Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cindery (talk | contribs) at 06:31, 23 January 2007 (→AfD: question re AfD). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

——————————————— TALK: DAVID D. ————————————— Welcome. (Contributions) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Current Talk
	Template:UWAYOR
You may here

Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject Newsletter

Plugging away alone :)

Thanks for the kind words! I hope you can find a use for some of the stuff ive done!

Your comment on LC's talk page

I know it's difficult when LC exhibits such poor judgement, but try to limit your comments to his actions rather than him. I don't think either saying he's a thug or acting like a thug is entirely appropriate. I also don't think it's a big deal, but I think the best way for him to learn is by example, and so we have to be scrupulously careful when talking to him to avoid diversions. -- SCZenz 03:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I chose my words poorly. I have clarified my comment. David D. (Talk) 03:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Please dont pronounce on my judgement here. SCZ. I dont rate your much either.--Light current 10:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

FA nomination for Immune system

Hi David. The FA process for our article on DNA is going quite smoothly. However, Immune system has also been nominated and this article requires quite a lot of work. As one of the more experienced MCB editors, if you have any time over the next couple of days could you have a shot at improving this? Any help would be appreciated, especially copy-editing and clarifying! Thanks. TimVickers 05:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ilena

Nice proposal. Since the guidance she needs has fallen away, she's quickly reverting to "angry mode". --Ronz 21:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry David. Please tell me how Barrett should be allowed to restate his case and claim libel, even after the Supreme Court of California has ruled on it against him. I also do not understand how those with one link away from every website of Barrett's empire, can post his links all over Misplaced Pages, but I am not allowed any links to my legal non profit foundation. I disagree that I bring nothing of value to the discussions of Barrett. For example, in June I tried to post that his NCAHF had been suspended for several years, but was blocked and it reverted as it his operation was legal. Now, after much ado, the article is less POV and more balanced. Also, there was a clear error in regards to Barrett Vs Rosenthal regarding Barrett's appeals that I corrected yesterday. No one else would have known this and this unfactual / unverified point would have been left on. I am further confused as to why there are Wiki articles filled with Barrett's viewpoint as a critic, even after courts have ruled him to be "biased and unworthy of credibility." I could name 20 articles that sound more like Quackwatch (which in itself is an attack site against those he deems worthy of defamation) than anything encyclopedic. I am a serious health advocate and activist with a support group of several thousand of women, run a legal non profit foundation, and have been a target of Barrett's for years. I am not the only activist who has been successful in defending myself against his meritless SLAPP suits. However, I am outnumbered here, as those in his operation, seem to have a full time job defending his articles. Thank you. 21:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Which links and who are you talking about? And with resepct to your own web site, others may choose to add the site. However, it is inappropriate for you to add the site. David D. (Talk) 21:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. fyslee is the Ringmaster for all of Barrett / QW / NCAHF sites, as well as Barrett's personal assistant listmaster for the healthfraud list for several years (until about 2 weeks ago). He has put hundreds (may be an underestimate) of Barrett's related links throughout wikipedia ... which all link to his own "quack files." Here is one of his Wiki pages which itemizes this. Thank you. Ilena 22:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In case you missed it, there was an AN concerning Ilena. While I was happily surprised by her behavior afterward, she's now back to the very behavior that brought on the AN. --Ronz 23:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, Ilena & Fyslee don't mix well, I am trying to figure out possible improvements on this.--I'clast 14:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not add your own name to the mix? Ilena doesnt mix with anyone that gets in her way. Ilena seems unable to learn wiki policy and guidelines, while behaving in what many admins label as "attack mode". No, I do not get along with such people. Frankly, no one should have to. Maybe if we could get editors to stop letting her play the victim, ignoring her behavioral problems, and encouraging her biases, then things would be much better for all. I'm pleased that she's taken a break. The problem still needs to be dealt with. Meanwhile, I've pretty much pulled myself out of the picture, which others have noticed if not I'clast. --Ronz 17:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still in favor of her avoiding these pages totally. If this went to arbcom it would almost certainly be the outcome, however, I would hope that arbcom could be avoided and if she could be more collaborative that might be the case. The key is for her to understand that wikipedia is not usenet. David D. (Talk) 17:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, in fact a few of us were under the assumption that it had already been done until she reappeared in December. Meanwhile, I've asked for help and received a reply Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#3-January-2007. --Ronz 18:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Something to note is that if you don't agree with Ilena, you are immediately labeled as being Barrett, pro-Barrett, employed by Barrett or some other similar invective. It is now so familar to the editors on Barrett-land that even we use the distintion ourselves (ie/ pro and anti Barrett). Rather than saying "Ronz, Ilena & Fyslee don't mix well", it is more accurate to say "Ilena does not mix well with wiki editors who do not support her POV". Shot info 23:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Or even better, she was accusing me of being Barrett for a while. I'm sure it's my fault for not noticing that she was just angry and was actually acting in good faith ;^) --Ronz 01:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In case you missed it, I decided to go ahead and reopen the AN issues that appear to be returning User:Ilena_revisited.

Civilx, AFGx, & NPAx

I'd appreciate it if you could comment on this or suggest a better location for such a discussion. Thanks --Ronz 02:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there are numerous related discussions on this. I'll contribute to what's out there already. --Ronz 21:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry case against me

Could you comment on removing the template from my user page? The case is still open and I do not have valid grounds (that I know of) to summarily remove the template.

The thought is appreciated, especially since the case is obviously frivolous and was opened by a suspected sockpuppet of a blocked user, but I do not want to seem to be circumventing policy here. N6 23:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no valid case, I have removed it again. I have no problem removing stuff from an anon IP. David D. (Talk) 18:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Point well taken. When I see what I feel is hypocrisy, I believe in noting it. However, I will do better in the future. Thank you both. Steth 18:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My talk page

What refreshing courtesy! Thank you for asking. I do not mind at all. Now you have me reading your talk page, which is fascinating. I am not a biologist. My last biology class was in high school. However, I do have some college physics and math, or quite a bit, since my degree was related, and my grad classes (before law school) were in electromagnetism. I am not schooled in esoteric philosopies that clearly distinguish between "quantitative laws" and "qualitative laws." How does one make a real distinction? I might point out that non-Euclidean geometry was developed before Einstein's birth. It seems to me that a common link is consistency (in math research, and in physics) more than an arbitrary distinction between "qualitative" and "quantitative" laws. To my knowledge, creationsim has no internal consistency. Is that not required in biology? I also think the injection of religion into science is a travesty. (My father was a geologist, so maybe I am "biased.") It seems that the applicable law in creationism is a Murphy's corollary, First draw the graph, then plot the points. Jance 22:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Creationism is basically trying to shoe horn science into a biblical context. Unfortunately it has to be bent to such an extent that it is broken by the time they get it into the shoe. Far better to have a more liberal interpretation of the bible. In that way both science and religion can, and do, coexist.

With regard to laws, ceratianly biology requires consistency, however, all too often we find exceptions that make simplification very difficult. To proceed forward in biology it is critical to realise that we have only scraped the surface and to expect dogma changing discoveries. History shows that these are quite normal in biology. Less so in physics, although Rutherford's experiments at the beginning of the 20th century certainly broke apart the dogma of atomic structure. Sorry this is rambling but i don't have time for anything more coherent. David D. (Talk) 23:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Inquiry

Hello David D.

After reading your very sensible comments regarding a certain Reference Desk issue, I perused your contributions to the project and have been very impressed. Consequently, I wondered whether you would consider accepting a nomination for adminship soon, or sometime in the future? If its something you would be interested in, I would be very happy to nominate you. If not, then just carry on as you are and simply consider this a compliment! Rockpocket 04:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rockpocket, i really appreciate the offer but I don't really have a need for admin ship at the present time. If anything I think it may distract me from my encyclopedic contributions even more. The last few weeks i have been sucked into a few debates in wikipedia namespace. As an admin i think this would occur all too frequently. Certainly being able to delete pages would be a useful editorial tool but for the types of contributions i have made this year i have only need that once or twice. Fortunately, i know enough admins that I can get that achieved relatively quickly. Thank you for your kind words. :) David D. (Talk) 19:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand. However, the offer stands. Should you change you mind in the future, please do let me know! Rockpocket 22:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, i appreciate it. David D. (Talk) 22:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Rockpocket above. With or without the extra buttons, your contributions are much appreciated. Friday (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Holford

Dear David D,

I was quite disturbed by this report in The Guardian 06.01.07 about Patrick Holford and thought it might interest you.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,,1983925,00.html

Yours sincerely,

robert2957 08:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter Cusack

Thanks. The whole episode sort of left a bad taste in my mouth.--Filll 02:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

your comments on my talk page

Thanks for insulting my tag. I enjoy it and it's staying. Sorry that you fell for it. And for the record, when I tagged for speedy deletion, there was nothing at all about him being a member of NAS. --Адам12901 03:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll give you that. But the article did mention that he was a Fellow of the AAAS from the very first edit. And you then [proceeded to tag it TWICE. So the same criticism stands. You should do some research before placing deletion tags on an article, that is how good contributors get disheartened and possibly leave the project.

I was not insulted by you orange tag, just thougt it was strange since I thought the fad was over. Feel free to keep it, passé or not, it's your image. David D. (Talk) 04:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Newton

My reading (a few years ago now) about Newton's religious views indicate something far different than most like to present. If I recall accurately, Newton was more of what we would call a Deist, and was not particularly convinced by a personal god, or maybe even deity of Jesus etc. Newton spent a considerable amount of time trying to establish the veracity of the scriptures, and doing what was essentially producing an epexegesis. He did not unquestioningly agree and was very sceptical. He was applying scientific reasoning and rationality to try to find any evidence for these biblical accounts. Most creationists, fundamentalists, people believing in biblical inerrancy, biblical literalism etc. would have been very unhappy with Newton's beliefs or Newton's studies of the bible or some of Newton's conclusions.--Filll 16:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Filll, how true! Same with Benjamin Franklin and the founding fathers. To listen to the current fundamentalists you'd think they were all Christians. Ironically the founding fathers wanted separation of church and state because they knew the fundamentalist-type all too well but now the fundamentalist propaganda machines are trying to rewrite history. David D. (Talk) 16:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Someplace on the web last year I found a careful evaluation of all the founders of the US and their religious views, along with quotes. It was very eye-opening! Christian nation, my ass !!--Filll 03:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter Cusack

Is up and open for visitors.--Filll 03:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

StuRat 2 RfC

Hi David.

Yes, you can endorse the RfC. You have made a bona fide effort to resolve the dispute, by asking (prior to the RfC) StuRat to stop using labels for his opponents. For the sake of avoiding confusion, I would recommend that you not edit the header section (a wikilawyer might be tempted to start an argument over whether the other endorsements were valid after you edited the section, etc.) but continue to add any points you believe are important to your own statement.

I'm trying to keep this RfC narrow and focused, to avoid the ugly free-for-all mudslinging that tainted the last one. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Foran

David D., I'm confused by your post. What is this "Princton" you speak of that has these "unnotable" "utlity" players playing "quarter back" and "attacking positions" Kind regards, Rpritchie 15:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe it's just me, but I find no record of this "Princton" you speak of, nor do I see either "unnotable" or "utlity" in my dictionary or find any reference to "quarter back"s or "attacking positions" in my Joe Theismann Football for Dummies book. Can you clear this up? Rpritchie 15:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hilarious! You see what you did there? You took what I was mocking you for and you charicatured it. Creative and witty. You crack me David D. you really do. Rpritchie

This month's MCB Collaboration of the Month article is Peripheral membrane protein!

– ClockworkSoul 18:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Edit

Nice catch on the POV See Also list on Answers in Genesis . Another editor tried the same thing at Probe Ministries Prometheus 06:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Struct

Hi. I noticed you've been reverting edits by this guy. So have I. Although I agree with some of his edits, they make some of the Creationist articles highly POV against creationism. I can't even believe I'm saying that. Let me drink first. Anyways, I'm not an administrator, nor do I play one on Misplaced Pages, so maybe he needs a time out someplace. He's running rampant through various articles. Orangemarlin 18:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd help if I could but I'm not an admin. Sorry I'm in the same boat, can't believe I did all those reverts but they will never pass through and just be fodder for the persecution complexes we come across so often. David D. (Talk) 18:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

For some reason I thought you were an admin because you edit so much, and were chasing down this Struct guy as much as I was. Hope I didn't insult you. LOL. Orangemarlin 18:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, definitely an insult Template:Smi David D. (Talk) 20:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI

FYI, my response to Ilena's continued personal atacks all over the place (as well as my offer to her) can be found here. -- Fyslee 11:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Regarding the article Ash, Surrey - you have edited, have you got any green idea about the origin of the name Ash? Eliko 00:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, i has no idea. David D. (Talk) 05:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You have been named in an RfArb

I hate to do this, but you have also been involved in the controversies with Ilena and myself, so you are being named in an (IMO premature) RfArb here. Please add your comments. -- Fyslee 10:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Hi,

No, you did not answer my questions. (But you did give your unsolicited opinions on questions that were not asked.:-) I have deleted your response because I am waiting for J.Smith's response, and I want to keep the conversation clear for future reference. Thanks,-Cindery 00:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well you might find some of it useful nevertheless. David D. (Talk) 00:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I was already part of an RfC in which someone was accused of admin misconduct for closing AfDs against consenus, so I get all that about it--I had a specific question about using the term vote, because I understand AfDs are contentious, and didn't want to inadvertantly offend anyone. If I have any questions for you, I'll ask you. Thanks,-Cindery 01:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, i was referring to the redirect info. David D. (Talk) 02:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you are a RfC veteran, at least i know your background now. David D. (Talk) 03:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Just one--and I didn't comment on any of the AfD stuff, since I don't pay any attention to AfD. (I'm not really interested in being involved there, but I would like to understand it better.) So, I do have a question for you--can you nominate something just for a merge? If you think an article should be merged, do you propose it only on the article talkpage? What if it's a completely new article--can you propose merge on AfD, or is the appropriate thing to do to only propose deletions on AfD ?-Cindery 06:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)