Schools, something you may delete

Hi Dunc! Since you don't get to delete schools much I offer you a subpage of my userpage which you may delete. I worked on an article about an 852 year old school in my userspace, at User:Sjakkalle/Bergen Katedralskole, but it is no longer needed since I have moved it into the mainspace. If you want to delete something school related, you may delete that subpage. (But please keep the mainspace article.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, maybe my post was a little bit trollish, but I thought I wanted to have a bit of fun. Sorry about that :-). Regarding schools, I usually abstain from such votes, and think that information on mundane schools can usually be advantageously be merged into articles on the school district or town. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, I think I closed the deletion debates as "Keep (no consensus)" if you check the debate pages, although I write "decision was KEEP" in the edit summary. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

You seem to be having a difficult time excepting that not everyone shares your POV when it comes to 'science' related articles--WwJd 22:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Please elaborate? Dunc|☺ 22:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well for one, you don't tolerate religiously motivated POV on science pages. David D. (Talk) 22:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I know, but what would Jesus do? Feed the trolls or confuse them with a parable?Dunc|☺ 22:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Possibly correct all the wikipedia pages that do not agree with his POV ? David D. (Talk) 22:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

JWSTFU? JWRTFM? I dunno! — ceejayoz 03:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Well, thanks for trolling me to death instead of giving me a straight answer--WwJd 03:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Dunc and David, WwJd is a newbie. Please don't bite the newbies. Uncle Ed 13:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear, grumpy old Uncle Ed again. If the newbie had been a bit more specific I might have had the opportunity to be a little more helpful. I except accept that there are those who do not share my POV, but I need more information to what specifically the newbie is referring.

Perhaps Jesus would tell the fable of the ape that got a little bit clever, thought he was cleverer than he was, invented things called sky fairies and then went around claiming that he was made by sky fairies because he couldn't work the reality out for himself? Dunc|☺ 14:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds more like Plato's cave to me. You know, the prisoners chained to a wall who couldn't see what was causing the shadows, and the elaborate theories they came up with. Uncle Ed 15:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Ed, Is it normal that newbies roll in with such a strong opinion? Or is this just another sock puppet trolling wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 17:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Mona_Clonal_Antibodies.3F certainly looked sockpuppety... — ceejayoz 03:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Can't win an argument? start with the name calling, seems common enough around these parts--WwJd 04:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

GWR King Class media

Thanks, Dunc. CLW 06:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Know anything about photosynthesis?

User Natalinasmpf is making some very strange changes to the photosynthesis article. They are in good faith but s/he seems to have quite a few misconceptions. I have tried to discuss this on the talk page but I don't think s/he will listen to my input. If you know something about this area, or know someone who does, maybe you could either join in or send them to join the discussion. I have given up reverting since Natalinasmpf reverts back immediately. Thanks for any input, David D. (Talk) 22:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

evolution good, genetics pretty good, ecology okay; plant physiology and biochemistry results in a lot of headscratching. I can't see anything wrong with it immediately, but I'll take a closer look tomorrow. Dunc|☺ 22:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

edit on pseudo-science page

Why did you revert my edits? I simply added Novelty Theory, a popular pseudo-science asnd changed the form of "Gene Ray's Timecube" which is awkward, if that one should be added it still should be referenced by it's name, not by it's creator. I reverted the Scientology back to Dianetics, if that was the issue, because I think ChrisO gave a good argument. Certainly you couldn't have had any problem with BOTH Novelty Theory being added and Time Cube being referenced by it's name? Those are issues which I would expect to be hardly controversial. --Brentt 23:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Related to William Darwin Fox Q&A

Hi Duncan, I didn't mean to "take-over" your good work, the intention was just to get it right. There is limited information available, and I have some that's been handed down. I'm "vaguely" related, 3rd cousin 3 times removed. Our common ancestors were Samuel Bristowe (1694-1761) and Mary Savage (1701-1791). There were some complicated family relationships around CD and WDF's period; a lot of 1st and 2nd cousin marriages. Studying the descendants reveals that many offspring from those marriages didn't or couldn't breed successfully. Some of the branches just died out.

WDF was born at Thurlston Grange, about halfway between Elvaston and Shardlow in Derbyshire, and spent the first few years of his life there before the family acquired Osmaston Hall (sometimes known as Osmaston Manor). His parents were very rich by the standards of the day, and though WDF was the only son of Samuel Fox and Ann Darwin, he had a half brother, Samuel Fox Jnr, from his fathers first marriage to Martha Strutt from another wealthy Derby family. Marriage settlements were the thing in those days and some of these daughters of wealthy parents came attached with a dowry - or as it was called a "Marriage Settlement". Both Samuel Jnr and William D Fox were left 6,000 pounds each plus a half share in the residual of their father's estate, while each of his sisters received 1,100 pounds.

His two younger sisters lived for many years in Ladbroke Square in London and were waited on by up to six servants. One of those sisters, Frances Jane Fox in 1850 made a collection of materials and fabrics that had been worn or used by her ancestors and attached signed notes to each item describing who had worn it or where it had come from. A lot of those notes and fabrics still survive today, and I am the current "minder". The earlist is a dress worn by Mary Bristowe née Savage in a portrait painted in 1740 (the portrait is now in the Nottinghamshire Archives), while another is of a piece of furniture covering fabric which is described as covering the furniture in the sitting room at Thurlston Grange circa 1810.

I have a website covering the Bristowes and a part of the genealogy of the Fox side is shown in Sheet C in the Genealogy section via the Index.

The url is http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~bristowe

Kiwi Kousin 10:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Universism article

Duncharris, please unlock the Universism article - see talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Universism There is going to be a feature in the LA Times about this shortly. It would be a good time to reopen the article. Universist 06:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome message.

Ya'll are real attentive!

Thanks. I look forward to making relatively minor but useful contributions in the future. There's a bit to learn, but it appears the rules of common sense apply.

--Col tom 11:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Ww0=1V_dSs8?5*

I have sent off an indefinite block against this one. I think it is our old friend Willy on Wheels again. No need to slap the sockpuppets on the wrist with a ruler, just take out the big axe and chop their heads off. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

After reading the noticeboard, it appears I was wrong. The belief there is that this series of users was another old friend, namely Wik. Sorry... Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

User Alkiviadis

I uploaded a wrong logo and replaced by mistake the logo of BNP Paribas. I uploaded then one from it's site but it doesn;t look the same. I am sorry for the mistake and I would be thankful if you could re-upload it.

Evolution edits

I have recently become aware that you reverted my comments towards Graft on the Talk:Evolution page. I've a full right to take back anything that I have said to anyone after I feel that amends have been made. In the future, please have the decency to notify me of such initiatives that you wish to take in affecting my image on Misplaced Pages, especially if you were originally uninvolved with the matter at hand. Have a nice day. Salva 06:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but it's proper to cross things that you reconsider like this, to keep evidence easily accessible. I thought your little rant was an excellent short summary of the views of the nutjob creationist POV-pushers around here. It certainly had comedy value. Are you denying you wrote it? Dunc|☺ 08:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Did I ever say that I didn't write it? Who are you to intervene in a situation that does not concern you? My remarks were highly impulsive, and there was no need to have them on a public page. And I urge you to avoid making generalizations about your opponents. I'm a human being, and as such am liable to make mistakes just like you are. My actions were irresponsible and do not represent all "creationists." Salva 21:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AEvolution&diff=25417665&oldid=25412848

Well, it doesn't make any sense to waste my time when I'm simply ignored. I called Graft a despot because he is - he hates democracy, he's anti-american, anti-Christian, (probably anti-semitic,) pro-Islamofascist and a Neo-Darwinian. He's a despot running his own little fiefdom on Misplaced Pages with people like Aaarrrgh and thinks he can push objectors like creationists and ID advocates around like his beliefs matter more than theirs do. Let me tell you something, Graft, and Aaaarrgghh, you are products of typical secular University indoctrination that has fueled your contempt for, and your meandering of the scientific processes of peer review and progressivism in favor of preserving your atheist mandates. Well I won't suffer it. That paragraph is in place to confuse and obstruct the path towards truth. It's basically stating that "according to the science of biology, the origin of life can best be explained by random mutation-driven evolutionary processes, and any notion of divine intervention is bunk, and has been replaced." That is not objectivity. It's Wiki-Despotism. To my understanding - in concordance with the controversy that rages today over the origin of life (or Species, which is another word for all life that dwells on Earth,) why would it make sense for this article to claim factual accuracy on matters pertaining to the origin of life - either by way of random abiogenesis or Intelligent Design? Salva 04:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

There. Nutjob rant preserved for posterity. It really is quite funny, don't you think? Dunc|☺ 09:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's a real mystery why conservative editors don't feel more welcomed here--WwJd 03:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Why are religous people who rant necessarily conservative? Am I missing something here? Forget the politics and look at the content. There's some great stuff on the monoclonal antibodies thread. No content and comments based on ignorance. Seing this kind of thing time and time again, especially in the form of a rant warrants comment. Are you implying that wiki posters with a 'leaning to the left' who post such ignorant comments don't get it thrown back at them? David D. (Talk) 05:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

LadnaV

Hi there! I've fixed this one up since it was a hextuple block within a minute or so, but I just wanted to inform you that if you block a user twice, the shortest block is the one that sticks. So if you want to enhance your block, you must unblock first. Yours, Radiant_>|< 21:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know that the translation of "The Upanishads" by Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1884 is still copyrighted #8-) Afsi 23:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

British Rail Class 35

Thank you for pointing out my simple error in such a publicly sarcastic manner. Eddie.willers 17:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a stitch up

Sorry, I haven't had any time to do this recently. I am away all weekend now, and so it will be Tuesday evening at the absolute earliest before I get any chance to even look at it, and realistically as I'm likely to have in the order of 400 photos of my own to sort through (I've got photos unsorted from trips I went on over a year ago still!) then its not going to happen soon. Whithout having seen the source photographs yet I don't know whether it will take me a few mintues or a couple of hours to get a decent panorama with the software I have. Sorry. Thryduulf 20:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

You can now view the results of my efforts on my talk page. Thryduulf 21:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

TVR

I'm afraid I don't know anything about trains. The TVR is just local to me, and all I wrote about the TVR, I just got from a book. Varitek 08:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I've returned the book to the library. I need to return some other books in the next week or so, so I'll check then. Cheers, Varitek 09:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Knotty Edit

Hello Duncharris,

Many thanks for your welcome, most kind of you.

I am retired and now living in Llandudno. Formerly of Newcastle-under-Lyme, I was born and educated in Crewe. I have an abiding interest in railways and I am a long standing member of the Ffestiniog and WHR(C) societies and heritage groups. I produce websites for my parish church and for Cytûn, Llandudno Churches Together: http://www.llandudnochurches.org.uk and for my own pleasure: http://www.greatorme.org.uk.

Regards,

NoelWalley

81.154.223.166 07:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Photo of Novelty

Well done on getting a photo of Novelty at Rainhill in 1980.

I have a few photos I took myself of Novelty from 2002 and this year, as well as other photos of the TV filming in 2002. Only problem is I have not got my head around loading photos onto the system and allocating copyright details

Thanks for advice. I'll find a suitable photo and give it a try. AHEMSLTD 19:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Success with a photo of Matheran Hill Railway loco. AHEMSLTD 20:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

L Class

Sorry, my knowledge of locomotives and rolling stock is very generalised. Regards, Noel.

Present

Thanks for the photo in the present, it's a nice one. Seems like there should be enough information to create an stub on the Port Talbot Railway & Docks Company and an article on the class of locos. Any idea if those were the only type of locos that the company used, and what class of locos GWR considered to be? Otherwise something like GWR "Port Talbot" Class might be appropriate. Cheers. chowells 13:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Dear Duncharris,

what you have against changing the critisism of pseudoscience page done by me couple of minutes ago?

All the best, Sasha. --Iskander32 19:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis

Dunc,

I see that you are also a scientist. I have nothing by an objective interest in AIG, as I find humor in their egregious "theories". AIG is a phenominon which should be documented. I have posted a few criticisms, a ëvolution of their theory, and a letter which I sent to them. Please do not mistake my curiousity with my condoning their conduct or anti-science. I believe the things I have posted have an anthropological distance from the material, and are neutrally describing what they believe and how they act. In the letter, they proclaim ricidulous things like "plants not being alive". Anyone who reads the letter will find that it is riddled with things that they simply made up to make the ends meet in their philosophy.

Thanks,

Reid 21:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: I just saw that you deleted my material. Dunc, c'mon. I just spent two hours preparing that material on AIG, you could have at least read some of it. I do not want a wiki-war, but I would like to restore my additions to the article, as they are a neutral description in every way. Please let me know if you are ok with this.

Reid 21:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Dunc,

Thanks for the partial nod of approval. Would it be alright if we restored the old version, but without the letter part? The part about how they hate Intelligent design, but eventually begin to condone it is really fascinating.

Dunc, I thought you said it was cool. I understand the letter not being in wiki-format, but the change of their belief structure is integral to an impartial perspective. Please don't delete it just to be a wiki-vigilante. My intentions are not to endorse creationism, but to illustrate their theories in the manner an anthropologist describes primitive tribes.

Pseudoscience (again)

Dear Duncharris,

We have already discussed the paragraph I wrote with others - see the part in the archive connected with the "Scientists_against_pseudoscience" http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Pseudoscience#Scientists_against_pseudoscience. It seems to me that I was able to persuade others that something needs to be written which would stress that "pseudoscience" was used a lot to punish people - please read the corresponding section of the archive and links therein.

You see, many scientists were fired, killed or committed suicide only because "mainstream" science did not believe their theories (which were proved to be Ok at the end). I think that we need to reflect this in the criticism section. Instead, at the moment, the criticism section looks like an apology for the concept of "pseudoscience".

If you will continue to block this correction - I will probably produce an alternative page with the list of scientists who suffered because of the pseudosience label and make a reference to it in the main article.

Although, I have no idea what you do not like in my correction.

All the best, Sasha. --Iskander32 16:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk pages

Hello Dunc,

Am I using the NSR Talk page correctly?

Regards, Noel NoelWalley 20:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

LMS Stanier 2-6-4T

Were there two types of LMS Stanier 2-6-4T? There is the one for the current article, but there is a Stanier 2-6-4T no. 2500 built in 1934 preserved at the National Railway Museum that isn't mentioned (and doesn't fall within the number range). Our Phellap 22:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Would it not be easier just to have them both on the same page under different sub-headings? Our Phellap 23:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

British or English?

Hi I notice you are reverting when a certain user is trying to move people out of the British category. My personal view is that generally a lot of English people see themselves as British, but maybe Scottish or Welsh people like more to identify with their own countries. However I think certain admins have a thing about moving people to the most "exact" sub category, which in my opinion is totally destructive. For example people have been moving people out of Category:People from New York City to Category:Manhattanites and Category:Brooklynites. How far is this going to go- are they going to move people out of those categories to which street they lived in? This would make categories totally useless imo. Arniep 19:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with that if possible we need to find out how they described themselves ideally. They got a few more at Special:Contributions&target=88.106.61.84. Arniep 20:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Photographic grey

There may have been some use of it toward the end of the 19th century, but all the builder's photos that I've seen from American builders use the equipment's in-service paint. It was the photographer's responsibility to ensure that the details could be seen; many photos were modified to remove any background as well, such as the PRR image at right (judging by the angle of the shadows on the locomotive, this photo was probably taken early in the morning). slambo 18:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Lickey Incline

1 in 37.7 rounds to 1 in 38, not 1 in 37. The claim of steepest sustained is an arguable concept and needs qualification. Please see my words (and make response) on Lickey Incline Talk page Bob aka Linuxlad 12:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

hi

just wondering how/why you know so much about the mitchison family? i don't use wikipedia that often, so if you want to reply you could use b e a t b o x e d @ h o t m a i l . c o m cheers, mark x

William Darwin Fox

Thanks for tidying the article up. It has grown a bit haphazardly as I've been trying to sort out "fact" from fiction.

Barry

WDF

The Soton University reproduction of a letter from the Geologist in 1862 would indicate the to me the content is no longer copyrighted. Perhaps a courtesy email to Soton University might clarify the situation. It seems to me that it might be a good idea to include a separate section in the current article dealing with WDF's geological and palaentology interests. Many of the Dinosaur sites have doubtful information regarding WDF in their content. It would seem when they make mention of Charles Darwin starting his thesis "On the Evolution of the Species" while staying on the IOW they had no idea that he was staying with WDF or that they were related.

Barry

use of rollback: no message on the discussion page or on my user talk page?

Did you use the rollback function here to revert my changes to Phillip E. Johnson? I thought you might have, because the comment in the edit summary looks just like the sort of text that rollback automatically generates.

I undid your revert, but than you re-did it. What is so urgent about this matter that (a) you had no time to write an edit summary and (b) even afterwards, you left no message on the discussion page or on my user talk page? Uncle Ed 20:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

3RR warning

Template:Lieuofblock

What's going on at Phillip E. Johnson? You've reverted Ed four times, which isn't cool. Perhaps you should stop to discuss what you're doing. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought I'd only done him three times. Anyway, it's part of his latest foray into POV-pushing on pseudoscience topics. Unsurprisingly, FM has just reverted to the original version. Dunc|☺ 23:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Technically you only get 3 reverts a day per article regardless of whose revisions you're reverting. In any case, while Ed may well have been POV pushing (I have no idea since I am unfamiliar with the topic), I and many others would appreciate it if you would refrain from edit wars with him, or for that matter, anyone else. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you disagree with the content or not, you don't use admin rollback to revert it; that's abuse of sysop rights. Please don't edit war. Thanks, Rob Church 01:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

1862

Thanks for your help. Will organise the text mentioned into Wikisource. - Kiwi Kousin 08:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

L Class

I have put a photo of No 18 at Crewe in LNWR days on my web site: http://www.greatorme.org.uk/NSRSynopsis.htm It looks like an L Class but of course I don't know them well enough to be sure. I rediscovered the print (given to me nearly 60 years ago by the photographer's nephew) two days ago when looking for something else. You are welcome to a copy. NoelWalley 18:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

You have been summoned to appear as defendant at a Request for Abritation. Please vist the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration page to make your statement under the heading Ben. --Ben 21:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

WDF

Didn't realise there was a WDF(palaeontologist) page. That being the case, then no-one had realised he was the same person.

I'll leave the article alone as the source of some of the information on the DinoWight site is not known, but may have come from the BBC h2g2 site. I have some more info, and when I have it sorted, I'll put it up for discussion. - Kiwi Kousin 23:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

haldane's dilemma

g'day, my name is Graham from Australia

I read the edit on haldane's dilemma and saw it was completely wrong so i made some changes as a stepping stone to something more complete.

My guess is that whoever wrote the article (Was it you?) heard the dilemma explained in laymens terms or something and unfortunately the laymen's explanation led to a complete misconception of the theory.

Haldane's dilemma does NOT come from tacking one substitution after another.

Haldane's dilemma is that it takes just as long to substitute n alleles simultaneously as it takes to substitute them in series. The dilemma is purely mathematical although my write up was an attempt to write it in laymans terms without stripping it of meaning. I'm reverting it back please talk to me in the discussion section

Alphaville

Hello Duncharris, thank you for the info on my German Discusson-page. I will reupload the image. Silberchen 08:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Removal of link to ID in Europe

Hi there - saw you removed my little paragraph on ID-related goings on in Europe. Fair enough but do you think there might be a space for this kind of link elsewhere in the article? Or maybe you think it's irrelevant? I'm new to the Misplaced Pages so I'll leave it in your hands but I thought it may be worth noting somewhere that the movement is starting to spread outside of US borders... Schama

ID in Europe

Hi again - you're obviously a seasoned and sophisticated Misplaced Pages editor though your command of the French language seems to be somewhat doubtful. I take it that you are, like me and many others, a strong critic of the whole ID movement. Friggin' strong. But not, I hope, to the extent that you can no longer look at the issues objectively. I added the link to the 'Inside Story' page which, if you think is some kind of promotion for ID, you've completely mis-read. It seems you understand the article to mean that it's the 'théorie de l'évolution' which is 'contestée'. But if you'd read a little more carefully you'd realise that it's the alternative, wacko, 'Inside Story theory of evolution' which is 'contestée'. About a week ago a documentary was shown on national French TV presenting this so-called 'theory'. It was followed by a debate during which a panel of scientists trashed what they saw as pseudoscientific nonsense 'une version française du Intelligent Design'. It caused something of a storm in French intellectual circles and the media who were convinced that France was impermeable to such ideas (see the links to the article in Le Monde). Pretty damn negative just in case you're wondering.

In view of the comments you left on the French site, having marked it up as biased, it strikes me you don't actually know what you're talking about - and this is rather a shame considering the sensitive nature of this subject. I thought the Misplaced Pages project somehow had an inbuilt system for assuring quality control.

cheers! Schama

a

a

"It is utter garbarge"

Regarding article Quantum evolution. You removed the following for the reason "It is utter garbarge":

Quantum evolution is the hypothesis that genetic mutation is adaptive, or directed through quantum effects.

I quote from the back cover of the book "Quantum Evolution - Life in the Multiverse" by Johnjoe McFadden (a leading theorist in this area, and Professor at Surrey University - i.e. someone who knows more about this than you):

"Living organisms are controlled by a single molecule - DNA. Yet Physics tells us that the behaviour of single molecules is controlled not by classical laws but by quantum mechanics. The implications of this for biology have never been fully explored. Until now. In this brilliant debut, Johnjoe McFadden puts forward a startling new theory of quantum evolution. He shows how quantum mechanics gives living organisms the ability to initiate specific actions including new mutations. Thus evolution may not be random at all but directed - cells may, in certain circumstances, be able to choose to mutate particular genes that provide an advantage in the environment in which the cell finds itself. This property of living organisms to direct their actions has startling implications. It must be at the root of both consciousness and free will: Quantum Evolution provides a new understanding of the origin of life and the meaning of death. Life, this brilliant book argues, is a quantum phenomenon. Quantum Evolution provides a new biology for the new millennium."

Now although this is from the back cover (i.e. hype) it nevertheless reflects the current idea/hypothesis of what quantum evolution is/means.

I have therefore re-added the section you removed. Please continue this discussion on the Talk:Quantum_evolution page if you wish :)

Regards (Theboywonder 13:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC))

And Peter H. Duesberg, Ph.D. is a professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley. Do you believe everything he says about HIV (Duesberg hypothesis) just becuase he happens to appear to be "someone who knows more about this than you"? David D. (Talk) 15:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Um, yeah, I've already given him both barrels on the suggestion that I didn't know what I was talking about and I should fall for the appeal to authority. Dunc|☺ 16:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice reply. Sorry to butt in on your talk page but sometimes I see such crap written here. I think it was Ed poor last time. You're obviously doing a great job of keeping the science as sane as possible in wikipedia. Let's hope we can stop wikipedia becoming like the rest of the internet. The last thing we need are these pet theories being presented as mainstream. How do these prof's get tenure??? David D. (Talk) 16:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I've moved the discussion to the Quantum evolution talk page :) (Theboywonder 16:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC))

XSoD merge

I noticed you commented at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Red screen of death. Could you come and comment at Talk:Blue screen of death#Foo Screen of Death merge? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Bots

Hi Dunc,

I have been translating some articles from en to de. Each time I have added the interwikilink in en manually. So this is not a bot activity. Are such changes supposed to be done from a bot account?

Kind regards,

Heiko Evermann 09:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Taunting people

Hi Duncharris,

If you 'know you shouldn't', why do you do it?

Regards, Ben Aveling 21:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

LEAVE MY ELEVATOR ALONE!

I would appreciate it if you would leave the 'attacked' in the Darwin's Legacy bit alone; the theory did NOT overturn Creationist biology. Thanks. The New Guy