User talk:Snalwibma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Atheist Delusion Link

You removed an external link I'd included on the Richard Dawkins wikipedia article. I believe this link is relevant as, although the final motivation for the website was Dawkins' "God Delusion", the site is not only a response to that, but a wider response to Professor Dawkins work and literature. I thus believe that the link is wholey relevant (though you have a point that perhaps I should include it on the God Delusion page too - I may take your advice on this in the future) and so shall undo this last edit at or after midday if you have not responded with a compelling arguement for its exclusion. Yours faithfully, Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete g1 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK Snalwimba, that's a fair and acceptable solution you've implemented on Dawkin's website. Feel free to remove these this post as the matter has been resovled Pete g1 (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Hi there. Just saw Crug Hywel and associated photos arrive. What gorgeous pictures! Welcome to Wikipedia. Telsa 11:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Athiest article

You can remove my changes if you really want to. It just made me rather infuriated upon reading it that these annonymous assertions about athiests' lack of conviction are made, that's all. It needed some fixing imho. Delete this comment too. I won't be around long or even back here. Now for my opinoon on this matter you can check the discussion on the acutal athiest article and make up your mind. I won't make any more edits :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.82.64 (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Puffin Island

Thanks for putting me right on the DAB/stub issue! - S'alright. Dab pages aren't regarded as stubs because, typically, all they have is a series of links. They're never likely to grow into "real articles", so stubbing them's a bit pointless. For the same reason lists are rarely stubbed (they have their own template - {{listdev}}). Grutness...wha? 00:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Crickhowell

I am almost surprised you don't have a picture of the arches in question, after the other lovely ones you have contributed. But yes, those arches do stick in the mind! I didn't realise for a long time quite how unusual they were.

That Crickhowell article definitely needs expanding, I have realised. It's only on pondering what to do first that I realise how much I don't know about the place. Argh.

Incidentally, I don't know whether you have noticed the recent arrival of both Portal:Wales and WP:WWNB: the Welsh Wikipedians' noticeboard. Given your contributions in Black Mountain-related areas, you might find them of interest..? --Telsa (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dawkins

Hi Snalwibma! An explanation by an impartial 3rd party would be, if anything, even more valuable. I know very well how easy it is to label people one doesn't agree with. I suspect many things about Dawkins, but I know I have a strong personal view. Do contribute to the discussion if you want to - and even more to the edits! eg do you think the 1st para on Crtiicism should be deleted or not? best wishes. NBeale 22:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Snalwibma! Thanks (again) for your +ve contributions to Viruses of the Mind. I'll look out the refs in more detail as you requested. BTW I didn't think I was reverting you when I responded to your request to un-garble my contribution. Did you? If so, I apologise, but if not I'd like your view for the record because Spark got me blocked for it ! NBeale 07:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your positive edits.

As a birder, I thought you might enjoy a break from Wiki editing and contemplate one of the joys of my life. Most evenings a little before dusk, a small flock of Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoos slowly make their way past my front door, mangroves and bay in the background. Hmmm. Anyway, cheers. --Michael Johnson 05:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Most likely Rainbow Lorikeets, or maybe Eastern Rosellas. The lorikeets are loud, colourful and common. Or maybe Galahs, Sulphur-crested Cockatoos or red-rumped parrots. --Michael Johnson 08:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creationism

On the upside, though, though that image was inappropriate for the Creationism article, it makes a nice balance for all the creationist images in Creation-evolution controversy, so I grabbed it. Adam Cuerden talk 21:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


I'm so glad that picture could be put to use. I love it

[edit] Edits

You are good at this ... I like the way the evolution article reads.--Random Replicator 22:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey .... its 8:22 PM EST Sunday ... where are you????? You have a life or something. Well anyway, there is much on "The Page" for you to consider when you get time. Thanks --Random Replicator 01:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misconception and Summary section

Which points would you remove or reword? --Filll 17:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Come to Introduction to genetics and take a look. I cut and pasted some from this article. There is complaining at genetics and gene that they have an article that is too complicated and needs a simpler introduction etc. Same as at evolution. So I am trying to push them to try an introductory article as well. --Filll 22:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ouch!

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

[edit] AFD

Hi Snalwimba. Happy new year. Would be courteous to let me know that you were proposing 2 articles I created for deletion - I only found out by accident. Just a thought. NBeale 10:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Snalwimba. Tx for your reply and sorry I missed the comment in discussion for some reason - Chistmas was v busy. You ask in your nomination for deletion "Where is the evidence that the "Argument from Beauty" is a concept that has occurred in the literature" - given that, as is now clear in the article (but wasn't when you nominated it) Richard Dawkins devotes a whole section to it, as much as to the first 3 Aquinas arguments together, quite apart from other sources, would you now be prepared to make your vote a keep? NBeale 22:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Snalwimba. If you want to delete the new 747 gambit article please propose it for AfD. Simply wiping it out with a redirect is not reasonable. If you have confidence that your view would represent a consensus, then please put it to the test. If you don't, perhaps I should? Or would you like me to put a redirect on a similarly carefully referenced article that you had worked on? NBeale 18:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gambits

NBeale and I have crossed swords on Jesus as myth an article he would love to get deleted if he thought he had a chance! He know's I'm an evil atheist and therefore sees me as leading you astray which is why he's going for me. It's also obvious I'm female and I'm sure in his church the "ladies" are expected to be quiet, bake a lot, and have no opinions that their men-folk don't tell them to have!

As for reporting him - don't bother as it's pretty low level stuff and just makes him look deperate. It might be worth notifying any closing admin as it is an abuse of process - a joke really as that is what he thinks I'm doing!. Sophia 00:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just found this [1]. This is real abuse of process and we may well have to ask for help to stop it. Sophia 00:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I smell a huge rat [2]. Sophia 20:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this an effort to improve the article to merit retention?

An unusual number of individuals who feel that the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit article should be deleted and turned into a redirect have jumped in and started making major edits to this article. As you are among the individuals who fit this description, I am trying to understand if this is indeed a good faith effort to improve the article so that it meets your personal standards for retention? If it is, why don't we try to find a consensus as to what should stay here and what shouldn't in order to satisfy retention. If this is not an effort to improve the article that would lead to changed votes, it seems hard to understand the sudden burst of interest in editing this article. Alansohn 07:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude but. The article title is misleading. It is set up for one concept; then follows with a litany of debate regarding the legitimacy of Dawkins. The article is disconnected from the title. NBeal, clearly is not a Dawkin's fan. Read the entry on H. Allen Orr they created. A disproportional amount of text is devoted to bashing Dawkins. Is that the claim to fame of Orr. Is it his most important contribution? Certainly not ...is there a hidden agenda here? Sorry for the intrusion--Random Replicator 19:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I still feel uncomfortable making large edits; so I tend to be all bluster with no bite. So thanks for addressing the H. Allen Orr article. I left a message on Fillls talk page. He would make an exceptionally good ally in your efforts to remove the ever so gross slant to the article Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit. The bias in that one is over the top. Frankly, I lack the skills to argue at that level, the writers present themselves as being extremely intelligent and very talented in the written word. I would likely do more harm than good to the cause. The shift from informational to a platform to promote philosophical views is troublesome. I hope this issue is resolved.

The Intro to Evolution is sustaining the test of time. Other than the typical vandalism, the edits have been minimal. Either it is solid ....... or no one cares!--Random Replicator 12:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The efforts for improvement as of 3/22/07 Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit have been most profound; at least enough to get my blood pressure back down. Merzul has invested time and energy; at least enough to win me over; not an easy task considering I am grossly biased in favor of Dawkins. Give the new one a read. --Random Replicator 02:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Oops, I stuffed up that step then forgot to try again. It should be right now. Metamagician3000 11:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NBeale

Are we getting to RfC stage with this guy? So much effort is having to go into undoing his edits he is a positive drain on people's ability to contribute. Sophia 08:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

And now we have people on the AfDs who don't seem to do much but turn up at key times to support [3][4] [5] Sophia 18:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I commented on the AfD page about these users too, didn't know you guys were already discussing this. I don't know about YankeeGal, but the two other are extremely dubious, note the lovely token unrelated edits between the AfD comments. One edits Honey and the other edits Dog, the rest of them mostly Dawkins related articles... --Merzul 21:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it worth pointing out WP:MEAT#Meatpuppets to NBeale? Sophia 22:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I wrote to him, see User talk:NBeale#My complaints about your behaviour. I am of course only speaking for myself on that post, except in the end I mention that others also feel his energy is misdirected. --Merzul 22:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I wonder if those puppets appear on the AfD pages from NBeale's blog. He has written about certain Dawkins defenders who delete his articles. Have you seen these Dawkins defenders he is talking about? I'd like to meet them :) --Merzul 00:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
While I find the motives behind his creation of those pages quite sad, as long as he the pages are in accordance with WP:BLP, I don't mind us having stubs on people in academia. The important thing is that the biography page doesn't reflect these reasons, but is a fair biography of the person. Naturally this is unfair to other academics who are perhaps more notable, but haven't satisfied our number one notability criteria: "Has publicly criticized Richard Dawkins". I do object to these kinds of quotations being inserted in Richard Dawkins's biography. --Merzul 10:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hehehe... bye! The AfD is quite amusing, but I've now spent a bit too much time criticizing NBeale. I think I will leave him alone for a while. I need a wikibreak to refocus on what really matters, but I'm glad to have met many nice people during these AfDs. --Merzul 14:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You are probably watching the relevant pages, but just in case... Your feedback is welcome on User talk:SOPHIA#NBeale -- RFC??. --Merzul 21:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Snalwibma, nice to see you're back :) Anyway, yes, H. Allen Orr is a very sensitive issue. I recommend reading his review in full, and not just the Dawkins one. I much respect the man now. I got a bad impression of him, for obvious reasons, so I was a bit angry as you can see on SOPHIA's page. --Merzul 01:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro to Evo

Your help would be greatly appreciated on the Introduction to Evolution Article. --Random Replicator 23:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lightvessels in Ireland

I have proposed merging Lightvessels in Ireland with Lighthouses in Ireland. You were involved in a previous discussion on the matter. As a courtesy I am notifying you now so that you can participate in the new discussion if you are interested. Ta. Frelke 08:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Argument from love

Could you have a look at Argument from love (this revision in case it is reverted). I think it at least makes sense now, the previous formalisation was a complete mess, have a look at the talk page :) Unfortunately, this too is original research, but at least it is a formally valid argument that I can understand. What do you think should be done? (With the article in general) --Merzul 14:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that the only section with philosophical substance is the popular culture section :) On the other hand, being a terribly bad argument is not a reason to delete. --Merzul 14:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas Beale

I agree with all you wrote. I'm also hoping this has nothing to do with the fact that an anon tagged a long standing article that I created (about a well known atheist) for speedy delete the day after I tagged NBeale's as a possible COI. It all does look fishy and I shall push to reduce the article to stub-style until some of the details can be verified and their relevance debated. What a total waste of time - huh? Sophia 08:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I know you are right but part of me wants to fight this subtle distortion. I would go as far as to say NBeale is the type who honestly thinks his world view concords with reality as perceived by most people, which is why he sees some of my edits as censorship. I suppose my biggest concern is that what he is doing is an abuse of process and, if enough others decide to follow suite, will eventually undermine what wikipedia stands for. If there is no effective way of dealing with this in the long run then this encyclopedia is doomed. The reality of the situation is that I'm too busy at present to do much about this - something he also takes advantage of as he creates so much stuff and hides behind so many rules that it takes a long time to deal with each incident - longer than he took to create it. Taking it off the watchlist is probably the best option! Sophia 10:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Snalwibma. I'm sorry about your suspicions re Colin Howson. FWIW my clients are mostly chairmen of FTSE 100 plcs and I don't think any of them use Wikipedia for business purposes. I don't see how it can make a difference to my notability in co-authoring an article in Prospect whether Colin Howson has an article or not. However I thought that if I deserved an article then Howson certainly does (he has 10x as many ghits as I do). Interestingly however the 2nd ranking ghit is the Beale/Howson debate, so perhaps its not that obscure? Sorry to trouble you but sicne you have taken my page off your watchlist and since your contributions are generally so thoughtful I feel I owe you the courtesy of a reply. (I have of course no involvement in the Carrier speedy delete, indeed knew nothing about it until I came here. I do agree with Sophia that trying to get large elements of content or indeed whole articles deleted can be a total waste of time)NBeale 14:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Snalwibma! Hope you are doing well, I'm just back from my wikibreak :) I noticed you are NPOV patrolling to stop NBeale from putting his misrepresentation of the Beyond Belief conference all over the place. Thank you for doing so, but I wonder if we should let NBeale go ahead and ruin Wikipedia for a while, currently we are the only ones concerned, I think if we let him do the POV-pushing that he loves perhaps more people we understand how harmful he is to the quality of this project. Pastor David unfortunately doesn't quite understand just how blatantly obvious NBeale's POV-pushing is. --Merzul 14:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Countering Bealean Bias

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
This Barnstar is awarded to users Snalwibma and SOPHIA for their hard work in Countering Bealean Bias on Wikipedia. Thank you for caring about the accuracy and neutrality of the project! Merzul 15:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I've decided to step out of his way because he is driving me completely mental, and I'm not being productive. I guess I should have taken that Wikibreak, huh? Well, I do admire how you manage to stay sane while dealing with this. Good luck, and keep it up. --Merzul 19:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, no, I'm not leaving, but I'm leaving his creations alone, and I will basically pretend he doesn't exist, so I will focus on a very narrow set of articles. Although I simply couldn't resist giving him one last gift. Anyway, I do think we'll meet again, but I will take a little break and think things through, because I was really losing my temper. --Merzul 10:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You really must stop suppressing well-sourced information from reliable sources such as starcourse.org. :P Interesting, how the comment avoided any references to the real source of self-refuting ideas. --Merzul 21:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NBeale opposing Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atheism

NBeale is now opposing this FAC for POV reasons. Please leave a comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atheism#NBeale. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-24 15:00Z

[edit] Nicholas Beale

You were involved in this article's Deletion Review. User:NBeale complained that the AFD was closed too early, and so it was reopened. Please leave your opinion at the second nomination for AFD. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-05 18:34Z

[edit] Intro to Evo

You mean you have a life in the "real world"? I'm currently torn between mowing grass or typing this... you see which is winning. Actually, my new inspiration came when one of my students pulled the article up on answers.com. It seemed really weird to see the information outside of Wikipedia format.

No hurry. Many of the suggestions are minor; but, the guy (Merzul) seems rather insightful, so I thought I would chip away at the list. The major issue is #14. Instinct says chop it... no need to antagonize; however, sometimes you get tired of skirting the issue; especially when teaching in public school.

Well anyway, I will reframe from any over-the-top modifications; no hurry ... this gig is not the one paying the bills  ;) --Random Replicator 19:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


Oh my... I just read the commentary above and visited the entry. Is he applying for a job somewhere? I'm speechless. --Random Replicator 19:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you create sub-subheadings for vestigal and co-evolution. That might breakup that very long passage. I think it still should fall under comparative anatomy section. The lamarck section seems to work ... if you could review my edits to artificial selection and Molecular as well, since I restructure a bit there as well. Thanks --Random Replicator 13:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar for the Public Understanding of Science
I award this special barnstar to Filll, Random Replicator and Snalwibma for their hard work on the introduction to evolution, a lovely article that helped me understand the concepts. Thanks, Merzul 18:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


Cool --- Richard Dawkin's Award I would be jealous but I got one too! The sub-sub-subheadings actually looks good. I followed your suggestion on the misconception relocation. Some may require your editing or deletion since the emphasis is now key points as opposed to misconceptions. An excellent suggestion. --Random Replicator 00:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recolonisation theory

Hi Snalwibma. I don't know if you've spotted it yet, but there's a new "kind" of creationism over at the Creationism article. It's called "Recolonisation theory", and there's both a section on it and an entry in the summary table. My concern is that it may not be notable (a quick Google trawl suggests it isn't). I've broached this with the editor who added it, but they're new here (and probably wedded to the concept) and not used to sourcing, etc. Anyway, I'd be grateful if you could have a gander when you've the time. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Regarding our mutual friend and his edits over at Richard Dawkins, I may have sounded a bit dismissive in my last note about your compromise edit on the epigenetics material. I'm sorry if I did - I realise that you were (commendably!) trying to stop things spilling over into some sort of edit-war. Hopefully it'll all be resolved in the next few days. Thanks for being a cool head.

Ah-ha, you clocked it. I'm glad that it wasn't just me that thought it was a bit off. I advised the editor who wrote it to consider creating an article on it first, but I'm pretty sure it would fail on notability either way. Cheers, --Plumbago 11:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Epigenetics

Hi again Snalwibma. I've an idea. Given that this is a biological issue, perhaps we should invite the opinions of some Wikipedian biologists? I'm a little out of my depth on the genetics (though, I suspect, nowhere near as submerged as our mutual friend), so soliciting views from editors with more relevant experience might help move things along. As I'm an ostensible member of this group (albeit lapsed; I'm an oceanographer now, or so I'm told), I'll visit a few Talk pages and drum up some interest if you think this might be a good idea. It might also take some of the pressure off of us; our mutual friend is driving me quite spare with his obfuscations (let alone his blog entries). Cheers, --Plumbago 13:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Snalwibma. Sorry I've not been around much recently. I pretty much dropped out of the whole epigenetics battle with our mutual friend (and Wikipedia more generally) after I got very angry with him about his attacks on Madeleine. Anyway, in my absence the dust appears to have settled and the article is much improved. To my mind, it's still over-focussed on non-genetic mechanisms that interact directly with genetics, so misses other "cytoplasmic" routes of inheritance and strange things like prions. Still, it's shot of the ridiculous overblown nonsense that was previously there, and by comparison my remaining complaints are trivial. Cheers, --Plumbago 15:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Respect the Guidelines

Put your comments on the BOTTOM of the page, or I will report you to a moderator. Everyone must follow Wikipedia's guidelines, even you and I. I am deleting your comment and I hope you put it where appropriate.--PoidLover 22:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, I see you reacted to his removal of your comment on WT:MOS. Wouldn't it better fit on his talk page? I've left him a comment on the same subject there. Phaunt 23:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific and common names

Wow, thanks for that. Let's hope there's no contoversy; if not, I'll implement your suggestion soon. Tony 23:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction to Evolution

Where to from here?  : ( --Random Replicator 03:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ireland's Eye

Good call on the source for the Ireland's Eye murder. Thanks ww2censor 23:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Man behind the Mask ...

I've been wondering where our mutual friend has gotten to, so popped over to his blog. Imagine my surprise when I caught a glimpse of the great man. It's hardly the best of shots, but it's nice to put a "face" to the name. From the blog entry it sounds like he's busy preparing yet another article containing a definitive proof of God's existence. Maybe this will finally make him notable enough for an article?  :-) Best regards. --Plumbago 09:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. For reference, our mutual friend appears to be back, and up to his usual tricks by the looks of things. Oh well, no rest for the wicked I suppose. Best regards, --Plumbago 15:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction to Evolution

I've missed you on the Introduction to Evolution Article. Ignore the two failed GA banners across the top ... kinda like the wizard of Oz (behind the curtain). Well I've edited it into such a state that no doubt it is worthy of three such banners. So as one of the founding fathers; I thought you would want to know of the sins I have committed and if possible clean up the errors. --Random Replicator 03:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Thanks for your help. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies, and now this is really pissing me off...

Dear Snalwibma! First, many apologies for causing the mess at Darwin's Angel. I should have anticipated that it would be totally abused, and that trying to keep it neutral would be a near impossible task. It seems nothing is disallowed, when done in the name of God, but I find the edit to the lead of Derek Parfit very low, even by Bealean standards. --Merzul 12:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is often not the articles themselves, but it is entirely his methods and his attitude towards other Wikipedians that really bothers me. I mean potentially his bias could be terribly useful, simply because there are quite a few of us "Dawkins acolytes" and very few Polkinghorneans on Wikipedia. But this is precisely the problem, this "Dawkins acolytes" thing!
He doesn't threat us as real human beings, but as some evil Dawkins fanclub, who is only out to delete his "well-cited truths". Often he disregards consensus, and when told by ten different people that he is just bloating the article with irrelevant stuff, then there are accusations of censorship and what not. He really seems to think that these "truths" causes our entire world-views to fall apart, and that we want to suppress them and hide them!
Anyway, let's see how things go... --Merzul 13:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darwins Angel

Of course I see you all as real human beings!! Yes I do think that a number of fans of Dawkins are a little over-reliant on him, and keen to delete any criticisms of The Great Dawkins, that doesn't make such people "evil" (BTW: it's a fundamental teachning of Christianity that we are all "evil" in the sense that we all sin - when Christians talk about "sinners" they don't mean "other people"). On the specific issue of the moment, I really don't see how we can justify giving more space to a letter to the Independent by Dawkins than a serious (and far from uncritical) review by arguably the UK's leading philosopher. Sadly I made the edit a few minutes before the talk page entry (which was a minute before you reverted it). Can we discuss and then come to a sensible agreement? NBeale 16:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hey bud

yeah man i didn't even know i chopped what you wrote, so yeah, no worries. Michaelkulov 15:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

you should put what you wrote back in if you are into this; it was pretty good. i try and not write too much anymore because debating my points is draining... anyway, yes sorry that happened, i assure you it was not intentional! Michaelkulov 15:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No personal attacks

Please, Snalwibma, try to refrain from unnecessary personal attacks and gratuitous insults as in this comment. "Feeble-minded?" Really, it is sufficient to say that you disagree with them, or (as I did) that you find their arguments unpersuasive. NCdave 15:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Snal, interesting that they consider your description of a web site as a 'personal attack'. Quite illogical. Yet they can libel just about anyone they want. The saving grace is that most of these articles are SO biased that it is extremely transparent. Only strenghtens the others side case. 66.213.123.174 23:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Mr."

You removed the entry on a relatively recent use of the term "Mr." (always verbally "Mister" and never in writing) which, interestingly enough, brings the term back to its original meaning! (I.e. that of "Master" rather than an address between 'equals'.) I don't understand why you wrote that the addition is "unsupported speculation and over-detailed analysis of usage in one specific field". I provided one evidence/source extant among many (this is actually common knowledge in the countries mentioned) and the five-line description of the context seems necessary to describe the new meaning of the term's use. And one can see that the rest of the entry already provides (quite justifiably) extensive descriptions about the term's use in other disciplines. Would you now say that this is an article about "Mr." and not about Judges?... The Gnome 16:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism of Richard Dawkins

I'm not sure if it was intentional or not, but you replaced Richard Dawkins with an article on a coin.[6] Anyway, I have reverted your edit. --RucasHost 16:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Very odd! Thanks for pointing it out, but that was certainly not my intention. I was trying to revert yuor POV addition. Something must have gone haywire on the server. Anyway, I have now reverted your work on the page properly, and I am about to report you for persistent vandalism. Snalwibma 16:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not the vandal, you are. --RucasHost 17:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I think you are on thin ice on this point. At the very least, it would need discussion. I know nothing of the personalities involved and am assuming good faith in both parties. Simply looking at the material involved, I don't see how you could justify deleting it. In all of the articles where evolution or religion are involved, there is a risk of folks on both sides getting emotional and defensive. I have no official capacity here, but would like to keep efforts focused on WP, not advocacy, even for POVs I largely agree with. [Full disclosure: I'd previously tried to get the words "controversialist" and "lightning rod" in the article. I walked away despite my sense of NPOV problems. This particular incident would seem to support either those words or something like "reckless". Why couldn't he have said "pro-Israel lobby"?] Feel free to chat or here in my talk page if might help. DCDuring 17:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid of that page. It has been unrewarding to participate in it. It seems like the consensus is POV. Dawkins is one of my favorite authors, though I disagree with his hostility to religion, though atheist myself. If someone like me sees a POV problem, I beseech you, consider that you may be in the wrong (apologies to Martin Luther). DCDuring 17:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Snalwibma! You are of course fully justified in removing such additions. That religion section has more than enough criticism for a biography on living person. Even for a controversial person, I wish the criticism would be more professional than the "he brings science into disrepute" kind of opinions that people keep inserting there.

Anyway, this is the last you will hear from me! (This time for real...) I've decided to abandon this account. I will resurface using my real name. Perhaps you will recognize the real me, but I really hope I will be much more civil using me real name. :)

Wish you all the best, Merzul 21:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Why, thank you kind sir (or madam)! I know I come across as a rabid Dawkins-worshipper. It's not that at all - just that he attracts the most abominable rants from people who see him as a hate figure. My objection to all this stuff is mainly to do with WP:BLP, I think. Ah well. I look forward to playing the guessing game of Spot-the-New-Merzul. Ah go on, give us a clue! Snalwibma 21:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, well, first of all, I think you are one of the most valuable Wiki contributors that I know, and you are clearly not a true Dawkins-worshipper. You once even said "I agree almost completely with what Orr says about TGD...", now what kind of a Dawkins-acolyte would say something like that??
About guessing the real me... well, I think you will recognize me, especially since you are a linguist; but for privacy reasons I don't want the connection to be so obvious that random people (such as my extremely religious family) can see this by just looking at the user page. --Merzul 22:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
This makes me sad. Your contributions on the Introduction to Evolution Article were so beneficial. Your strength is the ability to see things calmly while others rage against the machine. I think I'll be able to pick you out in the crowd ... you will be the one with a level head. Hope to see you around Merzul.--Random Replicator (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your nick

Ambulance in Welsh (backwards as on the front of an ambulance)? •Jim62sch• 19:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Doh! I should read the user page first. •Jim62sch• 19:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
haey, !hod. Sadly I've never done much study of Celtic tongues, limiting myself mostly to Romance, Germanic, Greek, Sanskrit and a bit of Slavic. On the other hand, I've not really found very many good Celtic sources -- seems that Celtic is one of the ignored IE branches. •Jim62sch• 19:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] True

It will be interesting to see you prove that my remarks about Dawkins are untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I noted that Laurence Boyce was a sock-puppet of Richard Dawkins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 11:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I like the way you affect to believe that Boyce is not looking at Dawkins's Talk page.
IP numbers are needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 10:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An interesting job

I notice that our mutual friend is back to his usual tricks of inserting verifiable but probably non-notable criticism into Richard Dawkins. I've resisted immediately reverting for now till I've looked into it some more. In other news, it sounds like there's an interesting job on offer. It's almost worth applying for a laugh. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On or not on

I think the canvassing with regards to whether ON or THE starts the name of the book is a total waste of time. I never know if it is appropriate to delete Talk comments, so I'm glad you did. What a waste of time. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Bah, you beat me to a couple of those deletes. I went ahead and warned him about his actions. Cheers!!! Baegis (talk) 08:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm having more fun dealing with some jerk attacking me at Holocaust. Now this. What is this project coming to? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: See

Hi Snalwibma! Thanks a lot for taking the time out of your day to explain the situation to me! Cheers mate gaillimhConas tá tú? 13:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please warn vandals

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. [7] - Mdbrownmsw 20:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] talk:evolution

i have replied there. thanks for your expert comments. Sushant gupta 15:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sugarloaf

HI there. .. you're not wrecking my plan. . .see my comments under talk:sugarloaf. Just trying to clear up and organize things a bit. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction to Evolution

The Barnstar of Diligence
Awarded to Snalwibma for staying the course to reach the ever elusive Good Article status on Introduction to Evolution.


Thanks for fighting the good fight. The article serves as an excellent transition to those that are not experts in the field. It is a challenge to write to the laymen and appease the experts. You have invested a great amount of effort to effectively do just that. Kudo's on the Good Article Status... take a moment to celebrate the success!--Random Replicator (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 05:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 05:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction to Evolution

I left this on the discussion page; but it was so high up I didn't know if you would see it:

Yes, you are right. I'm trying to be all things to all people. Feel like a man plugging holes on a sinking ship! However, I did add few cool references, one on flower selection by echolocation in bats! I was trying to find good "readable" secondary sources to cite; such as PBS and National Geographic; thus avoiding the PubMed abstracts that are impossible to understand and which no one can access anything other than an abstract. However, I must confess... I have become somewhat blinded by the Wikipedia star. Thanks for bringing me back to my senses!
The arrangement of the Mendel section looks great. That particular section has been a pain in the ass from the beginning. A lot of history to capture in a few lines; difficult to be concise and accurate. What do you think of the LaMarck conversation! As I recall, you and I struggled with that section as well. I distinctly remember when you corrected my misconception that Darwin rejected LaMarck. I always taught them as polar in views, which is clearly not the case. That was your verbage that was accused of being non-factual on the F/A commentary page. I am curious if he will actually admit to his error.--Random Replicator (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes; the template needs to be returned; I dorked around with it in your "sand box" awhile back; but mine is too intimidating. There is one reviewer that has our interest at heart; and I will not be satisfied unless I can effectively address their concerns. Because of her there have been some real improvements. The rest may be "drive byes" as you say since they don't seem to be following-up on their comments in a productive way. I can't seem to break the code on items # 4 and #5; would you care to take a stab. If I can get a green on those then it will be FA in my mind; irregardless of the vote. Although, if the drive byes are voided, then it actually may make it. I'm not sure about Tiatanium (sp) he checked off both his concerns; but never changed his oppose? Maybe some go unspoken. How long does this process last? --Random Replicator (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Serial comma

Following your suggestion to (cross) post our discussion on the serial comma talk page to the MOS talk page may have opened up a can of worms (I have no intention of trying to put them back in their can.) But may I ask how you come to speak Norwegian? Robert Greer (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carroll

Hi, Snalwibma. I wanted to drop a note about your comments on the reliability of the Carroll material over on Abortion. I've objected to the Carroll material before, but I didn't have the info you've brought to the mix. I support your idea of bringing it up on Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis. This issue has come up a number of times both pro and con. Thanks for your contributions. Phyesalis (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why is it there?

I didn't like the heat in the kitchen. RR seemed like a prominent and level-headed contributor to the article, so I picked on him ;-) --Dweller (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Would be happy to work on one in a sandbox with one or two of you experts. How bout you and RR? --Dweller (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just throwing something out there should any one be considering a section on the social implications of evolution. No apology necessary. I knew as I was writing, it would be difficult to to acknowledge all the social concerns without sounding like we are attempting equal time to creationism. Education, politics, eugenics, religion etc. I do know that a healthy discussion is warranted and that Dweller has not demanded "my way or the highway" So if you would like we can play in the sandbox; doubt if any cats have craped in it yet!!!! --Random Replicator (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


Although Darwin outlined the basis for evolution over two hundred years ago, the theory continues to be a source of contention among the general population. Many of the objections center around perceived conflicts between evolution and the many religious views as to the source of species diversity. This is in striking contrast to support for the theory within the scientific community (work back in the number ...99.99%). ------ Stop ------ Nothing more.... No defense .... no offense just a statement ----- link it out from the line!!!! --Random Replicator (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Thoughts????? Hurry Hurry while there is still time!!!!!!! WE can be all things to all people--Random Replicator (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction to evolution

If you go to the page and copy and paste my initial proposal to my talk page and line by line tell me what you don't understand about it, without resorting to your perception of my feelings or anything personal about me, I will be glad to discuss my comments about the summary box with you. --Amaltheus (talk) 07:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction to evolution

We may have a concensus version of the problem paragraph. Freely edit the User:Dweller/evol#Final Version. Don't be shy. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This comment will contrast nicely to the strong oppose "Kudos to the collaborators." and a barnstar to boot. ---Random Replicator (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Too bad we can't get feedback from Merzul; they were a major help early in the game. I would value their input. --Random Replicator (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No problem

No problem using my talk page. I too am completely mystified. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Serial Vandal

Thanks for your ongoing work in quashing WP vandals. You might want to take a look at Dennis Rawlins's talk page. His main article is a recent target, and someone, apparently Rawlins himself, has gone to the trouble of tracking down about a dozen different IP addresses used by this guy. --Keithpickering (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC) Note that autobiographies are forbidden in Wikipedia. Pickering is a friend of Rawlins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.11.103 (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I understand the provocation... and I'll be heading back to his talk page myself imminently, but your comment wasn't helpful and almost provoked a response that got someone blocked. Let's all try our best to keep things to a gentle simmer at worst. So far, you've been very helpful and calm, so I was surprised at the intemperate comment you left. Perhaps we can just agree that we all (myself definitely included) sometimes make mistakes, particularly when we feel provoked. --Dweller (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the Revert

You reverted my edit on bog standard etc. and you were absolutely right. When I checked it, it had been quoted on QI by Stephen Fry, but was subsequeently found that they were wrong, because there is too wide a time gap between the supposed origin and the terms coming into current use.Streona (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Over

RR quit because of obvious circumstances. If someone cannot convince me otherwise, I am going to campaign hard to get it deleted. It is unwanted clearly and unneeded.--Filll (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Rules? Doesn't Wikipedia break its own rules by publishing itself?

It is a paradox that I have found from a logic experiment, it is, of my own finding. So the rules are that things must have already been published in order to appear here on Wikipedia? I think that it is a paradox and I am waiting for verification from others.

Isn't Wikipedia then breaking its own rules by publishing itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnaxMcShane (talk • contribs) 10:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amaltheus

Thank you for your comments. I had been ignoring Amaltheus. Then I made the mistake of looking at his user page after Intro to Evo went to FA. I just about had a coronary 'cause of the sudden rage. I really am going to have to take Feb off. Thank you for your reply. At least, it isn't just me. But, it should be no one. Filll, is so right. There has got to be a way to police Wikipedia. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Serial comma

Nothing against the serial comma as such, but I object to changing the article just to add it when the whole point of the article is that neither usage is the "correct" one. I also liked your argument on the talk page. I have to admit, though, that I'm uncomfortable with the habit I'm getting into of doing a peremptory rollback of what may well be a good-faith edit. Perhaps an in-line comment on the page might be in order? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About rollback

You're welcome! If you want information and/or practice with using rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. Good luck! Acalamari 17:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cheers for helpful links

Hi Snalwibma,

Thanks for the editing tips & comments - the links look useful too. When I see somewhere I feel I could contribute something, I'm more than happy to!

Anyway, thanks! Pete g1 (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The dust slowly settles.

Someday ... when things are truly settled down; we need to clean up or clear out that section on Watson and Crick about nucleotides .. A, T, C, G in the intro article. It went from a simple mention of the double helix into an article within and article - because of the "unmentionable one" and their fact check frenzy. That was the point that I checked out ... as he had the golden horseshoe up his butt and I was beginning to look like the asshole. The earlier version introducing the chemical nature of evolution ... at least in my opinion ... was better. Put it on the list of things to do! A line here and there as to avoid another feeding frenzy! Other than that ... I'm rather proud of our efforts; not bad considering what we started with --- nothing! And despite the accusations --- it was an excellent example of community cooperation. --JimmyButler (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello again, indeed ...

At least I took that Wikibreak I was trying so hard to take :) --Merzul (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inishbofin, Donegal

Hey, so what's going on with User:Tropicanmanofthesea's edits to this article? I agree he's obviously got some COI, but I don't think they're necessarily untrue. GlassCobra 11:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The edits by User:Tropicanmanofthesea are more than a COI. They are clearly nonsense, once you actually read them. They look plausible, but sorry... He/she adds photos of (a) Tory Island and (b) Slovenian forests, and gives the distance form the mainland as things like 37.54 miles - and 37.84 miles in another sentence - spurious and inconsistent accuracy. But in any case there is no island in the location he/she gives. There is no nature reserve. The stuff about legal status is rubbish. It's quite subtle in some ways, but it's a spoof. I have left a fairly gentle message on the talk page, and I am waiting to see if Tropicanmanofthesea joins the discussion there. Snalwibma 12:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I will of course bow to your opinion here; being from the area, I'm sure you know much more about it than I do. :) Thanks for keeping a lookout! GlassCobra 13:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Added to watch list, will try to keep an eye on it too. Perryn (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry for the edits. Georgereev118118 (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution as a theory and fact

You removed my edit explaining how the facts only proved natural selection and not evolution as a whole. I believe that this is wholly relevent, and would like a justification over why the edit was removed. 122.57.89.11 (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Dawkins

Hello Snalwibma. Please look at the biography of Richard Dawkins. Do you think it is ready for the FA status? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (Talk) 08:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)