From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Unblock request 2 WIKI Policies 2.1 WP:NPOV 2.1.1 Pseudoscience 2.2 Prior art 2.3 WP:3RR 2.4 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Just-so story 2.5 sign your posts with four tildes 2.6 Link on the talk page 2.7 You're on notice 2.8 So? 2.9 So? 2.10 Intelligent Design Additions 2.11 ISCID 2.12 Dawkins 2.13 Question if you don't mind 2.14 Proposed move: Sternberg/Smithsonian Affair 2.15 Intelligent design FAR 2.16 AfD nomination of Einstein's razor 2.17 Explosion 2.18 Evolutionary Informatics Lab

[edit] Unblock request

See discussion in Sternberg controversy talk pages. Apologize for being frustrated at three reverts against me in a row on that page when I was trying to give substantive improvements. I had already said I was letting Sternberg controversy settle down for a while.DLH 21:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I have denied your request to be unblocked. Please wait until your block expires. Which is within 24 hours. In the future be sure to use article talk pages to discuss changes. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WIKI Policies

Introduction: "Don't be afraid to edit—anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold (but please don't vandalize)! Find something that can be improved, either in content, grammar or formatting, and fix it." WP:NPOV Verifiability: Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

No Ad hominem attacks.

---

I reverted your edits to Muhammad. If you put any details about the controversies in the article, other editors will want to put in their two cents worth, and that section of the article will balloon in size until it's just as long as the breakout article. I've been editing the Muhammad article for two years and I've seen the edit wars. The worst ones stopped when we moved the controversies out into their own articles, where there's space for all the arguments and evidence to be laid out. Please don't disturb that balance. Zora 13:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPOV

Please take a while to read WP:NPOV, especially WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience. — Dunc|☺ 10:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if that is a problem for you, here it is copied; — Dunc|☺ 21:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience

How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?

If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.

Specifically, which part of this don't you understand? — Dunc|☺ 13:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The part where the majority can coerce others to exclude the minority view.DLH 11:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, please stop inserting unsourced, biased passages into Wikipedia. --Cyde↔Weys 04:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Very curious that editing majority "unsourced biased passages" are always restored, and that links added to original sources are deleted. - Ten reverts in a row by the "majority" is remarkable "NPOV".DLH 11:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prior art

Thank you for your contributions to prior art. Excellent point about "relevant art".--Nowa 08:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR

Please pay attention to the WP:3RR policy. FeloniousMonk 19:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This page in a nutshell: Do not revert any single page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours, except in the case of obvious, simple vandalism. (Or else an Administrator may suspend your account.)

Understood. And please discuss in talk page rather than just wholesale reverting multiple times good faith efforts to improve articles.

Blocked for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR after being warned. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

After second thoughts, 24h was too harsh and I've unblocked you. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Thanks Jaranda. Mea Culpa on violating WP:3RR. Thanks FeloniousMonk for the needed correction.--DLH 02:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Just-so story

Hello! We don't do vote counts on AfD's, as it's not a poll. If there is a consensus as the current situation indicates, the closing administrator will pick up on it. Best, trialsanderrors 03:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the education. I will delete that. DLH 04:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sign your posts with four tildes

Please;

~~~~

Cheers, — Dunc|☺ 10:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Thanks, helps to have pointersDLH 02:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link on the talk page

I couldn't get the link you added. In any event, TO is one of the largest discussion forua for this topic and also isn't run by a partisan group so I don't think the presence of the link makes much sense. JoshuaZ 14:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You're on notice

I see you deleted an entire discussion from the 'You're on notice' section of Talk:Intelligent design. It is Wikipedia's policy that editors do not delete the comments of others. The only exceptions are for personal attacks and personal information. Period. Don't do it again. FeloniousMonk 15:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This deletion seems particularly disturbing given the topic at hand. I'd appreciate an explanation of why you decided to delete it. JoshuaZ 15:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Just following the directions at the top of that page. See my added commentsDLH 20:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What is meant by "teh genome "? Carrionluggage 06:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

dislexia DLH 14:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So?

"Dealing eleven identical hands in a row wouuld exceed Dembski's Universal probability bound." Obviously probability is not one of your strong points. •Jim62sch• 23:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you have little understanding of the magnitude of the Complex Specified Information involved relative to the size of the universe, the age of the universe and the physical limitations on the rate of the recombination of systems. It further appears that you have taken few if any courses in Physics or Thermodynamics. e.g. See Prof. Granville Sewell's A Second Look at the Second Law

In the real world it is sometimes much harder to say what the laws of probability predict than in a coin-flipping experiment; thus here it may be even harder to define and measure order, but sometimes it is easy. In any case, with 1023 molecules in a mole of anything, we can be confident that the laws of probability at the microscopic level will be obeyed (at least on planets without life) as they apply to all macroscopic phenomena; this is precisely the assumption---the only common thread---behind all applications of the second law. Everything the second law predicts, it predicts with such high probability that it is as reliable as any other law of science---tossing a billion heads in a row is child's play compared to appreciably violating the second law in any application. One critic [Jason Rosenhouse, "How Anti-Evolutionists Abuse Mathematics," The Mathematical Intelligencer 23 , number 4, 3-8, 2001] wrote "His claim that 'natural forces do not cause extremely improbable things to happen' is pure gibberish. Does Sewell invoke supernatural forces to explain the winning numbers in last night's lottery?" But getting the right number on 5 or 6 balls is not extremely improbable, in thermodynamics "extremely improbable" events involve getting the "right number" on 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or so balls! If every atom on Earth bought one ticket every second since the big bang (about 10^70 tickets) there is virtually no chance than any would ever win even a 100-ball lottery, much less this one. And since the second law derives its authority from logic alone, and thus cannot be overturned by future discoveries, Sir Arthur Eddington called it the "supreme" law of Nature [The Nature of the Physical World, McMillan, 1929].

DLH (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The Russian author Alexey Melkikh critiques evolution in INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLE AND POSSIBLE DETERMINISTIC MECHANISM OF BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION Alexey V. Melkikh, (Ural state technical university, Molecular physics chair,) Entropy 2004, 6, 223–232

It was shown that the probability of new species formation by means of random mutations is negligibly small. . . . The problem is that the Darwin mechanism of the evolution (a random process) cannot explain the known rate of the species evolution. In accordance with the very first estimates, the total number of possible combinations of nucleotides in the DNA is about 4^(2×10^9) (because four types of nucleotides are available, while the number of nucleotides in the DNA of higher organisms is about 2×10^9). . . . Thus, finally we have P = 10^57000000. This figure is vanishingly small. Therefore, a conclusion may be drawn that species could not be formed due to random mutations.

If a molecular machine, which controls the evolution (with reference samples assigned a priori as thermodynamic forces), does not exist, then the Darwin evolution contradicts to the second law, since it represents a macroscopically oriented (from the simple to the complex) fluctuation.

[edit] So?

"Dealing eleven identical hands in a row wouuld exceed Dembski's Universal probability bound." Obviously probability is not one of your strong points. •Jim62sch• 23:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you have little understanding of the magnitude of the Complex Specified Information involved relative to the size of the universe, the age of the universe and the physical limitations on the rate of the recombination of systems. It further appears that you have taken few if any courses in Physics or Thermodynamics. e.g. See Prof. Granville Sewell's A Second Look at the Second Law

In the real world it is sometimes much harder to say what the laws of probability predict than in a coin-flipping experiment; thus here it may be even harder to define and measure order, but sometimes it is easy. In any case, with 1023 molecules in a mole of anything, we can be confident that the laws of probability at the microscopic level will be obeyed (at least on planets without life) as they apply to all macroscopic phenomena; this is precisely the assumption---the only common thread---behind all applications of the second law. Everything the second law predicts, it predicts with such high probability that it is as reliable as any other law of science---tossing a billion heads in a row is child's play compared to appreciably violating the second law in any application. One critic [Jason Rosenhouse, "How Anti-Evolutionists Abuse Mathematics," The Mathematical Intelligencer 23 , number 4, 3-8, 2001] wrote "His claim that 'natural forces do not cause extremely improbable things to happen' is pure gibberish. Does Sewell invoke supernatural forces to explain the winning numbers in last night's lottery?" But getting the right number on 5 or 6 balls is not extremely improbable, in thermodynamics "extremely improbable" events involve getting the "right number" on 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or so balls! If every atom on Earth bought one ticket every second since the big bang (about 1070 tickets) there is virtually no chance than any would ever win even a 100-ball lottery, much less this one. And since the second law derives its authority from logic alone, and thus cannot be overturned by future discoveries, Sir Arthur Eddington called it the "supreme" law of Nature [The Nature of the Physical World, McMillan, 1929].

DLH (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The Russian author Alexey Melkikh critiques evolution in INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLE AND POSSIBLE DETERMINISTIC MECHANISM OF BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION Alexey V. Melkikh, (Ural state technical university, Molecular physics chair,) Entropy 2004, 6, 223–232

It was shown that the probability of new species formation by means of random mutations is negligibly small. . . . The problem is that the Darwin mechanism of the evolution (a random process) cannot explain the known rate of the species evolution. In accordance with the very first estimates, the total number of possible combinations of nucleotides in the DNA is about 4^(2×10^9) (because four types of nucleotides are available, while the number of nucleotides in the DNA of higher organisms is about 2×10^9). . . . Thus, finally we have P = 10^57000000. This figure is vanishingly small. Therefore, a conclusion may be drawn that species could not be formed due to random mutations.

If a molecular machine, which controls the evolution (with reference samples assigned a priori as thermodynamic forces), does not exist, then the Darwin evolution contradicts to the second law, since it represents a macroscopically oriented (from the simple to the complex) fluctuation.

Perhaps you could write a formal rebuttal to Melkikkh on how Darwinism can be explained by the probability of selecting less than eleven prescribed card hands.DLH (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent Design Additions

I see that you are going through the various evolution related articles and adding the ID objections or links. I have reverted them, as those pages are about scientific topics in evolution, and ID is not science (see Dover trial for legal perspective and Intelligent Design for scientific objections). If you wish to discuss ID as it relates to evolution, do it in articles that are dedicated to the public controversy about evolution (such as Creation-evolution controversy).--Roland Deschain 02:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like keep all the criticisms in the ID articles but none in Darwinism or Evolution and put all those into Creation-evolution controversy. That is an amazing interpretation of NPOV. OK, if you will remove all criticism of ID from Intelligent Design. DLH 13:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, using NPOV to justify inclusion of pseudoscience. You are wrong in your interpretation of NPOV. Read up on the rule that pertains to ID here. ID, both legally and scientifically (and there are many verifiable sources for this) is a pseudoscience at best and creationism in reality. As I said, trying to show ID to be comparable to the theory of evolutio is like trying to compare geocentrism to the current astronomical theories. It is true that geocentrism must have an article where all its flaws are laid out. This does not mean that geocentrims must have a section in all solar system related articles. The same applies to ID: it has a main article showing all its flaws (it is not science and it is creationism), but this does not mean that it has to be included in all evolution articles. Please do not use Wikipedia rules you do not understand. You seem to think that NPOV is about fairness, which it is not.--Roland Deschain 13:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Had read it. Thought police at work again in hiding controversies over and failures of evolution. Apparently you do not recognize that the first scientific revolution was identifying law or order from chaos It was founded on and enabled by a Christian worldview. Historic revisionism will not work. Neither is an atheistic worldview now capable of founding the second scientific revolution - of identifying the pprinciples or rules and origin of information.DLH 14:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if you have trouble with Wikipedia rules, take it up with the people that made the rules. Those rules are there for a reason: to keep people like you from filling these pages with unverified assertions. You broke a Wikipedia rule and I therefore reverted you. I have just done it again at The God Delusion. You appear to be out to validate religion within Wikipedia articles. That is all fine and dandy, but please do it within the Wikipedia rules.--Roland Deschain 14:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ISCID

You seem to have inserted the wrong link. Guettarda 21:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't think so. Gave ISCID Google Scholar search so you can see the citations for yourself.DLH 03:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dawkins

I think you'll be pleased to know that there are now a few people editing the Dawkins and God Delusion who have a Christian perspective. I'm doing most of the work in this, but could use some help. My perspective may be a bit different from yours in that I agree in most matters with John Polkinghorne - but together, with reasonable NPoV additions, we can help improve the articles. NBeale 22:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question if you don't mind

Feel free not to answer. Are you the person who posts to uncommondescent under the user name DLH? JoshuaZ 05:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed move: Sternberg/Smithsonian Affair

I see you were a recent contributor to the Sternberg peer review controversy article. I have added a section to the talk page proposing that the article be moved to and renamed "Sternberg-Smithsonian Affair". If you would like to see the rationale, please visit Talk:Sternberg_peer_review_controversy#Proposed_move:__Sternberg.2FSmithsonian_Affair, and leave your thoughts there. Thanks. ImprobabilityDrive 08:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent design FAR

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You have been editing here long enough to know what it means when an FAR is closed, don't you? Or maybe there is some other reason for what you just did.--Filll 04:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Einstein's razor

An editor has nominated Einstein's razor, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Einstein's razor and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Acknowledged. I have continued to improve the article with further links, quotes, explanation.DLH (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Explosion

I believe Expulled did in fact set a record for opening in the most theaters. We need a source for it. But, I guess you're used to editing conservapedia or chatting up your pals at UD where you can say anything and not be challenged and those who do get expelled. Anyhow, interesting to note that Fahrenheit 911 did 23M the first weekend. Expulled managed to find more theaters but it doesn't seem to be breaking any attendance or gross revenue records. Really enjoy reading your articles at UD! You always manage to crack me up and make me smile. Cheers! Angry Christian (talk) 03:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

YOU totally crack me up, bro! Thanks for helping to improve the article~ Angry Christian (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo gives the statistics: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=documentary.htm show

Thanks for explaining how you were gaming the system to reduce its favorable rating - without having ever seen it!

Silly boy I made no such claim. Please don't put words in my mouth! Angry Christian (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How did I misunderstood your deleting what I had entered at Expelled the movie?

(cur) (last) 14:37, 28 April 2008 Angry Christian (Talk | contribs) (156,963 bytes) (→Viewers Reaction: removing highly unreliable source (online poll) , for example I have voted in their poll 4 times and I have not seen the movie.) (undo)

DLH (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Guy, I voted 2 As and 2 Fs to test if the system could be gamed. Using the same IP even. That is not gaming the sytem, it's confirming how utterly unreliable it is. Kind of like anything at conservapedia or uncommondescent is utterly unreliable but you have to post there first to confirm it. I was doing a shit detecting with their poll. Hardly "gaming". You still crack me up though! Angry Christian (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You say 'Hardly "gaming'. How in lowering the A's and increasing the F's not gaming it? - compared to the 97% favorability in the exit survey?

• ouch* getting publicly dissed by davescot has got to hurt! You have my sympathies. Angry Christian (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No sweat - check out what Luther has to say vs Erasmus in The Bondage of the Will for serious rhetorical/debate.

[edit] Evolutionary Informatics Lab

Please read WP:MOSLINKS#Link titles: "You should not add a descriptive title to an embedded HTML link within an article." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)