User talk:Gnixon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zantaggerung 16:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No worries. Water under the bridge. --Margareta 02:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and you should email me. There's an article I want to send you.--Margareta 16:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I couldn't find your email address. Is there a way for us to communicate here, say on a subpage or something? Gnixon 17:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Go to my user or talk page, then in the "toolbox" in the left-hand column Under the search bar) there will be a link that says "E-mail this user." Click on it, and a form will come up. BTW, if you specify an email addy in your own profile, Wikipedia will keep it private, but allow users to email you through their form. Basically, if someone emails you, you get their email addy but they don't get yours, and you can choose whether to reply (which would, of course, then give them your email addy).--Margareta 18:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't noticed that. Thanks for the explanation. I think I'm going to avoid that feature so I don't confuse myself (happy to explain), but feel free to email me at gnix-at-yahoo.com. If you do so, please notify me here, as I don't often check that address. Sorry to be a pain. Looking forward to the article. Gnixon 18:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done.--Margareta 19:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Marvel at my sense of humor.  ;-) Gnixon 04:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Just a suggestion and this isn't an opinion either way on the validity of the case you posted a short time ago to the administrator's incident noticeboard...when you bring a case to the noticeboard, please make sure to list all the "diffs" and any other linked, relevant evidence so that the administrators won't have to search around to find it. Cla68 02:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm willing to do so if it will help, but as you might imagine, I'm pretty weary of dealing with this whole thing. Perhaps I'll give a few examples now, more upon request. I figured glancing at the talk pages of articles I've linked to, my and the other editor's talk pages, and our histories would demonstrate my point pretty quickly. Thanks for the note! Gnixon 02:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Gnixon. I don't appreciate Orangemarlin's attitude; however, I can't exactly block him for intent to continue disruption. If he continues to edit war, specifically in violation of the three-revert rule, report this to WP:AN3RR. Your main complaint was about his personal attacks on you, for which he shows no remorse. If these continue, definitely post on ANI again or contact me if necessary. Personal attacks after warnings aren't acceptable. Heimstern Läufer 03:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks much. Gnixon 04:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh I imagine he feels justified by part of this discussion, where another editor comments that he likes my extensive refactoring of the Talk:Evolution but mentions refactoring should have broad consensus. I guess I'm officially being stalked. Gnixon 04:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Gnixon, I am wondering if I could get some help on a project. I am hosting a vote on my talk page to try to find out if other people agree with me that Christianity as the world refers to it today is really more than one religion. Whether or not you agree with me, ( I want you and everyone elses vote, but thats not why I am making this post) could you help me coordinate the vote, maybe you would know how to detect sock puppeteers or other ruffians. And if the vote comes out positive, would you help me edit the Christianity article? You obviously dont have to, but I thought I would consult someone more experienced than me that I know a little about. I am also going to try find someone with a lot of awards and see if I can get some help from a master. Thank you! Zantaggerung 15:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Z. I'm not sure hosting a vote is the best solution here. Polls and votes are often a poor substitute for discussion, and I think that may be especially true in this case because the issue you're raising is largely one of semantics. A lot of times, things like these can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction with just a little rephrasing. Maybe you could say something like "Christianity encompasses a wide variety of religious beliefs, most often including ... but differing on ...." Know what I mean? Gnixon 16:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think what he is trying to ask is if there a large enough difference between Christians to call it an entirely different religion. I will respond that I do not think so. Denominations cover the description well enough. There is a large difference between Protestantism and Catholicism, but I would not venture to call it another religion. I think it is the matter of the source. Christianity come from the Bible and ultimately Christ, Islam comes from Muhammad through multiple books, Judaism come from the Torah, Buddhism comes from Budha, Confuscism comes from Confuscious, etc. You could claim that many Christian denominations have deviated from the source of the Bible, but all of us still claim it has the foundation of our faith.--JEF 01:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I see you deleted the section about discredited theories, referring to the talk page. I agree that the section probably didn't belong in the article, but I couldn't find the discussion you were referring to. What was the title of the discussion, or where is it archived? I didn't read through all of the archives, but searching for "discredited" didn't yield any useful result. --Itub 07:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I can't find anything on the talk page, either. Weird. Thanks for calling me on that. Maybe I had come across this discussion: Talk:Physics/wip#Fringe. I really thought I remembered more discussion about it. Think we should bring it up on the talk page? Gnixon 13:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much. I think such a list might be useful, but not on the main Physics article. These theories are already mentioned in places such as history of physics and history of thermodynamics. There's also an article about superseded scientific theories. I just wrote you a message because I had contributed a bit to that section in the physics article and was surprised at first to see it deleted. But after thinking about it further, I realized that it was probably not worth having that section. --Itub 14:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

it looks like we have some topics of interest in common. i'm an electrical engineer who does DSP on audio/music signals for a living. although i'm pretty far left-of-center politically and philosophically (i'm male and my hair is longer than most women, i worked as a volunteer on the Howard Dean campaign, i like cannibis, i like prog rock and other alternative music, etc.), i am disturbed by the sense of entitlement that some (liberals) have here to make Wikipedia a place that is comfortable to them (at the expense of comfort for persons on the other end of the spectrum) and reflect life as they see it. i have gotten into a few scrapes as a result. i have often been categorized as a homophobic, conservative, pro-ID, i can't remember what else. it's always a dichotomy here, try to tone down the blatent liberal, pro-gay, whatever bias in some article and they immediately place you at the opposite end of the spectrum.

i dunno what other articles i should get involved in, i don't want to spread myself so thin ("like butter scraped over too much toast" - Bilbo Baggins). what articles or talk pages do you suggest? i might pick one or two from the list but i need to reduce my wiki-participation because it will take too much of my time.

best, r b-j 18:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I was close! I had you as a physicist. My throw-my-hands-in-the-air moment was when I was debating an article's introduction with an editor you've bumped heads with before. Although he had previously praised me because we were "on the same side," he later decided he'd seen through my devious ruse, triumphantly "outed" me, and from then on dismissed the rest of my comments as coming from a "whiny little creationist." What makes me really sick is that there's not just one crazy editor out there causing problems---there's a group of them, banding together, some with administrator rights. I've found that if I stay calm, avoid inciting them, and appeal to administrators when necessary, then I can make some progress, but I'm really not sure whether it's worth it. Wikipedia is great, but I do have a real life, and I really don't have time for this if it's just going to be a bunch of bickering with the POV-pushers and the uninformed. I was thinking you might check out Creation-evolution controversy and Objections to evolution, which have a lot of potential to be good articles if only we could purge the bias. I'm trying to stay optimistic.  :) Gnixon 19:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, before I write anything else, I want to officially and publicly state my apologies for being uncivil to you. In my own defense, I did not, at the time, believe I was being uncivil, but I think I got more and more irritated over the days, and I did not recognize how upset I was with you. That is no excuse. As someone whom I admire once said, "once you come to your own defense, you're usually guilty." That being said, I still think you are sneaking in Creationist bias into articles. I frankly don't care if you are or not, although being honest about it helps everyone put conversations into context. But that doesn't matter. You keep claiming that you are trying to move everyone to a neutral bias, yet the little things you do, in fact, are not neutral. The whole Richard Dawkins is an atheist discussion absolutely is a POV description of him.

Apology accepted and appreciated. Likewise, I apologize especially for jumping the gun on ownership accusations on the Objections intro and for accusations of stalking. As for the bias issue, it's clear you think I'm trying to add Creationist bias, while I think you're trying to add anti-Creationist bias; equally clearly, we both think we're just trying to keep things neutral. We're going to continue to clash there---que sera, sera. I want to make sure you know why I reacted so strongly when you began rudely we can agree on that adverb, I think accusing me of being a Creationist. Please consider how sensitive I've become to my opinion that well-intentioned editors, who spend much of their time battling creationist vandals on the Evolution page, are overreacting on other articles to the extent that they have introduced serious anti-Creationist bias. An analogy: I felt as though I was the only one of a group of adolescent boys defending homosexuals, and in response they started calling me gay. I'm just saying that's how I felt. Gnixon 23:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You have accused me of stalking you. I'm not sure where you got that idea but I watch nearly every single article on Evolution and Creationism. I was one of the two original authors of some of the articles where we've "butted heads". But you have to go way back to see my edits (or they may not show up because these articles were written in a sandbox first). I try to stay out of the substantive edits of articles I write, just to get other POV's into the article. But as for my stalking you, I could care less who you are, one way or another. I didn't like your edits, not because they were written by Gnixon, but because I believed that they were poorly written (in a couple of cases) or highly POV in others. You attacked back as if I were attacking you, when I was about as unemotional as one can get with the edits. In fact, in the case of whether religions supported or didn't support evolution, I assumed a high degree of good faith in you at the time, and just though you erred in your edits. I didn't think anyone, either on the Evolution or Creationist sides of the discussion would write something like that, so I thought I was doing a good deed. You attacked me for it, as if it was a personal issue.

I apologize for the "stalking" accusation, which was unfounded. I also apologize for "attacking back" first, on the Objections intro, when I misunderstood your objection to my edit. I do suspect you're swift to check my edits, but frankly, I'd be a hypocrite to object to that. I'll admit I'm wounded by "poorly written"---I hope I can apply the excuse that I was going out of my way to accommodate other editors' NPOV concerns. Much of my efforts on Wikipedia consists of trying to improve readability, usually by making things shorter and more concise---cutting the fluff, if you will. In fact, I think that's a big part of why we clash---I'm always trying to keep things concise and to the point, whereas my opinion is that you often insert a lot of clauses and extra sentences just to make sure everyone knows that the creationists are wrong. Gnixon 23:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the Objections incident that sparked all this was a legitimate content issue over facts about religious support for evolution, but it was heavily colored by our different perspectives on NPOV. Gnixon 23:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

While we're on the Objections incident, there was another issue that got me riled up. I honestly think you tend to pass judgement on what others write after only briefly skimming it. In our debates, you've often in my opinion responded as though I wrote something entirely different from what was on the page. It can be very frustrating when someone seems to be constantly straw-manning you. It relates to the articles because I'm sensitive to some editors' resistance to change and improvements. For example, what's-her-name on Evolution reverted Mandaclair's edits to the intro *far* too hastily, I suspect just because she saw all the changes and freaked out that they weren't discussed first. I don't like that way of working here. I'm a big fan of "be bold," and I always try to evaluate edits on their merits, not on the amount of red. Now, I don't mean to be making accusations, but you quickly reverted my Social and religious controversy edit (maybe for good reasons), without much comment about the content. That and the Mandaclair brouhaha happened just before your quick reversions of my Objections edit, so I was a little sensitive to the issue. Little did I know that we had other, more serious issues between us.  :) Gnixon 23:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I admit to skimming. Look at the ID discussion page, I go away from my computer for a few hours, and there must be 50,000 new words written. It's incredible. I try to find the key points. After 15 years of schooling and training, I have to admit that skimming is what I need to do. When I see something that catches my eye, I do read in detail. I try to only respond to what I've read thoroughly. Then of course, there are times I take age-old method of answering the question that I want to answer. Politicians are really good at answering some other question. LOL. Otherwise, I'd smoke a peace pipe with you, but it causes cancer. I'd give you a virtual hug, but I wouldn't want to have you accused of being gay.  :) Orangemarlin 20:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You've accused me of other things like foisting my POV. Well, read all of my edits as opposed to the talk pages. My edits, in general, strive to be as NPOV as possible. My discussion items are strident, because some of these arguments are, to use my teenage daughters vernacular, lame. The ID discussion is ridiculous, but obviously you think I'm blowing smoke. That's your right, and you can hold it dear to your heart, because that's what makes Wiki better. The strident discussions happen on the talk pages, consensus is formed, and then the article is slowly improved. As I've stated before, and I mean this with all due respect, you have a tendency to edit first, get consensus (maybe) down the road. Even still, after a few editors have stood firm on the Dawkins atheist issue, you believe you are right and we are all wrong.

It's true, I think even though you may try to be NPOV, you end up inserting a lot of anti-Creationist bias. Obviously we both think the other side is crazy in the Dawkins and ID debates. I'll just have to keep trying to convince you of the error of your ways.  ;-) I have no problem with strident debate, but let's both try to keep the line of civility in mind. You're entirely right about the Dawkins thing---even after other editors have stood firm, I still believe I'm right and you're all wrong. (Of course, there have been voices agreeing with me along the way.) I've said before and I'll say it again---these articles attract a group of editors who feel very strongly about proving creationists wrong, and they tend to band together with the effect of maintaining a systemic bias. On the other hand, I think most of them are fundamentally reasonable people, and reasonable people tend to eventually listen to reason. We'll see.... Gnixon 23:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Lastly, in your attempt to get me blocked, you must not read what I write very carefully. I was upset with your edits and the accusations you threw at me. Other than "outing" you as a Creationist (admittedly a poor choice of words, which fall under the blanket apology I set forth above), I never called you names. Have you not read some of the things written on here? You need to have a thicker skin. I was livid with your attempt to get administrative action, not because you don't have a right to do it, but because you made no attempt to find a compromise with me. You knew that I did not appreciate your edits, and you did not appreciate mine, and so forth. Yes, I probably should have made the first attempt at deescalation, but you made every attempt to escalate it. Obviously, what I did was not exactly appropriate, but it hardly warranted an RAI. And frankly, the best thing happened, when a couple of administrators gave some sage advice to "chill out."

Aside from the "outing," which I found in and of itself sufficiently offensive to ask for help, there was also the "whiny little creationist" bit of name-calling. That pretty much settled it for me. We both escalated and provoked, and I'm sorry for my share of it. I agree the best thing happened. Gnixon 23:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Your use of the administrative route is rather telling of your character. Almost every "evolution" editor on here (if we are to take sides) does not start any administrative action, except with sockpuppets (who are just the lowest form of life, barely evolved from paramecium). Why? Because most of us believe in debate and discussion, and that at times things can get out of hand. If I threw the F-bomb at you, I think that might deserve a kick in the rear. Trust me, I was using the F-bomb, but luckily it didn't reach the typing fingers!!!! My point on that is it appears to be a bit childish. You are smart, argumentative, and strong-willed. Do you think you endeavor trust when you do things like that? Do you not think trust is an important issue to build consensus?

Aaaaaand... we're on to character attacks. Sigh. I'm convinced my course of action was justifiable, but I have no intent to go further with it now that we seem to have chilled things out a bit. On a lighter note, trust me---all possible expletives reached the ears of those in my living room that night. I've explained why I was so offended by your attacks, and I viewed them as an unjustified attempt to undermine my credibility that could not be allowed to continue. Gnixon 23:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

These are all my words of wisdom, of non-wisdom and of just plain ranting. I think you think I dislike you. On the contrary, other than your being a bit thin-skinned, you are a worthy foil in building these articles. However, you're not always right, and I'll tell you the one characteristic that appears over and over again in your writing is that you're right, and we're wrong. You're going to say the same thing about me. Except truly read back on some of my edits. When I'm proven wrong on a point, I say, "yes, you're right, I'm wrong, I agree."

Dislike? Nah, really I never suspected that. I just can't understand why an otherwise apparently rational person fails to see reason on this one issue, and I think it's extremely damaging to Wikipedia. I'm sure you feel about the same way. Others in my life have commented on how I argue fiercely, but how when I'm convinced I'm wrong, I admit it. On the other hand, as I often tell my significant other, I am always right.  :) Gnixon 23:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, just in case it's forgotten. I do apologize and do ask for your forgiveness in the attacks and counterattacks of several days ago. However, do not think for a minute that I think you're right on anything!!!!  :) OK, maybe one or two things. Orangemarlin 22:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology, and I certainly apologize for when I've escalated unnecessarily. Let's blame a lot of it on the nature of discussion boards, which amplify misunderstandings. Many things about us are similar---our editing style, our scientific background, our respect for the principles of civil debate, our interest in keeping articles NPOV---and I'm glad we've been able to work well together on Evolution. I think there's a mutual respect between us. For all of those reasons, it's especially frustrating (to both of us, I'm sure) that we disagree so strongly on what constitutes a neutral, unbiased article. We seem to have deep differences there, and I'm sure we're destined to continue to clash. I won't speculate on where that will end up, but let me say on the record that I hope we can build a wall so that, if necessary, we fight on some articles and edits, but on others, where it's clear those fights have no bearing, we forget any ill will and work together. I'll do my very best to keep things civil on the bloody side of the wall. Now I'm going to go back through your comments and respond more specifically. Cheers, Gnixon 22:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Your POV pushing has reached my tolerance limit. Since my nature is tell someone where to place such thinking, and that is not acceptable here, I cannot continue editing your articles. But I know what you're doing, and others will too. There are cooler headed individuals who will stand up to you. I don't have that kind of patience with an individual such as your self, obviously intelligent, but with an agenda that is blind to what others believe. You are arrogant, loud and obtrusive--assuming good faith, maybe you think that's the way to force whatever belief set you have onto these articles, but I'm not a psychiatrist, nor do I play one on TV. You do whatever you want wherever you want, and if anyone stands up to you, your response is telling of your character. I do know who you are (and I don't mean your name or location, I mean your character and objectives), and in time, so will others. Getting me out of the way is no accomplishment, because there are others much more intelligent and strong-willed who won't let your POV invade too much. My character flaw is that I have the patience of gnat. I have no patience with your attitude. Orangemarlin 01:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

See you again soon. Gnixon 01:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed you. YechielMan 15:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Much obliged. I appreciate your kind words and helpful suggestions. Gnixon 23:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see your changes as an improvement. And such sweeping rewrites on such a critical and notable topic should be discussed, and I saw no such discussion. FeloniousMonk 17:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please be more specific. I find it extremely rude to revert changes without explanation. Also, I'm concerned to notice that you've made no edits to Physics within the last 2500 edits of that article, whereas, on the other hand, we have found ourselves on opposite sides of an issue being discussed on unrelated pages. I'll wait to hear your reasons before undoing the revert. Gnixon 17:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Rude? Sorry, no. Again, you've made sweeping changes on a critical and notable article (that's been on my watchlist for years) without any prior discussion as far as I can tell. So you've got it exactly backwards: It is the person who makes sweeping changes to long standing article content who needs to make the case for doing so, not those who support the long-standing version. FeloniousMonk 18:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If you've paid any attention to that article over the last year, you'd know that the current version is very weakly supported. There's an entire subpage of talk devoted to rewriting the article from scratch, which generates noticeably more volume than the talk page itself. You have yet to give a single reason that my recent edit was not an improvement of the article. I'm undoing your revert and starting a discussion topic on the talk page. Gnixon 18:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Your rewrite was a nonsensical digression -- it added nothing of value to the article. I've reverted it. •Jim62sch• 19:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not very civil, and I daresay it's inaccurate. You didn't by chance also follow me from Talk:Intelligent design, did you? Gnixon 23:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Gn, those edits were not all that good. i commented at Talk:Physics. r b-j 06:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

RBJ, thanks for adding a 3rd voice. If that was really a bad edit, I owe FM and Jim a humble apology. I want to be sure, though, that you were considering that paragraph in the proper context. Could you please look over my coments on the talk page, and look at the diff and copies I put there? Some of your comments made me wonder if you read my paragraph and what it replaced in isolation. Thanks again, and again I'm very sorry and embarrassed if I've been pushing a bad edit. Gnixon 12:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icons_of_evolution

Here is another biased one. Hardly a word on the content of the book just criticisms. And talkorigns is used over and over. Which to me is a biased source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.211.150.60 (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, I'm trying. I think we're all getting somewhere. Talk.origins should certainly never be cited except possibly to illustrate the prevalence of certain points of view. Gnixon 14:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gnixon, I'd like to take you up on your offer of peer-reviewing equipartition theorem. The article might need some references in the stellar physics section, but I've tried to improve the writing as you suggested. Thank you very much for taking a look at it! :) If all goes well, we might be able to submit to FAC within a few weeks. Willow 16:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If I haven't reviewed it in a couple days, please remind me. Gnixon 17:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've commented on the peer review page. Sorry for the stream-of-consciousness nature of my comments. I'll be happy to discuss them further. Good luck getting the article to FAC. Gnixon 02:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Gnixon -- just like you did with Orangemarlin, you have succeeded in driving me away from your part-time hobby of editing the Wikipedia article on Evolution. The moment I have to read and deal with tripe like "experts don't need to have their holy authority worshipped at every turn" is the moment I say: farewell, and have a great party without me. I've got better ways to spend my time that fend off comments like that. Sorry that your non-expert sensibilities were offended by my attempts to incorporate several edits that this article was laughably naïve and incomplete without. By the way: was Orangemarlin correct, that you're really a creationist in disguise over here? Fascinating waste of everyone's time, including your own. TxMCJ 23:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that's downright unfair. I spent a truly ridiculous amount of time encouraging you to contribute and calming other editors who were offended by what they perceived as arrogance on your part. I meant the "holy authority" phrase generally, not to be directed at you, but I apologize if you found it offensive. I did a lot of work to organize your comments on the talk page and encourage other editors to listen to them. I empathized with your complaints about "eels in the mud," probably more than I should have. The entire time, I've ignored snide comments from you about my concern with Wikipedia "process," and I've given you the benefit of the doubt when you seemed to be insinuating that I knew too little about evolution to discuss how to improve the article. On articles where I'm an expert, I've always been welcoming of others' contributions. What's more, I didn't even so much as roll my eyes when you said evolutionary biology was the world's most complex and hard to understand science. Throughout this whole process, I've been abnormally welcoming of you as a new editor, despite your tendency to step on everyone's toes without remorse. Frankly, you've shown nothing but arrogance and disdain for those around you. Now you're comparing yourself to Orangemarlin? The advice given to me by other experienced editors was to simply ignore him because he's a "troll." I've tried really hard to encourage you to contribute and others to appreciate your contributions, and I'm truly hurt that you'd respond this way. Gnixon 00:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Short and simple: I've got no time for any venue where phrases like "experts don't need to have their holy authority worshipped at every turn" are part of the "discussion" and "consensus" process. The mere existence of such a concept or wording just screams of an approach that is totally unprofessional, nonacademic, and counter-intellectual. TxMCJ 01:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC) And by the way, I counted exactly *one* other editor who called OM a troll in your support. I don't know the editors around here like you do, so perhaps I'm wrong on all accounts and comparisons, but my only point is that maybe you need to back down a bit and quit driving people away from here. Maybe it's time for you to sit back for a while and listen more than you talk. TxMCJ 01:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no need for any further communication between us. Gnixon 01:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure -- but as a last note, I really have to call B.S. on your claim that you dragged-up my personal interests and hobbies because "you were truly trying to be friendly". If that was even close to true, you might have spent more time pointing out some of the *relevant* things you could have posted about me here, that certainly came up as well during your google investigation of me. For example, you could have commented on my education, my research projects, my teaching record, my writing awards, my invited educational NSF seminars on teaching in Evolution, my publications, my history of funding in evolutionary research from NSF and the EPA, etc. etc. and a number of other relevant factoids you could have focused on that would have been much more supportive of my participation here. But instead, you choose to focus on outside interests such as rollerderby and accordion-playing, in hopes to quash my credibility by making me seem eccentric. That's fine by me, but again, I call B.S. on your "friendly" excuse. Nobody's buying it, least of all me. TxMCJ 05:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Not B.S. Gnixon 07:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And man, oh man... you should have seen my jaw hit the floor when I read this hypocritical posting of yours a bit further up on your talk page (note: I am calling the POST hypocritical. Not you a hypocrite.) You wrote: "Wikipedia is great, but I do have a real life, and I really don't have time for this if it's just going to be a bunch of bickering with the POV-pushers and the uninformed." Hmmmmmmm, very interesting! Maybe we DO see eye to eye, and you're not really as shocked or horrified by my impatience or, ahem, "arrogance" here, as you pretend to be. Anyway, I'm done. Leave me alone now and I'll return the favor. TxMCJ 05:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

One does not enlighten people by hiding the essential, but counter-intuitive, facts from them. Negative pressure is what dark energy is all about. Without it there would be no acceleration of the expansion of the universe. I started to try to explain it in the article (I had not gone far enough yet), but you reverted me. Your way will keep the readers in ignorance and could only be understood by the expert who already understand the subject. JRSpriggs 04:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, JR, sorry if I did that too hastily, but I was concerned that the intro was going to become bogged down by going on about negative pressure. It's true that dark energy's negative pressure is an important and confusing concept, but I thought we could probably do a better job explaining it in the body of the article where there's more room. I don't think a non-expert can go right from "negative pressure" to the salient feature of dark energy, which is that it causes the universe to expand faster, so I thought it'd be better in the intro to just state that feature outright and leave the rest for later. You can of course reasonably disagree, and maybe we should discuss it further on the talk page there. Also, I understand you may have been planning further edits to improve things like conciseness, and I'm sorry for cutting off that process. As for "reverting," I'm very much against reverting good faith edits, but I thought I was responding to your edit, not reverting it, by instead cutting any mention of negative pressure. Happy to talk about it further. Cheers, Gnixon 17:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I just archived Talk:Dark energy to Talk:Dark energy/Archive 3. Due to an edit conflict, I lost two of your edits. Do you want me to put them into the archive or will you create new sections for them or what? JRSpriggs 03:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, don't worry about them---I don't think they were too important. Actually, I was surprised to notice that I was responding to some really old comments. I'm used to talk pages that generate much more traffic. By the way, I notice you archived some discussions with comments at least as recent as 4/1/2007. For a page that doesn't generate much traffic, isn't that a little hasty? I've recommended archiving every 2 weeks for much more active pages---remember, many editors only have time to log on every once in awhile---maybe for a page like this we could stand to keep comments that are months old. I recently discovered a nice bot, Miszabot, that does a pretty good job and has a decent range of settings. Anyway, thanks for doing the dirty work of archiving. Gnixon 04:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being so understanding. The talk page seemed much too long to me. Sometimes it is better to cut off discussion and start over (with a link to the archived section) rather than allow the section to grow to an unreasonable size. As for reverting, I am not opposed in principle to reverting good faith edits, if they degrade the article (presumably due to a misunderstanding of what is correct or appropriate). However, I obviously feel that my edit improved the article although not as much as I would have liked. I will continue on Talk:Dark energy. JRSpriggs 04:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

for your comments on my talk page. Orangemarlin may not be a troll - I will rewrite what I wrote - but his behavior to you on this one issue is definitely trollish. There is a broad consensus at Wikipedia that evolution is both theory and fact and that somehow the encyclopedia needs to reflect both; for someone to challenge this once is irritating but for someone to keep challenging one person on an issue that has the support of almost everyone is really uncivil, I think. By the way, thanks too for the comment about my great truth thing. for what it is worth, I have had very good relationships with Christian fundamentalists in my real life and lose patience with them here only when they POV push which actualy happens a lot less often than I think many would give credit. Of course my real point is that one need not even be religious to be a fundamentalist. I am curious. Do you think that the great truth in the Creation of Adam is the real truth intended by Michaelangelo and one that must be shared by other admirers of the fresco? My own view is that one can answer no to both my questions and still view it as a great truth ... Anyway, don't loose heart on Evolution, i have long admired your contributions there, Slrubenstein | Talk 11:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate your ability to perceive my good faith on the ID pages, and am thankful for your support as I truly have no position here outside the best interests of neutrality. From my POV, some people are so deep into this argument they are beginning to have trouble differentiating who is indeed on their side! To be honest, even your kind suggestion for others' to "See Joe's comments" after you wrote about "ID'ers" gave me the momentary jolt oh no, do they think I support ID?. Joevanisland 20:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome. These pages related to the creation-evolution controversy are really ridiculous, and I've found myself in exactly your position several times (although I haven't stated the linguistic issues as elegantly as you did). I had one nutty editor start off praising me for being on "his side." He later decided I was a creationist under deep cover, and "outed" me to everyone on the discussion pages, dismissing anything else I said as coming from a "whiny little creationist." Honestly, I often think the militant supporters of evolution are worse than the creationist vandals, even though I understand the frustrations that lead them to their behavior. By the way, as best I can tell, the problem is common to all controversial articles, including Muhammad, Abortion, Homosexuality, and many others. There's a relevant Wikiproject, WP:CSB, but otherwise, although the problem is deeply systemic and very damaging, it's been largely ignored. If you find yourself in another of these discussions, please feel free to call on me for a voice of (I hope) reason. I may call on you for the same. Best regards, Gnixon 20:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

...otherwise I usually switch arbitrarily. I am glad to see we are making progress on the Evolution page. Sadly, I live in the UK though I am from NY and don't have time to visit the States this year. One of my oldest friends is from Woodbridge, although neither he nor his folks life there anymore. Have fun on the Shore! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, why do you delete my edits about postulates of special relativity? Are you a physicist? Did you study special relativity? Do you know definitions of length and time intervals? Do you know the definition of speed (or velocity)?

Do you have any physics textbook? If you do, why don't you open introductory chapter and read the definitions (of mass, time and distance).

I am working hard to clean up wikipedia from superstitions and undefined/poorly defined objects (thus adding clearly accepted definitions and pointing to immediate logical consequences of those definitions).

Please stop deleting what you don't know.

If you disagree with accepted definition, you can introduce your own definitions - say on you own web site, but not in Wikipedia (which has no original research policy).

Sincerely, Enormousdude 16:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I prefer not to identify my occupation, but I have spent considerable time studying relativity and I'm quite familiar with the relevant definitions. None of the textbooks I know of seems to agree very well with the edits you've posted, nor, in my opinion, does Einstein's original paper---I should confess I can only read the English translation, by the way. I apologize truly if I've been too hasty reverting your edits, or if I've been unduly critical of them. There may be a miscommunication here. My reading of your changes was that they altered the article on Special relativity from describing its postulates in the canonical way and instead made some pretty WP:OR comments about them that, in my opinion, don't agree with the original papers. Again, it's possible I'm misunderstanding what you've written (after all, it seems like you may not be a native English speaker, and I admit I didn't read your edits extremely carefully), so maybe we could discuss those edits on the article talk pages. Since several different editors disagreed with your changes, I think you have a duty to discuss them on the article talk pages. Again, I apologize for any misunderstandings and I hope we can clear things up. Cheers, Gnixon 17:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Hey, Silence. I realize I may have gotten a little under your skin with my excited editing of Evolution recently, but you seem to be a reasonable guy, so I thought I'd solicit some advice. I'd appreciate any thoughts you can offer on how I could better handle myself regarding Evolution and its talk page. Hopefully you understand that I've been long frustrated by its poor quality, but I've felt unable to provide the content-expert perspective needed to get started doing anything about it. On a related subject, I'd appreciate your thoughts on how I could better deal with TxMCJ and when, if at all, I should seek intervention. Thanks for any advice you can offer. Given the acrimony involved over there, I'll understand if you'd prefer not to discuss this with me. Best, Gnixon 04:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

I don't think you've handled yourself too poorly. Disagreements are inevitable when editing articles; what makes all the difference in the world is how we respond to disagreements. I haven't been observing all your interactions lately, since I just returned to the page recently, but if you want my advice, the best I can give is (1) to always clearly explain your reasoning, especially when someone seems to disagree on a point; (2) always pay close attention to the other person's reasoning, even if it you think you know what he wants; and (3) don't bother making or responding to comments that aren't directed toward improving the article.

3 is especially useful for minimizing and avoiding conflicts: if someone says something offensive to you, do not respond in any way. Don't even respond to say "I'm not going to respond to that", as even that can incite fights. If you must respond, do it on the Talk page, and seek third-party mediation if ignoring the problem and trying to resolve it yourself don't seem to be working. You'll not only save yourself a lot of time and energy, but you'll also help keep the overall atmosphere more relaxed. Remember that we're only here to improve encycloepdia articles; who cares if other people have wrong ideas about us, as long as that isn't relevant to the editing?

1 and 2 are useful chiefly because I've found that 99% of arguments are really just misunderstandings. Avoid misunderstandings and you avoid the overwhelming majority of conflicts. For example, if I'd known exactly why you found it more reasonable to group "speciation/extinction" with "common descent" earlier on, I might still not have agreed with putting it under that section, but at least I'd have seen where you were coming from and we could have reached a compromise much faster.

Regarding TxMCJ, just don't respond to anything he says except article-related matters; if you feel that he's persisting in harassing you or anything, then don't respond, but just request mediation. If you don't want to play games, then don't play games. -Silence 04:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Your general advice is good, and it's what I always try to follow, but I don't always succeed. I particularly should have read your comments more closely to avoid misunderstandings earlier tonight. For the Evolution page specifically, I wonder if I'm being a little too "helpful" participating in as many discussions as I do and reorganizing old ones. In a medium prone to misunderstandings, probably every word written or quick edit made is just another chance to annoy someone. Maybe I can take a cue from you in terms of popping in every once in awhile and making longer, more well-thought out comments, then quickly making a few substantive changes that are likely to be agreeable. Then again, I have noticed you getting caught up in debates before.  ;)

As for TxMCJ, the reason I ask for advice is because her offensiveness is particularly insidious and hard to ignore. Basically, for every single edit or comment I make, she seems to have a retort that (1) deliberately misrepresents or distracts from what I wrote, (2) in at least some way argues against and mocks my comment, and (3) argues or insinuates that I'm not qualified to edit the page or disagree with her. Frankly, although I've tried repeatedly to bury the hatchet, I'm no longer interested in communicating with her or influencing her in any way. However, I'm concerned that she's detracting from my ability to communicate with others by masking each comment I make with subtle misrepresentations and discrediting remarks. I think if you glance over a few of our conversations you'll see what I mean. That's why I'm not sure the usual advice of ignoring someone works here. On the other hand, she's not exactly cursing me out and calling names, so I'm not sure at what point I become justified in asking for intervention, and I'm frustrated to even think of spending more time dealing with her. (On the other hand, see this, this, and this.) Perhaps it's time for me to seek mediation. Until that point, I suppose I'll try literally ignoring her and see how that works. Not trying to get you involved here---just asking advice. Gnixon 05:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Gnixon: please do let me know if you decide to seek "administrative assistance" and/or mediation here, as I would enthusiastically participate and contribute to that process. "Who's afraid of the big bad wolf?" -- Not me. Could be helpful -- keep me updated. TxMCJ 19:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's trying to scare you---just trying to get you to interact with others decently. See WP:ANI#Harassment and stalking. You're right, I should have let you know immediately, but I've been trying to follow my mom's advice about "don't say anything at all." I would love it if we could find a way to communicate in a civil manner. Gnixon 20:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I prefer civil communication, but I will continue to be frustrated and impatient with you (and stick up for myself and for this article's integrity) as long as you continue to complicate the editing process. If you want peace, you will have to focus on content above all else, remove all POV from your participation, listen to the input of others and back down when you don't get your way, and accept scientific/professional criticism of your contributions (such as our conversation about Genome projects) without feeling threatened or "discredited" by it. I'm sorry if I am forced to say "you're factually wrong" sometimes, but it's all part of the process. Realize that you can learn a lot by listening to others, as can I. If you want peace, you must also cease in calling the kettle black: accusing me of personal attacks while engaging in the same, or accusing me of "stalking" after you engaged in much more serious "stalking" long before I investigated your previous edits. Thanks. TxMCJ 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I won't accept an ultimatum in order to have peaceful, civil communication with you, and I certainly see no hope of communication between us while you continue to spread falsehoods about my personal beliefs with malicious intent. Making a 4-5 comment issue of the fact that I typed "gene" instead of "genome" (after correctly using genome several times earlier) is not "part of the process"---the nicest word for it is "nitpicking," and given the totality of your other comments, it seems extremely unlikely that you did it merely for the sake of scientific precision. I've told you before that I'm not interested in your advice, and I'll appreciate it if you offer no more. Gnixon 23:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I am fully aware that "gene" was a typo. Not the point. I wasn't sure whether "can" (vs. cannot) was a typo, and originally your suggestion was to include information about a single genome project to constitute "evidence for evolution". My point was not nitpicking your typos, my main point was a very clear and sound argument that discussion of any genome project IN ISOLATION (without comparison to other genomes) provides no information about evolution. That's all. Also, I hardly think my requests above can be viewed as an "ultimatum"... on the contrary, all of the items in my "ultimatum" seem to be pretty reasonable requests for a fair and functional editing environment around here. Finally, I am sorry if you are not interested in my advice, but I will continue to post that advice to the Evolution talk board, to the extent that I disagree with a suggestion or statement you may make. I know it can be uncomfortable when someone disagrees with you (or demonstrates that you are wrong about something), but you'll have to learn to accept it sometimes if you want to work in a cooperative environment. Please note that I have also agreed and applauded some of your comments, ideas, and edits as well. TxMCJ 00:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, the personal advice, which is entirely unwelcome and unappreciated. I can only assume you're trying to provoke me. (Offer all the advice you want about the articles, and feel free to ignore or disagree with mine.) Your snide remarks ("I know it can be uncomfortable when someone disagrees with you") are equally unwelcome.

You certainly have an abrasive personality, and it lands on everyone, but apparently my well-intentioned comment about "holy authority" struck such a raw nerve with you that I've become some special target in your eyes. I could care less what attention you want to give me, but I certainly won't have you shouldering me aside on issues completely unrelated to irrelevant details simply because you completed the same degree as most people I know.

You clearly love strenuous argument. Perhaps you're enjoying all of this and think I am, too. Maybe you hope I'll throw you down in the grass---nothing could be further from the truth. I enjoy intellectual debate as much as the next guy, maybe more, but this is not at all pleasant for me. It's just petty and small.

I have no interest in wasting my time checking the details of trivial examples (genome instead of genomes) that I offer to illustrate a point. I have no interest in debating with you the relative merits of mouse and human genomes when I'm simply trying to argue for putting observations up front in the article. By the way, it's quite telling of your motives and character that you've so carefully avoided agreeing with me at times when we were so clearly arguing for the same things. Let me say this once and for all---I do not enjoy these juvenile arguments.

You say you don't have time for this Wikipedia stuff. Good---stop constantly picking fights over minutiae and instead of wasting time we can work together to improve the article. Trust me, I'm capable of editing Evolution without screwing up the facts---when I need clarification on some detail, I'll come to you or pull a book off the shelf. In the same way, I'm sure you're quite capable of improving the article on Special relativity even though your understanding of it is clearly more lacking than my knowledge of evolution---that's part of why Wikipedia works. If you make some trivial mistake while improving the article, I'll just fix it for you.

I have no need to go over and edit Relativity because I know that I don't know much about it. Therefore, I know I will frustrate others who work hard on editing an article they feel strongly about because they are trained experts, and/or think about it all the time. I wish you would adopt the same point of view. Also, your comment yesterday trying to group drift with variation and selection with speciation (or whatever you said), was truly incredible to me, as it made absolutely no sense and still doesn't. To me, that comment simply shows an alarming lack of understanding of even the most basic principles. If you disagree with me, and you would like to argue that you are qualified to edit the Evolution article, then please do as I requested on the article talk page, and explain this mystifying comment. Your refusal to at least answer that question does not reflect very well upon you as a qualified editor *or* a cooperative one. TxMCJ 05:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet you had no problem with the exact same suggestion once Silence said it and clarified to you what I obviously meant. That's just another example of your intellectual dishonesty coming into play because of personal antipathy toward me. Gnixon 15:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Silence did not "clarify" for you -- he eloquently described a clear concept that is wholly undeducible from the incomprehensible babble that you posted. You are welcome to seek a second opinion on this. Don't rely on Silence's generous and intelligent interpretations to compensate for your personal lack of understanding.TxMCJ 15:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Look over the ridiculous genome discussion again and you'll see why I quickly grow tired of trying to explain things to you. Gnixon 16:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. You still fail to accept that your suggestion was incomplete, and thus wrong. TxMCJ 18:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As for this creationist bullshit, I really don't understand why some people get their rocks off coming to Wikipedia to debate the creationists. Sure, they think the foundation of your profession is wrong. So what? I don't hate the people who don't understand my field. I certainly don't understand why there's such dripping venom and defensiveness from some of you guys. People believe what they believe. Who cares? Are you going to change the world with one discussion topic? I'm going to italicize this in hopes that you'll read it a couple times: It distracts from the article and wastes everyone's time when people on Wikipedia engage in debate with creationists. It's just not what this site is for. So some creationists want to come to Talk:Evolution and tell us why it's all wrong. So what? Why debate and rebut them as you wasted your time doing? What's to be gained? Why not just refer them to the FAQ and move on? The only possible reason is because you love the thrill of the fight. Good for you, but go do it somewhere else---you might be interested in talk.origins. Running around telling everyone I'm secretly trying to push a creationist agenda because I try to stifle debate with them is simply and purely insane.

I certainly didn't come to Wikipedia to debate creationists. I came to edit the article. I don't think I've had a single debate with a creationist here yet, since you claim to exclude yourself from that demographic. But for the record: the reason many scientists passionately debate creationists is not because we care what they believe, or don't believe. We've got better things to do than argue with the uneducated, although we unfortunately get caught up in that sometimes and it can be maddening. But you of all people (editing both Evolution and ID articles, and thus hopefully in the know about this) should know that creationists don't simply believe in creation: there is a clear agenda that includes attacking the constitutional separation of church and state, promoting cultivation of ignorance in schoolchildren, and maligning the definition and role of Science by claiming that Intelligent Design is one. Yes, there are "evolutionists" who "get their rocks off" by debating creationists. I am not one of them. This may surprise you, but I am also not an atheist, nor a Christian nor any member of any organized religion or belief system. But I do know the difference between non-overlapping magisteria, and I do know that Evolution is both indisputable fact and good science, whereas the books of the Torah, Bible, and Quran are a combination of history, mythology, allegory, fact, and faith -- valuable for other purposes -- but NOT SCIENCE. I am always accepting and welcoming of people's faiths, spiritual beliefs, and opinions. The only thing I cannot tolerate is ignorance, the deliberate perpetuation of ignorance, and political agendas. Again: it is not peoples' *beliefs* I have a problem with -- it is the *agendas* based on ignorance and political motives that I refuse to stand for, and will never cease fighting against. TxMCJ 04:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Again the speculation. Your personal beliefs never crossed my mind, and I frankly could care less about them. Your poor decision to debate this issue that is covered in the FAQ is what caught my attention. Gnixon 15:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is somehow the underlying issue that's driving your attitude toward me, and if this exchange has in any way cleared things up, then in true good faith, I suggest we try to put it behind us. I personally prefer to respond to those pushing political agendas by simply rolling my eyes---it's not like they're getting anywhere. The wisest possible response from scientists, in my opinion, is to simply explain the view of the scientific community in a disinterested, professional tone. Otherwise, we sacrifice our credibility. You're welcome to fight the political fight if you wish, but I wish you wouldn't let it influence what happens on this site. When you see me attempting to mollify the angry creationists that appear on Talk:Evolution, or urging others to avoid an anti-creationist bias in what should be factual, impartial articles, please allow me a modicum of good faith; discuss with me as an adult why I believe in dealing with the problem that way and why you may prefer another route. There's certainly no need to engage in complex speculations about my underlying motives---just ask me, and I'll explain, and we can compromise if need be, and then we can get back to improving the articles. I could really do without all the strife, and for my part, if I've provoked it needlessly, I apologize. Gnixon 05:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I have to agree with Orangemarlin that the choices you make in your archiving and refactoring style, as well as the actual concepts and words you tend to harp upon and the editing choices you make, do very strongly suggest a subtle agenda. I am not saying I am *correct* in this view, but it is my view. However, even without that aspect of your presence on Evolution, the honest truth is this: your attempts at writing or commenting on the *science* of Evolution have unfortunately convinced me that you have very little grasp on the subject, irrespective of your personal beliefs, agendas, or lack thereof. Most of all, I am supremely disappointed (and even offended) that you insist on taking such a spearheading role in the editing of this article, when even you have alluded to the fact that you are not very well qualified to write about it -- while meanwhile, you actively try to belittle and discredit someone who *CAN* write intelligently and accurately about it, via a number of routes: publicly posting incorrect estimates of the "number of years" of my experience, attempts to convince others that I am "boasting" of my credentials, focus on trivial points (e.g. "17 sections") over content, a clear attitude of being threatened by someone who points out that you are dead wrong about something (the genome project exchange we had was NOT about "typos"), and finally, the mindbogglingly juvenile and stupid statement about experts expecting their holy authority to be worshipped. I do not care if you are a creationist or not, as long as you keep your POV off of my science. What I do care about, is the anti-intellectual environment you foster at Evolution, by insisting on being a major player, editor, writer, and "facilitator", when anyone in the field who reads your edits can plainly see that you very rarely demonstrate a sound command of the material. Yes, these things are my opinion, which I am entitled to, and which I believe you basically asked for above. Like I said, if you want peace, you don't need to crawl off and "surrender the article", but you are going to have to surrender some of the control you maintain over an article that you, quite frankly, probably shouldn't be a primary editor on. I am sorry if that offends you, but THAT is the basis of my complaint with you. Not whether or not I think you're a creationist. TxMCJ 05:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's really impossible to communicate with you, isn't it? I've heard zero criticisms of my contributions to Evolution except from you and Orangemarlin---instead there's been unsolicited praise, particularly of my help with Talk:Evolution. I don't think you understand the difference between writing a journal article about crickets and writing an encyclopedia article about evolution. Your knowledge of the field and the resulting perspective is useful, but not essential.

This comment is perplexing to me. Who ever said that writing about crickets has anything to do with writing about evolution? I write about evolution because I am not only trained diversely in the field, but I have taught it for many, many years, and learned a lot about the field AND about presenting the information. Everyone who works in Evolution has their personal pet projects... for me it was crickets, now it's the evolution of vertebrate gene families. For Steve Gould it was invertebrate paleontology. Your point is not clear -- I claim expertise not based on "crickets", but based on years of training and teaching. The only crickets relevant to this conversation, are the ones singing on Orangemarlin's page, awaiting your response on whether or not you are a creationist. TxMCJ 07:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Still the baiting about my personal beliefs, which I've attempted to keep out of debates where they're irrelevant. If you look through my comments on various talk pages, including this one, you can probably find some reluctant rebuttals to silly accusations. Gnixon 15:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The closest encyclopedias come to original research is secondary sources---if you're not around, I can pull a book off a shelf, do a Google search in seconds, or, if I really need the perspective of a true expert, pick up the phone and call any number of people who are more qualified than you. My use of "I" in that sentence is not to suggest that I personally should be doing or controlling the editing there---in fact, a review of my edits will show I've attempted no such thing. All I'm saying is that your contribution to the article is not as critical as you seem to think it is.

Please have a look again at my talk page (I think it's either the Tribalism or the Experts thread), in which I specifically laid out some clear, important errors and deficiencies in the article that I alone corrected. More such errors were corrected last night (e.g. describing the panda's thumb as a "vestigial trait", claiming that mutation is the sole source of organismic variation, and that "The Origin" was the first thing ever written about Evolution) and some of those are being intelligently reviewed by Silence, which I have no problem with. But if these errors and deficiencies have been in the article for who-knows-how-long, then how is my contribution not "critical"? The article had problems -- major problems. You had not yet gotten around to picking up the phone and contacting your army of friends in evolutionary biology who historically have provided you with all the answers. I stepped in. I think many of the changes I've made *have* been critical, in that they have corrected inaccuracies and filled in some glaring deficiencies. TxMCJ 07:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There were major structural problems with Evolution that kept anyone from dealing with minor errors. I agitated, the structural problems have been addressed. Now any fool with common sense or a textbook can come along and correct the little mistakes. Gnixon 15:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that is was *PRECISELY* your comandeering, monopolizing harping upon the structural problems, without pause, that is likely to be a major culprit in the many, many inaccuracies I corrected in the article. This has been my point now, for some time. TxMCJ 18:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Essentially the same level of experience and insight has long been available from editors like Graft. And by the way, maybe it's different in EB, but in my field, if a person spends 6 years in grad school (at a wonderful institution), then 5 years in a postdoc at a non-top-10 university without finding a faculty appointment, that person is probably on their way down the ladder and shouldn't be making an issue of his/her credentials.

You have been making infinitely more issue of my credentials than I have. And if you knew the first thing about Evolution, you would know that the University of Texas is regarded as a top institution in *Evolutionary* research, much more so than Harvard is these days, or even has been since my 2nd year of grad school there. Some might say the same about the evolutionary departments at Wisconsin, Stony Brook, Minnesota, even Arizona... ever heard of those programs or places? I didn't think so. The fact that you think Harvard is somehow better than Texas once again betrays the fact that you harbor some sort of elitist mythology about what Harvard is, and who Harvard alumni are, and that you know nearly nothing about who is doing important work in Evolution right now, and who is not. Hopefully you do not harbor the same mighty opinion about Princeton, and its physics department. And by the way: I've been at Texas for 5 years because I pay myself a salary off an NSF grant that I wrote myself, and am a Co-PI on. The fact that I've been able to stay at Texas for so long (where I also bought a house) has been a luxury I've enjoyed due to this happy fact. Quit trying to critique my credentials and experience, because you are failing at this miserably, and only proving that you know jack about academia, and about my own circumstances. But: carry on, carry on... You want to keep dishing it out? I can keep breaking those dishes, and continue editing Evolution at the same time. Now THAT'S talent, dont'cha think? TxMCJ 07:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Virtually every comment you've made on Talk:Evolution has mentioned your education and professional experience, so don't act like I started the discussion of your credentials. If you're choosing to remain without a faculty appointment somewhere, that's your choice, but don't act like your education and teaching experience grants you greater authority than any other of the horde of bio Ph.D.s until someone sees fit to offer you a tenure track position on the faculty. Gnixon 15:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Virtually every comment"? Just proves you haven't been reading them. Oh, and here's a newsflash: faculty positions are not "offered" out of the blue, they are first *applied for*. TxMCJ 18:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If whatever contributions you make to the article will always be accompanied by complaining about the nature of Wikipedia, disparaging the contributions of others, and picking petty fights with those who disagree with you, I simply don't think they're worth it. Gnixon 06:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. Your opinion has been noted. And by the way, [true name inserted but later censored], I was unable to get "Fluffy the Kindhearted and Friends" to load, although I did enjoy gazing upon your closed-eyed countenance in "Photograph 32", which oddly resembles the disturbing laughing clown on your website. Is that clown a picture of you as well? Hard to tell. Better blank that page before you decide to run for president, as some friends think you might want to someday. Also: does your Cosmology group at [Gnixon's university -- also censored] talk about anything other than sandwiches, and who orders them? Anyway, it's nice to know where you are, if I ever need to contact you, although [Gnixon's state -- apparent in a post elsewhere] ain't quite my style. Sorry if I'm mistaken about all of this. But for the record, although Harvard and [the censored university referred to in the football discussion below] do spar quite a bit, Harvard and [the censored University] have never really been rivals... sorry to burst your bubble on that. Oh, and before you run off and file another failed attempt at a stalking complaint, just remember which of us has been the one searching for and posting personal information about the other without permission. If you quit -- I quit. Cheers,  ;-) TxMCJ 07:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's your prerogative to seek out my personal information if you want, but you should know I consider it an invasion of my privacy to post with malicious intent information that I haven't made public here. Unlike you, I've never given out my name on this site, nor have I made an issue of my professional experience in editing disputes. The pictures are not of me. I'm not sure why you're so sensitive about (your university), and why you keep speculating about everyone's supposed anti-elitism and anti-(your university)ism---I've said nothing negative about (your university), and I'd be unlikely to malign it since I've done research there. Whatever competition there may or may not be between (your university) and (mine), I've never taken any interest in it---like other of my supposed ulterior motives you've "discovered," that issue is entirely in your mind. Gnixon 14:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sensitive about Harvard at all. You sure seem to be though. I'm just sick of your constant public editorial of my background and experience, and your personal assessments of "top Universities" and "lesser Universities" and "number of years" and all that meaningless opinionated garbage. The comment about [Gnixon's university -- censored] was merely teasing, since this has escalated to a level I find hilarious, I figured I might as well drag up the old football rivalries (which I actually don't know a thing about, or care about either.) Cheers, TxMCJ 15:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

See here.  ;-) One of these days I'll catch a game---it's literally 100 feet from my office. Gnixon 16:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wonderful*!!! Now [Gnixon's university, censored] has 9 ivy league victories since 1956, versus Harvard's 11. But save your gloating until 2008 (that is, if (your university) can pull a threepeat...) ;-) TxMCJ 18:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, please stop trying to cover your trail by censoring comments I wrote that you essentially invited by your past actions and words. Censor your own comments, fine, but not mine. I am not a coward and I haven't done the same. Anyone can look at this page's history and see what your "name", "state", "your university", and "my Universities" are (my Universities of which are, I'll say off the bat, Harvard and now Texas. I've got nothing whatsoever to hide.) Oh, and your "state" incidentally was given away when you recently offered to buy another editor a beer... I think it may have been Slrubenstein. TxMCJ 18:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As you've pointed out, it should be easy for anyone to find out about me with a little deduction and research---it's not like I'm trying to hide. On the other hand, I prefer not to have my identity openly advertised to every casual observer. Please respect that. Gnixon 19:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And I would ask the same of you (though much too late, it seems): Let *Me* be the one to decide what information about myself gets posted here. NOT YOU. TxMCJ 19:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So here I find myself again, going against the good advice of others to simply ignore you. Why? Because if you're a scientist, you ought to be fundamentally a reasonable person, and I believe reasonable people should be reasoned with instead of simply dismissed. Maybe I just need to learn when to not waste my time. Gnixon 00:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently we know little about each other's fields if you think (my university) is lacking a "mighty" physics department and if I'm wrong about (your current university)---it certainly doesn't show up on any lists of top-10 EB universities I found, but maybe I found the wrong ones. You made an issue of your credentials, and you made your identity known here, so I evaluated them myself. I don't think that's unreasonable. Your little bout of revenge stalking is both amusing in its errors and annoying in its violation of my privacy, considering that, unlike you, I've attempted to maintain my privacy here and rely only on the quality of my edits and comments. Regarding Evolution, if I'm not welcome helping out there, I'll stay away. I didn't think that was the case, but you certainly feel strongly about it and I don't exactly hear a chorus of support. Until that changes, it's all yours. I think my presence there has been a net positive, others can disagree. Congratulations catching the panda's thumb mistake---we couldn't have done it without you. In the words, of Orangemarlin, I'm out. Gnixon 12:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't know (or care) about Physics, your department, [your university, censored], the mysterious EB university list you (for whatever bizarre and psychotic reasons) decided to research, Harvard, credentials, et cetera. The only thing I care about is that you have demonstrated fairly consistently that you know next to nothing about Evolution, whereas other editors on that site do. And BTW, choosing a Wikipedia user name that is identical to your email address elsewhere and a basic abbreviation of your name does not exactly constitute a very astute anonymity strategy. My investigation of you was not "revenge stalking" insomuch as it was a genuine curiosity in who, precisely, was taking it upon himself to research my every detail. Fair is fair. Or to look at it another way: a woman's got to watch her back. Dig? TxMCJ 19:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and way to go, trying to persuade (who exactly?) that my contributions to Evolution can be summed up in "catching the panda's thumb mistake". Very accurate characterization and description there! Who are you trying to convince, that I've caught one mistake? Are you simply *IN DENIAL* of the many, many factual corrections I had to make to "your precious" article? These corrections are listed on my talk page in a bulleted list, as well as described quite precisely in the article talk page. If you are truly unaware of the presence or the *SIGNIFICANCE* of any of those corrections, then you truly belong nowhere near that article. TxMCJ 18:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I know you think that you are perfect and the rest of us actually spend more than a nanosecond of thought toward what you do or don't do, but you should know you aren't perfect. Attack Your accusations of stalking are becoming tiresome. Do you think that any of us actually care about you? That's not to be mean or anything, but I actually don't care about you one way or another. I do not like your edits. I do not like how you treat others. I do not like your arrogance. But the instant of time after I hit "save page", I don't give another thought to you. I'm glad other editors like Silence and FeloniousMonk lost patience with you too. By the way, I don't care now whether you're a Creationist or not. I do care that you are messing up the articles. Whole different standard for me. Orangemarlin 01:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Other users putting you on notice. Orangemarlin 01:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent critique of your editing style.Orangemarlin 01:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

My point herein is that you thought only I called you on the carpet for your editing style. When the mass of NPOV editors showed up, you failed to get your way. So you throw out an ANI against someone who is actually contributing to the article. You need to relax. Now, I really am done thinking about you. Orangemarlin 01:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I invite others to review those discussions in their entirety and come to their own conclusions. Gnixon 01:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have. The data seem clear. You need to back off. TxMCJ 04:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll remind you again that your advice about my behavior is not welcome. Gnixon 04:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Is FeloniousMonk's advice welcome, then? Please see below. TxMCJ 07:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The advice of any neutral party would be welcome. Neither you nor FM qualifies. Gnixon 12:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see comment below, re: self-awareness TxMCJ 18:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gnixon,

I see that you're quite busy, but I'm wondering if you can spare a moment or two to re-review the Equipartition theorem article? I may have fixed some of the problems you alerted me to; thanks in advance! :) Willow 06:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll come take a look as soon as I get a chance. Thanks for all your hard work there, and for working through my rambling thoughts. Gnixon 12:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

(Crossposted from the administrative action request page by TxMCJ 07:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC))

I see no evidence of either harassment or wikistalking here. What I do see is one user, Gnixon, who's been an aggressive and overly assertive editor on a number of topics and all too quick to accuse others and be incivil himself, making allegations that appear to be exaggerated against an editor he appears to be in a simple content dispute with. If Gnixon is genuinely so unaware that he considers the behavior he's described to be harassment and wikistalking, then my advice to him is to become more familiar with the terms and grow a thicker skin (being unwilling to get as good as he gives). But if he thinks he can use this venue find clueless admins to waylay opponents in simple content disputes, then he may find himself hoisted by his own petard and the community's goodwill rapidly diminishing for any future claims he may bring here. FeloniousMonk 05:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. TxMCJ 07:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The response is typical of FM's responses to those he disagrees with---ignoring the actual circumstances and suggesting the opponent read policies in order to imply they must not know how things work. FM is hardly a neutral party here, and they way he deals with those who disagree with him has been noted by many others beside me. Gnixon 12:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Gnixon, are you really so self-unaware, that you cannot see the elephant in your own living room? That you consistenly refuse to accept, consider, or give credit to any opinion which is not *exactly* what you want to hear, and in line with your own personal beliefs? That single trait of yours alone is really what this whole business is about. TxMCJ 18:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And I hope you're as pleased as I am with David D.'s assessment on the Admin board: TxMCJ 19:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)" I don't think it is good etiquette to disparage an editor rather than their edits. I think you'd agree, TxMCJ, that is not going to win you friends. On the other hand, Gnixon, to deleve into a users personal history is even worse. I'm not going to look into the history of this interaction to see how this was all initiated because it seems you should both be able to take and step back and rationally see that both parties have been wronged. In reality, the best way forward from now is for you both to avoid each other as much as possible and keep your relationship strictly professional i.e. just comment on the edits and not each other. Do that and i think you'll both be a lot happier. David D. (Talk) 18:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)"

You and I have been accused of being a sockpuppet of another user. This claim is probably without merit, since it is coming from a user who has made false allegations in the past. If you are not a sockpuppet, please handle your responses carefully, as you do not have anything to worry about. Overreacting will just provide grounds to ban you for other reasons. I encourage you to set up an email account and then email me from my user page for other adivce on how to handle this accusation. Infinite Improbability Drive 19:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If you point me to any relevant discussions, I'll comment there. Good luck dealing with the nuts. Douglas Adams is brilliantly hilarious. Gnixon 06:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As noted, Hallen, after totally screwing up the energy article, is now going to actively prevent anybody from writing a summary of science-based energy. I really see no alternative but to get him banned from editing the thing. Otherwise we're never going to be left alone to write it. I'm open to suggestions.SBHarris 21:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been spending much time on Wikipedia lately, but I'll try to help if there's something specific I can do. Regarding the user, perhaps an RfC would help. As for the article, I think we agree that the changes haven't been an improvement. A good first step might be to revert things to the previous state. By the way, I enjoyed glancing at your user page. You seem to know a lot of physics. I've always wondered why so many doctors are so interested in physics, even when their specialties aren't obviously closely related. I think it's great, of course. Cheers, Gnixon 06:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

We are conducting research into the role of social norms in online communication. This research is funded by the European Union and is being undertaken by a coalition of European Universities (see http://emil.istc.cnr.it/?q=node/8). The research is designed to help us understand how social norms interact with the technology that supports online collaboration. We have selected 35 Wikipedia articles flagged as controversial for study. We are analysing the interactions on the discussion pages and are also seeking additional input from contributors to those discussions.

As a participant in the recent discussion about a controversial topic - Abortion, I would be very grateful if you could follow the link to a simple questionnaire. This should take only 2 minutes to complete.

http://survey.soc.surrey.ac.uk//public/survey.php?name=wiki_norms

Bugs-Bunny Bunny 16:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's spelled "controversial," guys. You know, with an "s."  ;) Gnixon 18:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note the following: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gnixon. Orangemarlin 00:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I got a kick out of all the links detailing my evil behavior. Here are two of my favorite:

• First ANI
• # Deleting a talk page commentary and classifying it as rude

RfC. Hmmm, that's a pretty good idea.... Gnixon 15:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Another admin suggested I compare notes with you. I am currently the subject of an RfC not unlike the one many of the same members of the Wikipedia Intelligent Design Project recently visited upon you. Please see Wikipedia:RfC/Moulton and my talk page. Moulton 03:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to weigh in on that RfC. Moulton 02:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Sorry you ran into some nutjobs---I wish the powers that be would do something about those guys. I should be clear that I didn't read enough to either confirm or deny whether the WP:NPA, WP:POINT, etc. accusations were grounded. I only glanced at enough links to see that the RfC had many of the same elements of baloney as mine. Also, in case there was a misunderstanding, I'm not an admin. Anyway, good luck, and let me know if I can be of any more assistance. Gnixon 02:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you observe some level of adherence to WP:NPA. Moreover, you might want to read about this block. I guess the "nutjobs" (according to Gnixon) are running this place. I need to attend to another RfC. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly who is it you are calling "nut jobs"? You use that term then have the gall to call evidence of PA's by you "baloney"? This speaks for itself. Odd nature 21:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Nut jobs, eh? Don't you ever bitch about an alleged PA again, your words are as hollow as your head. •Jim62sch• 23:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, several of us here, numerous experienced and neutral admins, along with other editors all agreed with the statements at Moulton's RfC. Gnixon, who complains to anyone who listens at the slightest offense, lumps a bunch of very reasonable editors together, and tags them "nutjobs." Well, this diff is going to be very useful either now or in the future. Thanks Gnixon. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I am thinking about filing a request for comment. See User_talk:Filll#Synthetics. Specifically, it appears that the National Center for Science Education has been contributing and communicating with certain other wikipedians regarding the presentation of evolution related articles. This contribution log for 66.47.51.78, an IP address linked to the NCSE, shows that it has made edis to Project Steve, Dean H. Kenyon, Eugenie Scott (head of the NCSE, Kent Hovind, and [[Discovery Instittute], e.g., [1]. [[user:filll] has just cleaned up information regarding his contacts with an IP assocated with the NCSE here. Daisey cutter 13:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean Wikipedians are banned from free speech and communication. I'm totally screwed then. I've communicated with NCSE, the Communist Party USA, and the CIA. I believe I've also visited a Roman Catholic Cathedral, so I'm totally hosed as a Jew. And then there was the time I watched a pornographic film. Damn, and I read The God Delusion by Dawkins. Well, why don't you report me too.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the clever sock has a game plan. I suppose it includes lies and innuendo, misrepresntation of facts, and paranoic ravings. But I could be wrong -- I remember being wrong once, guess that makes me wrong all of the time. •Jim62sch• 21:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sock of whom? And I wonder why Daisey cutter posted to Gnixon's page???? We pretty much don't see Gnixon around pushing POV anymore. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Daisey, what's wrong with someone from the NCSE contributing to Wikipedia? Gnixon 16:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)