues. Awadewit dropped a note on my talk page letting me know that it was 'good to go' - and as I said at WP:AN, I feel smarter already, and I've only heard it once! It's now online at 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly', and hopefully it's only the first in a series!

Once again - thanks :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have edited in related areas within WP, and so thought you might have an interest in this discussion.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just an informal note that Daylight Origins Society which you edited at one point has been nominated to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daylight Origins Society. It's grievously short of credible sources to establish notability, can you find anything to rescue it? All the best, dave souza, talk 17:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I voted to trash it, ymmv. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for voting; my reasons for retaining such material in WIkipedia rather than trashing it may be similar to yours. Would you be interested in proposeing to merge the all-too-short Anthony Nevard bio (which was prodded too and is probably on AfD as i write) into the D.O.S. article, to allow for retention of data from both, while making the resultant single article stronger? If so, please do so. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filll, 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 you should do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.31.116 (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Filll. I was reading User:Filll/Abuse of Civil Hall of Fame (got there from User:FayssalF/Civility_pages), and I was wondering, as someone who has written on civility in the past, if you would be interested in the discussions going on at WT:CIV? Quite a few threads there already from the past few days, so scroll down and have a look if you are interested. Also did this edit. Carcharoth (talk) 07:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here [9]. Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA. NancyHeise ^talk 23:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this. One POV editor has taken it upon himself to revert the pseudoscience category from a huge number of articles. Help is needed. There was no consensus to do this. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Care for an AfD on this article? Str1977 ^(talk) 19:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there might be some good content in that article so I do not favor an AfD there. I would like to see some sort of cleanup and possibly a retitling, and maybe a merger with Religion in Czechoslovakia (1948-1989) and the religion sections of Czech Republic and Slovakia.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't the title already completely flawed? Str1977 ^(talk) 15:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've stressed; do not pick a topic unless you find it truly interesting. At the age of 15 would Endomembrane systems have made your list of interesting? Should I be proud or just a little freaked out at the level of nerd-dom? I guess it could have been worse; they all could be begging to edit topics on illegal drugs.--JimmyButler (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sure dont find those complicated topics interesting at my age. Maybe at 15 I would have, but I doubt it.--Filll (talk | wpc) 03:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fillllllllll, Awadewit and I were very happy and glad to have you on the last podcast, and we're hoping you're able to join us again to help with technical stuff and join the discussion. (This one's about moving articles along to FA status.) If you wanna be part of the fun, sign up here. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 12:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 36th and final NotTheWikipediaWeekly Come for the final episode under this name on Sunday, November 2. The whole episode will be about recapping and discussing previous episodes. I am hosting this and look forward to as many of the more experienced NTWW's come to this episode. Plus, we may get a new guest, but we'll see. Anyway, its tomorrow @ 20:00 UTC. Please come! Mitch32(UP) 12:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks heaps for recording another podcast, guys! Here it is!- I've only listened to the first section thus far, and am enjoying it enormously :-) - you're 'live' on the community portal now, and I'll be uploading your recording to iTunes when I get the chance (apologies for the inevitable delays on this bit) - once again thanks for taking the time to record this, and I look forward to many more! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you would be interested in coming on a podcast about controversial articles that Scartol and I are working on. If you are interested, please sign up here. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article posted, with your requested image. More to come soon. --Moni3 (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that the Wikivoices podcast on controversial articles hosted by Scartol and Awadewit is happening on Sunday at 6 pm EST. Please add ideas to our list of discussion topics here and come prepared to give a short summary of your work on controversial articles at the beginning of the podcast. Awadewit (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added some suggestions for "conversing about controversy". If you have any further suggestions, please do add them. Awadewit (talk) 02:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filll – I noticed the older podcasts are split up. Should I do that, or does the software do it on its own somehow? Should I prepare an MP3 version too? Scartol • Tok 03:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are only split up so that they do not exceed the upload limit of Commons. The new upload limit is 100 MB. When you convert the file to ogg, is it less than 100 MB? If so, then it does not need to be split up. Anyway, if Privatemusings want to split it, let him. Just convert it to ogg and ask him where to put it. If you make it mp3, it cannot be hosted anyplace on Wikimedia Foundation servers. We did host some mp3s of NTWW podcasts, but at another site that was not part of the Wikimedia Foundation. I wouldn't bother with mp3s unless you have some offsite location to host them. --Filll (talk | wpc) 04:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. It's live! Thanks for participating, and for all your help with the post-production stuff. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 02:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues for the "Design Inference" page...

1. Dembski's admission that his categories in the "explanatory filter" are not mutually exclusive should be incorporated.

2. The unverifiable statements about the nature and expertise of reviewers for the manuscript of "The Design Inference" at Cambridge University Press should be removed. I have some info on the talk page about that.

I'm putting this here because it doesn't look like the "Design Inference" page is watched closely.

Thanks, Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Filll,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having just read your blog comment about "herd mentality", you will probably be interesed in seeing how this new arb case comes out: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science --Enric Naval (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a stab at a whole article - 10 commonly encountered arguments to support the inclusion of marginal or pseudoscientific views. I have described the arguments, and given examples, and in certain cases given recommendations about how to reply to the arguments. I would welcome help on this article. Note I extensively plagiarised material from User:ScienceApologist and User:Filll - I am sure they will understand. Peter Damian (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Dr. Orly Taitz, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Dr. Orly Taitz is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Dr. Orly Taitz, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Introduction to evolution Hi. If you get a chance go to the talk page and scroll up to the section on Karen Carr Dinosaur image. Look for Angelina ! The flow of conversation is reminiscent of the good old days! I've made my case; although my confidence of being right is waning. TD was never a big supporter; especially during the FA phase so I'm not surprised that the allegation of "slapping up a picture" would be presented. I ask you... is the picture appropriate? I'm not so sure, am I blinded by my bias? --JimmyButler (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NFCC image warriors have targeted the evolution and ID pages. Good luck with that... Aunt Entropy (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you are able to comment on the following principle, relevant to the Ayn Rand dispute - see the talk page, and see WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Ayn_Rand. The problem is as follows: William Vallicella, who is a recognised Kant scholar, has published something in a blog post about Rand having completely misunderstood Kant. Someone has objected that while Vallicella is a recognised Kant scholar, he has not published on Rand in reliable sources (a blog post not being considered RS), and so the citation cannot be allowed.

This is the reverse burden of proof problem - it is hard to find scientific sources that discuss pseudoscience. In such cases I believe it is legitimate to source from non-promotional descriptions of pseudoscience that can only be obtained from second- and third-party sources and not peer-reviewed.

The dispute also has affinities with the special pleading problem - that pseudoscientists (or in this case, pseudoacademics) can object that the academics are not expert in the pseudoacademic subject. This is of course an absurd argument, and if allowed unchallenged, would open the floodgate - any advocate of any fringe view could object that the advocates of scientific method simply didn't understand the pseudoscientific 'theory' being advanced.

I appreciate you are not an expert on philosophy (at least I assume not). But this has little to do with philosophy, and everything to do with the need to establish a precedent in Wikipedia policy. Because science is generally silent about pseudoscience, it is difficult to reliably source scientific views on pseudoscience. In such a case, we should be allowed to source views of established scientists or academics or scholars, from any available sources (giving precedence to reliable independent sources where possible).

Principle: if an established scientist, scholar or academic has made statements about a pseudoscientific or pseudo-academic subject, then whatever the source of that statement, it should be allowed as a reliable source, if no other sources are available. Peter Damian (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure where to make a comment or if I should make a comment. To begin with, philosophy is a bit outside my bailiwick. However, the long-standing principle on WP:RS is that a renowned expert who has written in a blog or other self-published source about some topic creates a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia, even though the self-published source does not satisfy the normal requirements of a WP:RS under normal circumstances. --Filll (talk | wpc) 18:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks there seems to be a consensus on the view you describe though see User talk:DGG for qualifications. Peter Damian (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fill. There has been a lot of discussion here lately including questioning the purpose of the page. I hope you will check in and comment at each thread and provide the historiacl context people lack. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Filll,

You recently added a {{cleanup}} to ApothéCure Inc.. What exactly do you think needs to be improved--it's not obvious to me... Thanks, — Scientizzle 19:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) It needs more references. It hardly even seems notable, frankly. After all, there are many many pharmacies out there. What makes this one so special?

(2) A lot of the controversies seem sort of outdated and there is clearly a need for balance and more current information.

(3) The information about this very small business seems pretty limited.

I just was not impressed with the article, to be honest.--Filll (talk | wpc) 03:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Filll. I have rewritten a song article for "What'd I Say" and I would like to embed 2 sound byte files in the article. The first should be the first 30 seconds of the song, and the second file should contain the 30 seconds after the "false ending" to demonstrate the provocative call and response portion of the song. I know the file has to be in an ogg format, but I don't know what program to use to achieve this, and though I have a copy of the song in mp3, I just don't know how to record what I want with fade-outs. The uploading I assume is similar to an image upload.

So I'm requesting your help, either in the manner of a tutorial, or an exasperated throw-your-hands-up "Oh I'll just do it myself" with lots of aggravated muttering to follow. I appreciate anything you can do. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a big expert, but the first thing you should do is convert your mp3 to an ogg file. The way I do it is with the free Audacity tool. You can download it for free. Read in your mp3 to Audacity, and then write it back out as an ogg file.

Next you should upload your ogg files to Wikimedia Commons. I never had too much trouble with this. If you have trouble, User:Durova is an admin on Commons and I am sure she can help you.

Try those and ask me for help if that does not work. Good luck!--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I downloaded Audacity and I'm trying to figure it out. Noting that I often demand to understand all concepts and processes immediately, I predict a flying laptop in 30 minutes when I don't have my perfect finished product... Stupid learning new things... --Moni3 (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite know what the problem is. I'm on a Mac and I don't know if that factors in, but I'm following instructions found here and I can't get past step 3. I can import an mp3 ok, but when I click the play button it plays back superfast in .5 seconds sounding pretty awful. --Moni3 (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am no expert with Macs, but I would just read it in, and immediately write it back out as an ogg. Forget about playing it in audacity for time being. Then see if you can play the ogg using some player or other; maybe even audacity or another. There are plugins that play ogg for most players. --Filll (talk | wpc) 00:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Too Long To Read. Since you had some involvement with the Too Long To Read redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 17:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some issues regarding the proposal that an undergraduate student can be qualified as an "independent expert", alongside university professors and the likes, in assessing the scientific validity of a peer-reviewed published paper. This matter was not the usual creationist attempt at propaganda, but it regarded the article on Darwinius (see also the talk page there). Your help/opinion would be welcome. --Gibbzmann (talk) 09:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Filll. The point that the start of the paragraph might be misleading about Switek's status is taken, and I've addressed it with this edit. It actually appears that the peer reviewed paper itself is valid, but that promoters of Ida were already committed to making claims based on statements the reviewers asked them to tone down (according to the Grauniad. Will add sourced statement). All the best, dave souza, talk 10:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The truth of the matter is that Dave has been totally transparent to concerns raised by as many as three editors (see some very long discussions in the talk page). His version of the article is practically un-amendable. Furthermore, a semi-protect that I see little justification for is still in place, and this fact further reinforces his monopoly. --Gibbzmann (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you have written material on and shown an interest in civility on wikipedia. I have created a poll page to gauge community feelings on how civility is managed in practice currently at Wikipedia:Civility/Poll, so input from as many people as possible is welcomed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Love, with whom I think you have some history [10] was named by ArbCom to be on the new special Advisory Council on Project Development (new name, jennaveccia): [11] Slrubenstein | Talk 00:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness gracious. That is a very strange choice. Thanks.--Filll (talk | wpc) 11:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have deleted Carnosic acid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which was essentially a copy/paste of http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/565986 . I'm guessing/assuming that you copied it from User:David.Throop/Carnosic acid in good faith, not realizing it that this other user copied it from the WebMD article. I have pasted the refs and infobox below for your convenience should you want to recreate it without the infringing text. I apologize for the inconvenience. --B (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

refs and infobox
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Filll Names IUPAC name (4aR,10aS)-5,6-dihydroxy-7-isopropyl-1,1- dimethyl-2,3,4,9,10,10a-hexahydrophenanthrene- 4a-carboxylic acid Identifiers 3D model (JSmol) Interactive image PubChem CID 65126 SMILES CC(C)C1=C(C(=C2C(=C1)CCC3C2(CCCC3(C)C)C(=O)O)O)O Properties Chemical formula C20H28O4 Molar mass 332.43392 Except where otherwise noted, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C [77 °F], 100 kPa). Infobox references Chemical compound Aruoma, O I : Halliwell, B : Aeschbach, R : Loligers, J (1992 Feb). "Antioxidant and pro-oxidant properties of active rosemary constituents: carnosol and carnosic acid". Xenobiotica (22(2)): 257–68. Retrieved 2007-11-19. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: year (link) Caroline Cassels. "Active Compound in Rosemary May Be Neuroprotective". Retrieved 2007-11-16. Burnham Institute for Medical Research (2007, November 2). Rosemary Chicken Protects Your Brain From Free Radicals. ScienceDaily. Retrieved November 2, 2007, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071030102210.htm Ai-Hsiang Lo, Yu-Chih Liang, Shoei-Yn Lin-Shiau, Chi-Tang Ho and Jen-Kun Lin. "Carnosol, an antioxidant in rosemary, suppresses inducible nitric oxide synthase through down-regulating nuclear factor-B in mouse macrophages". Retrieved 2009-08-12.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Aruoma, O I : Halliwell, B : Aeschbach, R : Loligers, J (1992 Feb). "Antioxidant and pro-oxidant properties of active rosemary constituents: carnosol and carnosic acid". Xenobiotica (22(2)): 257–68. Retrieved 2007-11-19. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: year (link)

You are correct. I had no idea. Well let me have a copy in a sandbox and I will work on expanding and rewriting it. Thanks.--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thompsma has nominated Introduction to evolution for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article may be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" with regard to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -Silence (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've watchlisted the FAR. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may leave my two cents worth on the FAR --JimmyButler (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up on this, Filll, the changes look worthwhile to me and I've chipped in some comments as well as some minor changes. . . dave souza, talk 15:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special creation. Borock (talk) 06:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Introduction to evolution, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (3rd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Introduction to genetics, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to genetics (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Introduction to genetics, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to genetics (3rd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 03:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you are ok. Did all the joy get sucked out of it? I'm going to jump into the inferno at Introduction to Evolution with a revert. --JimmyButler (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to come participate in a peer review of Portal:Speculative fiction. You can see (and participate in) the discussion here. Thank you for your time. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This just turned up; as the sole author who hasn't edited it since 2007, how would you feel about speedying it? Apparently external search engines turn it up. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure what that page is, but I moved a copy to my sandbox pages and asked that this page be deleted. --Filll (talk | wpc) 19:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Evolution as theory and fact, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution as theory and fact (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Gnevin (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any additional notes for the article to succeed the next FAC, please put them in the peer review. Also, would you be interested in co-nominating Objections to evolution? - RoyBoy 03:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Filll/Thomas Wight, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/ User:Filll/Thomas Wight and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Filll/Thomas Wight during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Not The Wikipedia Weekly. Since you had some involvement with the Not The Wikipedia Weekly redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji 02:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

article has not been improved since dates tags were added. not notable, relies on primary sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. serioushat 09:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Filll/Peter Cusack, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Filll/Peter Cusack and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Filll/Peter Cusack during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Frère_Jacques#What_happened_to_the_associated_article_listing_translations_and_versions.3F. I agree. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Filll/Center for Natural Studies, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Filll/Center for Natural Studies and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Filll/Center for Natural Studies during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Intelligent Design Wikiproject. Since you had some involvement with the Intelligent Design Wikiproject redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United Nations Supreme Court. Since you had some involvement with the United Nations Supreme Court redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. djr13 (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a form letter sent out to members of WikiProject Lead section cleanup.

I am contacting you because you are listed as a participant of the now defunct WikiProject Lead section cleanup. I have created a new WikiProject, WikiProject Lede Improvement Team (name subject to change), that likely has the same goals as the project that you signed up for was supposed to have. If improving the lede sections of articles is something you are still interested in, please stop by and add yourself as a participant. As well, if you have any thoughts regarding your previous experience with lede section cleanup, please stop by and share them. Thank you,  DiscantX 08:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dotted I (Cyrillic), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Diaeresis and Palatalize. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Creationism/Hinducreationism, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Creationism/Hinducreationism and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Creationism/Hinducreationism during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Visa policy of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Green card. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Areal feature, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tibetan and Tocharian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! It's been a long time since we worked together on an article. I haven't been active here for a few years now. I've been working on other projects...like this book.

Someone added that stub for the book, but it needs improvement. I have added a bunch of sources to the talk page, but it wouldn't be appropriate to edit the article directly, as I have a conflict of interest.

I know it's not within the range of topics I've usually seen you work on, but I wonder if you might be willing to have a look at the page and add in some of the additional sourcing and information, as appropriate? (Or pass it on to another editor, if this doesn't spark your interest.)

Thank you, and hope life is good for you! Margareta (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note and kind wishes. As you can tell, I am only marginal active on Wikipedia these days, having moved on to other projects. You are quite right, that book is pretty far afield from the topics I usually get involved with. Let me think about this a bit and see if there is anything I can contribute to the article, or anyone I can recruit for the project. Cheers! --Filll (talk | wpc) 23:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, and thanks! Margareta (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Filll. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Evolution/falsifiabilitydraft2, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Evolution/falsifiabilitydraft2 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Evolution/falsifiabilitydraft2 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

This submission appears to be taken from http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1988. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:Falsifiability of the theory of evolution may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the .
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

joe decker^talk 18:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Filll! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! joe deckertalk 18:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Draft:Falsifiability of the theory of evolution requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=453. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Legacypac (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Duck And Cover (1951) Bert The Turtle.webm, a featured picture you nominated, has been proposed for replacement with a higher resolution version. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Duck and Cover. MER-C 20:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Filll. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Falsifiability of the theory of evolution".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 08:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Albert Einstein's. Since you had some involvement with the Albert Einstein's redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jean-Luc Aotret has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable poet

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Right to choose. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 13#"Right to choose" redirects until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 06:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Native Americans and hot springs is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Native Americans and hot springs until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Montanabw^(talk) 23:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Biotechnology Institute has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

organization article of unclear notability, lacking independent references, tagged as unreferenced since 2014

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dialectric (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Frère Jacques in popular culture is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frère Jacques in popular culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

wizzito | say hello! 16:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 05:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Thomas Bullene Woodward has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bees and toxic chemicals has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]