User talk:Filll/Archive 23

Thanks[edit]

~~Dear massive consensus, thank you for your effort! I would have never done it without you, massive consensus!~~ Can I please get an uninvolved party to examine the case (as I am too lazy), because you seem to be far from one. --PlatanusOccidentalis (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed footnotes[edit]

Filll, on the Expelled talk page you described how collapsed footnoting was in use there at one time before it damaged with new edits, and I wonder if you could point me to some examples of it. Thanks. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look back at the Expelled article at the end of December, or the Intelligent design article, you will see examples of several references in one footnote, separated by bullets. --Filll (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Filll. I'll have a look. All the 30 odd character lengths of endnote pointers are godawful there. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

Re:[1] - admins are not supposed to undo other admins' actions. It's called wheel-warring. So everyone is obviously reluctant to undo the_undertow's deletion, even though he's obviously in the wrong. Using my super sekrit back channels to the arbcom, I've asked them to take a quick look into the matter and especially the_undertow's behavior. Raul654 (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider this...[edit]

How would you feel if someone said to you "Now please stop with all this nonsense" in response to what you considered to be a reasonable and civil response? Would it anger you? What would you do? Would you respond with similar aggression in return? Would you believe that the other editor was acting in bad faith?

I can tell you how it looks like to a third party observer: as soon as you say something like that, you lose the intellectual high ground and give other rational editors pause. My gut reaction on seeing that is what does he have to hide? If he feels confident in his argument, why does he feel the need to resort to aggressive speech? Now you may write me off as just another civility warrior who doesn't understand how things really work, but I'm just telling you how it looks to an uninvolved observer.

I hope you take this message in the spirit it was delivered: constructive criticism. ATren (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you claimed that I have to assume the other person was rational. Now, let's work within your assumption of rationality here. I believe I am rational. And I, as a rational person, would not be angry if someone claimed a statement or argument of mine was nonsense. I, as a rational person, would wonder why he said that, and wonder what I had missed and what mistake I had made. The rational response is not to get angry. Secondly, why would you assume that the other person is rational? What data do you have to base that assumption on? How well do you know the people I was discussing this issue with?--Filll (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Far worse is said to me every day. What if I took this message you put on my page, and posted it to your page, 10 times a day, for the next 5 months? What would you do? Would you believe I was acting in bad faith?--Filll (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, what if I ignored every response you gave me, and just posted the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over in slightly different words? What would you do?--Filll (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would revert, ignore, repeat. The last thing I would do is war with someone doing that. If they are truly trying to get to you, then an angry response is exactly what they want. Why give them what they want? If you ignore, and they really are a troll, they will inevitably escalate, and dig their own hole, at which time uninvolved third parties can step in and the evidence will be obvious. It takes a lot of patience, but there are no shortcuts in dispute resolution. ATren (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no offense, but you have minimal experience here, particularly at controversial articles. When I see some evidence of deep extensive experience and demonstration of some advanced specialized techniques and success with these techniques, then I will give your claims more credence. And when I see you handle a very heated discussion in the way you claim it needs to be discussed, over hundreds of edits and over weeks of time with dozens of adversaries attacking you personally and trying to get you to abandon NPOV, NOR, RS, and so on, then I will be more willing to listen. So get to it, and show me an example of you creating an article that satisfies the five pillars in a very controversial area, with a good 5, 10, or 20 other editors who disagree vehemently with you and also all the tenets of Wikipedia, bolstered by a steady stream of interlopers who encourage them or attack you in similar ways. And then, when you can show me a good 6 months or year's worth of editing successfully in such an environment, come talk to me. And in the meantime, why not try the exercises at this place. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, despite your experience, you still haven't found a strategy that works. And it seems quite clear that the current strategy (SPADE) doesn't work - given the amount of angst being expressed by you and others on various pages.

And FWIW, yes, I was on a terribly contentious debate on-wiki that lasted on and off for two years. I learned a lot from that protracted battle. I've also spent nearly two decades in the Real World working with some insanely aggravating co-workers. If you think Wikipedia is bad, try working 10 hours a day one cube over from someone who actively tried to get you fired - that's what I had to endure a few years ago. In my younger years I probably would have fought that guy bitterly, and probably alienated a lot of other co-workers in the process. But by that time I'd learned to better control my emotions, and I was able to gain the upper hand in that dispute by calmly staying on topic and asserting my position (in which I felt very confident). Eventually it was the other guy who was let go, as he had dug himself into a deep enough hole that it was clear to management who the problem was. It certainly wasn't easy (especially with your job on the line) but there is no shortcut when dealing with people like that. When you engage in their tactics, they win.

I won't say anymore, because you obviously believe differently and I don't want to badger you. But I hope you at least consider what I've said, and perhaps you could even try it out once in a while. :-) ATren (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may butt in for a moment, ATren's comment brings to mind one of my favorite quotes, which is from Napoléon Bonaparte: "N'interrompez jamais un ennemi quand il est en train de faire une erreur." I have found it to be of tremendous practical value. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Raymond, I do not know if you are talking to me or him. Maybe I should let this person just continue to preach vacuously. Or maybe userfication is in order in this case or summary deletion.

On the other hand, I might just make a comment or two.

Yet, despite your experience, you still haven't found a strategy that works.

How do you know I have not found a strategy that works? Have you read my draft on the subject? By that proven successful strategy, I should summarily delete whatever you write that appears to be of a polemical nature since it is clearly of a certain character that would warrant it.

And it seems quite clear that the current strategy (SPADE) 'doesn't work'

Actually my strategy is not WP:SPADE. And I would challenge you to find a diff anyplace on Wikipedia where I stated that it was.

given the amount of angst being expressed by you and others on various pages.

Rather than angst, it is brainstorm to try to find more efficient and productive methods for handling certain kinds of disruption. Are you against progress?

And FWIW, yes, I was on a terribly contentious debate on-wiki that lasted on and off for two years. I learned a lot from that protracted battle.

And why does it not show up anywhere in your edit history?

I've also spent nearly two decades in the Real World working with some insanely aggravating co-workers. If you think Wikipedia is bad, try working 10 hours a day one cube over from someone who actively tried to get you fired - that's what I had to endure a few years ago.

And why do you presume you have more experience than I do in these sort of matters? You have no idea who I am or how much experience I have or what kind of experience I have, do you?

I won't say anymore, because you obviously believe differently and I don't want to badger you. But I hope you at least consider what I've said, and perhaps you could even try it out once in a while.

For my part, I think I will follow Napoleon's dictum. Have a nice day.--Filll (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I thought you were an advocate for SPADE; if not, then I apologize for the misconception. Also, I was not aware of your essay; I will read it. And I am taking the AGF challenge (two responses so far). Thank you for listening. :-) ATren (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

still unsure....[edit]

Dang, even if he knows more about policy, I still feel unsure about whether it was ok to add that evidence there. I already told Felonius about why I think that it's not ok even if it's according to policy [2]. Ah, well, I'll just sleep on it --Enric Naval (talk) 07:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I finally took a decision[3], including comment at ANI and all. The fact that other editors (including some admin) have edit-warred over that section has helped me to decide. I'll download Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode_16 to hear what they say --Enric Naval (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Voting"[edit]

diff That's not what you mean I'm sure. Probably "comment" would be a word that won't get people's backs up. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I will change it. It was late and I was tired.--Filll (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your apology[edit]

Not sure where it was, but thanks for making me aware of it. I appreciate your effort to bury that into the past. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus[edit]

Please explain your logic behind claiming that there is consensus to continually add this material? [4] Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to see a consensus forged that abides by WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV.--Filll (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As do I. But what you reverted to is not that. It was a version put in place too hastily as much of it is still being discussed on the talk page. My fear is that forcing that version up there is souring the discussion for many of us. What I would like to see you do is self-revert as a magnanimous gesture such as that may be the thing need to jump-start the discussions again. Right now, we are left with people bickering about why was this implemented against consensus. What we should be discussing is what can be done to create a version which everyone can live with (the very definition of WP:CON). I appreciate it.

On a side note, what will the community or you be doing with the results of the AGF Quiz. It was fun to take and to read other people's responses. I am glad to know that I side with the majority on most of the questions. Though I was in the minority with the Reptilian question, I do feel strongly that my "other" answer is best for the project. I'd be curious about your insights on that. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This, I would like to see your evidence of.[edit]

This is not the right time or the place for this "debate", and approaches WP:BAIT. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something of interest...[edit]

I noticed this, and thought I'd inform you about a Oxford University Roundtable Discussion on Darwin vs. the Bible I think it's from July 18-22 or something like that. Cheers! Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 01:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediology[edit]

Does this look like something you would be interested in re-starting? It seems like it would be a good fit with a lot of what you and others are doing. Guettarda (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for the invitation[edit]

I got your invitation to participate in NTWW, and I just downloaded skype, though I still need to get a head-set. That said, I'm a bit confused about several things. I do not find a table of contents for each conversation. How does someone know the subject of a forum, either as they are happening or after the fact? How long are the conversations? Also, you may have noticed that I may soon be banned from wiki for a year. Does this ban mean that I cannot participate in NTWW? I'm still shocked that so many editors have worked, seemingly very effectively, to mute an expert on homeopathy. Your silence has been loud. What is your intentions with the NTWW? DanaUllman^Talk 15:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Head-sets don't cost too much. If we get you on Skype, we can discuss these things and I in fact intend to do so. You can't see the list of topics for each completed podcast? It is right on the podcast page. When you are invited in for a special forum (as in your your case), we will announce the topic ahead of time so you know what we will be talking about. We are still debating what topic your special podcast would be devoted to. The recorded conversations are typically about an hour, as you can tell from listening to the previous 16 recorded podcasts listed on the WP:NTWW page. However, typically a guest will talk before and after the recording with others, and might talk for a few hours, depending on their time constraints. I hope you are not banned or blocked, and I have tried several times to try to make arrangements to avoid this, both on-wiki and behind the scenes. I do not know how aware you are of my attempts. I was not ignoring your situation by any means, however. In any case, if you look at the links on the NTWW page, you will see we can and do accommodate banned and blocked users. All banned and blocked users are welcome to participate in any NTWW program by text chat, and by voice if internet traffic conditions allow us to host a Skypecast (otherwise we have to have a Skype Conference Call, and banned and blocked users are welcome if invited by the host, which you would be as a potential invitee, even if you are banned or blocked eventually). What I would like to do is to open a dialogue with you about your experiences on Wikipedia and what sorts of articles on homeopathy or alternative medicine you feel should be on Wikipedia. We might have Peter morrell there at the same time, or in an adjoining segment. I have to discuss it with the other NTWW "regulars". It is not yet decided.--Filll (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny[edit]

Yes it is very funny, but da jus me. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 17:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep laughing. If you can. I know I will.--Filll (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even click on the link? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 18:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fordmadoxfraud[edit]

Re: Your comment, I posted: # Moderate support. I would like to see more experience, but this editor seems to show promise.--Filll (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC) What kind of experience are we talking about? Two years & 10,000 edits kind of seems like enough. Is there a specific area you at looking at? --mordicai. (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

in case you wanted to respond. Cheers! --mordicai. (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of service[edit]

Filll, in regards to a recent challenge you issued in another forum I thought my memory might be of some service. You ask there for diffs to prove or at least exemplify the notion that you are "not interested in NPOV, or RS, or V." The irony of asking others to provide diffs aside, here is a string of diffs that exemplify at least some amount of disdain for the practice of providing reliable sources in order to verify a claim (RS, and V): [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. The offer still stands by the way, for you to provide an RS that verifies the statement that "the petition promotes intelligent design." The NPOV question is a much larger issue clearly. Within at least my interaction with you I think the same issue illustrated above does the trick. You fought long and hard to support a POV ("the petition promotes intelligent design") so fringe that you couldn't and can't even find one measly RS to back it up. You know what the dirty rotten shame is Filll? I think ID is a load of horse manure, but your lot is doing a great job making those of us who think that way look like rabid POV pushing bullies. Thanks for that.PelleSmith (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filll, in regards to a recent challenge you issued in another forum I thought my memory might be of some service.

It might be, but it might not serve the purposes you intend it to.

You ask there for diffs to prove or at least exemplify the notion that you are "not interested in NPOV, or RS, or V."

Well let's look at what I actually disagreed with and asked for diffs to support, rather than some informal paraphrase of mine, shall we? After all, we have to be precise here:

Filll, you keep saying things in these terms, as if having a consensus - any consensus at all - is more important than having a sourced, verifiable, and most importantly of all NPOV article. [11]

I dispute that claim. I do not believe that I have ever claimed or ever supported the notion that "having a consensus - any consensus at all- is more important than a sourced, verifiable and most importantly of all NPOV article". And I resent that blatant accusation and personal attack and slur.

And I issued a challenge, in several different ways, to demonstrate that I did that or ever wrote that. With diffs. That is the challenge.

The irony of asking others to provide diffs aside,

There is no irony here. Providing sources from outside Wikipedia is a very different proposition than providing diffs inside Wikipedia to back up serious accusations. Very different.

Particularly when there is no rush to provide outside links for a locked article. And as far as I know, no rules or policies that require anyone to provide outside links for a locked article. As I asked before, please provide links to Wikipedia policy that require me to do so. I am still waiting for those links, well over 10 days later, aren't I? I guess those links are not coming? Maybe you should just keep looking.

I am sure they are there since you seem to know Wikipedia policy so well right?

here is a string of diffs that exemplify at least some amount of disdain for the practice of providing reliable sources in order to verify a claim

Actually were any links provided with reliable sources? Well yes here is a diff of me providing 5 reliable sources [12]. And a few hours before that, User:FeloniousMonk had provided several WP:RS as well. So where is the disdain? Well over half a dozen reliable sources were provided. And backed up the assertions being made. All while the page was locked anyway. And supported the consensus. So what is the problem?

I hate to tell you, but I do not see that these diffs you provided demonstrate anything at all like what I have requested. Why is that I wonder? In fact, they seem to be closer to WP:POINT violations, by making intentional misrepresentations and violating good faith:

[13] I state that we can source the uses the petition has been put to or the meaning of the petition etc. I did not claim any particular version was what I was staking my reputation on, did I? I only said sources could be provided. And less than 24 hours later, you had over half a dozen sources, did you not? What is the problem?

[14] I ask you to wait for the sources. There is no rush since the article is locked. And I caution you about using the potentially sanctionable uncivil "agenda pushers".

[15] I again ask you to wait when you ask over and over and over in decidedly WP:POINTy WP:DE fashion for sources for an article that is locked.

[16] When again badgered for sources again and again in short succession I ask for a link to policy that states I must provide sources within a set period of time. You received not one source or two sources or three sources, but over half a dozen sources within 24 hours. I am still waiting for the links to policy more than 10 days later. Come on, what is up with that? You have had more than enough time. Let's see it.

[17] I again asked you to wait for the sources. And you got them only a few hours later. And the article was locked anyway. So what was the rush ? What was the problem?

[18]. Again, after more WP:POINTy badgering I ask you to wait for the sources. And you obtained them, didn't you? A few hours later only. And the article was locked anyway. So what?

The offer still stands by the way, for you to provide an RS that verifies the statement that "the petition promotes intelligent design."

Perhaps you missed the consensus version? The consensus does not state that, does it?

Picard is one of the signatories of the Discovery Institute's "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", a controversial petition which the intelligent design movement uses to promote intelligent design by attempting to cast doubt on evolution.

as found on [19].

Well nothing quite like misrepresenting the situation and taking a few liberties with the truth, is there? After all, we had a few choices of wording and we settled on one as a consensus. I am not required to provide sources with whatever wording you have decided, do I? If I am obligated to do so, please provide a link to policy that states that.

Do you have a problem with digging up sources to support the variety of consensus versions we were considering? What is wrong with WP:CON? Against your principles is it? I guess that is another example of a WP:POINT violation, isn't it?

The NPOV question is a much larger issue clearly.

I am afraid I have seen no evidence that you understand what NPOV is. Quite the contrary, in fact. Perhaps intentionally; I do not know. Sorry.

Within at least my interaction with you I think the same issue illustrated above does the trick.

Well I am afraid you better learn a few new tricks then.

You fought long and hard to support a POV ("the petition promotes intelligent design") so fringe that you couldn't and can't even find one measly RS to back it up.

I tried to get us to abide by proper Wikipedia principles, and then come up with a version we could all reach a consensus on. I notice you were not very happy when consensus was reached by a large fraction of those on the talk page. Why is that I wonder?

You know what the dirty rotten shame is Filll? I think ID is a load of horse manure,

Who cares what you think about ID? It is irrelevant. Why go advertising your personal beliefs everywhere? Remember they are not supposed to be involved with editing Wikipedia. So no need to brag and brag and brag and brag about them is there? Hmmm I wonder why you are doing that?

but your lot is doing a great job making those of us who think that way look like rabid POV pushing bullies.

By the way, referring to a group of other editors as "your lot" is probably pushing the bounds of civility, isn't it? I would think that "rabid POV pushing bullies" is as well, that many have opined that "POV pusher" is uncivil, after all. Adding bully and rabid as well? You think that is sanctionable or not? What do you think?

Also, I am not making you or anyone else look like anything. You are free to follow the WP policies or not. I am not responsible for how you make yourself look. You are.

Thanks for that

Don't thank me yet. The challenge still stands. Provide me diffs. You owe me quite a few at this point. And this has been going on for days and days and days now. --Filll (talk) 06:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

Fill I actually try to avoid involving my "personal beliefs" in editing contentious areas like BLPs, and that's exactly the point. You are also being completely disingenuous in how you bring that up since you accused me of having other beliefs, and insinuated that I may be in fact be editing for a blocked user at various points in the afore mentioned discussion. For the record, I'm not “bragging” I’m just providing a personal context to the huge disservice you are doing to the rest of us who also believe in evolution as opposed to fringe theories like ID. Since you have gone on at length in a manner that obfuscates the issue I brought up let me try to clarify it again for you by providing diffs to relevant comments:

During the debate about how to mention the DI petition in the entry on Rosalind Picard, KillerChihuahua provides the language pertinent to my above commentary “… a controversial petition which promotes intelligent design”.
Odd Nature suggests that KC’s language is correct and NPOV, adding a challenge to “show us specifically where it doesn’t.”
Several editors point out that this simply isn’t true: CBM, FYCTravis, Relata Refaro, Merzbow.
Meanwhile you show your support of KC’s language.
Merzbow, also against KC’s language tries to suggest rather succinctly that we “shouldn't imply things we can't prove”.
Odd Nature bluntly repeats the notion that KC’s language is factual and verifiably so: “She signed a petition promoting ID, that's a verifiable fact.”
Dave Souza chimes in supporting KC’s language, and claims that it “makes a simple statement of fact.”
Odd Nature suggests that the main entry of the petition clearly supports KC’s wording, and anyone can discover this by just reading it.
I try to point the discussion to a comment I made just below it, which states that the content about the petition in A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism does not in fact support KC’s language, instead clearly and repeatedly differentiating what the petition says from what the DI is using it for.
Merzbow succinctly states the still glaring problem with KC’s langauage: “I'm willing to agree to that as long as we add another source that specifically says the petition promotes ID, because I still don't think the NYT article says that (as opposed to saying DI promotes ID, which it does). I've been told there are many sources for this, I'm just asking for one.” See also [20]
I echo Merzbow’s words and specifically ask for “verification” of KC’s language.
I suggest also that we specifically need a secondary source since the primary source, the petition itself, does not verify KC’s language. In fact I even went the extra mile to make a separate subheading so that this request for verification was clear.
Odd Nature apparently decides simply to call the request “bogus” instead of providing such a source.
Meanwhile Sxeptomaniac also opposes KC’s language.
Merzul meanwhile shows support for KC’s language.
I repeat my request for one measly RS to support KC’s disputed language.

What follows are my repeated requests for an RS which are all answered by your repeated claims that there are sources, but that you will provide them when you feel like it. That series of exchanges is what the diffs I initially provided document rather clearly. It should also be rather clear at this point that the above dispute was not in any way about the language presented in the compromise. The compromise language DOES NOT claim the petition promotes ID, period. In fact I already commented on the disgusting feeling of being duped by the pointless argument documented above. In other words sources that support the compromise are completely off base in this discussion. None of the sources you now refer to in any way verify the disputed part of KC’s language. If I’m wrong about that feel free to provide one RS, from those or from others, and quote it appropriately to show that it verifies that the “petition promotes intelligent design.”

In regards to the larger picture here, the fact that a compromise was reached does not absolve you, and the rest of the editors who backed KC’s language, of an egregious failure of respecting RS and V by way of repeated claims that certain content can be verified, when it just simply cannot, and never has been by any of you. You are particularly implicated in that you went above and beyond in taunting me with the retorts about how you can obviously verify it but only when you feel like it. By the way, I have not arbitrarily decided that you need to verify something of my choosing. The above chain of events makes it abundantly clear why we were harping on a certain phrase. Of course, perhaps other unsubstantiated claims you made along the way are even more troubling. At one point you claimed to have “plenty of other evidence that Picard supports the Discovery Institute and intelligent design”. Slander comes to mind as a relevant concept here, but I won’t accuse of things that have a rather specific legal meaning. Instead I’ll address what brought me here. When someone lobbies for or supports a specific piece of content, and claims it can be verified through reliable sources, but never provides any such sources, even upon repeated requests to do so, they show a disregard for RS and V. This should be clear to just about everyone.

I’ll leave you by addressing two other points. I have commented on “your lot” elsewhere. I don’t believe that a number of likeminded editors, who can be readily observed behaving like a group across a swath of related entries, should be afforded the privilege of complaining about being called a group. This type of behavior becomes obvious in many of the various chains of events that sometimes cause others to throw around phrases like “your lot.” Also, the irony I referred to in providing diffs was not actually about providing sources, it was in fact about providing diffs. Plastered all over Talk:Rosalind Picard are your accusations of other editors violating policy without any proof relating specific diffs to the actual content of policy, something editors tried to help you fix to no avail (e.g. [21] and [22]). I hope you take this seriously Filll. I think you could stand some self-critical reflection on all of this instead of defensively masking what happened so that low and behold you don’t have to admit to having at least made a mistake. Maybe you were being disingenuous all along, but I also accept the possibility that you did think there were sources to verify the claim we all wasted hours discussing. I can’t tell for sure, but at this point you clearly know that you supported the claim that you could verify something that you also now clearly know cannot be so verified, so keeping up this charade helps no one, and it certainly does not help observers with the belief that you are respectful of RS or V. With that I will bid you adieu. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More tortuous argumentation that does not hold up under any scrutiny, a veiled legal threat, a few more uncivil comments. It is hardly worth bothering with this sort of post. Please try to abide by the principles and conventions operating on Wikipedia instead of trying to turn it into a personal battleground. Oh, and by the way, did you miss the apology for the claimed slight? I have made it several times and repeated it several times, haven't I? I struck the putative offending phrase, did I not? Immediately when notified, did I not? To bring it up over and over and over again after this seems rather like a violation of WP:POINT, does it not?--Filll (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd, I'm pretty sure this has nothing to do with your one time veiled implication about Muslims that was partly redacted, but about your inability to provide a reference. Did I miscommunicate so poorly here? There is no veiled legal threat, I explictly did not make any such threats. That does not change the conceptual nature of slander and its possible relevance the comment I mentioned it in conjunction with. As well as the suggestion that you reflect on all this a bit more critically might I add that you also don't go around challenging people to provide evidence of things this obvious if you are unwilling to accept the evidence when it comes. This time I mean it when I say adieu.PelleSmith (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid all I see are lots of vacuous assertions and accusations and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.--Filll (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of interest[edit]

Another perspective on Expelled. Awadewit (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah we discussed that a few days ago on the talk page. I think the link is in the article.

There are all kinds of crazy theories about the movie. That Stein is just involved to make money. That Stein wants to be controversial to rev up his career. That Stein knows that this entire project makes ID and creationism look stupid so he is doing it as a sort of "fifth column" to destroy them from the inside. That they are being incompetent and clumsy on purpose so that the movement looks bad. That they are purposely mudding the difference between ID and creationism. And so on and so forth. Lots of speculation in various places. Not all of it found its way into the article. But some of it is pretty amazing, as you see above. And some of it is pretty funny.--Filll (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Test[edit]

This is a test.--Filll (talk) ^{Take the WP challenge!} 00:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is another test.--Filll (talk) ^{Take the WP challenge!} 00:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]