User talk:Random Replicator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Random Replicator, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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:Questions, 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!  Guettarda 03:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] evolution

Welcome again, i see you did create an account. Good start. i would suggest that your comments on the evolution page are not trollish at all. You make great points. If you want a laugh, check out how the scientific method intro looked at one time. This is a symptom of multiple editors that have to live with compromise. In the process the language gets mangled. Sometimes everything has to be ripped down and decoded back to something understandable. Perhaps evolution has reached that point. David D. (Talk) 05:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello RandomReplicator I appreciate your attempts to improve the evolution article. I hope it is not your first edit attempt, because it is not a typical article. I had breached mentioning Hardy-Weinberg and several other things with little success. You have to apparently cajole a small consensus to change the Evo article. I find this article's development has been hindered or distracted by vandalisms and POV issues. It has made it difficult to win favor for change. I empathize with any frustrations you may have for directing changes, but I recommend finding like minded editors and pool them in to reach an agreement for change. GetAgrippa 05:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Captions

Yes we can make captions if you want. Where do you want a caption?--Filll 21:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Penguins

Do you want to have a big picture or a small picture of penguins?--Filll 00:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Well you can ask for help but they do not have to give it. Some of them probably think it is beneath them. I think we will get some help. I will keep asking. I am not proud. I am not even a biologist. So it is useful for nonspecialists like me.--Filll 01:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro to evolution

Really pleased with the way this is working out. (1) It's turning into a good article. (2) It's a great example of cooperative effort. Keep up the good work! Snalwibma 09:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also say that you are doing a fantastic job, and that this is a very valuable service. I am glad to offer what help I can because I really believe this is important. I have asked several times for someone to acknowledge that an accessible article for nonspecialists be available, or at least an accessible introduction to the evolution article. You are one of the few who seems to even agree with me, although Candy and maybe one or two others do as well. I understand the need to be technical and precise. However, think of the poor great unwashed !!! (like me...)--Filll 00:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A bit of progress

I was a bit bold and added some material. I hope I didnt make it too dogmatic and that I did not make too many grave mistakes. Take a look. Do we need more pictures?--Filll 18:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you want to do a bit more that might help

Come to Introduction to genetics and take a look. I cut and pasted some from this article. There is complaining at genetics and gene that they have an article that is too complicated and needs a simpler introduction etc. Same as at evolution. So I am trying to push them to try an introductory article as well. --Filll 22:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I also went to gene and genetics and natural selection talk pages and pointed out to them exactly what I thought was wrong with them from an outside point of view. I do not believe that just a simplified introductory article is the only thing that should be done. However, the regular articles themselves can be far more detailed and technical and useful if an extended introduction exists. This does not let the main articles get away with horrible introductions and/or lead sections. I would love to have your assistance on rewriting gene and genetics.

I am less certain about this textbook/reference article discussion. I have textbooks that are so dense that few could get through them. I have texts that are written at a very basic level. If you look at Encyclopedia Britannica, they might have 6 different types of articles, written at different levels of sophistication (for example, for preschoolers, for children between 6 and 12, for those who want a short summary article, for those who want an indepth article, etc).--Filll 15:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference vs. instruction

I think I would have to say both. We have the luxury on Wikipedia of having a huge amount of space, relative to other encyclopedia projects. We also have a huge number of editors. We can update within seconds. If I want to find out a piece of important news about some figure, I often just go to Wikipedia. It will be updated very quickly. You cannot say that about regular encyclopediae or resources. It is good to have a place that just summarizes the facts for experts. That is clearly needed. But it is also useful to have some sort of pedagogical material as well. Otherwise, the encyclopedia is useful for only a tiny segment of the population. If you look at Encyclopedia Britannica, that is what they have tried to do; have a very advanced set of articles, and several sets of simpler articles all on the same subject. Six different levels of articles at least. All the way from preschool to postgraduate level. Wikipedia cannot hope to duplicate that immediately, but it can eventually. Wikipedia can have even more advanced material in it than the Encyclopedia Britannica even.--Filll 20:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ouch!

I have hit a road block or two when trying to improve the lead section on evolution and in the "fact and theory" sections of the evolution and the Creation-evolution controversy articles. I have compiled a comparison between the different proposed sections of text at Talk:FactandTheoryComparison and at Talk:Evolution/LeadComparison and there is a discussion of this at Talk:Evolution. I would appreciate it if you took a peek and let me know what you think. Thanks !!--Filll 19:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution Intro

Oh, no problem - the only real problem I had with it was that it added another big word - and a statistical term no less. Trying to keep the writing at a level an intelligent 12 year old would be able to understand as much as possible, at least for the lead. After that, well, I'd like to make the rest of the article fit that criteria as well. Adam Cuerden talk 21:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
For painstaking and diligent efforts in improving the Evolution Lead

I think if we can recruit you to help with the lead rewrite, we have a fighting chance. You are incredibly clear thinking and write very clearly as well. --Filll 05:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fact and Theory

I continue to be astounded at how what seems so obvious to me seems to generate so much controversy and more heat than light.--Filll 01:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I am laying off trying to get them to simplify the introduction for now and working on the fact and theory section. I am slowly making headway but there are obviously two in particular who are fighting me like mad. I think my next strategy is to document the heck out of my argument with copious references and then challenge them to produce references to back up their positions. It is sort of a dirty trick but I suspect they will fold because they will have far more trouble with their weird biased points of view and selective reading of the literature. It was pretty amazing how we managed to get a separate introduction article. Once I found out physics had done it, I knew we had it made becaue biologists suffer from physics envy big time. Most of the text and organization is of course yours. I did very little except cheerlead. However, "fact and theory" is something I know a little bit about and I feel strongly about. I did move boldly a week or so back and ended up attacked pretty harshly. So now I am attempting to wear them down and learn what their viewpoints are so I can counter them effectively. I will note that it also took me about 4 or 5 tries to get them to consider a simplified introduction and/or introductory article.--Filll 03:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your section

Is still alive and being worked on! I do think that the introduction has sunk somewhat back into its previous morass, and is even longer than ever, but I am not going to worry about it until the body is cleaned up a bit and trimmed down as Adam suggested.--Filll 23:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution: Wow

I never heard of him. But I think you are correct: DNFTT,--Filll 01:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wow welcome back

I missed you.--Filll 16:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

So take a look at the some of the trouble I have got myself into:

and so on --Filll 03:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mutation

Don't you think that article could stand a bit of polishing? For the average dufus I mean...it is a bit dense....--Filll 23:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bees and inebriation

Please take a look at my rough draft at User talk:Filll/beedrunk and give me your opinion.--Filll 21:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I would be grateful for any feedback. I wrote this one just for laughs. It is not crucial or anything, and I have decided after my trouble with Support for evolution and Hinduism and creationism and John Tyler Bonner and Peter Cusack that I need to keep these articles in the sandbox refining them longer, and get lots of feedback first, and then release them more fully formed. I used to dash off a few lines for geography articles and that seemed fine, but these controversial articles need far more care to avoid trouble.--Filll 23:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moth pictures

Any comments on:

??--Filll 03:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bees and toxic chemicals

I hope you saw my recent "masterpiece". Comments?--Filll 01:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLUE!!!

:) David D. (Talk) 23:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Vandalism Question

This user may never get indefinitely blocked but you may have noticed his blocks are getting longer. The first block was for 24 hours, the next 72 and this most recent one is for a week. If the vandalaim persists it is likely that the next block will be even longer. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy for more -- No Guru 23:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] sexual objectification

I submitted a photo to sexual objectification of women in panties heels and nothing else vacuuming; it's of a fashion show by Imitation of Christ, a well-known label. Several editors want NO images on the page, but I think this one is pretty clear: at a fashion show, these topless models vacuuming in heels shows women objectified sexually. Could you interject with your opinion please? Talk:Sexual_objectification#Request_for_Comment--DavidShankBone 04:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No offense but it does not really strike me as particularly sexy, more sort of ridiculous. Comedic I guess. The models look like they can hardly keep from collapsing in laughter. It looks like some image in search of a caption to make a joke.--Filll 05:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
No offense taken, but as my extensive contributions show, I odn't make "joke images" - it's a well-known fashion show exploit Subkoff designed for lingerie at her show in Maurice Villency. She is known for being a feminist and enfant terible of the fashion industry. She is highly regarded. She was playing wiht the concept of Sexiaul Objectification in her show, and for a page with no images, it seems very appropriate. And it's not trying to be sexy, just illustrative. I don't think the casual viewer turning to an article on sexual objectificaiton won't immediately get the symboogy of that shot; that it's a fashion show, no less. --DavidShankBone 05:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that Atom and I don't particularly get along. That is all. I solicited outside editor advice because one editor on the sexual objectification page wants no images (Iamcuriousblue) and two objected to the one I presented (Atom and an anon IP). Despite five editors voicing support (V, HighinBC, JeffPW, myself and one other (forget)) those three formed a union, so I solicited outside editors. I will abide by whatever the consensus is - I just didn't think those three formed any consensus, though Atom purports that they do. He felt this should drag on for weeks or months, whereas I thought it was a pretty simple issue that soliciting more opinions would quickly take care of it, even at the peril of losing (which I'm fine with). It's really that simple. So I solicited outside advice. That's all. Thanks for providing it, and sorry you had to get caught up in Atom's relentless pursuit of me. I'm sure he'll feel the need to respond...he always does.... Best wishes. --DavidShankBone 23:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repeat offender

That is a great question. I have wondered the same thing myself. I heard this on a documentary, and then I looked it up. I was only able to verify most of the details I heard on the documentary-to be honest, I do not recall right now if I found that in the literature or just heard it on the documentary (so it might not be verified; sorry). However, the entire story was so strange and charming to me I thought I would write it in the article. Do they know the repeat offenders from pheremones? From recognizing the drunkerds somehow? Maybe it is just random, and if the guard bees are in a bad mood, then whoever comes in drunk is in for trouble. The entire thing is SOO strange it is hard for me to believe it is even true, but most of the details are in the peer-reviewed literature. The "bee experts" here on WP who reviewed it for me (several of them, including a guy who is like a world expert on bees) objected to other things in the article, which I changed, but not that story at all. They didnt think it was strange or unusual at all. I think it is exceedingly strange, which is why I thought I just had to write it. Did your students like it? Did they laugh? --Filll 05:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One Students opinion / I assume

Note: Moved from user page to discussion page where such editorials are more appropriate: --Random Replicator 11:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Imput:

I do doubt that all your student live up to that credo. Please give some credit to your mindless followers who have sit in your class for a year and a half absorbing every lie your tell. I do believe that their intelligence level is higher then you imply for they have survived the class thus far, even through your bad jokes.

Drama ditz 16:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


One would hope that there are exceptions to the rule. If not we are indeed in deep trouble! As for my lies and bad humor ... I need to come up with something to kill 90 minutes; perhaps worksheets would be a better solution? A minor note, the class is optional, they do "volunteer" for the abuse ... I've never recruited. --Random Replicator 11:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Note the edit to user page; did not mean to offend. --Random Replicator 11:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well at least if you tell them bad jokes, they might be awake through most of the class. I think you really care and that is important in teaching. And you seem to really know your stuff.--Filll 13:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Bad jokes ... guilty as charged. Lies, not with intent but perhaps they were referencing my habit of expressing my own perceptions on the topics? On the up side, they did not call me boring or stupid and for that I am grateful. --Random Replicator 14:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I would not take it too seriously. They are just kids fooling around. And they are young enough that they are not quite able to tell "lies" from "truth", whatever that is. In science, there really is no "truth" of course. Just parsimonious explanations that can be used to make predictions. Even the data have error bars, and are subject to change, so even the "facts" in science are not really "true" in a conventional sense.--Filll 14:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You surely miss understand my accusations of lies. I am referring to the stories you make up that are meant purely in humor and are mistaken for truth. The best example that comes to mind is a cell was named because Robert Hooke was an alcoholic and ended up in prison. The cells reminded him of the cells of his former inhabitance in the state penitentiary thus he names cells after that observation. I still, to this day, hear that story passed threw out your former students. Please do not criticize me if I am wrong about the cells discovery by Robert Hooke but I do believe I am correct.

Please understand I hold you in the highest respect and meant it purely as a joke. To bring up your jokes, they can only be appreciated by the true science geeks like myself. Please do continue them. I do believe you are any thing but boring. If I ever decide to give up this whole doctor thing a take a large plummet in salary to be a biology teacher, I can only hope to teach half as good as you. (yes, I may be sucking up but please don’t fail me, though it wouldn’t matter, I all ready got into ECU). And to Filll, I also hope to be half as outspoken as you. At this point my views come from this odd biology teacher with funny sweaters. (Pure humor, please don’t take offence)

Drama ditz 16:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I must be blind

Although I have seen pictures similar to [1] many times, when I just saw this one of Phillip III, I realized that the fashion for men, especially men of a certain station in certain places, was essentially a sort of dress with a very short hemline. One gentleman even seems to be a bit more daring, with bare legs and a couple of slits! I am not sure what to make of it, but I thought it was strange that I have seen this my entire life and never quite made the connection.--Filll 13:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There is the topic of your next article: Trans-gender Fashion. --Random Replicator 15:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boeing 747 etc

Hi, RR - and hello again. Thanks for your note on my talk page. Please intrude away! You are right - the article at Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit is ludicrous. Here is an interpretation of how it happened. The following is based on my personal POV, of course, and I probably have no right to make assumptions about others' motives - but hey, I have been subject to a sustained attack in which my alleged motives have been broadcast to all and sundry, so here goes: (1) An article was set up last November, its primary purpose being to act as a hook to hang some Dawkins-bashing on. (2) The article was subject to an AfD within a week, on the grounds that it pulled a single phrase out of Dawkins' latest book, and the content belongs at The God Delusion. (3) Having seen the article put back in its box as a redirect, the originator tried again in February, using the fact that a couple of other people had now picked up the phrase and used it in their arguments as justification for expanding it. (4) When challenged again with another AfD, he (a) expanded it still further, to make it appear big and impressive and well-referenced so that it would be AfD-proof, creating a fog of impenetrable (and largely irrelevant) scholarship that mere mortals without philosophy degrees would be scared to try and unpick and (b) launched personal attacks on anyone who dared to disagree by making rude comments about their motives on the AfD and on various other people's talk pages. (5) The result of this latest AfD was keep, but the question of the title of the article is still to be addressed. My view remains as it has always been - either there is enough material about the specific phrase/formulation "the ultimate boeing 747 gambit" to justify an article or there isn't. If there is, then that article should stick strictly to material that addresses those words or something very like them. If there isn't, then the Boeing 747 per se should revert to a redirect to The God Delusion, and the issue moves on to a slightly different question: is there justification for (yet another) article about various shades of argument for/against the existence of a god, and if there is, what should it be called? As far as I can see, Merzul is currently engaged in expanding the Dawkins-specific and Boeing-747-specific content, which may result in something worth keeping under the existing title. I'm pretty clear, however, that if the current title does remain, the article will need serious pruning back again, to cut out all the stuff which has nothing to do with the aeroplane. I am biding my time for the moment, to see what develops. Also - I think your conclusion that a certain editor does not much like Dawkins, is pretty accurate. His contributions to wikipedia seem to fall into three categories - (1) relatively harmless nonsense that is in breach of WP:OR, WP:ATT, WP:NPOV etc (e.g. Argument from love); (2) adulatory articles about his heroes (e.g. John Polkinghorne), which may however contain some pointless and POV swipes at antichrists such as Dawkins; (3) nasty spiteful additions to articles about people he doesn't like, clear breaches of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP - check out the edit history of Richard Dawkins and The God Delusion. I think we have a case of very determined POV-pushing, and/or an inability to distinguish between objective truth and personal opinions. All of the above is just my own opinion, of course! Snalwibma 08:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the barnstar. I can see you guys are quite upset about the behaviour of NBeale, I do share Snalwibma's concern. This whole issue drained quite a bit of my nerves. I wish NBeale kept in mind that the God he believes is surely more concerned with our behaviour and treatment of fellow humans (and fellow wikipedians) than whatever text we write here. --Merzul 02:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I used to watch the God article, but it's a bit too difficult to do something about it. I actually don't know what one should do about it. And there are too many other things I would like to do on Wikipedia, yet what could be more important than the main guy himself? The problem with God is that it's such a wide topic, I mean how does one write an article about God? --Merzul 11:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/n/User_talk%7ERandom_Replicator_c980.html"