User talk:Supertheman/Archive

The creator of The Flying Spaghetti Monster

Thanks for the comment - but why on my talk page instead of the article talk page? I have moved it to here, and I'm thinking about how or whether to respond. Cheers! Snalwibma (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Inconvenient Truth

I see from your user page that you have two elementary aged boys. I also have three children about that age. I really fear our generation leaving them with a planet in much worse shape than we inherited. I'm curious about your thoughts on that subject. Please advise. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR warning

Hi Supertheman. This is to inform you about WP:3RR, the Wikipedia rule limiting repeated reverts on one article to at most 3 per 24-hour period. A revert is broadly defined as any change that at least partially undoes an edit of another editor (although an uninterrupted series of changes counts as one reversion only). By my count, you have had at least 3 reverts on An Inconvenient Truth. Please be aware that violators of WP:3RR are routinely blocked from editing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't violate the rule. I noted however that someone else *cough* did revert my edits (and or reverts) more than three times. Thanks. Supertheman (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out here, I know and understand WP:3RR, and I encourage you to carefully read the policy and to check out WP:ANI/3RR for the existing practice. I can assure you that your edits I referred to will be considered at least 3 reverts by the Wikipedia community and by the admins enforcing Wikipedia rules, and that my edits from April 27th will be considered just two reverts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Enough, Stephan. I am aware of the policy, and I stand by my actions. The page is now restored, as it will always be by the many, many editors that stand by anxiously to erase any contribution that they deem unworthy. Lets end this now, it is neither edifying nor constructive. Thank you. Supertheman (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design

• See Wikipedia:Cut_and_paste_move_repair_holding_pen#New_requests. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently are planning to do to Global Warming. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Please note that WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE forbid us from including "criticism" sections in mainstream theories that are not under actual dispute within the relevant academic community. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

@Supertheman, you can ignore this not-so-surprising comment for the most part. You have every right to add material to any article, global warming or not, if you feel that it will improve it and provided it is verifiable. Other editors might disagree with you and either delete or discuss your edits. WP:WEIGHT might come in play for any edit you will make in Wikipedia, whereas be aware that this is a policy that is sometimes, for good or for bad, subjectively applied to protect orthodoxies here and there. --Childhood's End (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Follow the advice of the above bad apple at your own peril. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Some people feel so powerful when behind their computer screen. They feel empowered to call names, issue threats and orders, and so on. All sorts of things they obviously cannot do otherwise. --Childhood's End (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, this is the second time you have threatened someone on my page, you can be assured that I will note this to an administrator.

Please answer me sir, how is it that you are erasing my every comment on my page, and have now involved other editors (I can only assume they are your friends) in the matter? Why is it you erase my comments on your page, yet you *continue* to comment on my page — in matters that don't concern you — over and over?

Stay off my talk page if you are going to erase my comments on yours, and involve others in our discussion. If you can remain civil, and keep this between you and I, then you are welcome to continue commenting on my page. Thank you. Supertheman (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from baiting and personal attacks.[1] Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made no "personal attacks" and I would appreciate you not accusing me of said. Thank you. Supertheman (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to ScienceApolgist's remarks on his talk page, I quote it here so that others can see the response to his remarks.

==Global Warming==

I would appreciate it if you would not carry out your personal war with scientists that refute the Global Warming premise on my talk page, this should be done on the global warming talk page. However, since you have decided to do this I feel it only fair play that I respond. However, in the future, debate over the global warming page needs to be done in the proper forum, and individual talk pages are not that forum. I would like to point out the many fallacies that you made in your comment on my talk page, but first we need to come to a consensus on our terminology.

When you speak of "global warming" there must be a definition of terms. An example might be, evolution. There are many facets of evolution that one can believe in, survival of the fittest, natural selection, mutation and so on. One might believe in some aspects of evolution, but not all. Likewise, a person might believe that the planet is indeed warming, but not believe that man is of *any* cause of such a trend. Also, one might believe that man is augmenting the warming of the planet, contributing one might say, but not the overall, underlying cause of such a shift. Also, there is great disagreement withing the "relevant academic community" concerning the *totality* of impact that global warming will have in the near and distant future. So, when you speak of global warming, I think it necessary that you explain just what kind of global warming you believe in (if any at all). On to your fallacies, you wrote...

"Please note that WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE forbid us from including "criticism" sections in mainstream theories that are not under actual dispute within the relevant academic community."

You committed eight fallacies here, let me explain...

1. Appeal to Popularity - The popularity of a belief in something does not a fact make. For example, at one time in the history of the world most people thought that the earth was flat, the popularity of this belief did not make it so.

2. Begging the Question - When you state that "relevant academic community" doesn't dispute the theory of global warming, and then use this "relevant academic community" to bolster your claims, you make the mistake of Begging the Question. It is a cyclical argument that doesn't lead to the truth, but simply restates an untruth as being accurate because your "relevant academic community" says it's so. This leads to the third fallacy you made.

3. Biased Sample - You have taken a sample of scientists that believe in global warming and prejudiced your findings from this biased sample. There are *many* qualified scientists that do not subscribe to the entire tenets of global warming that are presented on the Wiki page, and that is simply a travesty of truth. In point of fact, it is among the most blatant sophistry that exists on Wikipedia.

4. Post Hoc - You are assuming that since man's pollution came before this current warming trend that he is the cause of such a trend. Many warming periods have come before man every started polluting the atmosphere, therefore you cannot simply assume that because man polluted before this trend he is the cause of the trend. This also leads to the fallacy of Hasty Generalization - You are making a generalization about the entire "academic community" by only sourcing your "relevant" members and applying it the entire community. This also leads to the fallacy of Questionable Cause.

5. Confusing Cause and Effect - You are assuming that global warming is caused solely by man, therefore you are confusing cause and effect. In the past 15,000 years there have been "10 large swings, [of global warming] including the medieval warm period. These shifts were up to '20 times greater than the warming in the past century'".

6. Poisoning the Well - You are dismissing qualified data, and qualified scientists by dismissing these in your "relevant academic community", this is called Poisoning the Well. There are *many* "relevant" academics that do not subscribe to all (or any) of the tenets of global warming theory, these individuals are just as relevant and qualified to refute global warming as your group.

7. Slippery Slope - Assuming that just because we have a small, current warming trend does not mean we well continue to warm, leading to some of the absurd, dire circumstances that are listed on the Global Warming page.

And finally...

8. Ad Hominem - You have called the scientists that believe in a man-made global warming trend the "relevant academic community" and therefore are calling the scientists (or the academic community) that does not subscribe to all the tenets of a man-made global warming trend "irrelevant". This is not only arrogant, it is completely false. I have quoted on the Global Warming page (before it was erased) several qualified and "relevant" academic sources that directly refute some (or all) of the tenets of a man-made global warming trend, therefore you cannot (accurately) say that there are no "relevant academic" sources that disagree with said trend.

Besides all the fallacies I have mentioned, you are also guilty of incorrectly quoting the guidelines of Wikipedia, criticism sections are not "forbidden" by Wikipedia, they are "discouraged". Taking the word "discouraged" and turning it into "forbidden" is either an error on your part, or deliberate, only you can know which.

I hope this helps.Supertheman (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, was your comment directed to me, or Childhoodsend?

Continued advocacy of pseudoscience

Your strident reaction to being called out for promoting fringe beliefs, your continued insistence of promoting pseudoscience, and the attempts you are making to incorporate the pseudoscientific perspective as fact into Wikipedia in defiance of WP:NPOV have been noted. Your activities in this regard will be monitored from now on and any attempt to impose a pseudoscientific perspective into mainstream articles will be immediately removed. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a threat, threats are in violation of Wiki policy. I have no recourse other than to report this activity. Supertheman (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a WP:THREAT. I am simply informing you that you are now being monitored for your advocacy of pseudoscience as fact in defiance of WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia has very stringent guidelines for how to handle editors who behave in the fashion you are behaving. I am pointing out this to you. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't need you to inform me of the rules, sir, I am very well aware of them and I am not breaking any of those rules. Don't presume to lecture me on my behavior, for it is you who is making the threats. You may "monitor" me all you wish, but this won't stop me from contributing. If you are threatening to erase my every edit, I will report your for this activity.

My contributions are referenced by reputable citations and scientists. It is not your providence to warn me about anything, please take your threats and your continued harassment *elsewhere*. Thank you. Supertheman (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Restoring removed comments

Hello. If an editor removes one of your posts from his/her talk page, please don't restore it. Editors generally have the right to remove comments from their own talk pages, so long as they're not selectively cutting the comment to change its meaning or context. If another user removes one of your posts from their talk page, you can consider that it's been read and that they decline to respond there. More information is at Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. MastCell ^Talk 22:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote on your talk page, I have not restored any comments on anyone's talk page. Could you please explain why you have said I did? I would appreciate where you got this information. Thanks. Supertheman (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[2], [3], [4]. Please look carefully at the 3-revert rule. While it applies across most parts of Wikipedia, it is particularly inappropriate to keep re-posting to an editor's talk page when they are actively removing your posts. Doing so will only inflame this dispute further, and potentially get you blocked if you continue. I would suggest looking at dispute resolution and either disengaging or refocusing on content issues and getting outside opinions if necessary. MastCell ^Talk 22:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, how did you get involved in this? I'm sorry, but this is an discussion between another editor and myself, how is it that you have now entered the fray? Secondly, you first accused me of reverting comments on someone's talk page, would you please address this accusation? Thirdly, the editor in question *continues* to make comments on *my* talk page. I have nothing to do with what he does on his talk page, erasing comments and so forth, but I will continue to respond to him — on his talk page — if you continues to contribute to mine.

Also, I am well aware of the policy on 3RR. How is it that you are now embroiled in *this* discussion?

Please explain how it is that you are now involved in this. Thank you. Supertheman (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep this in one place. I've responded on my talk page; you can leave further messages along this line there. MastCell ^Talk 22:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Warning regarding the advocacy of lies

Hello.

Your continued advocacy regarding the lies perpetrated by various pseudoscientists regarding the "nonexistence of global warming" is subject to the rules of WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP: V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. Know that your continued attempts to insert content that supposedly "disputes" global warming is subject to these rules and will be resisted by those who follow Wikipedia procedures. Such advocacy is tantamount to insertion of lies in Wikipedia and will be reverted on sight.

Best,

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

OH HUSH! You've already said this. You've gotten all your friend to jump into this (yawn) and erased my comments from your page.

Go AWAY, you bore me. Supertheman (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I note you have warnings by admins as to your civility on your talk page, as well as some "arbitration restriction". It seems you're already in hot water, it seems wise to desist this behavior, particularly on my page. As your comments are neither constructive or useful, I'll be erasing them tomorrow. However, I leave them here now so that others can see your incivility. Supertheman (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied

I'll just keep it on my talk page. I get lost going back and forth. Responded here [5] --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Apart from any different opinions about content we may have, can you please stop discussing each and every edit dispute on both the relevant talk page and on the other person's talk page? This leads to inefficient discussion and a waste of other people's time. It disrupts the normal editing and discussion process. Thanks. As a concrete example, I have this page on my watchlist. If you want to answer, please do so here. There is no need to have this discussion in two places. Thanks again. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what it is you are talking about. Can you please reference me to what it is your saying? Supertheman (talk) 08:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This and that, or this and that, for example. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are all reversions. I'm simply following etiquette that states if you revert, you should note the revert on the person's talk page. I spoke of the issue on the article talk page, and noted the reversion on the person's talk page. Wiki etiquette. Supertheman (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding criticism sections

I have User:Kratanuva66's talk page watched because I commented on it. Because I have it watched, I noticed both your suggestion to work on a criticism section and Kratanuva66's creation of a sandbox to work on a criticism section.

Because you said on his talk page "This article is one of the only pages that doesn't have a criticism section and it is sorely lacking in that regard." I figured it might be helpful to direct you towards some of the opinions and ideas about criticism sections. Generally, they are discouraged. Below is the text that I posted on Kratanuva66's talk page, in case you aren't reading it. I see you're quite familiar already with the neutral point of view policy, but I figured I could just leave my post intact, and hope you forgave me for explaining something on your talkpage you already know.  :-)

Wikipedia tries to avoid bias and instead write with a "neutral point of view" (NPOV). The policy on avoiding bias is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. One of the ways to avoid bias is to avoid partitioning different points of view into different articles or sections. This part of the policy is described in this subsection of that policy page. Of course, global warming is a big topic, so the top-level article just has summaries of the details of the subject, which are covered in different articles, which fits with the summary style guidelines.

In other words, "criticism" sections are actually a bad thing. Global warming avoids having a criticism section not to avoid criticism, but to avoid pigeon-holing criticism into one section. The way the article, and the set of articles about global warming, is organized is to separate the science from the policy, so the page on the scientific evaluations about global warming is different from the page on social and political debate (linked above). It probably isn't constructive to try to bring back a criticism section in a article that's well organized without one. - Enuja (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, that I dislike the use of a criticism section, however any comments made to criticize the *science* within the article is summarily erased. Therefore there is only one recourse, and that is to create a criticism section (like the one that is on the An Inconvenient Truth page. I certainly would *love* to meld scientific criticism into the page, but all efforts to do so are thwarted. The article — as it stands now — is decidedly NPOV and biased to the nth degree.

I very much appreciate your comments and your kind tone. Frankly over the course of the past few days I have become increasingly disturbed by the actions of some editors here. One of the greatest travesties is that there is a Global Warming Controversy page, but my suggestions to have a Intelligent Design controversy page is met with abject anger and dismissal on the talk page.

I'd like to discuss some of these issues with you privately, I'm putting my email addy on my Wiki page now, and you can respond to me there. I would appreciate it. Supertheman (talk) 02:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want to discuss confidentially about the global warming article, but I've also got the email this user thing enabled, so go ahead and email me if you'd like. I accidentally unwatched global warming the other day, so I missed all of the relevant discussion on the talk page; I only noticed after I left messages on your and Kratanuva66's talk pages. Sorry I was repeating much of what had been said on the talk page.

I, too, think that many regular editors on the global warming article are far too rude to people who they disagree with. Unfortunately, that article gets a lot of really counter-productive editing, so I guess it can be hard to stay nice. I honestly think being nice is easier than being mean, but, whatever.

You should know that I think that the global warming article is really quite a good article that deserves its featured status. I agree with User:Raymond Arritt's statement on the global warming talk page that things like the solar variation theory have at least as much weight as they should have. You might also notice that, on my talk page, I say I'm a graduate student in comparative physiology. That means I'm actually a student in a department of ecology and evolutionary biology. I almost did a global-warming related dissertation, even. I decided not to (because while there is expertise in working with the effects of global warming on plants in my department, there is no expertise in working with animal ecology at all), but I certainly think that there are amazing questions about biological responses to ecological change of all kinds, including land use change (look out the window when in a airplane to see why) and climate change.

Personally I'm not convinced that there should be a global warming controversy page or an evolutionary biology controversy page. There are pages on Intelligent design, creationism, evidence of common descent, and bunches of other related topics, so I think religious opposition to evolution is quite well covered here. - Enuja (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

My mention of email was to speak more about the state of Wikipedia rather than discuss ID (a subject I am growing quite bored of).

I find it interesting that you disapprove of a controversy page on global warming when one already exists. I couldn't agree more, maybe you misunderstood me, I want to meld the global warming controversy page INTO the article.

A contributor of character - Stephan Shulz

An editor, Stephan Schulz (talk) - a person I was in the middle of a heated argument with — cleaned up the mess that I created in archiving my page (I put this notice on his page too, as a thank you).

This is an excellent example of how contributors can control their emotions and remain civil and friendly in the midst of (sometimes) emotional circumstances - a lesson I take to heart as well. I just wanted to publicly thanks Stephan for showing his excellent character in helping me out when it would have been easy for him to ignore the situation. Instead he took the time to clean up my mess in a kind and friendly manner. Kudos to a good man. Thank you, Stephan. :-)

Global warming

I will do it.

Give me all the scources you have, and I will put them with mine and get to work on the article.

We will need to do some convincing on the talk page of global warming, or it will be deleted again.

Kratanuva66 (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll do what I can to help. Mentalhead (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This will be a waste of your efforts. Stick to editing intelligent design or creationism :) Count Iblis (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Who knows, they may come up with something useful. Let's wait and see. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Iblis, Wiki is a forum in which all persons can contribute, therefore nothing is a "waste of [our] efforts". However, I do appreciate your concern.Supertheman (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

go to my user page and click on "sandbox" to work on the article. Kratanuva66 (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Supertheman! Just a technical note: You have created your archive at User talk:Supertheman:Archive. That is not technically in your user talk space (but in that of a hypothetical User:Supertheman:Archive. You may want to move it to User talk:Supertheman/Archive (note the : -> / replacement). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha, thank you my friend. Whew, that one's got me vaclempt. So I just do the move, and label it User talk:Supertheman/Archive? Sorry for my ignorance, I am *very* tired and just don't have the time or energy to figure this one out. Thanks for reaching out, you can't know how much I appreciate that. Supertheman (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I also have a fear that then the new archive won't have a redirect back to this talk page, but rather to the incorrect move page. Thoughts? Supertheman (talk) 11:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I made the move and adaptions. As far as I can tell, everything should be ok now, including all the forward and backward links. Good night (assuming it is night in your part of the world now). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, thank you my friend! You took time out of your day to do that? Wow, I really appreciate that. Whew, I'm clueless, huh? Oh gosh, nighttime? LOL! I was up *all night* preparing some techical papers for a city code meeting on stair proposals and (stupidly) getting caught up in the whole global warming debacle (won't do that again, I can tell you). Again, thanks, that was nice! Supertheman (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [6] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Helping out

I'm in. I don't have much time, but when I can, I'll help. I'm afraid I'm not a very good editor, but I think that we can do something to fix the article. We just have to source it so no one can remove what we add for random reasons. I think that we might have some trouble with it (disputes and edit wars), but I'll try my best to help out. What do you need me to do? - ђαίгснгм ^таιќ 03:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Louis Hissink

Since I've archived that old bit of my talk page now, let me answer here. Read [7]. In this case, "being nuts" should be read as "being oblivious to the most basic scientific (and historic) facts". It does not get much simpler than the conservation laws, and the change from Julian to Gregorian calendars is very well understood and not at all related to some spherical acrobatics of the Earth. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... so now you arbitrarily assign a diagnosis of "just plain nuts" to a scientist that has some rather curious conclusions about the intention of the switch to the Gregorian calender. And here I thought we based those kinds of diagnoses on guidelines in the DSM-III R. I've never seen a better example of an ad hominem attack in my life. Thanks, at least for that. Supertheman ^(talk) 23:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you miss the part about wiggling the Earth axis around? Or the sun changing direction in ancient Egypt? Here goes all of Physics 101..."limited to Newtonian mechanics" indeed. I don't know if you are aware of it, but the difference between Julian and Gregorian calendars is simply due to the fact that Julius Caesar assumed a year that is slightly to long for his calendar. By Gregor's time, the difference had accumulated. He found a more exact approximation and reset the calendar to match the seasons. Nothing wiggly there...in fact, the change confirms that days and years have remained very stable over the last 2000 years. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't miss anything, I read the whole thing, including Hissink's responses. I still don't understand how this relegates the man to "just plain nuts". I'm not sure about you, but I've said a few things in my life I regret. A few stupid things that ended up coming back to haunt me. As of 2008, I still haven't been institutionalized, much to the chagrin of certain folks I've debated with over the years. Try being on the unpopular side of something once, or being the only person in a room holding a certain position. Sometimes in my life I feel I'm surrounded by atheists and I forget that the grand majority of the world's peoples believe in God. It's just that my sample is very, very skewed. Being under continual attack — in that skewed sample — can sometimes lead to what I call "survival behaviors" if you're not careful. I teach classes on apologetics and classes to "seekers" on Christianity. I had to learn *long* ago how to control those behaviors, and how to keep balance and sanity when I'm drained. Perhaps Hissink needs to learn a few of these control mechanisms himself, but I don't think he's ready for the rubber room, yet... despites the vociferous opinion of his acerbic detractors. Supertheman ^(talk) 06:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi - I went ahead and put up the revised userpage that you worked on for me. Word is that it displays well in Safari and Firefox. Thanks again for working on it - I appreciate it. MastCell ^Talk 20:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That's super! I'll stop by and look at it. You're very welcome. Supertheman ^(talk) 06:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Boxofficemojo

Boxofficemojo rankings only deal with films of that type since the start of the site... in the 1980s. It cannot be used for sweeping statements about rankings for all time.We have to respect the source's limits. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If we specified "12 highest ranking documentary since 1982", you might have a point. We aren't. We are making an unqualified statement. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a moot point now, as I've qualified this in the article now. Go on over to the An Inconvenient Truth article and make this case, Shoemaker. Also, the information concerning "adjusted for inflation" is absurd. This info is stated on Box Office Mojo, and elsewhere in the Expelled article, those qualifiers do not need to be in the opening, summary paragraph. Supertheman ^(talk) 04:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Fats Waller article

My mistake on the wikify, but I will continue to edit articles about subjects that I am not an expert in. As you noted, mine was not the vandalism, and only lent a sliver of credibility to what was added (because it went one edit further). My copyedits over various articles is neutral, does not add or change the overall facts of the articles, and I will continue to without necessarily poring over an articles edit history. I appreciate your welcome, but you may note that I've been here a while by revewing my edit history. Davewho2 (talk)15:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)