User talk:Filll/Archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Introduction to evolution 2 Talk:Hindu creationism/rewrite 3 An NPOV Question 4 Comment? 5 Priceless 6 Totally agree 7 Wikinfo 8 proposed guideline 9 Homeopathy 10 Rfc re Whig #3 11 My Rfa 12 Improving things and trying to increase efficiency 13 Note 14 I do not mean to be uncivil or offend 15 Consensus 16 Just curious 17 Civility 18 List of remedies 19 The clowns are winning 20 RR gone 21 WP:AN/I report 22 Mandate 23 SV40 24 Homeopathy remedies and plants 25 Comment 26 RR 27 A collection of statements of fact is a collection, not separate points 28 Congratulations 29 Psychohistory 30 Yup 31 Talk:Animal testing 32 Strike or boycott 33 Thank you 34 Could you take a look at this? 35 No problem 36 Did you see this? 37 No comment 38 Essay

[edit] Introduction to evolution

Hey dude, the article you worked so hard on is going through some changes that I do not agree with. Introduction to evolution. I reverted the changes, but then reverted back again, because the lead is probably going down hill. My main ideas are that the article should not have a "evolution for dummies" disclaimer, and it should not read as though it were written as a high school paper. These edits change a number of areas I disagree with. They re-introduce a disclaimer (Evolution for dummies). They dumb down non technical vocaulary such as replacing combined for cumulative. They replace organisms with cratures. Anyway, somebody with more experience writing leads should come in and participate. TableManners^C·U·T 04:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a source for this "on edge"; inability to be frank without fear of setting off a bomb. Perhaps that is the primary purpose it was placed there. Is there a procedure to stop such disruptions? Is there a higher power that can intervene; its made it hard to edit and set a horrible tone. In fact I have to be cryptic here so I don't get 20 paragraphs slung in my face. Not fun anymore ... is it. --Random Replicator (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I can get more involved and try to see what I can do.--Filll (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Were you inclined to keep the barriers between species section or farm it out? --Random Replicator (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would keep it if you can and make it as simple as you can so it is accessible. I like it.--Filll (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Hindu creationism/rewrite

Came across this long-abandoned attempted rewrite of yours. Do you still want it? If not, I'd suggest you tag it for speedy deletion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have pretty much given up on Hindu creationism. There just are too many Indians who are on Wikipedia and this is far far far too interesting to them for anyone else to have much influence. So I started it and gave up. I might have this article deleted.--Filll (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An NPOV Question

Filll, beyond what was posted on the village pump, what seemed to be the overall view regarding the NPOV question. Morphh ^(talk) 14:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you and most of the others posting. On Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, it was suggested that the Conservapedia article on the same topic was far more NPOV and objective and reasonable than our WP article. I disagreed vehemently. I was attacked for this. One of the things in the Conservapedia article I objected to was describing Richard Dawkins as "the atheist Richard Dawkins" when describing his dismay at having been misled when he was interviewed by the people making the film. I thought that sounded quite biased and almost comical (like the "virgin Connie Swale" from the Dragnet movie as someone noted). I was attacked for this position.

I am taking a semi break from the Expelled article here, but I still really was offended that someone thought that piece of trash on Conservapedia was better than our article, with all the work I have put into it, and efforts to represent both sides. The problem is, some creationists want us to create advertising for this movie to help it be successful. They do not want any mention of problems. They want all our articles on Wikipedia to be religious recruiting tracts, for their particular religious sect. And so they fight us, extremely visciously.--Filll (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No doubt.. Breaks are good. Those articles are a battlefield and way to much wikistress for me. I spent a little time in them and I think you even beat me up pretty good once or twice. haha :-) Some odd wording that caused NPOV issues or something... All good. Thanks Morphh ^(talk) 14:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikistress is bad. Cheers. 65.116.187.190 (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment?

I'm confused why you would call [1] an attack. Do you mean on the idea, you, or what? You said AGF, but I don't know what I'm supposed to assume good faith on. I didn't make any comments about anyone in particular and I didn't criticize your suggestion, so I'm confused. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 09:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Just relax.--Filll (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Priceless

This edit[2] nearly restored my faith in humanity (though not in Wikipedia). And on that happy note I will log off Wikipedia for the night and get back to this paper I'm supposed to be editing. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Totally agree

Totally agree with your statement. Have also posted it on my talk page. I only ventured into the science part of Wikipedia this month. I thought it was supposed to be the region of sanity. I had pretty mixed feelings about the ulimate success of Wikipedia at the end of 2007. One month into 2008, and my prediction is that it will sink into a tar pit of nonsense. The attrition rate of admins seems to be increasing. The departure of good contributors is alarming. And, based on the frequency of encounters, I'd say the pool of active editors is quite small...maybe about 1500 in all. Oh well. It's just a hobby. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you. I actually grabbed your update about five minutes before you left your message! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I seemed to have side tracked your discussion. The whole thing has to be about science. You are right about the other subjects. For example, one person's religion is anothers cult or terrorist base or just nonsense. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sure other fields have problems. But how do I know who is an expert on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and who is not? How do I know who is an expert in religion and who is not? We can tell pretty much in the sciences. In many other fields, it is just a sea of nonsense. The famous saying about economists is, if you ask two economists about some question, you will get 3 (or 4 or 5) different opinions. All economists laid end to end will reach no conclusion!--Filll (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikinfo

Are you aware of wikinfo? Why not direct people you think are POV-pushers there? Carcharoth (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually there are many wikis that I direct people to. See my little list here. And I am proud to say that several have gone to those other Wikis and have become productive there, writing articles and even becoming administrators and otherwise prominent there. I think that it is good to find a place where everyone who wants to be productive can be productive. The more that we all produce, the better, but not all people are cut out for Wikipedia with its weird NPOV rule.

I have nothing against Wikinfo and I have recommended it several times before to people. I think it is a fine alternative. The reason I was suggesting a Wikia project like Para Wiki instead is to "keep it in the family" and Wikia provides revenue to Jimbo and our family of projects, which is at least tangentially good for Wikipedia. Selfish huh?

The other reason that Para Wiki is attractive, at least to me, is that it is new, it wants input, and the rules there are probably fluid since it is so new. Many of these people have trouble living with the rules of Wikipedia, and might also have trouble with the rules of Wikinfo. Therefore, if they go to a wiki where they can shape the rules themselves, it might be much more beneficial to them and attractive to them. Just a thought...--Filll (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I've been following User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal with interest. It has certainly attracted a lot of attention. For the record, I have an undergraduate science degree (I try not to say too much about myself on-wiki, but I don't mind revealing that). I actually tend to avoid editing science articles because I know how fast some areas move and how easy it is for non-experts to get things wrong, even in good faith (well, in reality I've forgotten nearly everything I learnt...). I also know that editing on the basis of popular science books and textbooks can be tricky compared to editors who are using peer-reviewed articles and syntheses of front-line research (or knowledge of such). That might be part of the problem. In areas like science, non-experts and even those with a basic education in the subject, tend to either steer clear, or unhelpfully fall inbetween the two camps and satisfy no-one. That tends to leave highly-educated scientists tearing their hair out in frustration as they try to discuss things with those whose knowledge, shall we say, comes from other sources. I might try and rewrite that and put it over there. Carcharoth (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Good. I would like to collect as many ideas as possible; good ideas, bad ideas, crazy ideas, fruitcake ideas. The more ideas we can collect, the better. Then we can try to boil them down to something manageable that we can look at for ideas to possibly try, or even implore the powers that be to implement. And if we are lucky, we might be able to improve the situation here at Wikipedia a bit, where we have a huge waste of time and effort and talent going on, in both the science and the pseudoscience communities.--Filll (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I added another long reply over at the talk page. I remembered a bit of discussion I had over an experimental verification of General Relativity, and how it is covered in Wikipedia. It is an interesting (IMO) case study of how non-experts (with that oh-so-dangerous "little bit of knowledge") can contribute, while still relying on experts and active researchers (or at least those aware of the latest research) to guide the article and oversee things. The real danger comes when you have people who are convinced they are right, and don't have the open mind needed to change their views. Carcharoth (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep. You have your finger right on the problem. And we have made some progress in places like evolution where this used to be a HUGE problem. And we are still having awful trouble at homeopathy and many others. I just want to explore how we can produce a respectable high quality encyclopedia more efficiently and effectively.--Filll (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] proposed guideline

Take the problematic bit out [3], I spent more time on the rest of it. I would be impressed if you took a moment to improve the article as well. I'm thinking of suggesting a new guideline:

• Anyone can edit war, but only if they also somehow improve the page with each revert.

Just think how many feature articles would emerge :-) Faithfully, cygnis insignis 22:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that is great you are improving the article, however, as I am sure you know from looking at the talk page, the amount of homeopathic content in various articles on Wikipedia is a matter of some contention right now.--Filll (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

So I see. Nevertheless, please restore the other content that I added and improved. You can leave out the part that you mob see as anathema. cygnis insignis 22:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok this one time. But you should do this yourself.--Filll (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like User: Orangemarlin beat me to it. I think that maybe that material can go in there, but we have to do it in some sort of organized coordinated fashion or we will end up with 50,000 articles or more on Wikipedia promoting Homeopathy.--Filll (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would not promote anything?! Not intentionally, perhaps that cultivar description is giving undue weight to one particular grower? Didn't you think the other facts were interesting? I admit they could be better referenced, but there might be a DYK in there somewhere. cygnis insignis 23:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is interesting. And I understand you don't want to promote Homeopathy. We just have to keep some level of control on these things so we grow in a rational fashion.--Filll (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Homeopathy

Please, try to cool down. I would strongly recommend you remove some of your current, more accusatory comments. This is the problem we face here on wikipedia, believers in fringe material are just that - believers. For most of them, their faith is unshakeable and unchallengeable, just like many religious people, and it allows them to overlook truths that others may see. They have learnt to game the system, to stay completely calm and simply get the opposition's nerves rattled until said opposition get banned for being uncivil. We must be as steady as a rock against them, calm like a still pond (or some better metaphore, preferably :P). By accusing them, they only see it as 'proof' of your bias and their rightousness. LinaMishima (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am calm. This is how we dealt with similar kinds of things on evolution and creationism articles. This has gone on long enough; 8 months is too long. We need to get them to cooperate or their comments should be refactored. How many times can you read the same comment and make the same argument? Peter Morrell cooperates with us. And is productive. This sort of nonsense is uncooperative and unproductive. --Filll (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

We need to get them to cooperate or their comments should be refactored. You keep (mis)using the term "we" and "us". The people that you are dealing with in these articles are part of that "we" and that "us". Your comments, threats and other hackles you are raising there are not useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I cannot get to that page right now because of internet problems, but let me try to be more clear. Do you see Peter Morrell? He is a homeopathy supporter. He is a world expert in homeopathy. He writes extensively on homeopathy and has a university position as an expert in homeopathy.

However, Peter understands NPOV and cooperates. He does not fight against science and allopathy. He is a bit uncivil, but I have defended him because I do not care; what matters is that he is productive. And we have worked together extensively in the past and will in the future and are working on a new homeopathy article now. So just fighting and challenging is not helpful. It is just irritating and unproductive.

So take a lesson from Peter. And see how he operates. And try to emulate him. Ok?--Filll (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As a tactical matter it would be helpful to ease up a little, even when your opposite number is clearly in the wrong. You can back off on style without losing substance. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Listen to Raymond, Fill. These are wise words.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

And please, avoid this type of comments in the future. What were you thinking? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It could have been stated a little more unctuouslygently, but the substance was spot on: by coming on too strong, you only harden your counterpart's resolve. I see that as good advice for both sides and am a little surprised that you disagree (unless your objection was to how it was said, rather than what was said). Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

that comment was followed by " Cooperate or we will have trouble." I warn you about NPA. You have long been my friend here, and I support your view on homeopathy, and I share your frustration with some of the eds., but you cannot talk that way in WP. It is a explicit threat, and never appropriate. We must all cooperate to make progress, and achieve decent articles, and I'd express it that way. DGG (talk) 07:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried repeatedly to get back to that page to explain or soften the comment but I was unable to. The page moves far too fast and is too long. The page has become a platform for people to rant and rave about how they hate science, how they hate allopathy which is an evil plot, how it is all a conspiracy, and how biased the homeopathy article is. For eight months now this has gone on. Eight months. None of this serves to improve the article; it is a highly inappropriate use of a talk page.

However, if the admin staff on Wikipedia believes this behavior is appropriate, far be it from me to stop it. Thanks for demonstrating Raymond arritt's points he made on his discussion page, which I was loathe to agree to whole-heartedly. You have proved him correct. Nice job. Going to ban me for noting that? Was that highly uncivil? --Filll (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that perhaps this signals to me that the best thing we can do is to leave that page to the wolves. Let them have at it unfettered and see what they produce in 6 months. It would be a useful and instructive experiment.--Filll (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rfc re Whig #3

Hello Filll:

I'm posting here to ask you to consider striking the new Rfc on Whig.

I won't insult your intelligence or try your patience further by giving a lecture on why I think this is a good idea. However, if you wish to discuss the matter, please leave me a note there.

Thank you for your consideration. Wanderer57 (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Tell me why you think it is a good idea. He was even combative and nasty to me last night. He has been a constant source of irritation and has been uncooperative for a long time, and not at all productive in any way.

I have offered him (and you and others) a chance to cooperate with us and do something productive. However, this offer has been repeatedly spit back in my face.

It is hard for me to have much sympathy. I am here to write an encyclopedia, not fight and it appears many at homeopathy, including Whig, are only here to fight. There are several others on that page that could use their own RfCs.--Filll (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Rfa

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improving things and trying to increase efficiency

"We just have to keep some level of control on these things so we grow in a rational fashion" - <shakes head wryly> Ah, if only we had all been here when the first Wikipedia pages were being created! :-) Sometimes I find it helps to look at the very first version of an article, or in the case of homeopathy, the first version after the great software change in December 2001. See here. And I see Hamlet is today's featured article. The first version of Hamlet, from July 2001, is classic. Over two years later, in September 2003, it looked like this. Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course things are getting better. But let me tell you a little story. Let's consider evolution. Now if you look at evolution, it has improved drastically and outside reviewers have even said it was something like you would get from a junior faculty member or better. However, just a year or two ago, evolution was embattled and under seige. Huge attacks by hordes of creationists and POV warriors. It was downgraded from an FA and maybe wasnt even a GA anymore and was getting worse steadily, while editors quit one after another and the article slowly was eroding. It was a constant effort to even slow the decline as things got worse and worse, and there were extremely heated fights on the talk page between pro and anti-science forces.

What happened to turn it around?

Well, we did several things:

• We created an FAQ on the talk page
• We organized the history to avoid arguing the same thing 10,000 times, so we could just point to the previous argument
• We created introduction to evolution to draw off people from the main page who did not understand it anyway
• We farmed out the troll bait and creationist material to a suite of daughter articles, mostly well written and addressing the most common complaints
• We started aggressively deleting any comments from antiscience trolls from the talk page

The attacks slowed and ceased. Then the work on the article could actually focus on improving the article, instead of defending it from ignorant jerks of various flavors. And it improved. And is still improving as a result.

We spend much less effort on maintaining and protecting evolution and it is a better article, and most new edits go towards real improvements, not nonsense. The goal here is to increase the efficiency; more output per unit of input. And therefore get better content into Wikipedia for the amount of effort that is expended.

If we can create systems to make us more effective and efficient by reducing some of the problems, as we did on a small scale at evolution, then that is a good thing, right?--Filll (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a model process that should be applied to other controversial articles. Think of a good name for it, and make it an essay in the Wikipedia namespace, or possibly a subpage of an existing page. How about the (not-yet existing) Wikipedia:Long-term article management? I don't know. But the FAQ, history (by this, I think you mean organising the talk page archives by theme, rather than chronologically), and talk page management are great ideas. The creation of daughter articles would need more care and discussion. If that sort of thing is mishandled, it can make things worse, especially if the daughter articles are poorly named. Do you have examples of the daughter articles for evolution? I wonder if any of these ideaas could be applied to human? I remember that article being hopelessly tangled on the issue of what stance it should take - science, soul, medicine, anthropology, sociology, or everything under the sun. Carcharoth (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I do not propose that necessarily for all articles, but evolution is a very important subject, so it was worth the effort. And yes I know many of the daughter articles since I contributed to several of them. For example, evolution as theory and fact (done with User: Orangemarlin, which I am planning to rewrite, and have partially rewritten in a sandbox; it looks a bit ugly since it was one of my first articles), objections to evolution (done with User: Silence, but User: Orangemarlin and I wrote huge sections of it and we have more material to use in a rewrite), level of support for evolution (which is going to be rewritten to be cleaner and shorter and is being rewritten in a sandbox), creation-evolution controversy (done before me but slowly being cleaned up and rewritten with User: Hrafn) , creationism (again done before me but slowly being cleaned up and rewritten with User: Hrafn and others, and includes probably a dozen daughter pages as well), intelligent design (done before me but I have helped with it, and includes about 150-200 daughter pages as well, of which I have contributed about 20 or more), falsifiability of evolution (not yet in the mainspace, but slowly being written and rewritten in a sandbox) and several others. I also wrote the original evolution FAQ, which Silence rewrote, and then was used as a model for the intelligent design talk page FAQ written by User: ConfuciusOrnis, and helped User: Random Replicator and others write Introduction to evolution (which clarifies the topic for many people who do not understand it and therefore just object on general principles when they are really only confused). Also, there are Simple Wikipedia versions of evolution, principally by User: Adam Cuerden and intelligent design, principally by User: Adam Cuerden, and the atttendent daughter pages on Simple Wikipedia, which are also useful in this regard. There are articles which try to cover linguistic problems like evolution (term) and evolution (disambiguation), since language misunderstandings can cause all kinds of problems typically. There is a section of an article reached by Misconceptions about evolution that is also a point by point summary, and used to be a much longer separate article. There are also many daughter articles to evolution that are more advanced than evolution itself, and cover special details, like evidence of evolution, or modern evolutionary synthesis, or evolution of complexity, and probably at least a couple of hundred more.

So that gives a small sample of some of what has been done to try to fix things. And miraculously, it was fairly successful. However, it was so much work and required so many man hours of so many people including a large number of experts, that I would not suggest it in all cases. Instead, I would suggest finding trying to find new ways to do the same thing, but in a more efficient way. --Filll (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note

How was my comment tendentious? I don't understand and am seriously asking for insight. Anthon01 (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Getting 10 or so cites that show homeopathy is pseudoscience and then rejecting them over and over and being snarky and obnoxious and challenging and combative, after engaging in similar behavior for weeks or months on end is pretty close to tendentious in my book. I am looking for the regulation that shows we can delete such posts on sight. It has been used before and it works.--Filll (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I do not mean to be uncivil or offend

I have been informed that using the phrase "homeopathy promoter" instead of "homeopathy supporter" is offensive. I worry that perhaps even using the phrase "homeopathy supporter" is offensive as well and I request that someone suggest another phrase that is less offensive.

I also have been informed clearly that suggesting people follow NPOV or do not understand NPOV is offensive and uncivil. I suggest that this might indicate we have a severe problem here, worse than I had feared. --Filll (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

there is no reason for these kind of labels at all. you have supported labeling me in this way, but actually I don't see myself as a homeopathy promoter or supporter. I am just an interested physician, looking to describe homeopathy on wikipedia. I don't see the huge need to identify "camps" and I don't see the need to use derogeratory labels. Abridged ^talk 17:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well a "physician" who uses the word "Derogeratory". Interesting.

What if I decided the word "physician" was offensive, and one of the most offensive uncivil expletives and pieces of vile invective ever uttered? I think that might be reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances, don't you? Should I file a formal complaint against you for using the word "physician"? What do you think? --Filll (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I don't know what you are talking about. And if you are insulting my spelling above, I do make spelling mistakes sometimes. Abridged ^talk 17:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

How did I insult your spelling? Why don't you start an RfC against me or petition Arbcomm to have me banned? Would you prefer that I made the report to AN/I myself for being offensive and uncivil? I beg your apologies for any offense I might have caused or any inadvertant incivility that might have been inferred from this post or any other post of mine.--Filll (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought you might have been picking on me for spelling derogeratory wrong since I could not understand your comment above, "well a physician who users the word derogeratory, interesting." I am not interested in pursuing any action against you, actually, I was just answering a question you seem to have posed on your user page. Abridged ^talk 18:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Want me to help you file a formal complaint? Come on. I know you want to have me banned.--Filll (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You voted to have me banned, but I don't want to have anyone banned. See you later. Abridged ^talk 18:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I have observed you in action you forget.--Filll (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm not even sure what you are talking about. I brought an RFC after I asked someone to strike a personal attack and he wouldn't. This is not the same as asking to have someone banned. I have never asked for anyone to be banned. Abridged ^talk 18:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and try to get me banned. I used the word "promoter" anyway. I did not call you a promoter, but I have called others promoters. So ban me. Go ahead. You know you want to get me banned. And it will help you in whatever you are up to.--Filll (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

Would you agree to advocate on the Homeopathy article what you advocate in the edit summary here? [4] Anthon01 (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Taking your lead, I find the word "advocate" highly offensive and akin to the worst possible expletive. Please refrain from using such egregiously offensive and deprecatory terms such as "advocate".--Filll (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, since people can find the expression "NPOV" offensive, lets agree to declare the word "consensus" offensive. How does that sound?--Filll (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just curious

I'm just curious about what you do in real life. Abridged ^talk 17:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh are you? --Filll (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am. You see yourself as defending science here, and I'm curious about what your field is, and what level you are working on. I don't mean to be intrusive, but alot of people have asked me about myself on my user page and I've answered so I thought I could perhaps ask you the same question. Abridged ^talk 17:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I have stated it repeatedly on Wikipedia. I invite you to look for it, so you have something to do. --Filll (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Gee, thanks, that was civil. Abridged ^talk 17:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeating material excessively is uncivil and I do not mean to be uncivil or offensive in any way. Also, working in science or subscribing to the use of double blind tests and the scientific method and publication in mainstream peer-reviewed journals is viewed widely on Wikipedia as uncivil and offensive and I do not mean to be offensive or uncivil in any possible way so it is best that I do not repeat anything that might give anyone anywhere any possible offense so I will respectfully decline to repeat any improper behavior.--Filll (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I looked back on your user page and you are a physicist and research scientist. I was just was curious if you were working in medical research, and I guess you are not. Not sure about why you are going on a rant about the scientific method, etc, here, it seems like a non-sequitor. Abridged ^talk 18:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but I do not need any more attacks.--Filll (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not attacking you, I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from so I can work with you better. Abridged ^talk 18:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not try to get me banned? You will probably succeed. Try it.--Filll (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fill, you seem to be in a really bad mood. Why would I want to have anyone banned? I was just curious about your background so I can understand you better. You don't have to see me as some kind of Wikipedia enemy. Abridged ^talk 18:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I will not speculate as to why you wanted to have anyone banned and why you did the things you did. It might be viewed as uncivil and offensive. But I should be banned in any case since I am so offensive and uncivil, right? After all, I used the word "promoter". Highly offensive, clearly.--Filll (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Take care Fill Abridged ^talk 18:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You win. Why not join me in my proposal to pick an article or two, like homeopathy, and forbid all those who believe in science, the scientific method, double blind studies and allopathic medicine from editing the article or the talk page, so the others can produce a "real NPOV" version. Then after 6 months, then have the resulting product reviewed internally and externally to see if it satisfies Wikipedia and reader requirements and NPOV?--Filll (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fill, I do not think this is a good idea. Abridged ^talk 19:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? It's not just homeopathy, it's every article around here. We accidentally ran across an article Thuja where an obvious backdoor attempt to promote homeopathy had been written. Then we noticed numerous plant articles expounded the ability of the plant to cure things. Then I read the article on Alzheimer's, and there was a section on Ginkgo--but I read the underlying references and found some more recent ones, and it was clear that Ginkgo does nothing, absolutely nothing, for Alzheimer's patients. Every medical article has Alternative (meaning untested magic) cruft in it. It's a battle. And as long as Wikipedia is in the top 10 websites to research information, how sad is it that anti-scientific principles, such as Homeopathy, are allowed to be in these articles. People believe in this woo, which is only enriching homeopaths, who charge $2000 for a couple of liters of distilled water, and it does nothing for health. So, we should all walk away from the articles, and let Wikipedia rot away. The misinterpretation of NPOV is horrible. We're fighting a losing battle, since most admins don't understand NPOV especially when SPOV is clearly the same as NPOV in many medical and science articles. It's time for a strike by the science and medical writers. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

See below. And I think it is fine to say in the Thuja article that highly dilatd and successed preparations of Thuja are used by homeopaths to treat warts, with a cite to an appropriate source and WITHOUT any healthclaim that it WORKS. This is encyclopedic and not irresponsible. Abridged ^talk 19:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Starting at an AN/I thread about Talk:Homeopathy and your posts there, I was led around to various pages where your participation is less than civil. My best recommendation for you is to take a few days off of wiki—a little wikibreak to calm down—because it is obvious that your frustrations with the site are reaching a pinnacle. And while I understand from where these frustrations stem, and can appreciate them, it is not an excuse for chronic disregard for Wikipedia policy. You have been informally warned by various users on various article talk pages, but this is that pesky official warning where it's noted that continued incivility could result in a block. Have a cup of tea and a good book, perhaps, and remember it's only a website.

Despite our previous disagreement, I really don't want to see you blocked. I agree with most of your points regarding content, but it is in the realm of Wikipedia policy that we disagree. For that reason, however, should the incivility continue, I will not be the blocking admin, so please don't feel like I'm on a mission to block you. It's honestly not my intention here. If you need to vent about the situations most frustrating you, feel free to e-mail me and we may be able to figure out something to remedy some of the issues. Regards, Lara❤Love 19:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there something new from last night? I was cautioned last night and I was unable to soften or change the post that I made because the page was too long and moving too fast. And so I have been extremely cautious today. I do not want to offend anyone or be judged as uncivil. I mistakenly referred to someone as a "homeopathy promoter" instead of a "homeopathy supporter" (which itself might very well be judged to be offensive. And so I have been careful to avoid the offensive phrase.

And I really believe that since the people who are science-oriented, or allopathic oriented, or adovcates of double blind studies or the scientific method are interfering with the others on homeopathy, we should let them edit the page and its talk page unfettered and unimpeded. Is that offensive? I think it is in the best interests of all since it would reduce conflict and fighting here.--Filll (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm always curious as to why people give such advice. I contend that a psychoanalyst, with significant training, would take years to understand the motives and stresses that a person has in their life. An amateur admin (meaning amateur in the sense of psychiatric treatment) has no clue what is going on with people over the internet. And LaraLove, here's the problem, and why some of us are so damn passionate. These medical and science articles are full of cruft, placed by anti-science charlatans. People will come to Wikipedia to read these articles and think that a couple of liters of distilled water will cure all. People die from this medical advice. It will be, in only a short period of time, an US citizen will die because of what they read here. And the lawsuits will be aplenty. But, legal issues aside, the ethics of Wikipedia allowing false medicine to be promoted (yes, promoted) keeps me awake at night. So no, it's more than a website. The immorality of Alternative Medicine placed in medical articles is horrendous. So, passion is necessary herein. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fill, based on my previous interaction with you, you would probably count me in the fringy group you would see editing the article during the "walk out" you are proposing, and yet I am a very firm believer in the scientific method, double blind placebo controlled trials, and practice what homeopaths call "allopathy". Orangemarlin, maybe there should be a disclamer on all medical and alt med articles, or on some main wiki page that any wikipedia shoudl not be seen as a substitute for consultation with a physician. That might allay some of your concerns and help you sleep a little more soundly. Abridged ^talk 19:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I sleep quite fine thank you. No, a disclaimer doesn't work, since we all know how well the "Smoking Kills" disclaimer works on cigarettes. Alternative Medicine cruft should be removed. Oh yeah, if something in Alternative Medicine is found to work through rigorous scientific and medical analysis, it should be there. Then it's just medicine. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Well Abridged, since you are so sure you are right and you are so sure that you are a science supporter, lets do the scientific thing. Let's put your theory to the test. Let's do a real scientific test. And see how things go. You know you do not want to fight with the people you are fighting with. We are just obstructing you and getting in your way. So I am proposing a truce, that we stop fighting. And you get your way. And then we see the results. Fair?--Filll (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, I don't even know what you are talking about in terms of "getting my way." I'm going to go do some work now. See you later. Abridged ^talk 20:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It is amazing to me that I am offering a peace pipe, and a truce, to stop the conflict and trouble between the warring factions, and that one group is not interested. I find far more support for this proposal among the supporters of mainstream science and medical views.

I am stunned. I don't get it. What is wrong with letting alternative medicine and complementary medicine and alien abduction and big foot advocates the chance to write articles as they see fit? What is wrong with that?

I have been criticized and threatened over and over and over for being nasty and cruel for insisting that science be prominent and we try to write things according to NPOV. And I have finally realized that maybe the best option might be to give up, and give the people struggling to keep mainstream science out of articles on Wikipedia the chance to write the articles as they see fit.

It would stop wasted time. It would stop wasted conflict. It would give everyone a chance to be productive and show what they can do.

And although dozens of mainstream science and medical supporters think this is a good option and a good idea, very few if any supporters of WP:FRINGE views think it is a good idea (ok Whig thought it might be at one time, but I do not know if he still thinks so). Why is that? Can someone explain this to me?

I really am sort of surprised.--Filll (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of remedies

Hi there, Tim Vickers rescued the old list and set it up on my user page here [5] so I would suggest you can either just edit it as-is as you wish or just lift it from there and do with it what you wish. I don't mind either way. Hope that's OK, cheers Peter morrell 22:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant! This is great news. I didn't even know such a list ever existed. I really appreciate it. Thank you.--Filll (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Good, I will also compile a definitive list of the top 30 or so remedires in use and send it to you, cheers Peter morrell 05:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The clowns are winning

Random Replicator (talk · contribs) has left Wikipedia. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If it is true, it is very unfortunate. But of course, we have to WP:AGF no matter what, because all established editors being productive are expendable and all trolls and disruptive editors must be protected at all costs. --Filll (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you know already that I agree with your AfD. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Enough is enough. Let's get rid of it.--Filll (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking for an AfD through your contributions, I found [6]. That looks to be dangerous ground you're on, I'd prefer if my likeminded editors got annoyed and quit, rather than provided bait and get hounded out for upsetting people. Quitting out of annoyance keeps you able to argue and gains sympathy, getting banned results in calls of "oh, we should ignore them, they were banned". LinaMishima (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. I don't mean to suggest it is an attack. Many people told me it was not wanted or needed over the last year. And now a couple have really convinced me. So unless someone can convince me otherwise, I think we should put it up for AfD and see what the support for it really is.---Filll (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the comment that could be read badly. You could have left some content, but what you did fits your current style well :P Regarding Intro to Evo, everything has just became a farce here on the world's most political MMO. Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Introduction is interesting, showing a use for such articles, and Introduction to general relativity displays that FA status is indeed possible. Random Replicator did an amazing job during the FAC, and it is more confusing still why all the upset occured, from what little I gathered on passing regarding the source of a lot of trouble. I don't know, really. This place is sick and dangerous, really. I'm starting to dream about homeopaths trying to murder or sedate me o.O And the irony is that the discussions I returned to active editing for, WP:EPISODE and the RFC, have stagnated despite a rather excellent proposal now having been reached. There are far too many issues here, and far too many cooks. LinaMishima (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, done. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Fill, don't be a WP:DICK. Why are you spreading rumors about Amaltheus‎ (talk · contribs). You're contributions seem to be harassinging the gentalman. KD@Buffalo Rulz the world. 06:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Come on now Ken. I have decided that Amaltheus is right, and in fact so are you. Let's delete a few of these pesky science articles ! Too bad you are banned Ken otherwise you could help me vote to delete a few of these science articles. What do you say?--Filll (talk) 06:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Come on Bob, you know Bob is my name too. You're melting down, loosing it. Good hand/bad hand socks. How far will this downward spiral take you? KD@Buffalo Rulz 06:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.73.49.114 (talk)

[edit] RR gone

Yes, I just saw that. I don't blame him, in the circumstances. I think the big mistake, actually, was to propose the article for FA status. Too much of a magnet for all sorts of flak. It has seriously put me off the whole project, too. A pity, because I find wikipedia really useful in my day-to-day work, so I am inclined to be favourably disposed to it. On reflection, maybe it's useful (and generally reliable) for quick fact-checking purposes (what is the capital of Croatia, what's the difference between PaO2 and PAO2, when was Dickens born?), but doomed to failure in anything where opinions come into play. And, like it or not, there are enough people out there who think things like evolution are a matter of opinion... Me, I think I'm going to go back to keeping an eye on a few non-contentious little articles and ster clear of the big issues. I'll have a think about that AfD. Snalwibma (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I will see. I didnt put it up for AfD, but I would have if enough people said it should go. I want to know if people really think it is worthwhile or not. I think the FA attempt was a mistake, since it brings all manner of attacks. Particularly to something controversial like evolution.--Filll (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AN/I report

Hey, as a matter of courtesy I'm letting you know that I've reported some of your recent edits to the admin incident noticeboard. You can find what I wrote here. Feel free to contribute, should any discussion evolve (Freudian slip!) or contact me directly. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

When someomne blanks your comments to their talk page thay are saying pretty clearly that they do not wish to talk to you. Repeately posting to their talk page looks bad. So if you could please stop that would go a long way to sorting out the problem. Cheers. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to engage him in a friendly discussion. I really want to congratulate him on winning. And I honestly want to hand it to him for having waged a successful campaign. He wins. However, after he blanked my comments a few times and refusing to talk to me I got the message. So I left him alone. I notice that some sock puppet trolls posted on my page and his page, but that was not my doing and I take no responsibility for postings of KDBuffalo sock puppets of course. I have left Amaltheus alone after his previous outbursts a couple weeks back where he repeatedly cursed me and others out for being unconvinced when he advocated promoting sex prominently and aggressively in a document meant for 12 and 13 year olds. Frankly, I find his evasiveness and unwillingness to engage in discussion and his use of expletives and tantrums to be puzzling and unbecoming. You are free to come to your own conclusions, as I am sure you will. --Filll (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope you understand why I brought this to the attention of the community and don't feel personally prejudiced by it. I felt strongly about some of your edits and I can completely understand how discussion over emotive issues like evolution can get out of control and personal. From my point of view you certainly didn't need to apologise to me, I'm a pachyderm, but I do appreciate your recent comments at WP:AN/I. I just want you and all others concerned to move on from this seeming stalemate. All the best... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not want to cause you any offense by the inappropriate and unseemly use of the word "characterization". Perhaps it would be best if I left Wikipedia as well, and that is what the signals seem to be pointing towards. You are helping to make me see that more clearly. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that's entirely the opposite of my wish. I would prefer you didn't talk to other editors in the way I have highlighted. Your other edits, as far as I'm concerned, are not of great consequence to me. I just do not tolerate harassment. I hope you understand. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you do not tolerate harassment. Unfortunately, we do have plenty of harassment here on Wikipedia that we tolerate. But only certain groups can engage in it; trolls, POV pushers, chronically disruptive editors, "newbies", sock puppets, meat puppets, etc. This is Wikipedia policy and I know and accept that. But I know what you mean. At least we have to try to reduce harassment where we can, even if we cannot reduce harassment everywhere on Wikipedia.--Filll (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I'm a sucker when it comes to WP:AGF and have been bitten many times. But it's important, as I believe the essence of a wiki to be important, that we are a community. Even idiots deserve a chance. Perhaps even twice. And new editors will not understand wiki-policy. I could tell you of dozens of good faith editors who are here just to sell their wares. I've wasted hours (or days) on trying to convince them to learn to no avail. But please don't ditch the project. And please don't feel isolated or prejudiced against. Your opinion is really really important and so are your contributions. Just try to remain calm when the going gets hectic. And if it gets difficult, get in touch with me personally. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I see the AN/I is closed but I think you are missing my point about bringing up the "very strong oppose". This is not about whether it was justified but about how your defensive replies to those who questioned it, for right or wrong reasons, led to arguments. Any editor unfamiliar with you may well have got pissed off. You may well consider your replies as justified but if they attract negative responses then it sets off yet another round of negative interactions. This negativity is burning you out, IMO, and the current problem is that you seem to be in a positive feedback loop. You make a negative comment, you get two back, you make two more you get four back. I don't know what the solution is, its just an observation. An you're not the only one. i see it in Adam and Orangemarlin too. David D. (Talk) 21:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You do realize you are contributing don't you? And if you look at my last few votes, I gave almost no information. And I will not in the future. I learned. I do not want to encourage fighting and I do not want to besmirch the candidate more than necessary. It leads to long term bad feelings. Thumperward even tried to attack both Orangemarlin and Jim62sch as revenge for their votes against him in the RfA, as he stated in later AN/I proceedings. If that is how it goes, I don't even want to vote at all. Who needs it? You go ahead and keep it.--Filll (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your votes and for the record I do not mind if you leave no reason. This has nothing to do with RFA. David D. (Talk) 21:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_candidates%2FIntroduction_to_evolution&

[edit] Mandate

I like your idea of seeking some form of mandate for introductory type articles. IMO it is inevitable that articles such as evolution will outgrow their general audiences as they become excellent. It would be crazy for wikipedia to sacrifice excellent content as a compromise to keep articles targeted for a general audience. In fact, it would seem to go against the goals fo attaining FA status. Is article "level" discussed in the policy/guidelines anywhere? Who is wikipedia's target audience? I assume it's everyone, is there a recognised strategy to achieve this goal? David D. (Talk) 22:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure, but the community needs to come to some agreement on this. Otherwise, one malcontented allged "newbie" who is behaving in an outrageous and contentious manner and involved in tendentitious disruptive editing and insults and uncivil behavior, gets to have his way, in spite of the input of anyone else. And the article then turns into a carbon copy of the original evolution article. And then can be merged or deleted. So what was the point? Does one person who is willing to engage in streams of cursing and invective get their way over the will of dozens or hundreds or thousands of others? It seems unreasonable to me. Of course, we can go through the exercise of RfC and RfAr annd so on, but we know that it is likely that nothing will happen because they will be given a 2nd chance and a 5th chance and a 10th chance and a 100th chance to continue to disrupt.--Filll (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion of this point at Wikipedia_talk:Make_technical_articles_accessible#.22Introduction.22_articles which you could contribute to. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What a freakin nightmare!!My sympathies to the editors for an exercise in futility. I am ashamed I didn't chime in to help with the project, because the article has many merits. I noted Random replicator has vanished, and that is truly a loss(although I can appreciate and sympathize with his frustration). This Wiki has many merits but some of the weaknesses are doozeys. Why in the hell there is not one format for references is beyond me because it is always an issue. Internet links go bad so I prefer solid journal references or books. I hate you have given up on the project but I understand completely (although I think the idea was a good one) Regards.GetAgrippa (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Principally because of one problem editor, 2 have quit Wikipedia, 1 permanently apparently, and probably another 4 or 5 have avoided the article completely after his bullying began (including me). And now, the article after a year of work by over 200 editors with 2200 edits (1700 talk page edits), not counting FA page edits, is up for deletion, thanks to this one editor. Isn't Wikipedia wonderful? --Filll (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As you know I took a hiatus from Wikipedia. I have great reservations that this Wiki will ever produce a stable article. Pseudointellectuals, POV pushers, uncivil assholes, and egomaniacs will always be a problem. Reaching a consensus is a joke because you can have a consensus of friggin idiots editing an article, but eventually they will be called on it by a new group of editors. Even if Intro to Evo was FA quality it would deteriorate or become too complex within six months. Everybody is a freakin expert on evolution. Nothing scientific about this process. That is why I have grown skeptical to actually write or contribute to evolution related articles because even if it were elegant,brilliant,well referenced prose befitting the gods some buttwad would just change it in six months.GetAgrippa (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Filll (talk · contribs) for a really good defence. If I don't take a break for a month, I'll be hypertensive. I won't ever be around this part of Wikipedia again. When I return in March, I'll stick to being a WikiSloth in some quite back water where my contribution won't matter one bit to the project. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not beat yet. I was remiss in running away from the fight and attempting to be cooperative and I am now paying the price. However, it is good in the long run because it is a good learning experience and I think we will forge some sort of community understanding of accessibility, as well as new approaches for dealing with difficult situations and editors. So all in all, I think things look good. Sorry you had to take the brunt of it, and I am sorry for RR as well, although once this situation is addressed I hope to see you both back here and active.--Filll (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"Pseudointellectuals, POV pushers, uncivil assholes, and egomaniacs will always be a problem" looks like a growing problem; and it's increasingly hard for editors and admins to control as Wikipedia grows. I suggest a more automated approach is needed, e.g.: articles get "points" for each access; editors get points for each edit in each category; edits from people whose points for the relevant category (highest applicable category if several) are less than the article's score are put on a "to be reviewed" list; articles that get a lot of abuse can have their thresholds raised; editors who clearly violate published Wikipedia rules can have their scores reduced; editors who are proven experts in their fields get their scores for these fields boosted. Philcha (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a good idea. I hope you do not mind if I cross-post this to the discussion here.--Filll (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SV40

I'll be happy to help but it seems like an edit war that will last a while. The user on the other side of the debate (with both of their IPs) has only edited SV40 (of the millions of possible other articles) which leads me to believe they have some purpose beyond simple knowledge sharing and that agreeing on a version to even begin to edit/consider will be a battle in and of itself. However I'll do my best and take a look at things later today.Boston2austin (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I noticed this on your talk page and commented on the article talk page. Hope you don't mind. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the more the better. I think the wording could be better but I have not put much energy into it.--Filll (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I put in a new section using reviews as sources and moved the asbestos studies to the first section. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Good. I think that we best serve our readers and the needs of scholarly discourse by including more substantial information, not less. This improves our SNR. --Filll (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Homeopathy remedies and plants

Wouldn't List of homeopathic remedies help resolve the problem with plant articles? Rather than have little mentions all over Wikipedia, the first port of call should be to list the plant there (though maybe the list would be a bit too long?), and homeopathic and alternative medicine uses should only be mentioned in the plant article if there is a lot of material on those uses of that plant? I know it can be a problem, in that alternative medicine and homeopathy seem to want to claim healing properties for seemingly every single plant, but I think lists of plants with genuine and recognised medical effects would help to offset that. I'm sure there is a list somewhere of plants used to make, or used to find, new drugs. Carcharoth (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That was part of the idea of the "compromise". Instead of having 1000 or 5000 or 10,000 or more "miniartcles", what we offered to do was two steps (1) restore this list which had been deleted and fill it out a bit more and (2) allow about 50 "miniarticles". This was met with fury and anger and rejected by those I was trying to engage with. Even LaraLove, and other admins, are encouraging the creation of as many of these "miniarticles" as possible and fighting viciously to do so. It is not a good situation, frankly, and someone has to make it clear what we are going to do.

Anyway, after my compromise offer was rejected, I left the field of battle, which is still deadlocked of course.

As I said in the RfAr, for homeopaths, this is a fight to the death. They view Wikipedia as a massive threat to potentially destroy them and kill their livelihood, or it could be a boon and free advertising for them. Since anyone can edit, we invite in dozens, and eventually hundreds and thousands of homeopaths with financial justifications to not follow any of the policies of Wikipedia. So we either make the guidelines for this clear, or we will suffer the consequences.--Filll (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I found Biodiversity and drugs and Zoopharmacognosy. Unrelated, but interesting , is Biopharmaceutical and Pharmacokinetics. But I'm struggling to find a good, comprehensive article on commercial western medicine drugs derived from plants. Any ideas? Carcharoth (talk) 10:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head I do not, but I will ask some experts.--Filll (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Filll, I'd like to see things calmed down on this FAC, not further inflamed. I thought you agreed on the AN/I thread to stop making these kinds of comments (pat yourself on the back, etc.). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I was just on my way to edit it and make it softer after I thought about it a little.--Filll (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, we don't need more heat :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that it will not be smooth sailing through the FAC until the community, or a substantial fraction of it, comes to terms with what it means to be an introductory article, and decides that there is a need for introductory articles on Wikipedia. That I think is the root problem, aside from problems with citations and references and formats, which I have complained about before, but was overruled by my co-authors. In retrospect I should have held out for more cleanup of the references before starting out on this venture, but hindsight is perfect.

Even then, we still would have encountered this massive philosophical problem of what is the purpose of Wikipedia and who is the audience, as we can see in the AfD and FAC pages and the tendentitious fighting about approach. The article cannot be all things to all people, and we have to decide first what the article will be or is supposed to be aimed at, and then 95% of these objections will melt away when we understand what we are doing.

Unfortunately, being accommodating leads to the current mess, because we cannot accommodate all desires, particularly when everyone has a different idea of what is needed. And that was our mistake, and my mistake, for retreating from the conflict instead of finding ways to remove the unconstructive elements. It might feel good to WP:AGF and do whatever someone is asking, but it is ultimately bad for the article, bad for Wikipedia, and bad for long term productivity of all contributors.

There is a reason that functioning societies have laws and the rule of law, and the police are empowered to act on the laws and we have courts and lawyers etc. It is folly to think that an environment that is more and more resembling society at large can not have a similar structure. We have laws here, but not the rule of law, and it is almost impossible for our "police" to enforce the rule of law. So therefore the citizens have to enforce things themselves and we get the rule of the jungle. It is pretty obvious.--Filll (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I strongly disagree with respect to WP:AGF and their importance to Wikipedia (I also feel strongly about WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL). I hold the opposite view; we won't ever advance science articles by attacking people with opposing views; rather than fighting trolls, we create more trolls when we are uncivil. I believe TimVickers' editing style, and the talk pages of autism and Asperger syndrome (where I edit with civil conscientous kind scholarly editors like Colin, Eubulides, Casliber, TimVickers, WLU, Fvasconcellos et al) validate my conviction that we can advance good science articles (in spite of POV, serious off-Wiki canvassing, and trolls) by sticking scrupulously to civility and AGF. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That depends who is on the other side and what their motivations are. The overall goal here should be productivity and efficiency and effectiveness. And by letting anyone do anything they want, without opposition, the ultimate WP:AGF approach, you will spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with the problems created by that.

Ever drive in Italy? People drive on the sidewalk and the wrong side of the road and ignore all traffic signs and lights and speed limits etc. And the traffic fatility statistics show it. But the Italians tolerate it. Americans would not.

Everyone and every society has their own tolerance levels. And I AGF in most cases. I am not as harsh as Orangemarlin can be at times, or ScienceApologist. However, I think that there is only so far one should move to accommodate others desires, and that we need a bit of a paradigm shift and some out of the box thinking here. Business as usual is not working too well, in my humble opinion.--Filll (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Filll, I lived in Italy, I raised children in Italy and third world countries, I know of what you speak. Driving in Argentina, Mexico, and Venezuela is worse. I was quite happy and adapted in all of those countries, even though I'm American. So ...

We have AGF rules for a reason; if you don't follow them, you will find yourself constantly in imbroglio, which will detract from your editing. In case you're not aware, I just went through a month of wikipurgatory because of severe off-Wiki canvassing and attacks on the articles I edit and my character. I came through that fine because no one will ever find an uncivil edit from me anywhere, because I don't do that. I'm not saying we need to let anyone do anything they want; I'm saying we need to respond civilly no matter what. I'm saying battlefields are created in the areas you all edit, not only by the trolls, but also by the regular editors. The motivations on the autism-related articles are the same, the attacks are similar. The talk pages are not battlefields because the regular editors are scrupulously patient and civil. IMO, the only thing wrong with "business as usual" is Wiki needs to be much more aggressive in cracking down on incivility and NPAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that we need more "crackdowns" but I would make the reasons for crackdowns and enforcement slightly broader. Without it, we get editors taking matters into their own hands, which as you say leads to an imbroglio.

Suppose I and a group of other editors have an article on X, and some other editor (usually a "new" editor, ostensibly) comes and says "I want the article to be on Y, not X and 100 other editors or 1000 other editors are all %$^# idiots and %$#^& jerks and I must get my way or I will be angry and upset". Now the topic X was chosen by consensus of 1000 editors. And if we change it from X to Y just because the last editor wanted it that way, or change it just because the last editor started to curse us and insult us, that is wrong. What should be done in those cases is swift and sure consequences. The person should be told politely but firmly, the consensus is X not Y, and by being uncivil and angry you cannot overwhelm the consensus, and it is up to you, new editor, to build a new consensus for Y instead of X. If they continue to throw tantrums and threaten and curse and spew nonsense, then they should be shown the door, first from the article, and if things are bad enough, from the project.

That sort of enforcement would go a long way to draining the swamp.--Filll (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Filll - I was just on my way here to congratulate you on this edit, and to urge you not to do too much more of this. I see SandyGeorgia has beaten me to it! I think there is a real danger that you are beginning to look hot-headed, and that won't help the message. Cool it, huh! Snalwibma (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I am not as nasty as some are, but I believe that by giving in and constantly WP:AGF we end up in a mess. We have to not give in constantly or we will have a problem. It might have to be done with a smile, an iron fist in a velvet glove, and involve quite a bit of devious manipulation and behind the scenes skullduggery, but until we can get an overall atmosphere change, that is what has to be.--Filll (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Filll, my hearty congratulations on the latest FA; you all worked hard and it's a beautiful article. Now please take good care of it so it doesn't end up at FAR in a dispute :-) All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow finally we make it !! I am sorry the main author Random Replicator did not see it. I will email him however.--Filll (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulation Filll. Hopefully it was worth it. I expect RR is watching the progress during his break. At least he had better be! David D. (Talk) 18:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC) just out of interest, where does it say it made FA status?

Congratulations, Filll. I just saw GimmeBot switch GA to FA on my watchlist, and see that the article has a star. (now if it only doesn't get deleted ;) Gosgood (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I sent him an email just now. As horrible as it is to say, I do not think we would have made it without RR leaving and deleting his account, and Wassupwestcoast leaving on a long break, and the AfD. It focused attention on a problem that we had pleaded for assistance with for weeks, to no avail. Just asking for help and WP:AGF did nothing. It took RR quitting and a threat to delete the article to get people's attention. Sad, but accurate.--Filll (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, as you should be able to tell by my original summary to Raul before the accounts were deleted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree. Having watched the problem fester for many weeks, and some elements dug in, and what they were capable of, I think that it might have continued to languish for another month, or might have even escalated to all sorts of administrative actions, dragging it out for many many months. You are free to WP:AGF but there is more to this than meets the eye I am afraid. --Filll (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact even as it is, I suspect that Raul654 might be criticized for acting too precipitously. However, being able to point to the discussion at the AfD, and the two defections from WP, any others questioning this will have to explain why two quit out of frustration, and why the community stated clearly that there is a place for introductory articles on Wikipedia, and explain why the community thinks it is reasonable that introductory articles be necessarily incomplete and vague and lacking detail.

Of course, I could have mounted mediation requests and multiple RfCs and even gone to Arbcomm or tried other remedies. However, these consume hours and hours of time, and often have unsatisfactory results. How willing is the community to waste many man hours of other volunteer workers? There are efficiency and productivity considerations here to be taken into account, and if the project does not think of these, it will suffocate in its own wastes.--Filll (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for changing the comment that started this thread. It was completely unwarranted. Marskell (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have made it a rule to always remove material if someone complains or finds it offensive or if they ask me to, and to always apologize if someone asks me to, or feels aggrieved. However, I am still puzzled about your position and lack of interest in accessibility.--Filll (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You should remove material when you realize you're commenting on the contributor and not the content. (And asking for apologies is just stupid.)

I have no lack of interest in accessibility. Accessibility is as much a matter of cogency as abundance: two articles on the same topic need to be properly defended. There are cogent arguments in favour of Introduction to articles (NOT PAPER is your strongest) and there are cogent arguments against. They suggest two types of "general reader," IMO, and double the maintenance. Sophisticated mathematics on core articles is one area that might demand it; I don't see that on Evolution. Marskell (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, there are more reasons than just "mathematics" that people find things hard to understand. Just look at a grade school science book on geology, and a graduate school science book on geology. A big difference in requirements and sophistication, having nothing to do with mathematics.

Encyclopedia Britannica has 6 levels of articles. Why can WP not have two, after all?

And remember our average reader probably has at best 12 years of education, and in many cases, less. The average adult in Washington DC reads at a grade 3 level. How well would they be able to struggle through evolution? They probably could not make it through Introduction to evolution. Maybe they could read the Simple Wikipedia article on evolution. In several US states, more than half of the teachers in public school are functionally illiterate; that is, they read at less than a grade 8 level. So could the average teacher in Mississippi or Alabama read evolution without difficulty? I doubt it. So, accessibility is a reasonable goal. Plus, I like the idea that a reader can start out at Simple Wikipedia, then move on to Introductory articles, then finally to the main articles, then even more sophisticated subsiduary daughter articles on special topics. --Filll (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RR

That's awful, Filll. Thanks for filling me in. Don't know the details, obviously, but I'm sick to hear this. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You are sick? I almost got myself banned over it. Oh well. --Filll (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What a mess. Sorry to hear that as well. I guess I missed all the explosions. Congrats on the FA, Filll. Glad you're here. So, are you rested up and ready to write another one? Professor marginalia (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have watched the FA process a few times now and it is not pretty and I am not so sure it is so valuable, to be honest. I have a few articles in sandbox form that I am working on, and a few rewrites of current articles also in sandbox form. I will work on those, and not worry so much about GAs and FAs because it just takes all the pleasure out of it, frankly.--Filll (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A collection of statements of fact is a collection, not separate points

Please withdraw your straw poll on the separate statements of fact. The list was never designed to be broken down in this matter, with points carefully balanced to form a whole that could be, hopefully, universally accepted. To post a straw poll after I request that individual voting not be done is a very suspicious act. To consider the points in this manner will only move us further away from an agreement, not closer. LinaMishima (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the section. Looking at time stamps, I see that it was probably nothing more than a matter of timing, that you had not had a chance to see my comments whilst typing up the, well-meaning, poll. LinaMishima (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

Perhaps it might taste bitter-sweet; but I encourage you to taste the sweet and forget the bitter. Affectionately, Willow (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.--Filll (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You and Random Replicator  (talk · contribs) did a super great job and Introduction to evolution deserves to be FA. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on the FA-well deserved. Glad Random Replicator has returned. You two are da bomb! Keep up the excellent editing. I hope this will precipitate some change in this Wiki for the better. I can dream can't I. GetAgrippa (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. I hope that when the waters have settled we can work on the article some more. Perhaps in a year. :) Awadewit | talk 02:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Real improvements are always welcome. Of course a lot of what has been suggested recently did not constitute substantial improvements, at least in my view. I look forward to it :) --Filll (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, a difficult job well done. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tim for all your invaluable assistance on this one. I of course am relying on you to continue to simplify it where you can and feel it is appropriate while maintaining integrity of the science and respecting the original goals of the project.--Filll (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Psychohistory

Is this pseudoscience? Judging from the article it seems to be the invention of one guy, Lloyd deMause (try googling him) and his students/disciples. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that he has definitely founded this controversial field, but even then it is still notable, even if complete nonsense. I looked for books on google and amazon, and even though these might all be students, they have pumped out a lot of material. I would claim they are notable and worthy of coverage (although not necessarily hagiographic coverage) by virtue of the fact that (1) they have a journal full of stuff (2) they have published numerous books (3) they do appear to have some historical roots (4) they are prominent enough that other academics criticize them.--Filll (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yup

I just could not not give the editor a warning. I am definitely one of your timid admins. I've never blocked anyone for more than two hours :-) Still, I know you've gotten so much flak that I decided that enough was enough. I'm still simmering. Anyway, everything evolution is now off my watchlist. I'm leaving it up to you, Filll. You've definitely got the stuff and thick skin to put up with nonsense. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

ROTFL. Totally liked the revert. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There is more going on here than meets the eye ;) --Filll (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Animal testing

Any opinion on Talk:Animal testing? SlimVirgin and her friends have a habit of seeing articles on subject X as articles about how newspapers have covered controversies about X. I think she does well at NPOV coverage of how newspapers cover the controversies, but can not see that an article on subject X is not the same thing as an article on controversies about X and she seems to think that newspapers are as reliable as scientist peer-reviewed material on matters involving logic and evidence (ie scientific claims). There was a year long struggle at factory farming which is now apparently on hold, where I first ran into this issue. For entertainment you may care to read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit confused as to what is going on. I see a request for mediation, but it does not look so bad to me. My own personal position and understanding of the issue is:

• I am a huge animal lover, but I believe that people are worth more than animals (although it pains me to write that)
• I believe that living people are worth more than potential people like blastocysts in liquid nitrogen, "Snowflake children", spilled sperm, or whatever
• I believe all people are valuable, and I would love to do away with the death penalty (I have a long long list of reasons)
• I am extremely uncomfortable with animal experimentation but I would be deadset against stopping it because of its value medically
• I am against unnecessary animal experimentation
• I am disgusted with animal liberation movements etc
• PETA strikes me as a bunch of hypocrites and nuts for the most part (sorry)
• I support the replacement of animal models ASAP with other techniques, but not before

I agree with the search for peer-reviewed sources and that those should trump popular press accounts. However, the popular press accounts do offer accessibility and do describe certain aspects of the topic that cannot be found other places. I am not sure how else to help or what I should do? I do not quite understand the argument I am afraid, and it might take me a while to get up to speed. I am also buried in other projects!--Filll (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strike or boycott

I agree with everything you just wrote. And it is indeed necessary to pick one's battles. Instead of "boycott" or "strike" we need to use words like "organize" and "pick our battles". There is no shame in deciding we don't have the time, as a group, to fight every unending POV battle on wikipedia. Letting some whole areas "go to the dogs" is not unreasonable given that we have millions of articles and are unpaid. Good luck to you on your online and offline endeavors! WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable with the words "strike" and "boycott" since they are inflammatory and not particularly descriptive.

I would however supporting experiments and testing, and investigating different ways to manage and develop articles.

What we have is

• a system that is currently not working optimally, or some suspect is not as good as it could be

1. A group of nonmainstream proponents who believe they could do better than what has been achieved so far using their strategies and methods
2. A group of WP admins and editors who believe that the problem is not enough wikilove and WP:AGF and that if there was more wikilove and WP:AGF that we would achieve better results using their strategies and methods.

So why not let group (1) or group (2) or both demonstrate that what they claim is true? Or why not brainstorm to see if other methods and strategies are more efficient for developing and managing articles, particularly in controversial areas?

That is all. --Filll (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

This user helped promote the article Introduction to evolution to featured article status.

Thanks for your help. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Could you take a look at this?

User:Durova/Sandbox/Harris Coulter Here's a sandbox version from a deleted biography about a person who's probably notable enough for a biography, based upon authorship notability standards. I'd like to raise the neutrality and sourcing to a level where this can move to article space. Your input is welcome. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 23:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No problem

[7] --Amaltheus (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Did you see this?

User:Eleland/Symptoms of disguised quackery ? TableManners^C·U·T 05:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No comment

Courtesy of our esteemed admin corps:[8] Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I love watching stuff self-destruct. •Jim62sch• 22:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what I have been saying. So let's go with it and see the results. Let's study the phenomenon.--Filll (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Essay

Relatively late reply on my talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 07:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)