User talk:Gnixon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Status

I'm taking a little break from Wikipedia right now, so I may be slow in responding to messages. Have no fear!  ;-) I'm sure I'll be back in a few days. Gnixon 19:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Status 2 Welcome! 3 Ellipticity and polarization 4 {{NPOV}} 5 Evolution NPOV 6 evolution 7 Tagging on Nazism 8 Where is 'Evolution Debates'? 9 Evolution statements 10 Re: Evolution lead/Mandaclair 11 An Automated Message from HagermanBot 12 Evolution

[edit] Welcome!

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Srleffler 00:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I'm interested in how Wikipedians will balance formalism and jargon vs. readability for the novice in articles on technical subjects. I'm also curious whether the quality of certain technical articles can be maintained in spite of their popularity (e.g., quantum mechanics). --Gnixon 03:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is an undecided issue. Articles on scientific topics do tend to get quite technical. As a physicist, I find this useful when reading physics articles, but sometimes frustrating when I read an article on, say, mathematics. There may at some point need to be decisions made about the appropriate technical level for an encyclopedia. Quantum mechanics is actually an interesting example, in that it has spawned a less-technical Introduction to quantum mechanics article. Perhaps that's the way to go.--Srleffler 04:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ellipticity and polarization

I replied to your comment at Talk:Polarization--Srleffler 04:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{NPOV}}

Tagging articles should be used as a last resort, not as a starting point for discussion. Only when there are legitimate concerns which cannot be resolved through discussion are such tags appropriate. Guettarda 17:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC) (This is incorrect. See below. Gnixon)

Could you point me to a page that explains that? Gnixon 18:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is one. Hence the explanation regarding usage. Guettarda 19:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I hoped you would show me a page illustrating consensus on usage of the tag, rather than just explaining your personal preference. Gnixon 19:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the discussion, although it is short. Joelito (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Joelito. That's what I was looking for, but I'm not sure it addresses my question yet. I've added a comment asking for clarification. Gnixon 20:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOVD addresses the question. Gnixon 17:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC) I quote:

In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.

[edit] Evolution NPOV

Roland, I'd like to take some of our discussion about NPOV issues in the Evolution article off of the main talk page. I feel like when you say stuff like "I'm just trying to make the point that every single creationist scientific claim is a misunderstanding" or "I know it casts a bad light on creationists..." or "If this article offends people, so be it," then it becomes clear that part of what you want the Evolution article to do is to prove its case against the creationists. I'm personally very interested in how to convince creationists that evolution is correct, but I don't think Wikipedia is the place to do it. Don't you think we can phrase the article so as to explain what the theory of evolution says without arguing that it's correct? Gnixon 02:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm arguing that it is correct because that is the major POV about evolution. NPOV does not say that one must not state one extreme or the other. Rather, NPOV states that each viewpoint must be expressed and properly cited. Now, the scientific community views evolution as a valid scientific theory (the article shows that) and that's the driving force behind this article (as that's the major view point). Plus I have never argued that evolution is correct, rather I have argued that creationists use misunderstandings about evolution against the modern synthesis (a viewpoint that I have heavily backed up by now). I agreed with you, after some discussion, that the intro was too forcefull and too focused on creationists. So I rewrote the intro. The one sentance about creationism that remains has three good and respectable references in it. I think that's more than reasonable.

"becomes clear that part of what you want the Evolution article to do is to prove its case against the creationists." Not at all. My point in all those quotes was not the validity of evolution or creationism, but my belief that Wikipedia articles should NEVER EVER be bound by political correct. If a fact can be shown to be true (in the sense that it is published in some form or another) then it goes in the article. The fact about creationists using misunderstandings is such a case. Now of course, creationists will take offense at that, but by no means does that have to do with anything about NPOV.--Roland Deschain 02:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I wrote to you before the most recent revision (w/ 3 references). I think the intro as written now is excellent, as are the references used. We may still disagree as to exactly what constitutes NPOV, but as long as we can agree on the final product, I'm happy.  :) Gnixon 15:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I take offense. . . (LOL) Gnixon, this is directed to Roland, not you.

Roland, you seem to ignore the fact that evolution is put forward to a rather large extent by shoving other arguments aside, arguments that never have been ( and in my opinion, never will be). Evolution is stated in museums and schools as correct. It isn't explained why evolutionists are evolutionists, it's only said ( basically) that creationism and those who belive it are dumb. If it's so dumb, dont say its dumb, give an argument that discounts creationist's arguments. I am sick and tired of having our arguments dismissed instead of answered. Not that I don't know why y'all do it. I know very well that you can't get around the bombardier beetle, or the woodpecker, or the differences between reptile and bird eggs. I know you can't explain how the giraffe's neck valve evolved to keep its brain from being smashed by blood pressure when it gets a drink. I know you can't explain how organic materials that were supposed to have happened by chance are often so much stronger than materials we've designed. I know you can't explain why only humans invent things. (Please don't refer to apes here, they never use a new tool. . .) I know you can't explain why fossils of complicated creatures are found al the way down with the "simple creatures". And you can't explain how the Bible stated scientific truths long before scientists descovered them. I could go on, but I only will if I am requested to.

Zantaggerung 16:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] evolution

I am sorry you think I was rude and apologize for the offense. I still think you misunderstood and misrepresented GetAgrippa's point. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; apology accepted. I spent a good amount of time reading through Dmurtegx's original post and follow-ups, especially the references he gave, and I thought he was very clearly arguing that scientists debate evolution itself, which is of course at least a gross distortion of the truth. I understand your point that natural selection isn't the only mechanism of evolution, but I don't think that was the point under discussion. Maybe a better phrase would be something like "...evolution occurs, driven by natural selection...." Gnixon 16:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging on Nazism

Thanks for your comment on my talk page about use of the NPOV tag. Tags like NPOV in my experience are usually added when it is clear that there is considerable debate about a section or article and not just (as in the case I reverted) because of dissatisfaction about one edit. These things are never as clear cut as you propose on WP in my humble experience. MarkThomas 20:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I jumped the gun, but premature removal of the tag is a pet peeve of mine. I must admit I didn't look carefully at the edit you reverted. Nevertheless, I think in almost all cases its best to leave the tag until a discussion on the talk page reaches consensus to remove it. Best regards, Gnixon 20:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Where is 'Evolution Debates'?

Hello Gnixon. I sympathize with your desire to remove inappropriate threads from Talk:Evolution. You mentioned something about 'Evolution Debates' but in the archive box that appears to be a red link. Did I not look in the right place? EdJohnston 21:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone deleted it. I asked Silence if he knows a way to find a record of the deletion. By the way, I like your hat/hab idea. Gnixon 14:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted by User:Pschemp on 15 March, with the comment 'fork of Talk page'. (I just went into the screen for re-creating the file, and there's a button to press called 'Deletion log'). If you still think it's a good idea to have a special archive, you could open a deletion review. Actually I'm not sure about that, because then you would actually need some kind of consensus as to which items get moved to 'Evolution Debates', which leads to further debate, etc. If an editor chooses to insert a hat/hab, by comparison it seems less intrusive, since the insertion is quite easy to undo and it's also easy to display the boxed content. EdJohnston 15:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think hat/hab is the way to go. Maybe I'll try to have someone dig up the deleted text so it can be put in the regular archives. Gnixon 15:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution statements

The evolution argument is not settled. There are 2 and only ways it can be settled: 1 side admits they are wrong, or both sides admit there is not enough tangible evidence to teach everyone either of these as a scientific fact. ( I am contacting you about your statement to oddball 2002 on the evolution page) Zantaggerung 22:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)zantaggerung

Hi Zantaggerung. In the past there have been many debates on that talk page about how to present evolution in the Wikipedia article, especially considering that many people strongly believe that evolution is wrong/untrue. The reason that Objections to evolution are not given a more prominent place on the page is that most editors see the article as a science article, and virtually all of biological scientists agree that evolution is correct---in fact, it has been described as the cornerstone of biology.

None of this means that evolution is true, but if the article is about a scientific subject, then Wikipedia's policy is to base the article on what the scientists think, without giving too much space to other viewpoints (see WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT). The evolution article does have a section on social and religious controversy surrounding evolution, and a link to a very good article, Objections to evolution, which discusses in great detail many of the issues that don't make the Evolution page.

After considering all these things, particularly Wikipedia policy issues, editors have reached a consensus that the Evolution article should follow the dominant point of view of biologists, while only briefly mentioning objections to that point of view and linking to longer articles about them. In the archives of the talk page, you can follow long discussions where that consensus was reached, and a FAQ on the talk page summarizes that consensus.

Sorry for the long-winded reply, but I want to be clear about what I meant when I asked people not to ignite "long-settled debates." I certainly didn't mean that evolution's validity or whether we should teach it in schools is "long-settled" within society. In fact, I grew up in a community with very strong objections to evolution, and I went to a school where students are taught that evolution is wrong. I'm well aware that the issue isn't settled! On the other hand, the debate over how to present evolution in the Wikipedia article *is* long-settled, and it's unproductive to rehash that debate over and over again.

I hope that makes sense, but I'd be glad to discuss the issue with you further. Best regards, Gnixon 13:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for clearing that up. I see what you mean now. I was probably jumping into action on shorter notice than I should have been. Will tell oddball 2002 what you said. Zantaggerung 16:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I put your page on my watch list, so I'll just get to you through that.

By the way, would you please take a look at my page and respond to what I have posted there? I copied the statement of belief from oddball 2002's page (with his permission),we believe very similarly. Zantaggerung 14:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I read your statement of belief, but I'll have to pass on responding to it---I'm just here to help write encyclopedia articles. It's perfectly appropriate for you to post and discuss such things on your user and user talk pages, but please remember that the rest of Wikipedia's discussion pages are just for talking about how to improve articles. If you'd like to discuss your ideas about creation and evolution with other people, you might be interested in the talk.origins website. Gnixon 15:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I think you are doing a good job on wikipedia

Keep it up!

Thanks! Gnixon 15:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Evolution lead/Mandaclair

Hi Gnixion, I certainly hope I wasn't owning the Evolution article with my revert of Mandaclair's rewrite. I hope you'll tell me if I start to do act that way!--EveRickert 15:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I didn't mean you; just speaking generally. You know I'm anxious to keep the article from turning into a jargony textbook. Let's not scare this guy off, though.  :) Gnixon 15:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, sorry (though he seems a little thin-skinned for this place, but I do hope he stays). BTW, reply to my comments on my talk page; I generally don't watch other users' talk pages.--EveRickert 16:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"She", please Eve, not "He"... and please be careful not to confuse my frustration with an overly-complicated protocol of editing via massive consensus, with being "thin-skinned". Many people will choose not to engage in something, not because they "can't take it", but because they don't have time for it. Thanks, Mandaclair 22:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I started the gender assumption. Gnixon 23:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem -- Thanks for your comments and advice over the past couple of daysMandaclair 01:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Hi. I realize what Wikipedia is and how Wikipedia works; but the gigantic weakness, it seems, is the free-for-all structure where anyone and everyone with an inquiring mind can chime in and complicate the discussions to reach consensus on topics they may not know a whole lot about in the first place. No offense to anyone here (at all) -- and I realize that Wikipedia is often an educational journey and a wholly different type of knowledge-base -- but perhaps it might be more educational (and informative) if there was less "discussion and consensus" standing in the way of information that anyone working professionally in the field could provide.

I guess what I mean to say is that ANYBODY working professionally as an evolutionary biologist for more than 5 years (not just me) could provide some significant improvements to the current Wikipedia article, but those professionals often don't have the time to debate, argue, and convince. I don't want to seem arrogant or discourage the wiki-process, but honestly, the tangled spaghetti of "discussion" and "consensus" (among individuals who may not all have the same background or experience) can be really discouraging to people who might have a lot to contribute -- and frankly, nobody I know in my field really has the time to deal with all of that.

This is nothing personal against the Evolution article community. I am aware that all of Wikipedia works this way, and again: I am willing to offer help and feedback on this article, but I am not necessarily able to spend a lot of time or energy on the discussion/consensus process, as rewarding as it may be to some.

Kind regards, Mandaclair 18:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, I can appreciate everything you're saying. In fact, I think it's Wikipedia's biggest challenge, and I've been very discouraged sometimes by the "tangled spaghetti." The problem seems common to all articles on popular, technical subjects (e.g., Physics or Quantum mechanics), but Evolution is particularly bad because of the creation-evolution controversy. There's no need for you to get deeply involved in the discussions---just make good edits, boldly, and try to briefly explain major changes. Your help will be appreciated, and others can fight the good fight on the talk pages (probably while desperately avoiding some unpleasant bit of real life work). Gnixon 18:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A couple more tips. I notice you found the four tildes.  :) You can indent with colons, make bullets with asterisks, and start new sections with == New Section ==. You might find it useful to add my talk page to your watch list while this discussion is ongoing, then remove it later. People often keep their User page like a webpage with info about their accordian bands, etc., but they usually use their User_talk pages like message boards and keep the old discussions. I hope you don't think everyone is anal-retentive about "Wikiquette"; just trying to be helpful. All you really need is to feel free to make whatever edits you see fit. Don't be too discouraged by Evolution---Wikipedia does better on the less popular articles, where you'll often be amazed at the quality of articles on obscure subjects. Gnixon 18:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gnixon. Thanks for your comments and help. I hope that anything I may have said or contributed on the Evolution Talk page can be useful to the article. However, as a result of what I view as a somewhat uncalled-for tirade on my UserTalk page by one of the active editors on the article, I have decided to withdraw my participation in this process. It is just too difficult and time-consuming to sort through all of the complicated etiquette, protocol, and much worse now -- drama -- that I now understand why there is not more of a professional presence on Wikipedia. At this point, if you decide you'd like any further help or assistance on the article, feel free to e-mail me directly. Kind regards, Mandaclair 18:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, of course. I think your contributions will be very useful, and thanks for offering to help further. As for the drama, try not to sweat it. Sometimes you just have to roll your eyes and keep doing your thing. Most people around here have good intentions, but misunderstandings get magnified on messageboards and in emails. You know, you could probably get by around here even if you never responded to a message and totally ignored the "community" aspects. Good luck and best regards, Gnixon 18:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Yes, well, I just went over to Orangemarlin's page to post the same message, and was horrified (yet amused) to read the mutual argumentative meltdown the two of you had on his Talk page... it's utter lunacy around here! How do you folks get any work done this way? When I was on fieldwork in Madagascar in 1998, I learned several of the native proverbs used in daily speech -- one of my favorite ones translates roughly to, "too many people are like eels in the mud, swimming this way and that". I think the sentiment is one of chaos with no sense, purpose, or direction, and for some reason it comes to mind right now. In any case, I am not passing judgement, I am just simply amazed at the *RATIO* of discussion+drama here, compared to the output of *quality product* (the article). I don't doubt that there are many skilled writers and intelligent minds here, but it's a wonder that anything gets done at all, with the whole sociology of the thing. I now wonder whether or not a Wikipedia article is anything more than this: the version that is favored by whichever editor who is most active and diligent about making their own edits and deleting those of others. Interesting. Well, no judgement or hard feelings... and as I said, the article as it stands is not necessarily *bad*, it's just a bit jumbled, disorganized, leaves out a few key points, and could stress a few others. In any case, you ought to be proud of the work you do on it, and the time you invest! Kind regards, Mandaclair 18:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha, let's just say that after the ensuing storm following too-hasty reversion of your edits, I was a little sensitive to the subject. I've been concerned about the "eels in the mud" problem since I started here (see my first-ever post above), and it's caused me to take long breaks from Wikipedia. The drama/discussion ratio is pretty incredible, but I'll mention again that Evolution is about as bad as it gets. I've also been pretty amazed and influenced by how well it's often managed by more experienced editors than me---there are lessons here for all collaborative efforts. I hope articles aren't just the vision of the most recent or most persistent editor. Exactly that issue fuels my increasing interest in working to build consensus without stifling improvements. By the way, I definitely think there are real-journal articles to be written about Wikipedia sociology, despite how often the eels frustrate me and the "Wikiquette" makes my eyes roll. Your praise is kind and appreciated, but I'm not sure I'm proud of the time I've invested. In fact, I think you've shamed me into self-imposing a Wikipedia moratorium until I've finished that unpleasant bit of work. The NSF thanks you.  ;-) Cheers, Gnixon 19:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

<arbitrarily removed indents>Um, "mutual argumentative meltdown?" I don't think so. That was just a minor communications issue, where Gnixon thought I was doing one thing, and I thought I was doing another. He and I are on the same side of the issue (I think, I hope, please?????). You should read the storm that brews when a Creationist starts pushing their POV. Then it gets fun. This was just two people on the same side stepping on each other's toes. I'm a terrible dancer. Orangemarlin 00:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 13:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha. Sorry, HargermanBot. I slipped up and forgot a couple times in a row, but notice I immediately corrected the omissions! Thanks for all your good work!!! Gnixon 13:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Gnixon 13:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Gnixon 13:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

uhhhhh, Gnixon...I'm not sure how to say this, but I think that was an automated message.  :) No one is going to read the reply. Orangemarlin 23:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution

Just so you know, I liked most of your edits to the article!!!!! Of course, I still think that one sentence implies that most religions are opposed to evolution, but I'll live!  :) Anyways, good job. Orangemarlin 21:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)