User talk:Filll

RE: supportsummary2

Looks generally good. A few points:

• "Prof. cred." probably should be relabeled "Res. cred." or "Sci. cred." as MDs etc are called "Professional Doctorates" and PhDs etc "Research Doctorates"
• "Rel. No. (est.)" is a confusing title (too heavily truncated to get any meaning off it). "Bio/Geo PhD (est)" might be better. Why is it est[imated], incidentally?
• Formatting points:
  • It's best for contents to have the same justification (left/centre) as their titles (or vice versa).
  • The "Petitions" & "Creationist Lists" titles would probably look better left-justified (and possibly bolded) -- where they are they break up the columns, visually.
  • Is there any reason why some lines are peach-coloured?

Hrafn42 14:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow interesting. Thanks.

• Prof cred stands for professional credentials, since I wanted to list clergy for the Clergy Letter Project (which I might have to eventually remove) and also so I could drive home the fact that the "Physicians and Surgeons" list includes a lot of people that are not physicians or surgeons.
• Rel. No. might be too abbreviated. Previous versions had it more expanded by I was trying to fit a lot in a small space, obviously. I wanted something like "relevant number" or "Number of signatories that are in relevant fields" with some definition of relevant fields. It is estimated because when I am going through these lists, it is very hard to tell who is a biologist and who is not, since there are so many biologically-related fields. Is a biochemist? Is a physiologist? Is a biophysicist? Usually I left all those out, but that might be incorrect. Where does one draw the line? This problem has to be confronted over and over and it is pretty difficult. I would not swear that I have not made any mistakes. Same with geologists; some work in areas relevant to this issue, and some do not. Is a geophysicist a geologist ? Is a geochemist? Is a meteorologist? Again, I left those all out, but that might not be appropriate. I also did not include physicists or astronomers, even though they are involved sometimes with determining the age of the earth or the universe. So it is all pretty difficult to determine exactly. In addition, I have excluded those with masters degrees, or those I cannot find confirmation of their PhDs. Some are PhDs from diploma mills or bible colleges, and I included those, although they are doubtful as well.
  • Try List of fields of doctoral studies Hrafn42 16:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• I will try other justifications.
• The peach/pink color or shading is to indicate which are lists of creation scientists/creationists and which are lists of scientists/evolution supporters. The fact that this was not obvious, even with the text underneath and the title tells me I am doing something wrong here. Hmmm.--Filll 14:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Eclectic Medicine

Could ye have a look at this article? I'm not sure about it: On the one hand, it's not all that bad, on the other hand, the sources are very poor. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is pretty lousy.--Filll 02:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Aye, but not half so bad as some of the other articles I've been tearing to pieces. (Royal Rife, Electromagnetic Theory, Georges Lakhovsky - all of which were about 90% unsupported POV-pushing woo, and had to be eviscerated. (If you think those are bad now, check out a version from a month ago.) Still, I'll have a go at that one. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not trust a lot of its claims. The references I have found, which are few and far between, do not really agree with the text.--Filll 03:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

True. I guess I'm just getting a little jaded. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It draws on Thomsonian medicine so I am trying to fix that article, which is also in horrible shape. Then maybe if that makes some sense, Eclectic medicine can be cleaned up. Part of the difficulty is that the sources contradict each other and it is a huge mess. Who writes this crap?--Filll 17:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Woos. Have a look at User:Oldspammer's contributions to article talk pages sometime... Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy draft

Please take another look at the draft and tell me if you think anything else should be changed. I think it's about done. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Fill, You brought up some issues about the draft being a bit too large as well as the lead being a bit too long, however I can assure you that after a few weeks of copyediting, the article will probably lose about 10-15 kb in size once things are better worded and redundancy is removed. The info itself is all relevant and important though. I think the draft is close to being finished. I would like to implement it pretty soon so that the public can start improving it and copy-editors can start working on it as well. I think it's reached about as far as it can reach with the small amount of people contributing to it as is and should probably go live pretty soon. Some input would be great. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Some articles that need help

• Pharmacognosy
• Eclectic medicine
• Creation (theology)
• Samuel Thomson

Would you object if I added Psychic surgery to that list? ornis (t) 03:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Noah's Ark kangaroo pic

On the Noah's Ark talk page you express a wish to save the kangaroo. Can't see why, personally - they're in plague proportions and make quite a decent pizza filling. But anyway, if this is be your wish, one could justify putting him in the Literalist section, to replace the cloying pic of two litle girls with a dove. For justification, see creationdefence.org or cristiananswers and many more. (This one's a doozy. My only worry is that ross nixon might think we were making fun of his beliefs, and I rather like ross - he's decent and willing to entertain other views. PiCo 02:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Science blogs are WP:RS in some cases

Particularly if written by well known notable scientific figures in the scientific community, as is the case of PZ Meyers. Therefore, Pharyngula (blog), Panda's Thumb (blog) and Aetiology (blog) are WP:RS sources, actually. Some science blogs are peer-reviewed and subject to some editorial control. Some are chosen specifically by well known publishing companies like Seed magazine. These blogs I listed are rated by Nature magazine. Some are mentioned by Science (magazine). Some are reprinted in peer-reviewed books, and some are quoted in peer-reviewed journals as sources. So it is not always true that these are not WP:RS sources, for your future reference. I am not going to mess with Rosalind Picard while I am still trying to establish the full back story with other sources, however.--Filll 00:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fill, thanks for the response. I visited the blog and did not feel it met wp:rs but will defer to others. Cheers, --Tom 00:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The following post from Scienceblogs's Pharyngula is relevant to this discussion: Clearly, bloggers need to take over science journalism. It talks about cases where blogs may be more WP:RS than more mainstream media (in this case even science-specialised MSM). Hrafn42 05:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Rough draft on biologic institute

Please comment on the article at User:Filll/Biologic Institute.--Filll 03:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A few points:

• Do we have a WP:RS to indicate that the BI is in fact doing "research" and can thus be legitimately called a "research organization"? The fact that they haven't actually published anything yet would seem to counter-indicate this.
• I think you will find that the BI was announced in 2005. I suspect that there isn't any WP:RS for its existence until considerably later.
• You should probably include the background (strongly Creationist I seem to remember) immediate firing of the person at the BI that the New Scientist talked to.
• "Axe, Dixon and Gauger responded to the New Scientist article published January 13, 2007." needs rewording (probablt soemthing like inserting "in a letter" between "article" & "published").

Hrafn42 05:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for the feedback. I realize now that it might not be appropriate to have a section Biologic Institute in the Discovery Institute article, since the connections between the two, while strong, might be not formal. It is a separate organization, somewhat like Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity, that shares some of the same personnel. In the case of the Biologic Institute, it gets funded mainly by the DI.--Filll 15:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect Disco to Discovery

Somebody tries to mock the name. Please comment for speedy deletion[1]. Thanks.--יודל 19:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Biologic Institute

New article launched. Comments ?--Filll 04:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

KT

I just don't understand why you are adopting such an aggressive, adversarial tone...an RfC is not for determining who is "right" and who is "wrong", it's for trying to get more input and opinions from the community in an effort to resolve problems and try and reach consensus. In this case especially, I'd really like someone to have a look at my own behaviour and tell me what I have done to provoke such an aggressive and vitriolic series of responses, because to tell you the truth, I really genuinely don't think I've been unreasonable or difficult. Badgerpatrol 22:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Adversarial? I am giving up. How is that adversarial? I don't want to fight. You win. Stop attacking and harassing me please. If you think you did nothing wrong, then far be it for me to tell you otherwise. You have not done a THING wrong. Not a thing. You win, ok? I apologize for ever talking to you or appearing on those talk pages. I have had enough abuse on this matter. Just stop bugging me. What part of "you win" do you not understand? --Filll 22:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy rewrite

I plan to implement the homeopathy rough draft( link) by September 1st, 5 days from now. Unless of course more proposals are made to change it, in which case I will postpone the implementation until it is ready and agreed upon. Some things concerning the rough draft are still in discussions, which can easily continue once it goes live. An example is the inclusion of mentions of Jacques Benveniste. Other things can easily be fixed after a week or so of copy editors from the general public going over it and removing redundancy and rewording sentences to be more brief and precise, which will cut down size of the article including the lead without removing relevant info. So If by September 1st I receive no more suggestions on improving the rough draft then I will replace the Homeopathy article with it. If you see problems with the draft, please make suggestions on improving it. Even if the suggestions might have already been made, just make a new post with the suggestions so that we can discuss them. Here is the link to the rough draft again: Link to rough draft. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Eclectic Medicine

I found a really good source for this. Can you send me an e-mail, and I'll send you some scans? Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduction to evolution

The pisser is .... he/she is right on nearly every point. My legacy can't be two failed banners. I printed the complete article and the "list". Give me a few days to work on it in a hard copy format.--Random Replicator 19:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That is why I was so glad to get such good feedback. The last time, we really had sort of lousy feedback, to be honest (hopefully that doesnt offend anyone). This is much MUCH more helpful, and will make for a better article by far. So I do not really count the last "failure" as a failure. Plus eventually we can compress these as they did on evolution so they do not take up so much space. It is a record of our efforts. I am quite excited that someone would put so much time and energy into a careful review for us. This is the kind of help we needed all along, I think. And I think things are looking very good!--Filll 20:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Filll, I am not sure I understand this suggestion from our critique; can you clarify.

Under "Some definitions" we read that it would be helpful to know some additional definitions in order to understand the complex definition of evolution. After listing all of the definitions, I think it might be a good idea to rephrase the definition using the words from the newly learned words - it helps readers retain the information and it reminds them why they were reading the list in the first place. --Random Replicator 12:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked at this. I think we have examples of all terms, but not of gene, gene pool, chromosome, and DNA. So maybe we need an example of these as well, not just allele and the others. --Filll 13:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

On the COI vio

Please go ahead and note it after my post, I'm done with that one for a while. Odd nature 23:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Red teeth and bloody claws.

RE: Introduction to evolution:

"Query: "Nature, red in tooth and claw" - from Alfred Lord Tennyson's In Memoriam A.H.H. (1849) - Why is this considered a reference to Darwin, when Darwin's Origin of Species wasn't published until 1859? Is it a reference to other evolutionary thought, perhaps? (To me, it looks like a reference to Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan.)"

Has that concern been addressed or corrected?

And

The format guys seemed to have improved the situation --- does it look good on your screen?

And

The incorporation of the key concepts within the article has had a powerful effect don't you think; especially dealing with the level of acceptance of evolution within science. --Random Replicator 19:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I made a stab at fixing the red tooth poem with a footnote. I thought about other things but I thought this was best. I have liked what you have done so far. I will check more. I have liked the graphics too so far on my system.--Filll 20:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we done.

Filll, are we done? I was thinking maybe Tim V. might square us up some more; but he disappeared after a late night visitation of edits. I have tweaked it to the point of nausea.

I can't find any more errors; of course it is one of those "can't see the forest for the trees" no doubt. I don't know of any one to ask for a copy/edit. The English Department will not grade my paper! Beesides, Iam teh bess spellur I know.

I have not heard back about the dinosaur picture; I think the husband realized you just can't give away already copyrighted material on a whim. I'll wait a few more days and chat with Karen.

How do you call for a peer review? Getting help from the experts on the Evolution page is like squeezing blood out of a turnip. If I say "God determines Truth" I can get an epistle; when I asked for some suggested readings they remain silent. If that can be done; and it passes; then it would take a rather confident reviewer to add a third failed G/F at the top don't you think? Let me know what we should do, so I can sleep at night and stop staring at the damn screen?! --Random Replicator 00:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There's always WP:PR. You can get the feedback of a GA review without actually having to risk failing one. ornis (t) 01:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent idea. Do any of us know how to set it up? --Random Replicator 03:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. It may take a while for someone to pick it up, but that's just how it goes I guess. ornis (t) 03:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Global warming and forcing

I don't want to get into on the talk page (as it's not relevant there), but you're no more of a subject matter expert than I am (based off your "about me" bit) and arguably are less so. Furthermore your statement

this forcing might cause cooling or warming or other climate responses

is false. Not even Michaels or Lindzen would argue that this forcing will not cause warming. Their arguments (of late) have been that it's uncertain that anthropogenic forcing is causing the majority of the warming. (Michaels has also argued that the increase in forcing will stop once we run out of fossil fuels.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? How many GCM runs have you personally made? How much GCM code of yours is currently running? In how many countries? How much do you know about the flux corrections and celestial mechanics in the models? Do you know Manabe personally? Care to tell me what you know about Dick Lindzen's private life and personal tastes? How many times have you had breakfast at Keeling's house? How many times have you been interviewed by the New York Times on this issue? How many times have you interviewed by Reuters and the AP on this topic? How well do you know Broecker and his work? How many publications in the Royal Society journals and in Nature and Science do you have on this issue? Have anything in Phil Trans on this do you? How about publication on Milankovitch comparisons and Dobson measurements? Do you know Sherry personally? I do not care if you are Hansen himself. I will put my record up against anyone else's, including yours. But it is unfair to engage in combat with an unarmed opponent.

Your attitude is exactly why I will respectfully decline to bother to try to improve these kinds of articles in the presence of people such as yourself. Have at it, since you are such a great expert. I am so impressed by what I have seen from you already. Enjoy yourself and I hope you feel good about driving out any expertise on this topic that might exist around this project.--Filll 20:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Now Filll, we all know that Ben is a genius. Tut, tut. •Jim62sch• 20:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes my mistake. That is why I will let him edit the Global Change articles to his heart's content. I am sure he has way more background than I do and more peer-reviewed publications in the area. How silly of me.

I just want to make sure that he knows that not all of us buy his silly linguistic arguments, or the political correctness arguments on that talk page.--Filll 20:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have run GCMs, and they do contain my code. Your statement tht CO2 might cause cooling is wrong. Your claims of expertise in this area are, as far as I can see, not backed up by any evidence; either in terms of links to any external evidence of your competence, or any sign that you understand whats going on. Your response to BH is shameful William M. Connolley 21:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Shameful huh? And Broecker and company are full of nonsense? Ah I see. And no runs ever show cooling under any conditions? Over any time scales then? Well go ahead if you are such an expert then. I will not bother with such articles with experts such as yourself involved. --Filll 21:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That's OK, William, your response is uncivil. (Bad, remember). BTW, excess CO₂ may possibly be symptomatic rather than causative, and let's be honest: the science for global warming is a bit weaker than it should be. Yes, this is your pet area, I know that, but climatologists don't agree on the evidence and computer programs are only as good as the data you feed them. If you're going to disagree, try to be civil about it. •Jim62sch• 21:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't take your response seriously Jim. If you really consider my response incivil, I suggest you take it up in the appropriate place. You won't, because you know you'll get laughed at. And no, Co2 isn't symptomatic, for reasons that have been pointed out endlessly William M. Connolley 21:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This is why I do not edit such articles. There is no point. I will let these esteemed colleagues of mine take the field since they are so gifted and brilliant, and always correct. And have such a deep knowledge of the entire field, including my own personal expertise, which is involved with the data itself and what we know statistically. But never mind...even if requested, I will decline to get involved. I will not even point it out to WC if I run across him at a conference, because what is the point? All that this episode confirmed for me is why I need not bother. Thanks guys.--Filll 21:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, shameful. You clearly don't understand this area (either at all, or as well as you claim). I am not your colleague. The vague claims of expertise are not plausible. Rather than discuss the issue, you wave around a pile of silly words in a (hopeless) effort to disguise you ignorance. This is shameful. Broecker won't help you, since all GCMs that show THC slowdowns still show overall warming. If you're not going to get involved anymore, that will be helpful William M. Connolley

Watch civility, or else you will be caught in an administrative issue you do not want to be bothered with, I am sure. Ok? You leave me alone and I will leave you alone. Thanks for confirming what I already suspected. And I am glad to know that you are so well acquainted with all results from all over the world from your esteemed vantage point, including all published and unpublished results from the last few decades, including work in simulation and in data analysis and numerical analysis and so on. This badgering and baiting is quite unbecoming, frankly. --Filll 21:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Reflexology

Oh. My. God. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Patience

Filll, I really want to say how much I admire you for your patience with dealing with Moulton. It is not 5 edits into my talk with him on his page and I am already frustrated. Cheers, mate! Baegis 02:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Moulton

I would strongly recommend just ignoring him. MastCell ^Talk 21:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

hardy-weinberg

Filll, I've been brainstorming Weinberg. I need more time. Can you please move the entire section to above speciation but below evidence. It would make more sense there I think. When you get a chance.

A professor of composition ... I feel like I'm back in school! ... as a student. Not sure we will ever rise up to her standards; but I have learned a hell of lot from her. Eliminating "this" had an incredible impact on readibility.

And congrats on the paranormal banner ... I think?--Random Replicator 02:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Evolution as theory and fact

Hello Filll. How are you? I am RS1900. You created the article Evolution as theory and fact. I think it is a great article. And, it is great to know that you are not enthusiastic about letting people attack science. I am also against pseudoscience. However, I am a little surprise that you are not an atheist. I am an atheist, however; I respect the religious views of theists. Anyway, I am happy to know you. Best of luck. RS1900 04:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, being an atheist is not prima facie evidence of accepting the scientific principles surrounding Evolution. In fact, several individuals have used disingenuous User pages to state that they are atheists, but have no clue about Evolution. There are so-called atheists who believe that little green aliens control life on earth. Alternatively, accepting Evolution as a scientific fact (theory in this case) does not imply any denial of the existence of a god. I am somewhat religious, yet have no doubt that every living organism evolved from a common ancestor. Your thinking is flawed. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Your thinking is flawed. Did I ever suggested that being an atheist is prima facie evidence of accepting the scientific principles surrounding Evolution? No! Did I ever suggested that accepting Evolution as a scientific fact (theory in this case) imply denial of the existence of a god? No! Well, it is totally unfair to suggest that my thinking is flawed. You said that "there are so-called atheists who believe that little green aliens control life on earth". Who are they? I am not one of them. I am an atheist and I understand Evolution. And, I respect the religious views of believers. Try to understand what I am saying. RS1900 02:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, are you saying it's not little green aliens controling life on earth? Damn, another fantasy shot to shit. •Jim62sch• 23:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Joy

User:RyanFreisling @ has wished you well! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the WikiJoy by sharing the joy someone else, Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Homeopathy

"Filll", it doesn't matter whether you find these schools' accreditation "hard to believe." Let me enlighten you (if you had bothered to read the footnotes, you wouldn't be having this problem):

The National College of Natural Medicine is accredited at both the master's and doctoral degree levels with the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU). The Northwest Commission is one of six U.S. regional accrediting bodies recognized by the U. S. Secretary of Education. Their Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (ND) degree is approved by the State of Oregon, Office of Degree Authorization and accredited by the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education (CNME), a programmatic accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education

The fully-accredited Everglades University's accreditor, ACCSCT, is recognized by the United States Department of Education as a private, non-profit, independent accrediting agency. ACCSCT's scope of recognition includes the accreditation of private, postsecondary, non-degree-granting institutions and degree-granting institutions in the United States, including those granting associate, baccalaureate and master's degrees, that are predominantly organized to educate students for occupational, trade and technical careers, and including institutions that offer programs via distance education.

The American Medical College of Homeopathy's Certificate Program is licensed through the State of Arizona and has full accreditation as a comprehensive training program through the Council for Homeopathic Education.

For the sake of peace in the article itself, I've removed the other minor schools mentioned. But if you remove these three, you will show your POV bias, as I have proven my case. --profg 12:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Do not get yourself so worked up into a lather. Thanks.--Filll 13:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh... OK. Thanks! --profg 16:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Rfc

I noticed you endorsed some views on an old Rfc. While I appreciate your desire to assist the community in this regard, an Rfc which is not listed on the current list is generally considered "closed" even if no one has bothered to add closing tags. At the time this Rfc ended, the tags did not even exist, "closing" consisted merely of removing from the current list. Hope this information helps! KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding personal comment: I really need to clean out my watchlist. This came up on that, or I never would have noticed. Meh. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Weinberg

Last suggestion: I'm not sure about the "example approach" to Weinberg. So many complaints about it being too difficult to understand --- maybe it simply is. You could delete the part: Hypothetical: yada yada... or perhaps just delete Weinberg and the entire population genetics section.

I'm going to keep the fingers off the keyboard and allow the communal mind to mold it into something worthwhile. Maybe if I give it a rest others will be more willing to clean it up. The current edits by our English guru have certainly improved the article; it’s changed enough that I don't feel comfortable making edits in fear that I will distract from their positive contributions. Besides the questions they raised on the most recent list --- I don't know how to answer. I was pleased --- and somewhat proud --- of the rapid defense by the community in regards to the delete request. I just wish I had the skills to hit the GA status; no doubt with some effort it will eventually met the standard. I am delighted to have been part of the Wiki process. It has also been a pleasure working with you; your quick wit and effective prose have been a source of entertainment -- I’m thankful that I was always on your good side!!! All as a result of a wire in my wall. Well I'm going on a pro-longed Wiki-break; I need to spend more time watching Oprah --- all this thinking is damaging the brain, perhaps beyond repair. Take care friend--Random Replicator 22:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we are making great progress and are so lucky to have a real English instructor working with us. I hope we can eventually all pull together and create something we can be proud of. I think that our English expert needs a huge barnstar for this effort!--Filll 21:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

NOR

I know you care about the policy. What do you think of my proposal to revise the second section (on the origins of the policy) in section 1 of the current talk page? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		Thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 58 supports, 1 opposes, and 1 neutral. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified. Addhoc 19:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit

on a certain recently blocked editor's page. Please reconsider your post and retract (remove) it - that's either kicking someone while they're down, or feeding the troll, and it can only exacerbate the situation. Thanks much - KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Too late, I've removed it. I was just here to warn you for precisely the same reason William M. Connolley 21:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite correct. However, it was already gone when I went to remove it. I have dealt with a long string of flack from this same editor, but I should not antagonize him further.--Filll 21:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

I just wanted to invite you to my myspace page again to refute my polonium halos blog. /nothingwilldie I'm not trying to cause trouble. This is simply meant to be invitation to a friendly debate.EMSPhydeaux 23:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not interested in debate. I am interested in peer-reviewed journals and confirmation by other scientists in peer-reviewed journals. And after a few years, your theories might get scientific consensus.--Filll 23:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

NOR comments

Hi Filll. I figured this part of my reply really isn't neccessary over on the NOR talk page. There's been quite a few insults flying back and forth from all side the last few days, as can be readily seen browsing through the page. Without looking, I think the one one you made about 3 or 4 editors trying to push their own agenda was wrong. I think that is what I termed "group 1", I think most people fall into "group 2", even a few people who started out as "group 3". Anyway, I also will apologize, as I myself have been guilty of making snide or otherwise sarcastic remarks, getting so flustered there. One person that I've seen the edits,e tc. of that really surprised me was FeloniousMonk. Just two "I oppose" comments on different days without any further explanation of why he was ooposed, leaving the impression that he was just opposed to any change, no matter what or why. In some cases like this, I think perhaps people (myself included) start associating what we see as non-constructive or even insulting comments as all coming from the same group, and begin to associate everybody we've arbitrarily placed in that group the same. I am sorry for doing so, and look forward to working out some sort of compromise whereby (most) everybody can be happy. wbfergus ^Talk 14:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

NOR

Well, we have had our disagreements in the past, but I have to tell you: I am so grateful you are involved in the NOR discussion right now. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I am starting to lose patience with WAS 4.250, which is a bad thing. Am I misinterpreting him? Am I being unfair? I would appreciate it if you would comment on this exchange. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)