User talk:Hrafn/archive2

511:

to what the link was without clicking on it or hovering over it. I agree with everything you said, and I agree that the link is apt. I didn't remove the link, I just changed the way it was presented, so people can understand what is going on without having to hover over the link or click on it (with my version, they wouldn't miss the information about biblical literalismt even if they were reading the printed article). Even people who know what biblical literalism is would most probably have to hover over the link to know where it links to. I just meant before that those people could possibly guess to whether the link was, if we asked them to do that.

3293:{{fact}}-tagging talkpages is pointless disruption. If you wish to query the factual basis of a comment on a talkpage, you write another comment (appropriately indented to show that it is a response to the original comment), to do so. Inserting a {{fact}}-tag is a form of refactoring somebody else's comments, which is generally frowned upon. {{fact}}-tags are designed for insertion in mainspace, where comments would be disruptive. Also note the difference in format between mainspace (where edits overwrite each other) versus talkspace (where they are sequential). 2669:

detrimental to our coverage. Instead we need to work with them and harness their knowledge and enthusiasm, while ensuring we keep it neutral. Your tone on that page is not conducive to that and we have already lost one professional writer as a consequence. While I generally think you are moving this article in the right direction, please try and tone down the confrontational language. If you have policy on your side, and you seem to think you do, then there is no need to call other's actions "childish" or refer to someone as a "POV-pusher". Thanks.

2793:

this (yet) and they may not choose to, but my feeling is that it is much better to consider the opinions of all stakeholders now, rather than swing from one extreme to the other in article space. The "dire warnings" are not to influence you from making improvements as you see fit, it is to inform you that this has been attempted before, poorly, and to urge all to avoid that situation again. I'm sorry if you took that as an attempt to warn you off, I can only repeat that is not my intention.

31: 3631:, then whatever in-depth knowledge they may have is essentially useless to wikipedia, because this inability prevents them from putting it into a usable form: one that doesn't overstate their own position and caricature their opposition's. I've been seeing tendencies toward this problem from Benjaminbruheim in his new section, and particularly on the "Psychiatrists state..." issue. He may learn in time, before cooperation ends in mutual disgust, but I'm not overly hopeful. 3591:. Despite this I had hoped Cesar had accepted that his preferred encyclopedia was not going to happen anytime soon and instead work with the one we have. It looks like that is not the case). Its my belief we should give people every chance to work within it (which can be frustrating, but ultimately worthwhile). I actually think Benjaminbruheim, with a bit of encouragement and guidance, could help improve this article. I guess we'll see how he responds to your requests. 2071: 3864: 3807: 775: 2132:. Under the scientific point of view, we would be required to judge anything that does not meet the approval of the scientific community. Religion and controversial minority points of view would all have to be represented in a negative light. But using NPOV, we can acknowledge these things (as well as the scientific criticism about it) without passing judgment on their veracity or plausibility. That's the Knowledge policy. 2661:

privilege, rather than throw accusations around as you have done to both myself and Cesar Tort. Your recent response is a non-sequitur to the material I posted. I specifically said "Without prejudice about whether it should be merged or not.." yet your responded that "If you feel that these paragraphs don't belong there..." Can you see how you are completely not addressing what I am saying and instead addressing what you

3048:? I don't see it. I find that pretty disappointing from an editor of your experience. Inexperienced editors will always make accusations, it doesn't mean you have to respond in kind. I don't see this as a fight that requires a "strategy" to "win out." It isn't a war and would prefer a proposal that is acceptable to a consensus of editors through civil discussion rather than !voting, from positions of conflict. 3659: 3260:. Einstein's "Bible" was called the "torah". Einstein's G-d was "Spinoza's G-d", a Hebrew (Kabbalahistic) "G-d". Einstein did not reject Torah or G-d, he just had different understandings. Remember too, that scientists (then and now) quite often downplayed or actively concealed whatever "beliefs" they may have had. Also, in this framework, consider 2094:. Please explain your reverts on the talk page as well. It helps to gain consensus, instead of causing disputes to degrade into edit wars. Also, reverting templates because the material is covered in another article is not appropriate. Please add the appropriate citations, or just leave the template alone. 3622:

and its 'establishment bias' as a necessary price to pay for ensuring that wikipedia isn't permissive to the sort of half-baked wingnuttery that makes much of the internet a joke, beside preventing massive turf wars between the various stripes of extremists. The alternative would appear to be a whole

3586:

tends to bias towards the establishment POV (since sources that we consider to be reliable tend to be establishment organs, while those we consider unreliable are not). Therefore those people with non-establishment POV's often get frustrated, quite understandably, when WP isn't the ultimate source of

3040:

I do not have strong feelings either way and don't intend to support or oppose your proposal. As I previously noted, my interest is in trying to get editors from different POVs working together on this article to improve it (and avoid a situation that happened last time). When one editor with any POV

2656:

with policy as you are. I left that note, not only for you, but for a new editor who will likely have no idea of the background to this. If you wish to risk going ahead and rehash old discussions, engage old editors and end up at ArbCom again, that is up to you. Personally, I prefer to learn from the

2250:

Well, that's fine that you consider me disruptive. I've made no secret of the fact that I think the ID articles are biased, so I'm probably going to seem disruptive by challenging them. But please assume good faith; I just want neutrally phrased articles that are properly cited. Thanks for your help.

1884:

to refer to for evolution/creationism articles, did you know of them? It'd be handy to refer people to so we don't have to re-invent the wheel. Perhaps an essay? I dunno, we keep falling back on insults to reply to creationists who think Gish and Hovind are sources on par with Science and Nature.

1871:

Hrafn am trying to edit the Lizzette Reynolds page because thought it should include factual information. The information provided in the original piece are simply interpretations of information in newspaper accounts and not necessarily the truth. Can you please explain? I have read the information

1579:

You missed a bit: "Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be phrasally attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested...")." The opinions expressed were those of Deborah Caldwell-Stone, and she

1262:

I still wouldn't call it an "actual wikipedia article" -- it's still as lightweight as hell (I just removed the stuff that was so lightweight that it practically floated off of its own accord, and then put the remaining lightweightedness into some sort of order) and, particularly, it is still all but

306:

Caution, guys, didn't it strike you that with poetry like that he could be a Vogon commander? Also, you've probably just boosted by about 5,000% his reader stats for "Intelligent design may preponderantlty be used to apologize for a non-evolution world-view of creation... " etc. Good call, I was just

3001:

Benjaminbruheim: where he has made lengthy off-topic soapbox speeches, assumed bad faith and made wild accusations (e.g. of "defiling" the article), I have responded bluntly and robustly. Where he has been making positive suggestions, or exploring how his viewpoint could legitimately be expressed on

1370:

I was thinking about the C c'gies page, right now it reflects mostly YE creationism, but there's no need in my mind - ID is a type of creationism, right? And one of the assumptions/facile arguments used by Behe in EoE is the strong anthropic principle, which is a type of cosmology, right? What are

1118:

I get a lot of bullshit dropped on my page, and I was archiving some of it, when I noticed your comment. Where did I say this? And in what context? I kind of remember it, and I've always been so annoyed with Creationists misusing "theory" that I reverted I think. But I do so much vandal fighting

667:

is a wikipedia article about a book. This book is apparently not neutral in its point of view -- like many books. Please do not delete information on the content of the book based on Knowledge's NPOV policy -- that's not the intention of the policy. If I deleted everything in Knowledge that I didn't

510:

I'm sorry, I think you may be misunderstanding me. I know that the passage is talking about biblical literalism, and that it is useful to have a link to the article on biblical literalism. My concern is that the link was hidden. It was an easter egg. My only concern is simply that no one could guess

75:

Yeh, I saw that. My logic worked with a fairly large leeway (hence my saying only "approximately accurate"), as I suspected that your figures might be (perfectly legitimately) rather rough. I must admit that I'm more than a little uncomfortable with admins both acting as image-deletion-advocates and

3296:

Everything I've read indicates that Spinoza & Einstein were pantheists, not kabbalahists. As neither were professing, let alone Biblically literalist, Jews, neither would see any need to harmonise science and Genesis in the way that DAC does, so any parallels between their beliefs and DAC would

3223:

Now, what's really unfortunate here is that if you were to slow down a bit and work with me, you would find that we share some common POV's, including an abhorrence for teaching ANY form of creationism in public schools, opposition to the Discovery Institute, and absolute support for "Separation of

3088:

you are prepared to make substantive proposals/suggestions/discussions as to the content or direction of the article, I see no point in having further contact with you, and will delete any further material you place on this page. Likewise I will most probably not respond to any comments you make on

2668:

My interest here to to help people with strong opinions and knowledge of fringe science who wish to contribute but often fall into the trap of advocacy. We need people who can provide us with expert source and information on the subjects, and chasing them all away with accusations of POV pushing is

2317:

My opinion is a fairly standard "give him enough rope to hang himself" while limiting collateral damage (both to articles & to pro-science editors' reputations). He's spinning a bit too frenetically for me to be able to nail down his viewpoint (orthodox creationist, oddball creationist, such an

2180:

The contents of the Laws of Thermodynamics, is a matter of fact, not opinion. That evolution does not transgress them is likewise a matter of fact not opinion (particularly as evolution could not violate them without all reproduction, and thus all life, likewise violating them). It is thus a matter

1661:

And if you'd had the sense to actually mention that it was the word "first" that you were objecting to in your original edit summary instead of the erroneous "Citation needed, of course the work itself cannot be used as a source for that. Leaving the original reference as a comment.", we could have

881:

Huh. I always saw it as more information is better; whenever I'm looking up references, the more I've got to go on the easier it is to find the source. Though there's not much point when it's a weblink, either it's right or its not or a quick google search'll find the title. You've quite a valid

3967:

Yes, I think I learned that the hard way. Coming in late to these articles, apparently after some measure of control was restored there, it felt for awhile like some thought editing was simply a game of click reflexes, could call it whac-a-wikipedian or something. It was really ticking me off to

3946:

The creationism-related neck of the woods in wikipedia is so rife with sockpuppets and other trolls that many regulars fall into the habit of reflexively reverting anything that doesn't fit their preconceptions that doesn't come from a recognised editor (and in extreme cases even if it does). I've

3930:

Just a note to say I welcome meeting up with a fellow editor in a controversial article who actually consults the published reference materials and exhibits a genuine interest in characterizing those views with the necessary exactitude here. Really-that's what the whole thing is about here, and I

2848:

Reading that back, I realise that I sound pretty non-collegial myself. I apologise for that, its not my intent to instruct you what you should or should not do. Let me try again. As I said, I think you have done a good job, and I like your nav-template idea. I'm also not at all adverse to a merge,

2814:

What you refer to as me "coming in swinging" is because you have explicitly accused every other editor in this debate of editing with a POV agenda, while (and I can only speak for myself) I have explicitly noted multiple times that I trust your efforts are in good faith to improve the article. I'm

2792:

Whether you choose to believe me or not, there was zero intent to threaten or bully. You "rocking the boat" would result in no consequences from me whatsoever, but there are editors who, experience shows, would object strongly to some of your proposals. Most of them have yet to take an interest in

534:'Piped links' of the type ], where the adjective is implied by the context are a fairly standard tool within wikipedia. Few, if anybody, would consider them to be an 'Easter Egg', misleading or otherwise problematic. Your version is clumsy and unnecessary. If you think otherwise then take it up at 2727:

in the link to my comment that is "bullying, wild accusations and dishonesty". Its is a statement of fact (there was an ArbCom), a request to be mindful of prior mistakes (please be aware of it) an opinion that those involved, meaning you primarily, are experienced enough not to repeat it. If you

2163:

etc, you will note that your view is incorrect and that you are mistaken. In fact, the proportion of the views is in accord with their relative prominence. And since ID purports to be science, well then it is evaluated as science. It does not purport to be religion, which of course is what it is;

2897:

quite often change my mind -- as my sudden idea that a template would be a good idea, based on the realisation from Benjaminbruheim's article of the large number of articles already covering this area, should indicate. My modus operandi on such projects tends to be to use the chainsaw first, and

1626:

Stating that the 1843 text was the first (or one of the first) to use the term would require studying other litterature, or making qualified guesses etc. None of this can be found in the work itself. This has probably been written about somewhere, and would be interesting to have in the article.

1344:

I have taken the liberty of looking farther afield in the last few days at other Knowledge articles. Frankly, I am shocked at how poorly written much of Knowledge is. I would say that a good 99% of it is pretty atrocious. It has been a real eye-opener. We need more help on WP; lots and lots more

440:

Did you ever consider that the large majority of people who read that article don't even know there is such a thing as "biblical literalism"? Do you really think if you ask some random person what that link is to, they will answer correctly? I would guess that 99% of all people who speak English

2973:

Do nothing, for fear of "strong objections". My first experience of editing wikipedia brought me into immediate contact with a bunch of strident POV-warriors. This meant that I very quickly learnt the rules and learnt to cite them clearly (and if necessary repeatedly) in defence of my edits. If

2880:

I've had quite a bit of experience at trying to resurrect articles that have gone off the rails -- some of them have turned into solid articles, some of them have resulted in what amounts to controlled implosions, as there is insufficient cohesive content to sustain an article. This article has

2775:

like civilised people. The reason that I had little good to say about Cesar is that he never would back up his preferred text with a solid & substantiated argument, but instead preferred unsubstantiated claims and ad hominem attacks. That this did not make for civilised discussion is hardly

2852:

Its just that my experience in these sort of science vs non- or alternative science articles, is that the best longterm outcome in terms of content comes from people with different POV's working together, respectfully and in good faith. As the most experienced editor working on the page at the

2660:

I am working under the assumption you are trying to make this page better, and not attempting to spin the article to reflect a specific POV. I supported much of your edits to the article, and thought you did a good job of tightening up the balance. I would hope you would afford others the same

1940:

Again: Hrafn am trying to edit the Lizzette Reynolds page because thought it should include factual information. The information provided in the original piece are simply interpretations of information in newspaper accounts and not necessarily the truth. Can you please explain? I have read the

1038:

if this is where I can talk, great, didn't know so my apologies. I am not trying to debate evolution, but point out that their experiments have only resulted in achieving just new varieties or species. Which to me only demonstrates part of evolution(natural selection and adaption) not all of

3536:

I must admit to considerable concern about the ability of both Cesar and Benjaminbruheim to learn from previous conflicts or mistakes. This is exacerbated by an apparent disinterest in wikipedia policy, even when these policies are explicitly pointed out to them as being relevant. I know that

2985:

Given that none of this appeared to me to be particularly helpful and that you have, to date, meticulously avoided discussion of any alternate strategies/proposals/edits, it is hardly surprising that I have had little positive contact with you. You have given the impression of being at best

4127:

The fact of the matter is that the political sphere doesn't understand science sufficiently to regulate it in an effective manner -- the best that they can hope to do is to give teeth to self-regulation -- to give force of law to codes of practice developed by consensus among scientists,

837:

diff, I know they're not citations, but I still think the template is far more useful than the raw link. Not enough to revert, but I think there's value in having the extra info. Is there a policy or guideline on not using citation templates elsewhere, or more of a preference?

3075:

There had been no "working together" between different POVs. There had just been insertion of a massive pile of extremely poor-quality anti-biopsychiatry material. And given the amount of it that had built up, I can see no evidence of any attempt by anybody else at alleviating

2935:

get involved was simply that Cesar's initial comments got me sufficiently hot under the collar that I threw rationality out the window & get stuck in anyway. Even chainsaw-level remediation of such an article takes a lot of time, sifting through sources, and concentration.

3458:

will therefore be applied, and I will delete any comments you make here, my ignoring your comments on article talkpages should not be considered in any way assent to your specious claims, and may userfy or delete comments that are particularly off topic and/or in violation of

2902:-- my initial suggestion was based principally on a superficial look as to what looked like it was opinion from anti-psychiatry activists, and which sounded more purely scientific research findings. A different break up, possibly even to different articles, may be useful. 227:? A sort of rambling mix of bible quotes, misappropriated terms from physics and cosmology, attacks on on the atheist materialist religion, weird tangential questions to himself, a dash of postmodernism, naive vitalism and a bit of really bad poetry. Textbook crankery. – 4009:

His main problem seems to be with Numbers' characterisation of the CRS Statement of Beliefs, and whether it is accurate to describe it as "mandatory" (which, given the purges of people who deviated from their emerging orthodoxy, would seem to be a fair description).

3422:

If I reverted for simply disagreeing with me, I would have reverted a large chunk of the comments on that talkpage. The editor in question had nothing whatsoever to say about the content of the article, merely a stream of incoherent, conspiracy theory, accusations.

2815:

asking that you please stop assuming bath faith of others, because I consider that most poisonous to a civilised working environment. If we all work on the basis that the only agenda here is to create a balanced article, then we can debate proposals for the article

1618:"All sources should be used in a way that does not give rise to new analyses, syntheses or original conclusions that are not verifiable. Where interpretive claims, analysis, or synthetic claims are included in Knowledge articles, use appropriate sources rather than 604:

against a widespread editorial practice. Where else do you expect this to be discussed? Lacking such a policy, I have no reason to accept an alteration of this link against this practice, and thus nothing further to discuss with you on this specific edit. Good day.

860:

was pointless clutter. To be blunt, I'm not at all impressed by {{cite web}}, it leads to impenetrable source code and cluttered references -- just look at the unnecessary dross in the EoE references section. It should in my mind be used as sparingly as possible.

2596:

I'm still looking for you to be more explicit...I'm looking for help. FYI, I didn't "give the wrong diff", I intended to direct you to the edit that you blanked, that included my text giving the reason for my addition -- sorry, I didn't think that would give you

1209:. The tone of the whole page seems so misguided compared to what wikipedia is supposed to be, that I think it'll be a lot of work and arguments to get it anything resembling an encyclopedia article. Good luck! I may weigh in once I've built up the energy for it. 321:

I will confess that I didn't actually read any of his poetry -- the titles of his poems in his table of contents was enough to make me power up my Infinite Improbability Drive and get the hell out of there. Ornis seems to have been made of sterner stuff however.

3623:

nest of 'Conservapedias' -- each with their own preferred bias, none of them in the least bit authoritative, and none of them agreeing on much. If the more POV editors cannot see this, and are not willing to make some sacrifice of the full splendor of their

976:

He may have been confused by the talk page. It was more likely to be cluelessness than vandalism. Anyway, I'd say he did everyone else a favour by archiving his comments - "this isn't the place for debating evolution" would probably be the best response.

2295:

GusChiggins21. What a ..........!!!!!!! He now claims he BELIEVES in evolution. Little does he understand that you BELIEVE in Creationism, as a matter of faith. Evolution requires no FAITH. Creationists are just not as bright as they used to be.

3514:. I think this is is most constructive way towards jeeping this article policy compliant while engaging with those editors who are keen to improve it, but lack the wiki experience to do so in a neutral way. Thanks for you all your hard work on this. 790:

prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the

3714:

Given that Goo2you's disruptive repeated deletion of the discussed {{notability}}-template led to an uninvolved editor nominating the article in question for a AfD, I think the comment (to another user, on that user's talkpage) was justified per

2995:, blatant ignoring/misrepresenting policy and ad hominem attacks, rather than arguments solidly founded on reliable and verifiable sources and citation of policy, I tended to be more than a little terse, and more than a little combative with him. 3006:

Have I reacted positively to everybody? No -- but then an unremittingly positive editor would probably avoid such a contentious and rancorous article. Have I responded with reasonable politeness to on-topic and substantive comments, I hope so.

1327:

You're welcome. The stuff I got rid of should've been reverted immediately -- badly written, badly marked up & badly out of compliance with wikipedia policy. A testament for why every article needs at least an editor or two riding shotgun.

2849:

indeed that may well be the best outcome if it is done correctly. I really feel you have misinterpreted my feelings about this, I really very much agree with many of your positions in policy and have little interest in the subject itself.

184: 3453:

The user who I reverted, 65.24.116.252 (who according to Kww may be yourself), stated nothing more than a martyr-troll rant. Regardless of whether that was you or not, you have given me ample independent reason to regard you as a troll.

3549:

song and dance about the need for thorough sourcing, and made it quite clear that I considered Breggin to be unreliable. My frustration level is high (hence my venting here), but will attempt to hold my tongue in the mean time. But

1705:

citation with {{fact}} was overkill ("overreacting a bit") and uninformative as to your specific issue. If you'd wanted to highlight the lack of substantiation for "first" you need only have placed {{failed verification}} next to

3488:

GusChiggins21, please be aware that editors have every right to delete comments from their talk pages, with the exception of certain official warnings. If you continue this ill informed nonsense, you'll be getting a warning for

1770:

i've reverted your revert. the numbers given are nowhere in that video, which incidentally i watched before you reverted, as my original intention was to find the correct link and rewrite the sentence to include the sample

757: 1263:

completely lacking in third party sourcing. Such articles aggravate me: not really bad enough to be deletable (let alone worth the aggravation of AfDing them), but bad enough that even a lot of work only turns them into a

1003:

There was a link on the talk page to archives, so it's possible he clicked on (a redlink...) Trying to talk to him seems to have no effect though, so I'm not sure what to do. Patience is probably the best alternative.

2969:

Add content to the article. This has always struck me as dysfunctional as (1) the real problem was with the existing content and (2) the article lacks sufficient structure for there to be anything to hang the new content

1735:

Stop being silly. Deleting the citation & replacing it with fact implied that the entire sentence was uncited when in fact it was only the single word "first" that was a problem (a fact that or initial reversion made

2089:

NPOV is not an acceptable reason to revert good faith edits: "Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it." at

224: 570:

That was incredibly rude of you to tell me to take this somewhere else, instead of continuing conversing with you. I am tired of so much rudeness on Knowledge already. Please, think about what you have just done.

2926:

I would also point out that if I'd been acting rationally, I would have simply left this article to molder with its NPOV-tag. I've got enough controlled-implosions on my hands as it is (and they're not exactly

2462:

Don't be a dick. At its core, ID contains neither axioms nor logical inference so it is not an argument. Likewise, at its core it contains contains no criticisms of evolution, so it is not a crituque. It is an

3083:

As far as I can see you do little except indulge in the very talkfests you claim to abhor, to very little good purpose. Your comments do nothing to improve either the content or the balance of the article. So

3089:

the article talkpage that are likewise not substantive proposals/suggestions/discussions as to the content or direction of the article -- as these are after all the purpose of talkpages. Good day to you sir.

3014:

want to have positive interactions with me then discuss my proposals on the talk page (supporting or opposing), suggest an alternate merger schema, or an entirely different strategy (but be prepared to do

2211:. We also need a citation for the statement that transitional fossils support the theory of evolution. The examples given are descriptive of the fossils, not their importance as support for evolution. 1248:

I just had another look at the article. Nice work. You've done good job of turning the previous shambles into an actual wikipedia article. I wonder whether the original editors will ever come back?...

1232:

of chainsaw work already in paring down what was merged into here from the satellite articles. I'll leave the fine detail to others, unless I can put myself in the right mood for a serious treatment.

3777:, and I intend to have as little to do with you as possible. To that end, I intend to summarily revert any and all further comments you place here that I do not consider to be productive. Good day. 2116:

Hrafn, just a point of interest for you (I won't seek to revert your reversion of my reversion of that last change back to the original, but, like FTU, ID has been and is getting more so an article

3205:

I take this to mean that any assertion of fact, expression of POV or Original Research (on a talk page) can legitimately be tagged as such -- especially when it is used to intimidate or drive away

3511:

I know you asked me not to post here again, so of course feel free to revert this, but I just wanted to note that I really appreciate your recent comments (and the patience you are demonstrating)

2998:

Voice of All: when we disagreed, I stated my opposition without rancour. When he queried one of my edits, I responded quickly clearly and politely. Where possible, I have taken his ideas on board.

3994:

I have references which can contribute, but in the interest of time (which I'm a bit short of atm), can you work up quick and dirty little bullet list of the particular question(s) to research?

2652:

You know, Hrafn, I'm tired of your complete assumption of bad faith and in-civil tone on that talk page. There are editors other than you who have an interest in this subject and all are not as

3587:"neutral" information as they see it. I think this is just something that is inherent to a Knowledge, some people eventually accept it and manage to work within it, and some people don't (see 2728:

consider such praise to be "bullying, wild accusations and dishonesty" then I really am concerned about your assumptions of others. That is a terribly bad faith interpretation of my comments.

2771:

as attempting to bully. We have two choices at this stage: (1) we can continue to lob accusations, fatwas and prophesies of doom at each other; or (2) we can debate proposals for the article

3534:

That 'request' explicitly self-expired days ago, when you started making substantive suggestions on the article talkpage (didn't matter if they were suggestions I agreed/disagreed with). :)

955:. If he/she just dies off on his/her own, I'll consider it a good thing and let it be. Also, your signature is the funniest joke I've ever seen related to talk and contrib pages. Kudos. 2881:

always had very much the feel of the latter. In doing so, I'm generally more interested in new ideas than what I perceive as reflexive defence of existing positions (the status quo between

3821:. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Knowledge's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " 1093:, using facts and principles (like uniformitarianism) which help interpret these facts. "Doctrine" is close, I will admit, but has unfortunate religious overtones. Anyway, the articles on 3105: 2931:

work), as well as an important, but woefully lopsidedly-sourced article to think about, a couple of stubs to expand & a couple of timely expansions on another article. The reason I

3138:

Ok, so my {{fact}}-tagging talkpage comments is annoying you. I will stop, and use another means. I only meant to keep the "dispute" from causing the section from getting overly long.

2576:

for that argument to apply. It does not help me attempting to work out what the heck is going on that you give the wrong dif and employ a sig that has little in common with your nick.

1786:

Fair enough -- I'm on a slow connection, so wasn't able to verify the video's contents -- just that it'd been cited by another page as the source for numbers in the correct timeframe.

4155:

It was a pre-emptive challenge to MoodyGroove's inclinations to have politics reign in science's "evil or vile" inclinations. In any case, from you this whole line of questioning is

3828:

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at

2023: 3541:, only three sources for his new section, one of which was Breggin and one of which ended up with the new 'Pharmaceutical industry influence' section, leaving a grand total of 1462:

I am not sure what will happen next, but it will be interesting. I did put in a little bit of information and I am prepared to do much more, depending on what happens next. --

1345:

help. I think eventually it will be something to be proud of, but this might take many many more man years of effort. On the other hand, it is a fairly good start so far. --

3951:

to remember to think before we revert (and to read the edit summaries of counter-reverts before we do so), and to apologise when we unthinkingly revert legitimate content.

3773:

came along (due to the prod from myself that you complained about above), that notability was finally established. You have proven yourself to be a superfluous troll and a

1811:

Why did you undo my changes, I am a Young earth creationist and altered the article so it more clearly represents what I/we believe and what the refrenced article states.

1175:

I get so tired of the Creationist cruft that I'm getting lazy about it. Your edits were much better than my revert. And my nose was very itchy from the tweaking. :)

2759:

When you come in swinging at me for assuming bad faith, you can be pretty sure that this (and not the later sugar coating) is what I'll be focusing on. Also when you

2108: 852:

useful than a raw link -- readers have no reason whatsoever to want to know when a EL was retrieved, that they are in English is obvious (this field should be used '

1039:

evolution.I am going to inquire with a couple of biologists, but as I know there has never been a new order. Even in the E.Coli experiment (ongoing for 30 years).

243:

He also has poetry about some/all of the above as well. I suppose we should be thankful that he's only attempting to impose his prose on us here at wikipedia. : -->

156: 3872: 3829: 3554:

is a harsh mistress (every time I read it, I am surprised by how much harsher it is than normal etiquette would imply), and will demand her price sooner or later.

3751:, after all of your "disruptive" repeated re-insertions of the template led to an uninvolved editor nominating the article in question for a AfD. You're welcome. 2226:

Your {{fact}}-tags were borderline specious (and in one case right over the border into blatantly ridiculous) -- I merely added references, where doing so wasn't

2044: 3894: 3748: 3740: 3247: 3069:

By "strategy" I meant proposed programme for improving the article, such as my current merge/disambiguate/template "strategy". Thank you for assuming good faith.

3351: 3311: 3130: 2141: 1923:

Borderline. I think leave her out for the time being, but see if the Comer controversy and/or events in Texas generally brings her further into the limelight.

3332:

You may take this as meaning that I will not oppose (and never have opposed) the admission of well-written, policy compliant (particularly well-sourced, per

673: 339: 98: 2540:

I'm not sure exactly what it was that you felt did not meet the verifyability criteria for inclusion, especially as the entire section is sourced back to

1042:

As for the several revisions, I apologize for those to. After reading the policy it's YIKES. I definitely exceeeded my limits so I apologize for that.

3400:

Disagreeing with you is not a violation of any policies. You seem to believe that your role is to protect the ID articles, but this is not the case. See

2230:

idiotic, in order to prevent further edit-warring. This should not be considered to be an endorsement of your editing patterns, which I considered to be

1948: 462:

If they "don't even know there is such a thing as 'biblical literalism'" then the link is exactly what they need to inform them what "literalism" means

3798: 3439:

The user stated that the Dawkins quote was biased, which it clearly was, and then you said he made no specific complaints. That simply isn't the case.

1641:. Get a clue! The citation was perfectly legitimate for its "use was in 1843 by French physiologist François Magendie". If you don't like "first" then 1043: 3257: 2978:, then I can live with that. My impression to date is that a combination of patience and scrupulous observance of the rules will generally win out. 2516: 2016: 672:. Please do not delete content from Knowledge just because you don't agree with it. This is an encyclopedia, not your personal personal webpage. -- 1321: 4039: 4025: 3981: 3962: 2311: 2957: 2290: 1511:

Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals

66: 3852: 2566: 2318:

idiosyncratic 'evolutionist' that he might as well be creationists, etc), and I suspect he'll flame-out before I can get a good read on him.

1299: 478:

ignorance, not pander to it. Links should thus take readers to articles that somebody knowledgeable with the subject would expect, and which

3189:"Maintain Knowledge policy: The policies that apply to articles also apply (if not to the same extent) to talk pages, including Knowledge's 2871: 2196: 2173: 3582:

is explained, but I do have some sympathy for them. The reason I say this is because, while WP's goal is to be neutral, the application of

1339: 378: 287: 271: 255: 238: 218: 198: 170: 146: 135:

applies to blatant self-promotion (or I hope it doesn't, one never can tell with fatwas from the more screwy policy-nazis these days ;) ).

104: 3474: 3448: 3434: 3417: 3395: 2695:

resembling good faith, I assume good faith. When I experience what I perceive as bullying, wild accusations and dishonesty as I have from

2387: 2347: 2280: 2260: 2245: 1591: 1566: 1557: 745: 713: 4232: 4216: 4085: 3691: 2329: 2059: 1190: 1162: 1134: 834: 572: 512: 446: 400: 2403: 3707: 3642: 3605: 3565: 3062: 2913: 2833: 2787: 2742: 2718: 1539: 333: 3857: 3100: 3034: 1797: 1028: 1008: 998: 3588: 2436:

I'm not sure whether it's best termed an argument, a critique, a position, or a crock of s---. How about viewpoint, idea, position?

1826: 3917: 3908: 3788: 3760: 3283: 2991:

Cesar Tort: Given that his defence of his position (and impeachment of my edits) were based upon unsubstantiated invocations of the

2478: 91: 4101: 3326: 2637: 2609: 2587: 1257: 1243: 3730: 2947: 2510: 2032: 1934: 1865: 1492: 1354: 1294: 549: 3972:

by editors who hadn't done the homework and simply added in content of their own they whipped up out of noplace. Thanks again.

3374: 2764: 2704: 2700: 2696: 1751: 1730: 1721: 1696: 1673: 1656: 616: 575: 515: 493: 449: 431: 3072:

If you aren't going to voice any substantive improvements on article then that means that you are indeed completely superfluous.

1970:

information and adding unverfiable information. This is in violation of wikipedia policy, and so has been reverted. Please read

1431: 1417: 905: 872: 223:

Oh my, "bizarre opinion editing", I guess "that doesn't make a blind bit of sense" is a bizarre opinion now. Jeez have you seen

3686: 1894: 1275: 121: 3501: 2415: 1445: 959: 926: 676: 4140:

in some way? I couldn't see how it would lead to improvements in the article. Should I wait for you to elaborate, or what? --

2133: 1875: 1818: 3528: 799:

from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a

4068: 2963:

Yourself. Your substantive comments to date have amounted to repeated (and often imperiously voiced) 'suggestions' that I:

2857:

some of the other contributors rather than working against them (which it kind of feels like at the moment). Thanks again,

2265:

I have seen no evidence to support the contention that you "just want neutrally phrased articles that are properly cited".

1550: 1225: 315: 4011: 4003: 3662:

Welcome to Knowledge. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to

3512: 1562:

Ah, yes. The old "you're wikilawyering" attack to dismiss the edits of someone who is actually following Wiki guidelines.

3968:

have gathered up good references, was working to add good content and fix some of the problems I came across, only to be

3940: 1498: 392: 2898:

smooth things over later. If you want to disagree with the specifics of what gets moved where (or anything else), then

2657:

mistakes of the past and try and not repeat them, and I thought I would offer that information to those other editors.

2181:

of fact not opinion that anybody claiming that evolution violates 2LoT is wrong. If you find this offensive then it is

2078: 1956: 1371:

your thoughts on adding an 'old earth'/ID section to the page discussing the SAP in relation to Behe? Is it a SYNTH?

1072: 818: 1218: 361: 4113: 3652: 2220: 1960: 1046: 62: 2546:

Is there a reason you just didn't tag whatever you felt needed a citation rather than just blanking the whole edit?

1471: 4149: 2433:, based on your comment about whether ID even exists (as an argument). But somebody might say I was being POINTy. 2397: 2035:. I am seeking input on the organization of this template. The classifications are a bit too course in my view. 1941:

information provided but will ask for mediation if you continue to block factual information from being included.

1848: 1780: 1224:

I must admit that I'm having too much cognitive dissonance that anybody can take Comfort & Cameron (surely the

981: 3887: 3673: 2760: 987:

It is rather bizarre behaviour even for a newbie, and is likely to confuse users looking for legitimate archives.

403: 4185: 3401: 2683: 1806: 1387: 1148: 1144: 922:, which might interest you, and I wouldn't mind some input on whether the actions taken are appropriate or not. 69: 2103: 2011: 1631: 1380: 652: 4137: 4035: 3999: 3977: 3936: 535: 3209:. This is my perspective on the effect your edits have on me, and I think some others may share this feeling. 2484:

We have way too much material to start thinking about merging articles on ID and creationism, in my opinion.--

1993: 1917: 128: 3868: 3769:

notability has been established, which your own pathetic attempts completely failed to do. It was not until

3663: 3356: 3002:

wikipedia, I have done my best to explore these with him, within the limitations imposed by wikipedia policy.

2456: 1854:

Will probably keep just an eye on it until the situation settles down and solidifies. Thanks for the tip. :)

1057: 2966:

Nominate the article for deletion if I wish to query its notability. This has always struck me as premature.

2600:

Do you agree that the "Day-age" is currently underrepresented compared to all the other comparable sections?

2526: 1399: 1101:

anchor this point rather nicely, so hopefully we won't see any more equivocation inserted on this point. :)

657: 3279: 2493: 2024: 1017:

badly needs a cleanup for its formatting and linking idiosyncrasies. But now probably isn't the best time.

4199:

word, that is the derivation of the word "raven", as my nick does mean that I feel a certain affinity for

3261: 763: 395:

was to something called "Biblical literalism" without clicking on the link or hovering over it. See also

4211: 4165: 4080: 4020: 3957: 3903: 3783: 3725: 3637: 3560: 3506: 3469: 3429: 3390: 3346: 3306: 3125: 3095: 3029: 2942: 2908: 2782: 2713: 2632: 2582: 2505: 2473: 2430: 2382: 2324: 2275: 2240: 2191: 1988: 1929: 1860: 1792: 1746: 1716: 1668: 1651: 1586: 1487: 1412: 1334: 1289: 1238: 1157: 1112: 1107: 1023: 993: 867: 856:

when the reference is to something that is in another language to the article) and the automatic link to

792: 787: 740: 708: 647: 611: 544: 488: 426: 356: 328: 282: 250: 213: 193: 141: 86: 4014:

is his proposed change on the topic. He doesn't offer any alternative sources as substantiation for it.

1455: 3818: 2767:

with dire warnings of the consequences of rocking the boat even slightly, you should be prepared to be

2530: 367:

So I see. We may yet be forced to make the terrible choice between the airlock and a poetry recital. –

97: 38: 1872:

provided but will ask for mediation if you continue to block factual information from being included.

4097: 4031: 3995: 3973: 3932: 3880: 2882: 2137: 1822: 1200: 842: 796: 1740:). If you don't want to get reverted, you need to be clearer as to the rationale behind your edits. 61:

I just wanted to let you know I partly corrected myself and clarified my "100-1 ratio" statement at

4047: 3814: 3800: 1682: 1317: 1281: 1064:, who would surely be considered the very best source for the article in question. The WikiProject 373: 266: 233: 165: 116: 3231:

Problem: (a) whatever common ground we might have is completely lost in all this noise, and (b) I

3172:

on the assumption that you were simply mistaken in citing the wrong guideline, and that perhaps I

413:

account. Under the circumstances it is perfectly obvious and contextual that the link would be to

4091: 3843:

template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.

3444: 3413: 3370: 3177: 2467:

that acts as an umbrella for such arguments and critiques, but that does not make it itself one.

2343: 2256: 2216: 2208: 2099: 2065: 1832: 384: 343: 3666:

other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the

2499:

Filll, as his premise was patently fallacious, there's no need to even consider his conclusion.

1386:

I was under the impression that ID's cosmological work centred mainly around arguments (such as

4056: 3667: 3079:

I have listed positive interactions above, if you choose to ignore them, then that's up to you.

1952: 1362: 1014: 814: 951:

him/her. If he/she spreads to other pages, I might think about seeing if he/she is a sock of

4118: 2886: 1688:

indicates a way of improving an article by adding a relevant source. I never add them for a "

1601: 1391: 1309: 1305: 3839:

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the

1549:

is quite unbecoming, as well as unconvincing and uncompelling. Please see the discussion at

1478: 307:

thinking of deleting the tosh myself, glad I didn't have to suffer reading more of that. ..

3765:

No you weren't "vindicated". The point of a {{notability}}-template is that it should stay

3704: 3600: 3523: 3498: 3267: 3224:

Church and State". You might want to take a look at the work I've done on criticism of the

3057: 2866: 2828: 2737: 2678: 1944: 1814: 1069: 806: 632: 312: 204: 3041:

dominates an article it it is to its detriment, irrespective of how good their intentions.

8: 3405: 2573: 2541: 1776: 1765: 1395: 1313: 971: 800: 669: 664: 658: 414: 368: 261: 228: 160: 111: 56: 3044:

As you say, have you reacted positively to everyone? No. Have you reacted positively to

1436:

Saw the merge, if I ever get around to re-creating, I'll draft it on a sub-page first.

1402:). There is likely to be room for a short section summarising all this with appropriate 1228:

of apologetics) seriously to feel comfortable with doing the finer details. I've done a

1151:. The comment I left on your talkpage was a mere nose-tweeking, not a serious gripe. :) 3440: 3409: 3366: 3225: 2552:

Please tag anything else that you think does not meet WP standards for verifiability.

2339: 2269:

does not overcome "bad faith" editing such as your repeated tendentious argumentation.

2252: 2212: 2110: 2095: 1899: 1563: 1536: 779: 347: 2893:

listen to new input (though don't always draw the conclusions people may expect), and

2050:

I for one cannot imagine lumping art and history museums together. Seems a bit odd. --

882:

point for ELs though - the only reason for a last access date is in case it goes dead.

702:

is not a reliable source on anything scientific). Hence my deletion of this material.

399:, a shortcut which I just created after spending 20 minutes looking for that section. 4191:

Have I gone by the specific nick "Raven" in the recent past? No. However, taking the

4145: 4109: 3756: 3682: 2452: 2411: 2297: 2202: 1905: 1456: 1206: 1176: 1120: 1098: 1051: 895: 810: 638: 3404:. Also, when you delete talk page comments, that makes it very difficult to achieve 2572:

Your additions were not sufficiently clearly tracable back to statements already in

4048: 3490: 3322: 3275: 3243: 2707:(as well as numerous lesser indications of bad faith), that assumption wears thin. 2647: 2623: 2605: 2562: 2160: 2152: 1253: 1214: 751: 3947:

fallen into the habit myself from time to time, and the best that we can do is to

3184: 2889:

from you, and the "original article" content from Cesar & Benjaminbruheim). I

1308:. Previously it looked like an article written by Young Earth Creationists on why 3989: 3848: 3716: 3700: 3624: 3592: 3515: 3494: 3049: 2992: 2975: 2858: 2820: 2729: 2670: 2489: 2420: 2365: 2169: 2156: 2055: 2005: 1998: 1913: 1881: 1844: 1833: 1689: 1467: 1350: 944: 919: 691: 308: 47: 17: 2622:

I have given more detailed explanations of the reasoning behind my reversion on

2164:

just a wolf in sheep's clothing, of insidious dominionist ignorance-mongering.--

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4173: 3925: 3774: 3460: 3455: 3381: 3217: 3194: 3169: 2447:. But ID has more than one card up its sleeve, so where does that leave us? -- 2148: 2091: 2075: 1772: 1611: 1061: 1005: 978: 948: 731: 687: 2974:

editors like Cesar see this as mere "wikilawyering" and adulteration of their

76:

closing-admins on contested IfDs -- it gives a more-than-slight appearance of

4156: 3840: 3833: 3822: 3198: 3165: 2373: 2266: 1890: 1607: 1546: 1441: 1427: 1376: 1077: 1065: 396: 132: 107: 77: 4141: 4105: 3914: 3884: 3752: 3678: 3337: 3150: 3146: 3115: 2448: 2407: 2361: 2231: 2084: 1979: 1975: 1520: 857: 695: 420:. It would hardly be to a literal interpretation of Shakespearian sonnets. 1839:

This is a new article that needs editing. You might be interested in it.--

726:

source: usable for statements such as those that start "Behe says ..." --

4192: 3628: 3619: 3583: 3579: 3551: 3333: 3318: 3271: 3239: 3213: 3206: 3190: 2601: 2558: 2534: 2440: 1971: 1967: 1504: 1249: 1210: 1068:

needs more book citations rather than web-based ones, I believe. Cheers,

952: 825: 783: 668:

agree with, I'd be blocked, with good reason. I've reverted your edit to

3863: 3806: 3118:

and will be reverted, and may ultimately get you blocked. Please desist.

2070: 1422:

Thanks for the links, I'll look into them if/when I draft the section.

774: 4207: 4161: 4076: 4016: 3953: 3899: 3844: 3779: 3721: 3633: 3556: 3465: 3425: 3386: 3342: 3302: 3121: 3091: 3025: 2938: 2904: 2778: 2709: 2628: 2578: 2501: 2485: 2469: 2439:

The single statement, "Life shows signs of having been designed," is a

2378: 2320: 2271: 2236: 2187: 2165: 2051: 1984: 1925: 1909: 1856: 1840: 1788: 1742: 1712: 1664: 1647: 1582: 1554: 1483: 1463: 1408: 1346: 1330: 1285: 1234: 1153: 1103: 1019: 989: 863: 736: 704: 643: 607: 540: 484: 422: 352: 324: 278: 246: 209: 189: 137: 82: 3220:, in combination with your edit history before we go forward, please? 4196: 4129: 2444: 2185:

that offends you -- not the "critics" of ID or editors of wikipedia.

1727: 1693: 1628: 3931:

welcome correction when it's well founded. I appreciate the help.

3212:

Really, this is getting silly. You clearly have more horses in this

409:

The "literal account" in context is the literal interpretation of a

4074:

I think that one needs an expert, so have templated it to get one.

3589:

User:Cesar Tort#Letter to the president of the Wikimedia Foundation

3317:

Thanks for taking the time to respond. May I take this as a "yes"?

1886: 1437: 1423: 1372: 956: 923: 902: 839: 760: 3670:

to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

3176:

violating a talk page guideline other than the one you mistakenly

1513:

and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control

1406:

s in C.c., but anything longer seems likely to be a duplication.

1147:. I thought that you didn't go quite far enough, so bolstered it 1094: 682:

Your section is not "information on the content of the book" but

482:

those who aren't knowledgeable and so don't know what to expect.

470:

literalism, not literalism in some wider context, so the link is

4225:

Ah, I had you confused with another person on some other site.

2338:

This is hilarious. Do you guys just want a statement of my POV?

3817:, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for 2549:

In the meantime I have undone your revert and added citations.

730:

for anything that starts "Science has..." I recommend you read

3658: 3545:

on the subject of the original section? This after I'd made a

4200: 3106:

Hey...can we work together to find a way to chill out a bit?

3380:

I can when the reverted comments are in clear violation of

155:

Ah... see, I missed that, as I was distracted by far more

1082:... that you would say "I could go with either word". ;( 3873:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Walt Brown (creationist)

3830:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Walt Brown (creationist)

768: 127:

Not that there was any real doubt, but he outed himself

3537:

Benjaminbruheim's recent edits were in good faith, but

2426: 385: 276:

A god of protection from bad poetry? One can but pray.

110:, that I thought I should at least give it a try :). – 2853:

moment, I would hope you could take the lead and work

1527:

Each blog has its own theme, specialty, and author(s)

756:

Here's a category you might find potentially useful:

106:

LOL, Ok, fine, I'd heard so much about the wonders of

758:

Category:Suspected Knowledge sockpuppets of Imbrella

3895:

retracted the personal attack and apologised for it

1885:I might draft an essay if there's nothing extant. 4136:Was this intended to help the discussion along at 3114:riverguy42: {{fact}}-tagging talkpage comments is 1726:Is "citation needed" looked very seriously upon? / 1678:Hm, I think you are perhaps overreacting a bit. A 1637:In other words you nuked the citation because you 2207:For adding references to challenged material in 1551:Talk:Discovery_Institute#Blogs_as_proper_sources 1205:Hi Hafrn, I've been away a bit. I had a look at 63:User_talk:Alasdair#Image:Time_evolution_wars.jpg 4054:This article may need to be de-crappified too. 3747:for removing the {{notability}}-template... by 466:. This passage of the article is talking about 3164:Nevertheless, as I continue to try my best to 2033:Template_talk:Museums_in_Kentucky#Organization 918:Also incidentally, there's some discussion at 684:repetition of Behe's fallacious claims as fact 3256:Oh...on Einstein...maybe you want to look at 2691:When I am dealt with with something at least 1982:. And please sign comments by appending ~~~~ 1089:to being a theory. Theories are what science 346:, and spouting the same old crank claims on 260:LMAO... perhaps there is a god after all. – 3161:on the topic of tagging talkpage comments. 2120:the topic it describes, less so an article 2074:Wishing you the very best for the season - 1545:Your selective reading of the WP rules and 474:apt. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to 782:according to the reverts you have made on 3262:the Jewish position on Intelligent Design 2360:No. We simply desire a cessation of your 2124:it) but the Knowledge NPOV is explicitly 778:You currently appear to be engaged in an 2517:Question about your revert of my edit... 2069: 891:Incidentally, {{tl|cite web}} gives you 1620:original analysis by Knowledge editors. 1529:and is not subject to editorial control 1400:Fine-tuned Universe‎#Intelligent design 441:won't know the answer. It looks like a 14: 3699:By their deeds ye shall know them. .. 2533:to the Day-Age creation subsection at 2291:What the hell is going on around here? 686:. As such it is in gross violation of 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4098:Marcus R. Ross: Selected Bibliography 1966:3littlehands: you have been deleting 1580:was "phrasally attributed" for them. 1300:Recent Edits on Old Earth Creationism 1908:be part of it? Is she too obscure?-- 1880:It'd be nice to have something like 1535:ScienceBlogs fails WP:RS/V on that. 25: 3871:other editors, which you did here: 3578:no matter how often the concept of 3216:than me, but maybe you will review 1507:as per footnote 5 (emphasis mine): 23: 4096:Dispute regarding your editing at 3805: 3719:. Thanks for calling, Goo2you. :) 3023:own proposal, should it win out). 2986:superfluous, at worst obstructive. 2958:Interactions with specific editors 1639:didn't like a single word: "first" 1627:Therefore: a citation is needed. / 1056:Hi Hrafn, thanks for your work on 600:You are seeking what amounts to a 24: 4246: 3618:Yes, but I on the other hand see 3574:I u8ndrestand. Sometimes editors 2003:Please respond on the talk page. 1519:As we can easily discover on the 1477:As I mentioned on your talk, see 3862: 3657: 1523:article (again, emphasis mine): 1143:You said so in the edit summary 773: 183:From the brief glance I took of 29: 3402:Knowledge:Ownership of articles 4138:talk:Politicization of science 3361:You can't go around reverting 3207:new contributors or viewpoints 3168:on your part, I also reviewed 2017:"Satanic ritual abuse" scandal 1304:Thank you for your efforts on 1276:About your editing of my page. 795:. If you continue, you may be 536:Knowledge talk:Manual of Style 13: 1: 2638:05:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC) 2610:04:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC) 2588:02:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC) 2567:21:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC) 2511:18:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC) 2494:17:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC) 2479:17:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC) 2457:16:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC) 2416:15:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 2388:10:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 2348:10:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 2330:09:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 2312:09:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 2281:10:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 2261:09:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 2246:08:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 2221:07:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 2197:07:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 2174:05:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 2142:05:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 2104:05:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 2079:03:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 2060:19:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC) 2045:17:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC) 2012:13:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC) 1994:05:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC) 1961:05:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC) 1935:04:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC) 1918:04:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC) 1895:23:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 1876:Evolution sourcing in general 1662:cleared this up far earlier. 1567:19:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 1558:18:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 1540:18:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 1493:18:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 1472:18:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 1446:12:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 1432:13:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 1418:02:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 1381:22:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC) 1355:18:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 1340:15:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC) 1322:13:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC) 1295:06:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC) 1258:19:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC) 1244:14:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 1219:13:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 1191:20:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 1163:10:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 1135:08:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 1113:11:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 1073:16:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 1058:Geoscience Research Institute 1047:06:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 1029:05:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 1009:05:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 999:04:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 982:04:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 391:Hi. I would never guess that 187:, he's nutty as a fruitcake. 4233:05:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 4217:05:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 4186:04:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 4150:19:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 4114:04:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 4086:15:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC) 4069:08:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC) 4040:16:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC) 4026:16:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC) 4004:16:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC) 3982:19:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 3963:08:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 3941:07:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 3918:02:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 3909:02:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 3888:02:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 3789:01:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 3761:20:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC) 3731:04:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC) 2025:Template:Museums_in_Kentucky 1866:02:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC) 1849:22:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC) 1827:10:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC) 1798:15:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC) 1781:14:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC) 1752:09:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC) 1731:04:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC) 1722:04:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC) 1697:03:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC) 1674:03:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC) 1657:03:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC) 1632:02:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC) 1592:03:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 1119:on here, I can't remember. 960:22:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 927:22:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 906:21:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 873:12:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 843:12:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 764:06:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 746:04:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 714:04:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 677:02:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 653:05:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 617:04:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 576:04:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 550:04:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 516:04:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 494:03:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 450:22:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 432:01:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 404:23:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 379:07:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 362:04:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 334:13:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC) 316:11:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC) 288:10:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC) 272:10:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC) 256:09:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC) 239:09:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC) 219:09:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC) 199:08:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC) 171:07:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC) 147:07:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC) 122:07:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC) 92:17:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 70:17:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 7: 3853:21:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 3836:with four tildes (~~~~). 3708:20:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 3687:19:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 3643:02:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 3606:17:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 3566:10:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 3529:08:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 3502:08:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 3475:02:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 3449:00:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 3435:12:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 3418:12:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 3396:12:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 3375:12:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 3352:02:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 3327:19:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 3312:04:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 3284:03:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 3248:02:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 3131:23:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 3101:05:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 3063:04:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 3035:04:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 2948:10:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 2914:09:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 2872:09:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 2834:19:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 2788:19:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 2743:18:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 2719:09:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 2684:08:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 2431:Intelligent Design movement 1499:Seed, ScienceBlogs and WP:V 10: 4251: 2372:"bad faith editing" under 2027:classifications too course 1503:ScienceBlogs does not fit 445:non-intuitive link to me. 3883:from editing Knowledge. 3653:Warning: Personal Attacks 3183:What I found is that the 2883:Biopsychiatry controversy 2524:On 12/13 you reverted my 821:) 12:19, November 2, 2007 3815:Walt Brown (creationist) 3813:An editor has nominated 3801:Walt Brown (creationist) 2398:Describing Jonathan well 1738:no mention of whatsoever 1606:I reverted your edit in 1282:Talk:Francis J. Beckwith 901:with a clickable link. 185:his book on Google Books 4030:k-I'll get back asap. 3875:. If you continue, you 3235:still pretty new here. 3141:Now, you are citing me 2209:Objections to Evolution 1807:Young Earth Creationism 1060:. Good work for citing 943:Regards Inspectre, I'm 344:User:Gary.gibson.writer 3832:and please be sure to 3810: 3692:Warning: Troll Attacks 2081: 2031:Please take a look at 1533: 1517: 1479:WP:AN#Bernard d'Abrera 1015:Experimental evolution 3841:articles for deletion 3823:What Knowledge is not 3809: 3357:Reverting talk pages? 3319:riverguy42 aka WNDL42 3195:neutral point of view 2887:biological psychiatry 2109:"Scientific fact" at 2073: 1525: 1509: 1392:The Privileged Planet 1310:Old Earth Creationism 1306:Old Earth Creationism 945:not feeding the troll 848:Whereas I found them 42:of past discussions. 4032:Professor marginalia 3996:Professor marginalia 3974:Professor marginalia 3933:Professor marginalia 3199:no original research 2626:, where it belongs. 2128:synonymous with the 1396:Fine-tuned Universe‎ 3507:Biopsychiatry redux 3463:. Good day to you. 3406:Knowledge:Consensus 2574:Day Age Creationism 2542:Day Age Creationism 1692:" reason. Do you? / 1267:acceptable article. 348:Theistic evolution‎ 157:pernicious nonsense 108:assuming good faith 3834:sign your comments 3811: 3799:AfD nomination of 3775:tendentious editor 3238:So, whaddaya say? 3226:Unification Church 3178:cited- see item #4 3159:nothing whatsoever 3157:) says absolutely 3116:disruptive editing 2425:I'd love to merge 2362:disruptive editing 2111:Intelligent design 2082: 1388:Guillermo Gonzalez 1085:Uniformitarianism 947:, and am going to 700:Darwin's Black Box 690:(and particularly 670:Darwin's Black Box 665:Darwin's Black Box 659:Darwin's Black Box 340:User:68.119.226.63 99:User:68.119.226.63 3576:just don't get it 3286: 3270:comment added by 3166:Assume good faith 2310: 1963: 1947:comment added by 1906:Lizzette Reynolds 1829: 1817:comment added by 1207:Way of the Master 1201:Way of the Master 1189: 1133: 1099:Uniformitarianism 1087:is not even close 822: 809:comment added by 793:three-revert rule 788:three-revert rule 639:Talk:Michael Behe 205:hurt his feelings 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4242: 4231: 4228: 4215: 4184: 4181: 4178:Are you raven? 4169: 4084: 4065: 4062: 4059: 4049:Cochlear implant 4024: 3961: 3907: 3866: 3787: 3729: 3661: 3641: 3627:on the altar of 3603: 3599: 3595: 3564: 3526: 3522: 3518: 3473: 3433: 3394: 3350: 3310: 3297:be coincidental. 3265: 3129: 3099: 3086:unless and until 3060: 3056: 3052: 3033: 2946: 2912: 2869: 2865: 2861: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2786: 2740: 2736: 2732: 2717: 2681: 2677: 2673: 2636: 2624:Talk:Creationism 2586: 2509: 2477: 2386: 2328: 2309: 2307: 2302: 2279: 2244: 2195: 2042: 2038: 2008: 1992: 1942: 1933: 1864: 1812: 1796: 1750: 1720: 1687: 1681: 1672: 1655: 1590: 1491: 1457:Bernard d'Abrera 1416: 1398:hypothesis (see 1394:) surrounding a 1338: 1293: 1242: 1188: 1186: 1181: 1161: 1132: 1130: 1125: 1111: 1027: 997: 900: 894: 871: 804: 803:among editors. 786:. Note that the 777: 744: 718:DBB is reliable 712: 651: 615: 548: 492: 430: 376: 371: 360: 332: 286: 269: 264: 254: 236: 231: 217: 197: 168: 163: 145: 131:. I don't think 119: 114: 90: 33: 32: 26: 4250: 4249: 4245: 4244: 4243: 4241: 4240: 4239: 4229: 4226: 4214: 4206: 4182: 4179: 4176: 4168: 4160: 4121: 4100:has been noted 4094: 4092:BLP Noticeboard 4083: 4075: 4063: 4060: 4057: 4052: 4023: 4015: 3992: 3960: 3952: 3928: 3906: 3898: 3860: 3804: 3786: 3778: 3728: 3720: 3694: 3655: 3640: 3632: 3601: 3597: 3593: 3563: 3555: 3524: 3520: 3516: 3509: 3472: 3464: 3432: 3424: 3393: 3385: 3359: 3349: 3341: 3309: 3301: 3128: 3120: 3108: 3098: 3090: 3058: 3054: 3050: 3032: 3024: 3019:own legwork on 2960: 2945: 2937: 2911: 2903: 2867: 2863: 2859: 2829: 2825: 2821: 2817:on their merits 2785: 2777: 2773:on their merits 2738: 2734: 2730: 2716: 2708: 2701:Benjaminbruheim 2679: 2675: 2671: 2650: 2635: 2627: 2585: 2577: 2519: 2508: 2500: 2476: 2468: 2423: 2402:Hi. Thanks for 2400: 2385: 2377: 2327: 2319: 2303: 2298: 2293: 2278: 2270: 2243: 2235: 2205: 2194: 2186: 2134:207.190.198.130 2114: 2087: 2068: 2066:Merry Christmas 2040: 2036: 2029: 2019: 2006: 2001: 1991: 1983: 1932: 1924: 1902: 1878: 1863: 1855: 1837: 1834:Christine Comer 1819:217.206.168.163 1809: 1795: 1787: 1768: 1749: 1741: 1719: 1711: 1685: 1683:citation needed 1679: 1671: 1663: 1654: 1646: 1604: 1589: 1581: 1501: 1490: 1482: 1460: 1415: 1407: 1365: 1337: 1329: 1302: 1292: 1284: 1278: 1241: 1233: 1203: 1182: 1177: 1160: 1152: 1126: 1121: 1110: 1102: 1080: 1070:Colin MacLaurin 1054: 1026: 1018: 996: 988: 974: 920:Talk:Duane Gish 898: 892: 870: 862: 828: 771: 754: 743: 735: 711: 703: 662: 650: 642: 635: 614: 606: 547: 539: 491: 483: 464:in this context 429: 421: 389: 386:Literal account 374: 369: 359: 351: 331: 323: 305:<undent: --> 285: 277: 267: 262: 253: 245: 234: 229: 216: 208: 196: 188: 166: 161: 144: 136: 117: 112: 102: 89: 81: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 18:User talk:Hrafn 12: 11: 5: 4248: 4238: 4237: 4236: 4235: 4220: 4219: 4210: 4175: 4172: 4171: 4170: 4164: 4134: 4133: 4120: 4117: 4093: 4090: 4089: 4088: 4079: 4051: 4046: 4045: 4044: 4043: 4042: 4019: 3991: 3988: 3987: 3986: 3985: 3984: 3956: 3927: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3902: 3859: 3856: 3803: 3797: 3796: 3795: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3782: 3734: 3733: 3724: 3711: 3710: 3693: 3690: 3654: 3651: 3650: 3649: 3648: 3647: 3646: 3645: 3636: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3569: 3568: 3559: 3535: 3508: 3505: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3468: 3428: 3389: 3358: 3355: 3345: 3330: 3329: 3305: 3299: 3298: 3294: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3185:first sentence 3135: 3124: 3107: 3104: 3094: 3081: 3080: 3077: 3073: 3070: 3066: 3065: 3042: 3028: 3004: 3003: 2999: 2996: 2988: 2987: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2971: 2967: 2959: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2941: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2907: 2875: 2874: 2850: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2781: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2712: 2649: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2631: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2598: 2591: 2590: 2581: 2537:as unsourced. 2518: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2504: 2482: 2481: 2472: 2422: 2419: 2399: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2381: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2333: 2332: 2323: 2292: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2274: 2239: 2204: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2190: 2177: 2176: 2130:Scientific POV 2113: 2107: 2092:Help:Reverting 2086: 2083: 2067: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2028: 2022: 2018: 2015: 2000: 1997: 1987: 1938: 1937: 1928: 1901: 1898: 1877: 1874: 1869: 1868: 1859: 1836: 1831: 1808: 1805: 1803: 1801: 1800: 1791: 1767: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1745: 1715: 1667: 1659: 1650: 1624: 1623: 1603: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1585: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1500: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1486: 1459: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1411: 1390:'s claims (in 1364: 1363:C. cosmologies 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1333: 1314:Another berean 1301: 1298: 1288: 1277: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1237: 1226:Bill & Ted 1202: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1156: 1138: 1137: 1106: 1079: 1076: 1062:Ronald Numbers 1053: 1050: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1022: 1013:Incidentally, 992: 973: 970: 969: 968: 967: 966: 965: 964: 963: 962: 934: 933: 932: 931: 930: 929: 911: 910: 909: 908: 886: 885: 884: 883: 876: 875: 866: 827: 824: 770: 767: 753: 750: 749: 748: 739: 716: 707: 661: 656: 646: 634: 631: 630: 629: 628: 627: 626: 625: 624: 623: 622: 621: 620: 619: 610: 587: 586: 585: 584: 583: 582: 581: 580: 579: 578: 559: 558: 557: 556: 555: 554: 553: 552: 543: 525: 524: 523: 522: 521: 520: 519: 518: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 496: 487: 455: 454: 453: 452: 435: 434: 425: 388: 383: 382: 381: 355: 337: 336: 327: 303: 302: 301: 300: 299: 298: 297: 296: 295: 294: 293: 292: 291: 290: 281: 249: 212: 201: 192: 176: 175: 174: 173: 150: 149: 140: 101: 96: 95: 94: 85: 58: 55: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4247: 4234: 4224: 4223: 4222: 4221: 4218: 4213: 4209: 4204: 4203: 4198: 4194: 4190: 4189: 4188: 4187: 4167: 4163: 4158: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4151: 4147: 4143: 4139: 4131: 4126: 4125: 4124: 4119:Your opinions 4116: 4115: 4111: 4107: 4103: 4099: 4087: 4082: 4078: 4073: 4072: 4071: 4070: 4067: 4066: 4050: 4041: 4037: 4033: 4029: 4028: 4027: 4022: 4018: 4013: 4008: 4007: 4006: 4005: 4001: 3997: 3983: 3979: 3975: 3971: 3966: 3965: 3964: 3959: 3955: 3950: 3945: 3944: 3943: 3942: 3938: 3934: 3919: 3916: 3912: 3911: 3910: 3905: 3901: 3896: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3889: 3886: 3882: 3878: 3874: 3870: 3869:do not attack 3865: 3855: 3854: 3850: 3846: 3842: 3837: 3835: 3831: 3826: 3824: 3820: 3816: 3808: 3802: 3790: 3785: 3781: 3776: 3772: 3768: 3764: 3763: 3762: 3758: 3754: 3750: 3746: 3742: 3738: 3737: 3736: 3735: 3732: 3727: 3723: 3718: 3713: 3712: 3709: 3706: 3702: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3689: 3688: 3684: 3680: 3677: 3675: 3669: 3665: 3660: 3644: 3639: 3635: 3630: 3626: 3621: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3607: 3604: 3596: 3590: 3585: 3581: 3577: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3567: 3562: 3558: 3553: 3548: 3544: 3540: 3533: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3527: 3519: 3513: 3504: 3503: 3500: 3496: 3492: 3476: 3471: 3467: 3462: 3457: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3446: 3442: 3441:GusChiggins21 3438: 3437: 3436: 3431: 3427: 3421: 3420: 3419: 3415: 3411: 3410:GusChiggins21 3407: 3403: 3399: 3398: 3397: 3392: 3388: 3383: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3372: 3368: 3367:GusChiggins21 3364: 3354: 3353: 3348: 3344: 3339: 3335: 3328: 3324: 3320: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3308: 3304: 3295: 3292: 3291: 3285: 3281: 3277: 3273: 3269: 3263: 3259: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3250:(aka Wndl42) 3249: 3245: 3241: 3236: 3234: 3229: 3227: 3221: 3219: 3215: 3210: 3208: 3203: 3202: 3200: 3196: 3192: 3186: 3181: 3179: 3175: 3171: 3167: 3162: 3160: 3156: 3152: 3149:? Sorry, but 3148: 3144: 3139: 3136: 3133: 3132: 3127: 3123: 3119: 3117: 3111: 3103: 3102: 3097: 3093: 3087: 3078: 3074: 3071: 3068: 3067: 3064: 3061: 3053: 3047: 3043: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3031: 3027: 3022: 3018: 3013: 3008: 3000: 2997: 2994: 2990: 2989: 2984: 2983: 2977: 2972: 2968: 2965: 2964: 2962: 2961: 2949: 2944: 2940: 2934: 2930: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2915: 2910: 2906: 2901: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2873: 2870: 2862: 2856: 2851: 2847: 2846: 2835: 2832: 2824: 2818: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2784: 2780: 2774: 2770: 2766: 2762: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2744: 2741: 2733: 2726: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2715: 2711: 2706: 2702: 2698: 2694: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2682: 2674: 2666: 2665:I am saying? 2664: 2658: 2655: 2639: 2634: 2630: 2625: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2589: 2584: 2580: 2575: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2564: 2560: 2556: 2553: 2550: 2547: 2544: 2543: 2538: 2536: 2532: 2529: 2528: 2522: 2512: 2507: 2503: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2491: 2487: 2480: 2475: 2471: 2466: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2442: 2437: 2434: 2432: 2428: 2418: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2389: 2384: 2380: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2366:prove a point 2363: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2349: 2345: 2341: 2340:GusChiggins21 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2331: 2326: 2322: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2308: 2306: 2301: 2282: 2277: 2273: 2268: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2258: 2254: 2253:GusChiggins21 2249: 2248: 2247: 2242: 2238: 2233: 2229: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2213:GusChiggins21 2210: 2198: 2193: 2189: 2184: 2179: 2178: 2175: 2171: 2167: 2162: 2158: 2154: 2150: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2112: 2106: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2096:GusChiggins21 2093: 2080: 2077: 2072: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2034: 2026: 2021: 2014: 2013: 2010: 2009: 1996: 1995: 1990: 1986: 1981: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1964: 1962: 1958: 1954: 1950: 1946: 1936: 1931: 1927: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1897: 1896: 1892: 1888: 1883: 1873: 1867: 1862: 1858: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1846: 1842: 1835: 1830: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1804: 1799: 1794: 1790: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1778: 1774: 1771:population.-- 1753: 1748: 1744: 1739: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1729: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1718: 1714: 1709: 1704: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1695: 1691: 1684: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1670: 1666: 1660: 1658: 1653: 1649: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1630: 1621: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1613: 1609: 1608:Pseudoscience 1602:Pseudoscience 1593: 1588: 1584: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1568: 1565: 1564:67.135.49.177 1561: 1560: 1559: 1556: 1552: 1548: 1547:wikilawyering 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1538: 1537:67.135.49.177 1532: 1530: 1524: 1522: 1516: 1514: 1508: 1506: 1494: 1489: 1485: 1480: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1458: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1414: 1410: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1368: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1336: 1332: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1312:is in error. 1311: 1307: 1297: 1296: 1291: 1287: 1283: 1266: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1255: 1251: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1240: 1236: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1192: 1187: 1185: 1180: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1164: 1159: 1155: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1136: 1131: 1129: 1124: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1109: 1105: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1083: 1075: 1074: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1049: 1048: 1045: 1040: 1030: 1025: 1021: 1016: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1007: 1002: 1001: 1000: 995: 991: 986: 985: 984: 983: 980: 961: 958: 954: 950: 946: 942: 941: 940: 939: 938: 937: 936: 935: 928: 925: 921: 917: 916: 915: 914: 913: 912: 907: 904: 897: 890: 889: 888: 887: 880: 879: 878: 877: 874: 869: 865: 859: 858:Behe, Michael 855: 851: 847: 846: 845: 844: 841: 836: 831: 823: 820: 816: 812: 808: 802: 798: 794: 789: 785: 781: 776: 766: 765: 762: 759: 747: 742: 738: 733: 729: 725: 721: 717: 715: 710: 706: 701: 697: 694:) as well as 693: 689: 685: 681: 680: 679: 678: 675: 674:65.78.212.149 671: 666: 660: 655: 654: 649: 645: 640: 618: 613: 609: 603: 599: 598: 597: 596: 595: 594: 593: 592: 591: 590: 589: 588: 577: 574: 569: 568: 567: 566: 565: 564: 563: 562: 561: 560: 551: 546: 542: 537: 533: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 527: 526: 517: 514: 509: 508: 507: 506: 505: 504: 503: 502: 495: 490: 486: 481: 477: 473: 469: 465: 461: 460: 459: 458: 457: 456: 451: 448: 444: 439: 438: 437: 436: 433: 428: 424: 419: 417: 412: 408: 407: 406: 405: 402: 398: 394: 387: 380: 377: 372: 366: 365: 364: 363: 358: 354: 349: 345: 341: 335: 330: 326: 320: 319: 318: 317: 314: 310: 289: 284: 280: 275: 274: 273: 270: 265: 259: 258: 257: 252: 248: 242: 241: 240: 237: 232: 226: 222: 221: 220: 215: 211: 206: 202: 200: 195: 191: 186: 182: 181: 180: 179: 178: 177: 172: 169: 164: 158: 154: 153: 152: 151: 148: 143: 139: 134: 130: 126: 125: 124: 123: 120: 115: 109: 105: 100: 93: 88: 84: 79: 74: 73: 72: 71: 68: 64: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4202:Corvus corax 4201: 4177: 4135: 4130:bioethicists 4122: 4095: 4055: 4053: 3993: 3969: 3948: 3929: 3876: 3861: 3858:January 2008 3838: 3827: 3812: 3770: 3766: 3744: 3695: 3671: 3668:welcome page 3656: 3575: 3546: 3542: 3538: 3510: 3487: 3362: 3360: 3331: 3300: 3237: 3232: 3230: 3222: 3211: 3204: 3191:verification 3188: 3182: 3173: 3163: 3158: 3154: 3142: 3140: 3137: 3134: 3113: 3112: 3109: 3085: 3082: 3045: 3020: 3016: 3011: 3009: 3005: 2932: 2928: 2900:please do so 2899: 2894: 2890: 2854: 2816: 2776:surprising. 2772: 2768: 2724: 2692: 2667: 2662: 2659: 2653: 2651: 2557: 2554: 2551: 2548: 2545: 2539: 2525: 2523: 2521:Hi Hrafn... 2520: 2483: 2464: 2438: 2435: 2424: 2401: 2369: 2304: 2299: 2294: 2227: 2206: 2182: 2147:If you read 2129: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2115: 2088: 2030: 2020: 2004: 2002: 1965: 1949:3littlehands 1939: 1903: 1879: 1870: 1838: 1810: 1802: 1769: 1737: 1707: 1702: 1701:Replacing a 1642: 1638: 1625: 1619: 1605: 1534: 1528: 1526: 1521:ScienceBlogs 1518: 1512: 1510: 1502: 1461: 1403: 1369: 1366: 1303: 1279: 1264: 1229: 1204: 1183: 1178: 1127: 1122: 1090: 1086: 1084: 1081: 1055: 1041: 1037: 975: 853: 849: 832: 829: 811:Arthur Rubin 772: 755: 727: 723: 719: 699: 683: 663: 636: 633:Michael Behe 602:style policy 601: 479: 475: 471: 467: 463: 442: 415: 410: 390: 338: 304: 203:It seems we 129:in this edit 103: 60: 43: 37: 4193:Old English 4123:You wrote: 3913:Thank you, 3539:bloody hell 3340:) content. 3266:—Preceding 3110:You said: 2535:Creationism 2441:proposition 2368:, which is 1943:—Preceding 1813:—Preceding 1766:gallup poll 1710:adjective. 1367:Hey Hrafn, 1044:Eaglegordon 972:EagleGordon 953:User:Raspor 805:—Preceding 784:Kent Hovind 57:IfD closure 36:This is an 3745:vindicated 3701:dave souza 3495:dave souza 3363:talk pages 3240:riverguy42 3201:policies." 2929:satisfying 2705:Cesar Tort 2602:riverguy42 2559:riverguy42 2404:this tweak 2370:explicitly 2232:disruptive 2228:completely 2007:DRosenbach 1968:verifiable 1900:ID project 1703:legitimate 1481:for more. 418:literalism 309:dave souza 4197:Old Norse 3674:this edit 3491:WP:HARASS 3155:Guideline 2769:perceived 2723:There is 2465:assertion 2445:assertion 2203:Thank you 2161:WP:WEIGHT 2153:WP:FRINGE 2076:Guettarda 1773:Mongreilf 1645:"first". 1280:Moved to 1052:Good work 1006:Guettarda 979:Guettarda 801:consensus 637:Moved to 480:enlighten 472:perfectly 4142:Uncle Ed 3819:deletion 3743:, I was 3717:WP:SPADE 3625:WP:TRUTH 3594:Rockpock 3517:Rockpock 3280:contribs 3268:unsigned 3051:Rockpock 2993:WP:TRUTH 2976:WP:TRUTH 2860:Rockpock 2822:Rockpock 2731:Rockpock 2672:Rockpock 2648:Biopsych 2597:trouble. 2555:Thanks, 2531:addition 2527:addition 2449:Uncle Ed 2408:Uncle Ed 2157:WP:UNDUE 2043:anners 1957:contribs 1945:unsigned 1882:WP:MEDRS 1815:unsigned 1690:WP:POINT 1091:produces 896:cite web 833:Regards 819:contribs 807:unsigned 780:edit war 752:Category 692:WP:UNDUE 468:biblical 416:biblical 411:Biblical 393:the link 4230:Manners 4183:Manners 4106:Goo2you 3990:Sources 3915:Gwernol 3893:I have 3885:Gwernol 3881:blocked 3867:Please 3753:Goo2you 3679:Goo2you 3547:massive 3461:WP:TALK 3456:WP:DNFT 3382:WP:TALK 3170:WP:TALK 2725:nothing 2693:vaguely 2654:au fait 2443:and an 2421:Got ID? 2183:reality 2149:WP:NPOV 2118:against 1999:Day-age 1904:Should 1612:WP:PSTS 1265:halfway 1095:Geology 797:blocked 769:Horvind 732:WP:PSTS 724:primary 688:WP:NPOV 342:is now 67:Kenosis 39:archive 4174:Raven? 4157:WP:POT 4132:, etc. 3970:bonked 3926:Thanks 3825:"). 3664:attack 3336:& 3272:Wndl42 3153:(a WP: 3143:loudly 3046:anyone 2374:WP:AGF 2305:Marlin 2300:Orange 2267:WP:AGF 1978:& 1643:change 1614:says 1404:see-to 1250:Ashmoo 1211:Ashmoo 1184:Marlin 1179:Orange 1128:Marlin 1123:Orange 1066:WP:SDA 476:inform 443:really 397:WP:EGG 133:WP:AGF 78:WP:COI 65:. ... 4227:Table 4212:Stalk 4208:Hrafn 4180:Table 4166:Stalk 4162:Hrafn 4081:Stalk 4077:Hrafn 4058:Voice 4021:Stalk 4017:Hrafn 3958:Stalk 3954:Hrafn 3904:Stalk 3900:Hrafn 3845:BJBot 3784:Stalk 3780:Hrafn 3771:Filll 3767:until 3741:noted 3726:Stalk 3722:Hrafn 3672:Per: 3638:Stalk 3634:Hrafn 3561:Stalk 3557:Hrafn 3493:. .. 3470:Stalk 3466:Hrafn 3430:Stalk 3426:Hrafn 3391:Stalk 3387:Hrafn 3347:Stalk 3343:Hrafn 3338:WP:RS 3307:Stalk 3303:Hrafn 3187:says 3151:WP:DE 3147:WP:DE 3126:Stalk 3122:Hrafn 3096:Stalk 3092:Hrafn 3076:this. 3030:Stalk 3026:Hrafn 2943:Stalk 2939:Hrafn 2909:Stalk 2905:Hrafn 2783:Stalk 2779:Hrafn 2765:close 2714:Stalk 2710:Hrafn 2663:think 2633:Stalk 2629:Hrafn 2583:Stalk 2579:Hrafn 2506:Stalk 2502:Hrafn 2486:Filll 2474:Stalk 2470:Hrafn 2429:with 2383:Stalk 2379:Hrafn 2325:Stalk 2321:Hrafn 2276:Stalk 2272:Hrafn 2241:Stalk 2237:Hrafn 2192:Stalk 2188:Hrafn 2166:Filll 2122:about 2052:Filll 1989:Stalk 1985:Hrafn 1980:WP:OR 1976:WP:RS 1930:Stalk 1926:Hrafn 1910:Filll 1861:Stalk 1857:Hrafn 1841:Filll 1793:Stalk 1789:Hrafn 1747:Stalk 1743:Hrafn 1717:Stalk 1713:Hrafn 1669:Stalk 1665:Hrafn 1652:Stalk 1648:Hrafn 1587:Stalk 1583:Hrafn 1555:Filll 1488:Stalk 1484:Hrafn 1464:Filll 1413:Stalk 1409:Hrafn 1347:Filll 1335:Stalk 1331:Hrafn 1290:Stalk 1286:Hrafn 1239:Stalk 1235:Hrafn 1158:Stalk 1154:Hrafn 1108:Stalk 1104:Hrafn 1078:Reply 1024:Stalk 1020:Hrafn 994:Stalk 990:Hrafn 868:Stalk 864:Hrafn 741:Stalk 737:Hrafn 722:as a 709:Stalk 705:Hrafn 696:WP:RS 648:Stalk 644:Hrafn 612:Stalk 608:Hrafn 545:Stalk 541:Hrafn 489:Stalk 485:Hrafn 427:Stalk 423:Hrafn 370:ornis 357:Stalk 353:Hrafn 329:Stalk 325:Hrafn 283:Stalk 279:Hrafn 263:ornis 251:Stalk 247:Hrafn 230:ornis 214:Stalk 210:Hrafn 194:Stalk 190:Hrafn 162:ornis 142:Stalk 138:Hrafn 113:ornis 87:Stalk 83:Hrafn 16:< 4146:talk 4110:talk 4102:here 4061:-of- 4036:talk 4012:This 4000:talk 3978:talk 3937:talk 3877:will 3849:talk 3757:talk 3705:talk 3683:talk 3629:WP:V 3620:WP:V 3584:WP:V 3580:WP:V 3552:WP:V 3499:talk 3445:talk 3414:talk 3371:talk 3334:WP:V 3323:talk 3276:talk 3258:this 3244:talk 3218:this 3214:race 3197:and 3145:for 3021:your 3017:your 2885:and 2855:with 2763:and 2761:open 2703:and 2606:talk 2563:talk 2490:talk 2453:talk 2412:talk 2406:. -- 2344:talk 2257:talk 2217:talk 2170:talk 2138:talk 2100:talk 2085:NPOV 2056:talk 2039:able 1972:WP:V 1953:talk 1914:talk 1891:talk 1845:talk 1823:talk 1777:talk 1728:SvNH 1708:that 1694:SvNH 1629:SvNH 1505:WP:V 1468:talk 1442:talk 1428:talk 1377:talk 1351:talk 1318:talk 1254:talk 1215:talk 1149:here 1145:here 1097:and 949:shun 854:only 850:less 835:this 830:Hi, 815:talk 720:only 698:(as 573:A.Z. 513:A.Z. 447:A.Z. 401:A.Z. 313:talk 225:this 159:. – 4064:All 3949:try 3879:be 3749:you 3739:As 3543:one 3264:. 3174:was 3012:you 3010:If 2970:on. 2933:did 2697:you 2364:to 2126:not 1887:WLU 1553:.-- 1531:. 1438:WLU 1424:WLU 1373:WLU 1230:lot 957:WLU 924:WLU 903:WLU 840:WLU 826:EoE 761:WLU 728:not 244::) 4205:. 4159:. 4148:) 4112:) 4104:. 4038:) 4002:) 3980:) 3939:) 3897:. 3851:) 3759:) 3703:, 3685:) 3497:, 3447:) 3416:) 3408:. 3384:. 3373:) 3365:. 3325:) 3282:) 3278:• 3246:) 3233:am 3228:. 3193:, 3180:. 2895:do 2891:do 2819:. 2699:, 2608:) 2565:) 2492:) 2455:) 2427:ID 2414:) 2376:. 2346:) 2259:) 2234:. 2219:) 2172:) 2159:, 2155:, 2151:, 2140:) 2102:) 2058:) 1974:, 1959:) 1955:• 1916:) 1893:) 1847:) 1825:) 1779:) 1686:}} 1680:{{ 1610:. 1515:. 1470:) 1444:) 1430:) 1379:) 1353:) 1320:) 1256:) 1217:) 899:}} 893:{{ 817:• 734:. 641:. 538:. 350:. 311:, 207:. 80:. 4195:/ 4144:( 4108:( 4034:( 3998:( 3976:( 3935:( 3847:( 3755:( 3681:( 3676:. 3602:t 3598:e 3525:t 3521:e 3443:( 3412:( 3369:( 3321:( 3274:( 3242:( 3059:t 3055:e 2868:t 2864:e 2830:t 2826:e 2739:t 2735:e 2680:t 2676:e 2604:( 2561:( 2488:( 2451:( 2410:( 2342:( 2255:( 2215:( 2168:( 2136:( 2098:( 2054:( 2041:M 2037:T 1951:( 1912:( 1889:( 1843:( 1821:( 1775:( 1622:" 1466:( 1440:( 1426:( 1375:( 1349:( 1316:( 1252:( 1213:( 813:( 375:⚙ 268:⚙ 235:⚙ 167:⚙ 118:⚙ 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index