User talk:Davidwr/Archives/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

References at Republic of Texas

Hi David, I think we should use inline citations at Republic of Texas, using the ref tags. It makes it easier to see what sources say what --AW 18:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Credentials debate

I've replied to your posting at Wikipedia_talk:Credentials are useless#I hold a Ph.D..2C you should read my c.v.. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 09:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Davidwr

Thank you, Davidwr. I see you are relatively new here. In that case, I thank you for discussing the matter we have been in such a calm, cool, logical manner. It is much appreciated. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 23:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

On a "Further reading" section in the Tuskegee Airmen

Daidwr, my concern over even having a "further reading section at all" is that if the article is based on research, the relevant sources should already have been part of the references. As an academic librarian, I find that there has been a confusing departure in bibliographic referencing protocols in the entire Wikipedia format.

If you are citing reference sources, these are normally listed as a footnote or endnote. Since there is no provision for footnoting, then the endnote is the only option. Yet the Wikipedia guidelines do not refer to an endnote, rather editors have incorporated a "notes" section after the main body of text. Then on top of the notes section is another section called "references" which would normally be called a "bibliography" in research and academic writing which Wikipedia strives to emulate. There is a provision for separate notes and references but most Wikipedia editors follow a format that combines the two lists, which is fine since the notes and referenced sources can be seen in relation to each other in a "tight" format.

Now on top of all of this is the "Further reading" (or viewing, or listening, etc.) section which allows editors to provide a completely new listing of sources. First, when there is no provision for individual research or "first-hand" commentary, why is there a listing of personal favourites or "any books, articles, web pages, et cetera that you recommend as further reading, useful background, or sources of further information to readers?" If these sources were so important, why were they not used for research in the first place?

Then to cap off the whole "sloppy mess" is the over-arching guidelines that state: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of encyclopedias, striving for accuracy with "no original research." Wikipedia has a "neutral point of view," advocating no single point of view, presenting each point of view accurately and providing context, citing verifiable, authoritative sources.

• Wikipedia is free content anyone may edit and no individual controls any specific article.
• Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general "pillars."
• Wikipedia has an established code of conduct and respect.

That Davidwr, is why I usually do not have a "Further reading" section in my edits. It is confusing enough to have a "references" page, why introduce more references? Now don't get me started on the mess over using an APA bibliographic style guide over the usual MLA guide and then those %4#2*& "templates." That sums up my concerns over the bibliographical sourcing that is recommended by Wikipedia. IMHO Bzuk 12:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks. I did some digging and found Wikipedia:Citing_sources which proved very helpful. Davidwr 12:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

How did you find article?

How did you find my newly created article on the Astronaut Hall of Fame? I was surprised that nobody wrote such an article. I was also surprised on how you found it. Is there a list of new articles? I'm a new user so I don't know all the ins and outs.Feddhicks 21:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I am adding the new inductees to the new category I'm creating. I wanted to tie it in with the existing page. Davidwr 21:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

AACS encryption key controversy

about your edits to AACS encryption key controversy. 1: isn't this information in the article already ? 2: Does it really need to be called "in popular culture" ???? --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Followup on Talk:AACS encryption key controversy#New_section: Impact on popular culture Davidwr 16:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Disambig revert

No problem.  :) It was an accident, actually- meant to revert something else but my laptop pointer slipped. Diagonalfish 20:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Discussion of 09f9 controversy, starting May 6, 2007

Image:Presa de decissions.png

It is an empty description page that was mistakenly created for a Commons-hosted image. The actual image won't be deleted. --Strangerer (Talk) 05:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my misunderstanding. davidwr ^09f9 05:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: John Glenn — I believe you are mistaken

I believe you are citing the wrong editor in your note on my talk page and on the John Glenn talk page. The edit that I made is here — where I reverted vandalism (calling John Glenn "Can't Read"). The edit following mine [2], by 71.244.140.70, where it was changed to "magnetic ***" in the body of the article is probably the one you are referring to. Your subsequent reversion was back to mine.

I would appeciate it if you would correct this error (attributing the reversion to me) both on the John Glenn talk page and on my talk page.

— ERcheck (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. You have my sincerest apologies. davidwr ^09f9 03:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making the correction. On another note, I noticed that your colorful signature does not contain an internal link to your user page nor your user talk page. (See WP:Signature#Internal_links). In the standard signature, rendered by ~~~~ , a link to one's userpage is added. This is helpful if an editor wants to respond to you. When I wanted to respond to your message on my talk page, it required that I go to my page history to link back to you. It would be helpful if you would add such to your signature. It wouldn't prevent a colorful signature. Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 04:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. davidwr ^09f9(talk) 04:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Astronaut Hall of Fame help. It's nice to know that I'm not the only one looking at it!Feddhicks 00:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss the Supreme Court stub concept on its talk page

If you are discussing my bot proposal of May 19, please discuss it on its talk page, User_talk:Davidwr/sandbox_SupremeCourt. davidwr ^09f9(talk) 20:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Spam

Given the anon user's string of contributions adding the same external link to multiple articles, I considered the addition of the link to be spam. If, after examining the information contained at the website, you find it would be a useful, unique resource, feel free to add it back to the SCOTUS project's page. · jersyko talk 00:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I missed the fact that it was a pay site. That plus anonymity/lack of accountability plus mass seeding = spam even if it is useful. davidwr ^09f9(talk) 00:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

SHA-1

User:Hairchrm/sha1 - Hairchrm 02:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Can you keep an eye on Dixie High School (Utah)?

Dixie High School (Utah) has been the subject of a lot of vandalism and "juvenile" edits lately. It would be great if an actual student watched the page and reverted the vandalism. davidwr 09f9(talk) 03:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aporras22"

--Aporras22 22:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC) I am a current student at Dixie High I have put this page on my watchlist and I have frequently been fixing the vandalism that has been going on. I try to go on about once every one to two weeks to make sure nothing has been vandalized but ever since I've started watching it nothing has seemed to change.

Thanks for the TexShare thanks!

Hello David. Thanks for your interest in the TexShare library consortium and for your initial stem article. We appreciate it. By the way, are you the author of the Catalogablog site? The blog is quite popular among librarians. Mikea2 15:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• You are welcome. No, I am not the author of that site. davidwr (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Canadian2004PoppyQuarter.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Canadian2004PoppyQuarter.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have tried and failed to find a clearly-free-use image of the poppy quarter. If you or anyone else finds one please replace my image. davidwr (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Mooted, another image is available on the commons.

Young Junior High School link

Even though it has no incoming links, I think it's plausible that someone might type this in looking for this school. If you feel strongly about it, list the redirect at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Thanks, NawlinWiki 04:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. There are several Young Junior High schools in the USA, so the odds are in fact that it would cause harm in that respect. However, it is over a year old and might break external links. davidwr (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Bahia

Thank you, I have corrected it yet! Opinoso 04:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Prodding Paul Davidoff

Nope, no objections. As I recall the anon requester, back when Wikipedia:Articles for creation was new, promised to expand the article once it was created, but obviously didn't. I don't know anything more about it than what's there; good luck on your research, but if you don't think it belongs here, so be it. Thank you very much for the polite note, however; a little thoughtfulness goes a long way.  :) — Catherine\^talk 05:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sub-Saharan Africa

Discussion about Sub-Saharan Africa, starting 16 July 2007

initial comments by Henriettaz, around 11:02 16 July 2007 The source that is used to rewrite Black Africa's history, is original. The editors use this original source to redefine the term sub-saharan. In the current version, it is defined as solely a geographic label, which is inaccurate. Sub-saharan Africa is not only geographic, as the Sahara is not inhabited and uninhabitable, but also, and most importantly, racial, cultural and historical. The fact that the editors repeatedly deleted the addition of an anti-afrocentric critique is significant. Why wikipedia has not yet noticed the "novelty" of this interpretation is shocking, and possibly also due to the fact that this same original source is used in all related articles, which redirect to it and vice versa. According to wikipedia, original research is : "a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a POSITION — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "NOVEL narrative or historical interpretation." The article attempts to efface sub-saharan africa's sub-saharaness. It also arrogantly claims that the tern is now "obsolete" and considered pejorative. This is untrue. The term is not obsolete, in fact, it is used by the whole world and all of academia. It is, furthermore, not considered pejorative, except by this "band" of eccentrics, who equate blacksness with inferiority. The article attempts to blur definitions, and makes absurd claims such as,"Africa as a whole was commonly known as "the Dark continent", a term that was usually intended to refer to the Sub-Saharan region. This was partly due to the skin color of its inhabitants." Africa was not commonly known as the dark continent. Sub-saharan Africa, or Black Africa, was known as the dark continent. In fact, North Africa is known as L'afrique Blanche in French, which means White Africa, as the region is largely francophone, and the country that is most familiar with the region is France. It goes on to state that "Further, they are misleading, as dark-skinned Africans are indigenous to much of North Africa, as well." this, again, is inaccurate. Indigenous North Africans are in fact of Eurasian stock, and though Mediterranean peoples and Arabs are known to be tanned or, funnily enough "mediterranean" as in olive-toned, they are clearly quite distinguishable from Sub-saharan or Black Africans. The confusion arises from the inaccurate inclusion of Sudan and Mauritania (not ancient mauritanius) to North Africa, again on wikipedia, two sub-saharan countries. In fact, the very name Sudanese is an Arabic one meaning the black people in Arabic. Arabs themselves named the people of this region, though the distinction was in no way pejorative. Wikipedians keep using UN maps that were devised for "statistical purposes" by the UN to substantiate their inaccuracies. Sadly, hitherto, these wikipedians (and they are always the same when it comes to this region) have overlooked the UN's own caveat that these maps were devised solely for "statistical purposes for carrying our statistical analysis" and should therefore not be used in the study of non-statistical research, as the UN itself warns, "It does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations." Yet, these maps are being used to define and redraw maps. [note: above unsigned comment made on or about 11:02, 16 July 2007 User:Henriettaz (User_talk:Henriettaz| contribs)] Addendum: I should also mention that I couldn't care less anymore. I have tried to edit these articles for the past 3 weeks, was inflamed, harrassed, provoked, angered. As a newbie, I reacted rather stupidly and naively as I had no idea as to how one is expected to behave. Now, of course, I know about all the rules etc. However, my experience has been that content matters very little, and that articles are veritably hijacked, owned etc. by certain people. After reading the nonsense about North Africa and the Arab world, I simply do not believe that this project makes much sense. The rules are simply strange and sources are ignored. My problem with the sub-saharan article is not at all complex yet no one wants to look into the sources. I simply do not care, but I think it is unfair that certain people impose their "opinions" on the world through the manipulation of the system. So, I'm not at all vested in this, I just thought I'd point out the obvious, though if you are like the others, you will probably OVERLOOK the main problem: content/flimsy, bizarre source. [note: above unsigned comment made on or about 11:22, 16 July 2007 User:Henriettaz (User_talk:Henriettaz| contribs)] More comments by various editors between 12:51 and 17:37 16 July 2007 Davidwr, could you please take a look at these: User:Mariam83_blocked_indefinitely, Harassment and more disruptions from socks of User:Mariam83, WP:ANI#New_sock_of_User:Mariam83_blocked_indefinitely and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mariam83. Henriettaz is yet another sock of an abusive, disruptive and blocked user. --Ezeu 12:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC) [the above was edited significantly on 17:37, 16 July 2007 Ezeu (Talk | contribs), after many of the replies below.] Davidwr, please review a history of Ezeu's contributions before judging the user Mariam83. A good place to start would be the dispute itself and how it started initially. Ezeu, as an admin, did not behave as an admin at first, and sided with the user Halaqah, who used a sockpuppet "Rastarule" during the dispute, to gang up, with Ezeu, against Mariam83. User Halaqah has a dictatorial grip over many articles with the aid of administrators like Ezeu. User Halaqa was reported by another administrator [3] for his questionable conduct during the dispute. I wonder WHY ANOTHER administrator noticed this behavior and not the one that sided with him, Ezeu, who behaved like an editor rather than an administrator the entire time. A perfect example of Ezeu's siding is evident if one carefully reads the archive. Under the section titled "removed POV ranting", he very clearly sides with Halaqah and his sockpuppet Rastarule, and engages in inflamming. He also neglects to focus on the source, which is what began the dispute in the first place. Ezeu has removed many tags, that should not have been removed, simply our of vengeance. I repeatedly asked all involved not to personalize the topics, but they did so rather maliciously, with the hope of overshadowing the main problem: content, source. Again, I do not really care anymore because clearly this project is flawed, sadly because of users who abuse its editing system to replace facts with propaganda. Ezeu is once again, attempting to detract from the main problem: content, by focusing on witiquette, which he himself lacks. He has been protecting pages, reverting blindly etc., and behaving more like a vindictive editor than an administrator, which is why I was shocked to learn that he was one. The removal of tags is unacceptable, and the pretension that they are not deserved is absurd. [unsigned comment made 14:11, 16 July 2007 Henriettaz (Talk | contribs)] The manipulation of language is malicious. Ezeu again displays his manipulative ways, which is what caused all this noise in the first place. Note that he tries to detract from the main issue, and interjects with sockpuppet evidence (much of it untrue) in an attempt to discredit a user. If the archives are perused, it will quickly surface that Mariam83 was intially not a disruptor and not abusive, but merely amended some grossly inaccurate articles. It is in fact abusive for the writers of this propaganda to impose their lies on the public. Initially, you engaged in the brouhaha, and even corroborated Halaqah's distortion. Again, I couldn't care less about what happens here anymore as it is clearly a circus, and wikipedia is obviously not an "encyclopedia" that "anyone" can edit. It is, in fact, controlled by a cadre of editors/administrators who manipulate the system to institutionalize falsities and to monopolize knowledge. All I initially tried to do was correct LIES. The war that ensued, which Ezeu & co. (with years of experience, admin tools& familiarity with the system) waged, is not only corrupt and SAD, but completely inimical to the yielding of anything even remotely balanced or truthful. [unsigned comment made 14:35, 16 July 2007 Henriettaz (Talk | contribs)] Another very active corrupt administrator is FayssalF. He is working very hard to help established POV gangs maintain control over their articles. His favorite editors are Collounsbury, Bouha/Drmaik, and anyone who agrees with them: [[4]]are Cohexer and 66.141.23.186. Could you revert and semi-ptotect the pages (Tunisia, Africa Province among others? Thanks Bouha 13:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC) the following 4 paragraphs is one long edit -(Same link as above) Thanks for the protect Fun stuff those odd little attacks. collounsbury 12:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC). -Faysal Mate Can you help out on the Maghrebine pages and this bizarre edit war set off by Mariam83? As I noted in comments, I don't even necessarily disagree with some (even a good many) of her edits, but the wholesale vandalistic editing with refusal to discuss at all is bloody stunning. Also rather disturbing is the editing on the African connexion angle, mate, as well as her comments on pages re 3bid, quite racialistic. Best collounsbury 14:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC). I'll do my best asap. No worries. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC) ~Unfortunately, what FayssalF did was protect the page automatically, thus sparking off a battle of sorts. He admitted to NOT reading content or even argument, and hence, blindly obliged his "mate." He has now obliged Bouha, protected his articles, as though his FLAWED knowledge were final, as well as protected Maghreb, Berber, North Africa etc. Sadly, Collounsbury lied, as usual[[5]]. If anything, MAriam83 discussed things way too much, and repeatedly referenced claims with authoritative sources: britannica, oxford, UN, Columbia, Stanford, not some "fringe" work. [unsigned comment made 15:07, 16 July 2007 71.156.120.219 (Talk)] My reply of 00:17 17 July 2007 STOP all of you. I am not here to evaluate contributors. I'll evaluate contributions on their merits. Specifically, how much the contributions mesh with academic viewpoints and with generally accepted viewpoints on the subject matter. I will discuss this more on the article talk page. I may be fairly new at Wikipedia, but this isn't my first time walking into the middle of a dispute that's on the verge of degenerating into a chorus of "I'm right because my opponent is a loser." If anyone continues to disparage their opponent, if they are lucky I will ignore them. If they aren't, I'll count it against them. This issue is first and foremost a content dispute. For those of you who have engaged in block-eligible behavior whether or not you have ever been blocked or even warned - and you should know who you are - stop. For those of you who haven't yet done so, don't start. Editors banned or blocked from that page but who are allowed to post here: I will be asking a series of questions on the article talk page. Since you can't answer there, you may answer them on my user talk page if you like. The more concise and less opinionated your answer the more likely I'll give it weight. This does not apply to editors blocked or banned from my user talk page or from all of Wikipedia. Oh, one more thing: Please sign your posts, it saves me a lot of time. How hard is it to put ~~~~? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC). Updated davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar! I appreciate it. :) --GrooveDog (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Five-A Barnstar Template

Reply to [6]

I uploaded the higher-res version as requested. Good thinking! As a note, I'm perfectly fine with the license you chose - it's your right to choose whatever as long as it's compatible with the original. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 17:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm. That's funny. Ok, I'll keep an eye on that. Just so you know, I've got a higher resolution version of your AFC barnstar if you want it. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 18:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

AFC Drive Rewards

Hey there.

Just to keep in mind, we are NOT going to give out the awards until the drive ends. This will make it much easier for me to keep track of at the end. I noticed that you had "awarded" them to Hersfold and Counterpart0. Thanks for your help, but don't give out the awards quite yet. GrooveDog (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive News!

We are one week in to the drive, and it's already going fantastic. Numerous days of backlogs have been tackled, with hundreds of articles having been reviewed. We do, however, have some news!

First off, a HUGE congratulations to everyone participating so far. I understand some members are inactive due to vacation, but we are still making great progress.

Secondly, make sure that before you go off and review old submissions, that you review all submissions for the present day, and the day before, so that we aren't actually making a bigger backlog, by letting submissions get archived while we're checking stuff from 2006.

Third, remember to update your running total, on the drive page. Honesty is the best policy, so if you lie about the number of articles you've reviewed, we'll all make angry faces while looking at your userpage.

And, last, if you have any questions about the drive, feel free to ask me, or any other members of the project.

Great job, everyone! We're going to get that backlog!
GrooveDog.

Automatically delievered by HermesBot 08:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC) ^(Owner)

AFC Barnstar

Just noticed you're well over the 100 reviewed limit, so here is your barnstar. Many congratulations. Theone00 11:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

RE:AFC Backlog

Thanks for reminding me. I've actually made a few; I just forgot to update the count. Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie 15:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that! (about the 1,000 artical). Cheers for telling me. 08:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

most ancient common ancestor

Greetings,

I'm e-mailing you to let you know that I plan to try again with my article., Most ancient common ancestor. I realize that ideas such as the Earth is round often meet with popular resistance, but ultimately prove correct. It took Barbara McClintock some 30 years before experts realized that she was right. I find it grossly unfair that the article was deleted before I had a chance to comment on it. Perhaps more disturbing, however, is that those who voted for deletion did so after the article was gutted by Fred Hsu, who nominated it for deletion.

Let me say that there was also a misunderstanding. I realize that if we are talking intra-speciation, then our most ancient common ancestor might be a 'sponge.' But I was talking within-species. The idea is that, if humans evolved from multiple origins (as hypothesized in the multiregional hypothesis) and these later populations intermixed, then there would come a point in time when a first (or most ancient) common ancestor would emerge. Even if the idea is not totally right, to think that a single chimp-ancestor mutated into a 'human' in a single step is complete and utter bunk.Ryoung122 02:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Davidwr, before you reply, please see what Ryoung122 wrote on my talk page. I hope he fixed the screwed-up text blocks he left. Fred Hsu 03:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung122, I strongly recommend you find a related article and expand it. Be sure cite heavily and avoid anything that sounds like original research, or it's likely to be tagged {{fact}} then reverted. If you write a similar article with the same topic, you will likely lose any resulting AFD and find the name salted or the page replaced with a protected redirect to prevent recreation. If you want a deletion review, you can request one. Deletion reviews are typically granted if there is a procedural issue. If you were away from Wikipedia during most of the AFD period, that might qualify. If you emailed me, the mail has not yet arrived. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I am dumbfounded by what Ryoung122 is producing. I wish I could watch his 'contributions' page. Check out Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Content_review. I can't believe he quoted what I just wrote on my talk page as supporting evidence for his now-deleted article. I am speechless. Fred Hsu 03:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung122's contributions page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. I mean: put that contributions page in my watch list... Fred Hsu 12:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is the argument here...I was away and did not have a chance to explain or argue my position; therefore I am requesting a 'deletion review'...either a restoration or a re-vote.Ryoung122 02:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

most ancient common ancestor part 2

I have started MORE THAN 54 articles and so far, only ONE has been deleted. I suppose that willow oak was a much less controversial topic than human origins, however.

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

I'm glad to see that Fred Hsu is dumbfounded, because people like that think they know everything, just like Saul thought persecuting Christians was the right thing to do. Later, he changed his mind. Perhaps Mr. Hsu needs to read Paul Baltes's work on wisdom. Intelligence isn't everything; being open-minded and able to consider other points of view are important. That doesn't mean that we should corrupt things the way that Time Magazine sells out to religion at Christmas time. That does mean that we don't know as much about the human genome or evolution or speciation as we think we know. The Linnean system of nomenclature has recently strained as it became increasingly apparent that it is, at best, an artificial model which imperfectly fits the reality of biology. For a more real assessment, I suggest reading this:

http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/

Have a good day.Ryoung122 02:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Straw man, anyone? Fred Hsu 02:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

most ancient common ancestor part 3

This is not an archive. The discussion is active. This discussion is collapsed due to sheer length.