User talk:Graft

Hi, please help clean up the autonomic system page,I'm a little busy studying for midterms so I!@#$%&* (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC) can't help much but there are things that need to be changed. hopefully you can be proactive. thanks !@#$%&* (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Please take a look at the Islamophobia discussion. It may interest you and you may wish to comment. John Ball 22/07/04. 9:55.

THERE IS NO NEED TO SAY LIBERTARIAN SOCIALIST ON THE ANARCHIST PAGE EXCEPT TO SPECIFICALLY DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE TWO OR TO LINK TO LIBERTARIAN SOCIALIST.

There are a lot of changes you aren't even addressing. The original page is still about several different types of anarchism. Have you actually read my changes? Its not about more than several different types of anarchism. Apparently the objectionable thing I have done is replace most of the spots where it once said, "libertarian socialist" with "anarchist" afterall it IS the anarchist page, No?

Somebody said I added, 'Anarchists loathe capitalism'...IT WAS ALREADY THERE-Why are you people criticizing me for improving this document that they aren't even familiar with?

A lot would be accomplished if you would explain what is wrong with my changes? I have done nothing that I could see as being in the least bit controversial. All that has been said to me is that Im not allowed to change the anarchist page to being about anarchism rather than libertarian socialism.

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or drop me a line. BTW, some other biologists have been working together on WikiProject Tree of Life. The content on that page is a bit dated because we have switch to creating tables with taxonomic info. Examples: Sainfoin, Hominidae, Arthropod, and Monera (there are different colors for each kingdom. For more info visit Talk:Hominid. Cheers! --maveric149

---

thanks for catching my mistakes/sloppiness! Slrubenstein

---

No sir-you are being to quick to revert changes-my version of the anarchist page states quite clearly in the first few paragraphs that libretarian socialism is a synonym of anarchism and to make things clear it lists numerous other synonyms-however

And i do mean

However

The page is called anarchism

There is a difference between anarchism and libretarian socialism (although a slight one). There is a seperate page for libreatarian socialism.

My edits were not only clearing that issue up but discussing the geographic locations of anarchism, the historical contexts, spelling, and like edits

You need to take a little bit of time and discuss before deleting changes

---

Above was from Lir. I lowered the volume a bit, but I basically agree, Graft. Be a little nicer, okay? --Ed Poor

---

On second thought, with the chaos I saw on the anarchy page, I can understand your frustration. But reverts which don't satisfy others just lead to re-reverts, which lead to re-re-reverts, and then we would have total anarchy. The irony would be delicious, if we all weren't so frustrated! --Ed Poor

Might I suggest you read the page (the version I reverted) and then get back to me.

Sure, I'm what the Washington Post calls an "easily led" Christian. ;-) --Ed Poor

---

I put the reference you were asking for over on Talk:PNA, hope Scientific American is enough to at least provide a lead to a real paper. :) Bryan

---

Re: Kotoku Shusui
Thanks -- I plan to do a lot more on anarchists from Japan and Cuba, for a start. Writing it as a wikipedia article is a great way to learn. I hope to start articles on the anarchist movement in various countries, especially ones where its not so well known. -- Sam

---

I've heard that's good, but I've never seen it either. I actually kinda liked The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air when I was about ten or eleven. At least he didn't pretend to be serious or an artist or anything. Tokerboy 18:55 Nov 18, 2002 (UTC)

---

Re: fascism on Wikipedia. Having been involved in a couple of edit wars myself, I've seen how the free-wheeling openness of Wikipedia can degenerate into some bitter feuds. I've found that one way to deal with this is not to focus my time here solely on a few ultra-serious, controversial subjects. For me, it's a lot of fun to go around looking at more light-hearted topics that I like to write about (movies, music, comic books, etc.) and touching up on those entries, in between the occasional writing about more serious topics (the Holocaust revisionism stuff, for instance). It helps lighteen up my time here. -- Modemac

---

Graft, there has been some talk about making it impossible for non-logged-in users to flag large edits as "minor edits" -- in fact, not letting them use the "minor edit" flag at all. --Ed Poor

---

Hi, I sorta tried to answer one of your old comment on Talk:Biological cell. I may have entangled myself though :-) user:anthere

---

No problem about Dresden,Graft. I never though you were interested in anything but a more accurate article. The others really insulted me (rather than disputing with me in a generally civilzed manner), but I'm sure they are lining up to apologize right now. Tom Parmenter, aka Ortolan88

---

When you include negative info on Kissinger, please remember to do so in a neutral way. That is, do it so that the Wikipedia doesn't seem to be endorsing or opposing any view about Kissinger. Sure, I know you think he's the biggest war criminal and nogoodnik since Hitler (or maybe worse), but try not to come right and say that in the article.

Instead, say that X doesn't regard Henry as gifted, and Y called him a war criminal. --Ed Poor

---

Hi, thanks for the encouraging comments. Sequence alignment is my main thing, so I'll probably edit it some more, extend it etc. -MockAE

---

Dropped you an e-mail before I realized I was responding to you. Ortolan88

---

Hi Graft, it seems that 168 has been deleting huge quantities of talk from the Gene page. My understanding is that old material should be archived, not deleted. I'd like to give 168 the benefit of the doubt and think that he is not a vandal, but just did not know policy. I have restored all the deleted talk. But I recognize that the page may be getting too long for some servers to handle easily. This seems to be the problem for 168; I did a preliminary archive. But would you mind reviewing the page and archiving what you believe is appropriate? There continues to be some debate of the dogma, and I wouldn't want to archive too much; I'd trust your judgement, Slrubenstein

---

Graft, you know that I disagree with you about some things (for one thing, I still think it makes sense to define genes as sequences of nucleotides and get into DNA later). Be that as it may -- please do not give up on the Gene article where you have been making important contributions and bring an important view. Slrubenstein

Hi Graft, do you still feel like arguing? Check out the Global warming talk page now and look at the latest entry! Your friend, Slrubenstein

---

When you have a chance, please look at Genetic code -- I am not sure that the last revision (of the first paragraph) is an improvement over the previous version (which I wrote). I don't think the metaphor of mapping is used very well, and the specific example may be better left for the body of the article. But I'd like to know what you think, Slrubenstein

I don't have any problem with the mapping metaphor itself -- but is the code itself the map, or is the code our way of conceptiualizing the map, or is the code the key to the map? I just think the way the metaphor is worked out could be clearer. Also, I have yet to find your prose didactic... And anytime you want me to cut and paste onto your page any of VC's, well, whatever we are going to call it, I would be happy to do so. Slrubenstein

---

That was a reference to a note, Ill use roman numerals instead Vera Cruz

What part of close to a hundred innocent people is NPOV? -- Zoe

---

Hi, I made some changes to the Henry Ford page, including reorganization and headings, and I'd like to know what you think, Slrubenstein

I am glad you like it -- by the way, I think Clutch is gone. I've read his stuff and I can tell you, I would have no patience with him (or her). Maybe RK does sometimes over-use the term, or use it too quickly. But I believe Graft really is a racist, and whatever his or her contributions have been to other articles, my policy with such people is simply to try to do good work on the article and avoid useless argument. Slrubenstein

When you have some (okay, lots of) free time, check out Richard Wagner and the talk page, which has a discussion that in some ways parallels the Ford incident... Slrubenstein

---

Go ahead, have your fun, play your games, just count me out. Bad me, I made the mistake of thinking this was a place where we understood from the beginning that we can see knowlege from various points of view and allow others to therefore contribute as such.

Who exactly are you to say I cannot experience my gender as a "Seperate Construct" which in my case, does in fact operate independantly of my physical sex? How would you know that? Perhaps you have not had that experience before.

Furthermore, who are you to delete what I have to contribute accept someone who disrespects others (Under the guise of one who has a better understanding) amidst a community devoted to a better understanding?

Count me out! Jaimenote

---

Graft: check your email. Something important about tonight coming through. Thanks, DanKeshet 22:03 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

---

Graft:

Thank you for your comments re: Gulf War. I appreciate your position, and I think there is some room for your suggestions in the article. However, I think that your text is really clearly POV, so let me run an NPOV copy by you, and see what you think.

Critics say that Saddam Hussein is a fag. Polls--mainly conducted by hard-core supporters of the Hussein-fag hypothesis--indicate that the percentage of people supporting this perspective increased dramatically after the release of South Park, the Movie. Others respond that the polls were themselves biased, and that the Hussein-fag hypothesis is crippled from the start. The original critics usually then storm off in a huff and go have a bowl of Ben and Jerry's, because they're all fat pigs."

---

Graft, when you have a chance can you look at the genetic Drift article again? I made a major revision at 18:43 (May 19), could you compare it to the previous version? If I am way off, feel free to revert; if my version need ssome clarification or correction please help out, Slrubenstein

---

No, you shouldn't have a George V of England at all, redirected or not - it will mislead people into thinking of it as a valid alternate title, when it's outright wrong. PML.

---

Graft, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your message. I have always dreaded edit-wars, and am quickly irritated when someone gets hysterical when someone else doesn't understand their point. Yet now I fear I am the one getting hysterical. I certainly am at my wits end -- and a couple of times I have thought that I should just give up. But then I think, what if one of my students read the Wikipedia article on genetic drift? I have an obligation to them to make sure it is accurate and clear.

In any event I am starting to get worn down. Any time you feel that you can intervene constructively, I for one would be relieved. I'd be very grateful if you would comment on my most recent version in comparison with 168's most recent version. In fact, if you had the time to review the day's talk, and comment on it, you would be adding a desperately needed fresh perspective (my version: http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Genetic_drift&oldid=947916 ). Slrubenstein

Hi again, I just made a few changes to the Neutral theory of molecular evolution page -- before 168 blows another gasket at the fact that I am screwing around with "his" article, could you take a look at the changes and tell me what you think (or correct them if I made a mistake)? Thanks, Slrubenstein

please would you review what I wrote about genetically modified food. I think this is a 'different topic than genetically modified organism and both should not be confused. Thanks User:anthere

---

Great user page! Hopefully you'll be able to do all that when you're finished with graduate school! 172 18:55, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Thanks, it's nice to know someone appreciates me... <sniffle, sniffle> :)Tuf-Kat 03:43, Sep 5, 2003 (UTC)

The term born-again shouldnt be politicized as it is now. But everyone who comes to a point in life where "God" (our word for that great thing that trancends naming or identification) taps us on the shoulder and says "hey buddy, remember me", is in some sense a born-again person. Whether they are also a Christian depends on which religious traditions they happen to have been born into (or chosen) assosiation with. There is also a scientific explanation for the "born-again" "phenomenon" - which I wrote into the intro on the born-again article. Normally my religion has no bearin on any discussion, nor should it. But the issue of that particular conflict is rarely discussed with normalcy, on reasonable terms, or with sincerity.
But the reason I added "Christian" to that comment was not because I think I have a monopoly on Christian thought, rather that in the case where two of the Abrahamic religions are at odds, the other one has a kind of duty to be a neutral mitigator. But it really isn't a religious debate--no is the norther-Ireland one a religious one either. The acrobatics of people one hand quabble over land, and then turn around to quote the same ten commandments is astounding. But religion is never so much for guidance, as it is to protect sinners from God's immediate penitence. People like to pray under fancy roofs, while God himself is everywhere. -戴&#30505sv 22:49, Sep 12, 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi, I just saw your request. The islamism page is protected now. -- Cordyph 17:43, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

You must be talking about your comment on talk:Saddam Hussein. Well, that's fine, you can keep the gulf war reader, so long as you send me my Manu Chao CD and my cat. DanKeshet 22:47, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)

---

Graft, you do realize there are external links backing the facts that Al Qaeda was using the internet. Those links are discussing in detail about the Al Qaeda websites. U.S. crackers DID take down Jehad.net and Alneda.com. I'm going to revert the edit, but please give me feedback if you object. WhisperToMe 00:25, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi there, I saw you contributed to the Talk:Conservative views on American homelessness, what is your take on Oil for Food Allegations? Get-back-world-respect 03:38, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I saw your request in the edit summary, so I protected Gulf War. 172 19:45, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in making some comments at Talk:Augusto Pinochet#Another poll about whether or not an assertion for U.S. backing of the 1973 coup is misleading? 172 19:10, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I for one appreciate your effort to get the "al quada" entry torn down and replaced with something more closely resembling reality. Let's see if we can drum up a support base to get it done. It's you and me and I only see WhisperToMe opposed. Though I'm sure many others will jump on the other band wagon soon enough. Let's strike while this iron is hot, if you want you can post drafts to my talk page or here or whereever and we can discuss ways to get it to stick on the real entry before we submit it together. Sound like a plan? Energybone 18:36, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

G, There has been one a stormin' in the crypto corner of things, hence the reference. See Wikipedia project Cryptography at discussion cypher v cipher for the damp details. You might want to chime (or chyme) in, even if you're not a cryptiac. And if you are, join in, the water's fine and the tempest isn't raising waves which are too over dangerous. ww 14:47, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - I'm still new to this game so feeling my way around issues like this. Although I don't know why I made that, in particular, a minor edit, as it clearly wasn't!Gerry Lynch 10:57, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've started on reworking this. It needs to be fed through the grinder a few more times before anything acceptable comes out the other end. See the talk page, too. -- The Anome 16:54, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I got a bit ornery, but the slap in the face of a revert after you spend dang near an hour trying to edit in a compromise tends to ittitate a feller. I think you can do alot of good on this article, but not by deleting. Rather I think by adding information and alternate POV (I read yer user page, and caught a whiff of where yer comin from ;) you can help to balance things out. I am pro-balance, but anti deletionism, if you understand. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 19:11, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes I do, in fact. From the New York Times:

He became a reporter for a small jihadist magazine, Al Bonian al Marsous, whose name means "The Strong Wall."

I moved the quote to evolutionary creationism, because I tended to agree with the suggestion by user:duncharris that it was a little bit out of place in the evolution article. Not that it wasn't on topic, just that it fits better in the other article, as it currently stands. However, an entire article devoted to "Evolution and religion" might be more appropriate still.--Johnstone 23:15, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I approve of your recent change to the Osama bin Laden article, the one you labelled "remove michael-mooreish nonsense conspiracy theory", because the info you removed was poorly worded and doesn't belong there. But the Bin Laden family does absolutely have close connections with the Saudi royal family going back generations. That's not really controversial. I suppose it's Michael-Moorish in the sense that it's accurate, but phrased in an inflamatory way. Quadell (talk) 19:16, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the chatter on Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq. (Some of us are trying to get some work done.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 02:32, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

On Talk:2003_invasion_of_Iraq you removed a discussion I was involved in, and you comment was that it was totally irrelevant. Please restore it and read it. It was on the justification for the war, and note that it was in a Talk page. Something relevant to the page might well have been worked out there. Furthermore, your removal does nothing but vandalize a discussion. It isn't as if you save wikipedia disk space as it will still be present in the history. We weren't discussing sports or wildlife, so your totally irrelevant comment was either a mistake or unjustifiable.--Silverback 03:41, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I still think your removal was counterproductive. The issues raised are those discussed by everyone concerned about the issues on the main page, and without the page there it is doomed to be repeated (actually it'll probably be repeated anyway). Prior to your removal, I had already referred someone to the page, so we didn't have to cover ground already covered. Moving it to the archives would at least have allowed it to still be referenced, and those of us involved in the discussion had already suggested that such an action but neither of us knew how to do, but the suggestion was there for you to see.--Silverback 04:12, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Much better. -- thanx--Silverback 05:42, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank-you, thank-you, thank-you. That re-write was long overdue. The article was one of the first ones I visited when I came to Wikipedia, and has always stood out as a poor example. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 08:34, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I notice you've removed the heading Acceptance and controversy I added.

The reasons I added it are:

• This controversy is not an essential part of the theory of evolution, although it's an important side issue. IMO the article intro should outline the theory itself, with perhaps brief comments on its history.
• Nevertheless, the controversy is important enough to have a section in the main article. It's all that many people know about evolution, especially in some non-western areas!

Comments? Andrewa 21:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to ask you some questions: 1.) Is outdated information that also evolutionists consider false still used in some school textbooks (eg. the embryos series or the horse evol.stages sequence)? 2.) Did some parallel similar structures evolve independently? (eg. eyes of mammals and cephalopods or some microbiological structures) 3.) Are similar homologic structures in related organisms sometimes encoded by groups of genes located in completely different places of the genome? 4.) respose to behe's arguments about irreducible complexity 5.) isn't the design hypothesis just a call to the most reasonable explanation based just on our observation? (eg. what is the difference between claiming that the paintings in caves are painted by intelligent artists and claiming that the brain (or cell or any complex structure in nature) is designed by an intelligent designer?) 6.) are there any complete series of transitional fossils documenting all slight step-by-step changes found? 5.) are there any examples of imperfect not-fully-formed ancestors of the complete and fully formed fossils usually found? how did they survive if they were not fully formed? --charon 13:04, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanx for your responses, I appreciate giving your viewpoints. Ad 1.) I was not talking about missing cutting edge research, but including tens of years old information that causes informed evolutionists to hide in shame. The information in textbooks plays a vital role in the controversy because it keeps the public uninformed and might even be called by some brainwashing or propaganda. Ad 6.) Could you name the exact stages and specimen (location/date found) of horse evolution you referred to? Ad 7.) Now I see that I misnumbered my questions and you copied it :) It is true that some arguments of that sort are just a lack of imagination. The problem is that your objection would be valid in the area of philosophy, not science. In science, the proponen of the theory has to supply evidence and to say that "there must be some purpose for those not-fully formed structures" is similar to a "god of the gaps" explanation and would be circular reasoning in the big picture. Ad the feathered Trex: Are you referring to a specific article or specimen? Could you give a reference? --charon 21:15, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"if evolutionists were interested in propagandizing the population, they'd want to present the best, cutting-edge information, not outdated material open to attack" - Actually, no. Anyone who is interested in propagandizing with anything would want to present only the information that does not contradict him or her. If someone's aim was to teach the students proper science (ie the truth), they would allow them to read recent research - but they don't.

"Actually, no, this isn't how science operates." - allow me to disagree: IMHO science deduces theories based on known evidence rather than on unknown speculation. --charon 15:26, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"what exactly convinces you that the theory of evolution is bunk?" - Hi. My faith has nothing to say about the scientifis theory of evolution. My faith can only adress the philosophical aspects of materialistic evolutionism. What troubles me about the theory is that after decades of new research it still builds on the pre-darwinian knowledge. it does not convince me from the scientific point of view: it lacks proper mechanism and factual evidence. Also, which troubles me (but is more about evolutionism than the theory of evolution itself) are the methods of education, interpreting of evidence and policy of publishing and reviewing those scientists that disagree with the "establishment". The more I learn about these thing, the more it reminds me of some big church (eg. catholic) rather than a scientific search for truth. And last but not least I'm startled witch some argumets which are plainly false or employ logical errors (circular, ad hominem or strawman arguments). To conclude in one sentence, it's not something specific that convinces me about the invalidness of the theory of evolution, it's the proponents of the theory that are unable to convince me about it's validness now that I know more about the facts that they are willing to admit. --charon 12:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• no mechanism: it is a shear unproved speculation that mutation+selection could account for the changes that evolution requires. I would say that what has been experimentaly proved only strenghtens this point.
• pre-darwinian knowledge: darwin built his theory whithout the knowledge of current genetics and cell microbiology and biochemistry. what we have today is only a sligtly modified darwinist theory trying to incorporate the new fact into an old structure based on old ways of thinking. For example in physics, Einstein did not simply add some formulas to the newtonian mechanics. It is completely rebuilt. However in the evolution case, there might be metaphysical implications which evolutionists are not willing to face, so they have to keep the old way of thinking. This way a big structure is being built on weak foundation and the more we know the more unstable it will be. The sad thing is that evolutionosists are balancing on the top, closing their eyes and ears and saying "there is no debate, the theory is not in crisis, etc."
• circular errors: I was referring to the education and public presentation, not the theory itself. Students are not being thaught everything, so to keep them quiet they are left with circular arguments.
• ad hominem arguments: The most visible one is labeling (often mistakenly) any oponent "religiously motivated" or "creationist" etc. without actually dealing with their arguments.
• other unscientific reasoning: The best known is probably "suboptimal design", vestigial organs etc, which also proved to be hindering scientific progress and caused problems in medicine. The idea of suboptimal desing is just the same as "the god of the gaps".--charon 13:47, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"It's not unproved speculation - there's been a good amount of work..." - so why it is not publicly accessible? why there are only weak, circular and errorneous arguments presented? if the proof exists, why nobody knows about it? What precisely is proved beyond "microevolutional change"? " that's not true in this case. Genetics and microbiology did not repudiate Darwin" - I am not surprised you claim this, however I don't agree. I think this precisely is the weak point of the theory.

Hi I! Nice edit on Islamism, but just a note: usually, the minor edit tag is reserved for edits that do not substantially affect meaning, e.g. typos or insertion of conjunctions, etc. Thus, even the addition of a single word may not necessarily be a 'minor edit', depending on what the word is. This is a useful convention to follow since some people keep minor edits hidden, and it would be rude to slip contentious changes in meaning past their notice. (Perhaps your flag was merely an error - in which case I apologize for my presumption). Anyway, have a nice day! Graft 16:55, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're right about the error. I have set my preferences to have the "This is a minor edit" flag to be "on" by default, so the wikification, grammar, and text edits that I am more often making (for subjects related to South Asia, Pakistan, Islam, etc.) aren't flagged as major changes. The problem is that I had stopped paying attention that flag. And now that you have mentioned it, I have recently created whole new articles (in fact, half of the entries at Category:Chiefs of Army Staff, Pakistan) with that flag set. Thanks for the reminder. I did not intend to slip anything by anyone. I fully realize that the changes at the top of Islamism are pretty fundamental, and didn't mean to imply otherwise.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 23:21, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Graft, you know that whatever disagreements we have ever had on WIkipedia I respect you and am glad you are here. This is why I suggest you delete what you just wrote on the talk page of the Jesus article. It doesn't matter that you have said exactly what I and I bet over a thousand other Wikipedians are thinking. Indeed, I have to thank you for making me laugh for the first time today; I have a headache and you have cheered me up. But however truthful your words, they can lead someone to legitimately accuse you of personal attackes, lack of wikietiquette and the whole tamale, and I would hate to see that happen to such a good fellow like yourself. Slrubenstein 21:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You don't need to apologize to me -- I am still laughing! It's just that if you were to get scolded for this, it would be too great an injustice for the world to bear. Slrubenstein 22:07, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Graft, you cite lesser of two evils decisions the U.S. made during the cold war, and ignore those situations where U.S., has expended blood and resources with no thought of territorial gain. The aftermaths of WWI, WWII and the Korean conflict prove the U.S. has no territorial ambitions. If you are going to hold affiliations with dictatorships during the cold war against the U.S., I shudder to consider what you must think of the United Nations today.

Why would you question the anti-democracy label when those wahabi insurgents themselves don't even embrace it, and even if they did think they were fighting for democracy rather than some virulent theocracy, tribalism or nationalist, with their most absent access to unbiased and alternative information, they would be highly likely to be as wrong as those forces that fought the U.S. in Vietnam. Whatever the Viet Cong thought they were fighting for, they got a totalitarian militaristic dictatorship or oligarchy. Something, which even it they wanted it, they had no right to impose upon another.--Silverback 08:15, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:24, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Thanks for your contribution to the GW article (with only a minor complaint: I'm WMC or William if you want to abbreviate me...).

I'm never quite sure if I'm a bit too heavy handed with this and related articles. Either I'm doing such a wonderful job that all the sane people rarely feel they need to contribute :-) or... I'm putting people off.

Hello Grant, glad that you had a look at this page we're developing. I am not a creationist but I do think that this page can make a valuable contribution to wikipedia. If we have no such page then people will have to look elsewhere on the internet where there is no NPOV rule and where special interests are rife.

I have suggested a new wikipedia guidelines page for pages of this type. This is a quote form the pages talk page.

NPOV for a page structured like this needs set guidelines. None currently exists (correct me if I'm wrong). To remedy this I suggest we create a new page wikipedia: NPOV (comparison of views). I think this page should express the following guidelines: Each side should be represented on each subtopic of the debate. Each side should be allowed to express approximately the same number of viewpoints on each subtopic.

• The number of facts presented should be limited only by issues of style.
• When editing contentious topics facts should be added gradually to give the other side a chance to contest them. You should not flood the page with facts.
• When a fact is challenged a source should be provided (the onus is not on the challenger) and if the fact is a deduction from experimental data/primary sources the experimental data/primary sources should be given and the deduction steps given or a link given (if they are too complex) to where they may be found.
• If no source can be given for the fact after a reasonable amount of time the statement should be removed or modified in such a way that it can be sourced.
• It is preferable to have facts rather than viewpoints.
• Hyperbole should be used sparingly if at all.

What do you think of this? Barnaby dawson 09:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello Grant, I have created a guidelines page setting out how NPOV rules apply to pages such as these. It is to be found at Wikipedia: NPOV (Comparison of views in science). Please take a look at it. I am planning to introduce this at the top of the talk page as the guidelines for additions to the page with also possibly a note to that effect at the top of the page itself. However, I think that before I do this others should have a look at it and check that it is a reasonable interpretation of the NPOV rules currently in existence. Regards :) Barnaby dawson 22:46, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi,

Actually we broke the history of al-qaida because that section was getting bigger and bigger as more users were putting more information. For example Iraq section is expected to expand. Similarly other history portions. It was meant so editors can easily add new information. I am turning it back so it can accommodate future expansions easily. I hope you will understand it.

Zain 23:00, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your note about Emerson. I'm not recommending his book as such on these pages, just inserting him as someone who's regarded as America's best-informed journalist regarding these issues. I know many people have problems with him, but he probably has better intelligence sources than any journalist in America, and not just recently. If you go back and read his Secret Warriors, his sources were excellent even before he started concentrating on Islamism. That doesn't mean the sources are right. All I mean is that he has access to high levels of govt and the intelligence community, so what you read in his books is probably pretty much what the American government is thinking. In that sense, he's worth reading. Best, Slim 21:53, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

I've put a totally disputed notice on the page Views of creationists and mainstream scientists compared. I did this because Ungtss has started reformatting the page to be in the form fact, viewpoint, viewpoint. This will result in POV. Here is why:

Facts should the main point of an argument. We can divide the facts on this page into several categories. Facts about viewpoints, facts about natural phenonomen, facts about deductions from theories, facts about mathematical principles. By introducing the style given above Ungtss is letting only facts about natural phenonomen and facts about viewpoints into the article. If theory A predicts X but theory B does not the article could say that:

• Theory A predicts X. Adherents of theory B say it predicts X but many disagree.

Wereas in the new format this could only be written:

• Adherents of theory A believe it predicts X. Adherents of theory B believe it predicts X.

I would ask that you help remedy this problem with the article. I shall not have the time I'm afraid (See my User page). Barnaby dawson 14:14, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RSS Page reverts and other reverts I see no hope for you Graft you obviously fancy yourself a top level sub or an editor of others hard work. But off course you are entitled to be free with the revert button, BUT Next time you do so please present your reasons on the discussion page. I have studied your edits in other places – You are fond of clique phrases like “NPOV, ridiculous, wikipedia policy” etc – some people in the community have a name for, this attention seeking need in some contributors, to trawl our pages trying to assert themselves, but while playing at being an intellectual show us what’s in your little head even if it means risking a caning from those who know the subject better than you – Next time let us know how your brain is working when you conduct a revert so that we get to know if there is any cattle behind the big hat.

(William M. Connolley 22:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)) You might be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley

I've filed a complaint against user Jayjg for abuse of Admin powers, and for Anti-Arab and Anti-Islamic bias. This link [[1]] will take you to the Arbitration page. I think that you too have been subject to similar treatment with biased edits and reverts of your contributions to Wikipedia, and I would appreciate any additional evidence you can provide in this case. A.Khalil 04:37, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

I did word that rant rather strongly didn't I? I wanted to draw attention to the fact that there are still lots of issues with the article, so it's not yet time to declare this article perfect by a long shot yet.

Having said that, at your option, we can continue more civilised-style, or keep up this level of intensity. Frankly, I don't mind either way. As long as neither of us take it to a personal level and can keep things under control, it might be fun and interesting to hold a more intense debate than usual. I noticed that you're a biologist too, and I take your opinion seriously.

Kim Bruning 16:48, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is more evidence for intelligent design than there is for evolution! How can you prove to me that rock + time = life? Everything tends towards disorder, right Mr. Biology graduate? Even though that's physics, you must have learned that in order to attain your degree, right? Let it be known that this is not an argument between science and religion! This is an argument between two religions. And I don't care if these things have already been talked about -- obviously there is something very fundamental that you don't understand or want to understand about the evolution theory. I have read the article, I have skimmed over the archives, so DO NOT try to inferiorate me by calling me ignorant. You sir, are proving to be quite arrogant if that's the best way that you can think of to solve the argument. This is not a closed issue because this article is far from being neutral. If you want to get me to shut up, I told you what needs to be done.

Now, about the formation of stars. No one has ever seen a star form. We see them blow up all the time, and that's not really good proof for the evolution of stars, so why did you mention that? I could blow up this computer right now, but the only way that it would change would be from one big collaboration into a million pieces. If you think Crab nebulae or any other star is evolving, you are wrong. According to your theory, doesn't it take millions of years for this to happen? This mistake has been made before. There have been incidents when what astronomers thought was a star in the process of formation was actually a cloud of interstellar dust or debris clearing, and the spot in their telescopes was getting brighter. Now, I am begging you to slow down and open up your mind a little. Ask yourself these questions -- do I know everything? If your answer is no, then ask do I know half of everything? If no, then ask yourself if there is a possibility that in that half of the spectrum of things you don't know, there might be a divine Creator? Look, I am not going to preach. But you seem to skepticize on anything that is not your own theory. Science, my friend, is a self-correcting process. Scientists have been wrong many times throughout history. I am not saying that evolution is wrong and creation is right or vice versa, but until you can prove, with empiracal evidence, that Evolution has overthrown the "outdated", biblical philosophies and sciences so forth and so on, we need to find some sort of peace between these two incredibly complicated beliefs.

Salva31 11:51 10 Apr, 2005 (UTC)

This is without a doubt one of the saddest personal attacks on an individual I've seen. I have addressed this individual on his/her talk page. Graft, I enjoy your contributions and I hope to see many more. And good luck on your Ph.D. I finished grad school a few years ago and without a doubt it was one of the most difficult, yet most rewarding, things I've ever done. Let me know when you publish, and in what journal. I look forward to reading your research after your defense. Cheers, Astrobayes 16:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you have a look at the discussion at Talk:Macroevolution? Is my definition of macroevolution wrong? As I understand it, macroevolution is speciation and above. Microevolution is evolution within species. So if you accept speciation, you cannot reject macroevolution unless you re-define macroevolution as "evolution at a level which I do not accept". If I'm wrong, I'm fine with that, but I would like to hear that from someone who knows more about the topics than I do, not from people who know less than I do. Thanks. Guettarda 13:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Graft. Honest mistake. Barnaby dawson 13:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suppose it says something - if someone can't get your name right after all this time, how do you expect them to actually understand what they read? Guettarda 21:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The above comment, which I regret as rather mean spirited, has nothing to do with the message from Barnaby dawson immediately above it. The proximity is purely coincidental. Guettarda 20:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't notice the proximity until Barnaby asked about it. I displayed a lack of "reading comprehension" myself - I should have seen the way it looked, based on proximity. Guettarda 21:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Galileo page doesn't include it for some reason, but in the paper he put out on a heleocentric universe he had two people in discussion, one was someone with galileo's views and the other was one with the catholic church's views (and specifically, the pope's). Unfortunately for galileo, one way to translate the name he gave the pope's character is "idiot."

Thanks! I do not understand how or why, but I think my sense of humor is slowly returning to me ... Slrubenstein | Talk 17:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Jguk's most recent actions [2], [3]. It seems to me that he is destroying what I thought was a carefully constructec (though not, of course perfect) NPOV article. I trust your committment to NPOV and would like to know what you think. Frankly, I think we may have reached the point where arbitration or at least mediation is required. I honestly do not believe Jguk understands or cares about NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't clearer (laziness). It is true that earlier I had issues with Jguk's attempt to rewrite the Jesus article, but I think several people have responded to that. Now, I am making a proposal to ammend the NPOV policy. The link above goes to my proposal. It draws heavily on the arguments at Talk:Jesus concerning dating conventions. However, the poll on that page is explicitly only for that article. Moreover, when the debate first began, and I made my first argument, someone told me that what I really needed to do was to change policy (what they meant was, until the policy changed they didn't think I had a valid argument). So, well, now I am trying to change the policy. The proposal is legnthy because I try to address every argument. If you have time to read it I would certainly appreciate your comments (and you may even see obvious edits to increase readability or clarity). Or, you could just read the first paragraph and consider voting. Whatever, I just appreciate your opinions, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what's going on, but according to the diffs you whiped out TBSDY's comments with your post on SLR's Talk page. I'm guessing it's a Wiki bug, but I'm not sure if it is in my display of the page, or that your edit was saved on top of TBSDY's. Guettarda 00:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heard you converted. What's the plan - work your way into the organisation and bring it down from within? :) Guettarda 17:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me. You wouldn't be the first desi drawn to the Dark Side. Guettarda 18:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PS - surprised you didn't make the annoucement in your blog. Trying to fool your hordes of devoted readers? Guettarda 18:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW - good blog, great post. Guettarda 23:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that you're not on the list of admins. How come not? Looks like you've been here since before the Dark Ages. Guettarda 04:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you ever feel thus inclined, I'd be happy to nominate you. Guettarda 05:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Graft. This inquiry is certainly long overdue, but pray tell, what exactly is the motive that presses your desire to "overthrow the system of capitalism?" If you are an American, I would be very much obliged to merit an explanation of such brash dialogue. Of course in any free country one is entitled to one's own opinion, but now that Independence Day is upon us, I find myself in a climatically ardent state of devotion and patriotism for my country and must know what justification you hold as a basis which is in fact a threat to the country that I know and love. (Also, what would you replace capitalism with if the choice were yours?) Salva 4 July 2005 02:46 (UTC)

Well, I am fascinated by these beliefs that you have shared with me. Of course, as Joseph Conrad would say, there is no perfect or incorruptible form of government. You believe in a free market, yes? But what is your exact interpretation of the word freedom - not only economical freedom but (you said you were a libertarian) also ecumenical freedom? Salva 4 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)

I always thought that the end of prometaphase was marked by kinetochore attachment, and the alignment at the center the end of metaphase. In fact, I thought that the later part of prometaphase tends to coincide with early metaphase, since not all the chromosomes get attached at the same time. It is true that anaphase doesn't begin until all the kinetochores are attached, but that's only (as I thought) so that metaphase isn't considered "complete" (with most of the chromosomes being aligned) when some chromosomes haven't even finished their prometaphase stage yet. -- Natalinasmpf 07:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the Hizb-ut Tahrir section? [4] You haven't explained yourself regarding this on the articles talk page. Also, you didn't explain your changes to the Wahhabism section or your removal of the internal link to Martin Kramer eighter. -- Karl Meier 18:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your comments on Talk:Aspartame (dated 2003) and I was wondering if your content was ever added back in to the article. Please drop me a note if you can. --Viriditas | Talk 00:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was just wondering what the main professional societies were for EB. Looking for teaching resources, for a lab for a general intro course. Thanks. Guettarda 18:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No problem. I was just being lazy :) - Guettarda 19:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have much more patience than I do in trying to explain evolution to those who really don't want to know anything about it. Kasper Gutman 22:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Graft - what's up man? Please humor me for another one of my philosophical questions, if you will. Someone once said, "great civilizations and animal standards of behavior coexist for only short periods." In reference to neo-Darwinism, what do you think of this statement? Salva 19:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, I would like to say that it fascinates me how people like you are able to maintain their stability without belief in a greater power. I do believe that you are taking a very brave gamble with such an ideology, but so be it.

OK, when children in a public school classroom are taught for several consecutive years that they are a common descendent of homo erectus, they are obviously going to start believing it. What I was implying is that when children are indoctrinated with an idea that undermines their humanity, the effect is not only detrimental to them as human beings, but detrimental to society as a whole. If you refer to history, the greatest of civilizations have always prospered with a sense for some sort of divine being, and rightly so. When the society loses that sense, or at least the arbitrary notion to follow it, they place themselves in a chaotic, animalistic frame of mind that serves to erase the primary foundations that hold it together - now there are those like you, Graft, who in little or no way contribute to this dissolution because they have more composure than the average Joe. But as a whole, society does not have that similar composure, which would otherwise make a much more hospitable "godless civilization."

Teaching neo-Darwinian evolution is essential to the rise of a communist nation because it assists in the demolishing of the collective faiths in order to reestablish the State as the central, albeit the only icon of worship. Under this new adminstration, people are treated as animals succumbing to a single master. They endure their submission because they are happy to do it, but at the same time are blinded from their potential which they are forbidden to pursue under the justification of "true equality and diversity" - one of the core principles of Communism.

The other argument that can be made from the aforementioned quote is that animal standards of behavior have, at least here in the U.S., introduced a serious problem to the survival of our civilization. Because of all the abortions, contraception, etc., derived from self-indulgent (animal-like) sexual activity, the birth rate is not great enough to replenish the existing population, which will inevitably be swallowed by the otherwise flourishing populations of third world Middle-East and Southeast Asia. This is why Marx's dream of a worldwide revolution might never happen - because the pillars of Western capitalism will collapse to Islamic rule. I might mention the irony that the decrease in population began in the 60's - along with the beginning of evolution teachings en masse, and the civil liberties revolution, and the sexual revolution, and the ... revoltuion, and the ... revolution. Those movements did nothing but cripple a well-grounded way of life, built atop the foundations of family and Christianity that originally made us the greatest civilization on Earth. Salva 17:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding of the religious way of life is exceedingly warped, my friend. Some of the greatest leaders and heroes on Earth have been of the Abrahamic faiths - Mother Theresa, George Washington, Martin Luther, Constantine, Salah-al-Dinh, and Christopher Columbus, to name but a few. The idea that God has a plan for everyone's life holds that our true potential is essentially an unhindered product of free will, but also teaches that at the same time we all serve a fundamental purpose within the conglomeration of events of both the material and spiritual realms. In my opinion, this is why Creationism outdoes the beliefs of spontaneous generation, for the sole reason that it ultimately condones, for example, even those who might have been born and raised without (a) parent(s) or had suffered a life of crime and misery - it offers purpose and hope to the meek and lowly, as opposed to a philosophy that teaches life is nothing but a bunch of amino acids that came together without purpose.

You claim to be empathic, and that all mankind is so, but I'll wager that after reading the previous paragraph you think that I am a loon just like all other "fundamentalist" Christians because I will not accept the "modern" ideologies of materialism, contemporary realism, and the new age evolutionist doctrines. Empathy is a noble intent but ultimately too grand a jesture for anyone to claim as a part of their natural character. Mankind is a malevolent species which requires a well-grounded code of ethics and moral structure in order to survive in mutual existence. There are likely as many human beings on this earth incapable of virtues such as empathy, honor, and discipline as there are capable. This number grows when there is no common ground.

And just like people, almost every nation has a dark or brutal history. Compared to the histories of, say, China or Rome, our country has reached its pinnacle with very minimal bloodshed. It is an unfortunate fate that nations must be forged by such actions. The United States was built on the backs of African slaves, and stolen from the Natives. So what? That's the past. Today, we have come to embrace them as fellow citizens. In measure of power, influence, and technology, we were the greatest civilization on Earth (until after 9/11.)

Graft, I wonder if I could possibly coerce you in some way to look over the history of C.S. Lewis (another one of my heroes). Truly a great human being. I read his book Mere Christianity, and was particularly impressed with his essays on morality. He was originally a devout atheist, (or agnostic?? Can't be sure) and read the Bible with the intent of proving it wrong, whereby he became a devout theist - Christian to be exact. I doubt that you would even think upon it, but it's the very least that I can do. Salva 01:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to answer the questions on your RFA. On another note - I see Salva's back. Need to direct him to Lysenkoism, which undercuts the Marx/Darwin hypothesis. Guettarda 21:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply to him was amazingly eloquent. Guettarda 21:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA could be a textbook example of what's wrong with RFA (Sam Spade raised the issue on the RFA Talk page a few days ago). Slow and steady is a heck of a lot better than flash in the pan; criticising for posting too much to Talk pages is crazy. I think that RFA has acquired a crowd of professional voters, much like AfD. Guettarda 22:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Graft, I listed you as a "local enthusiast who could be roped in" for wikimania teamwork; please move yourself to another section if you'd be willing to help with a local Wikimania effort. We're having a chat about the various city bids tomorrow' if you have cool ideas about how to make a boston event really great, please comment on the bid talk page. +sj + 05:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lysenkoism is an interesting piece of Communist history, but there is so much more to my argument than an attempt to debunk a scientific theory. I enjoy speaking with Graft once and awhile because his political motivation is completely inverted from that of my own.

Settle down there, Guettarda - I haven't returned to singularly challenge evolution as before. Oh, I heard about the new study of apes using tools in the wild. Very impressive. Very persuasive. (And I really mean that,) But I think that Creationists like me and the folks over at the Discovery Institute are going to want to see a little more evidence of common descent before we convert.

Graft, I thought maybe you missed my reply above, which I posted directly after my first statement in the section "Just a Thought." These things do get buried rather quickly on Wikipedia, but I am still anxious to hear a reply from my last addition. Salva 03:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you're and admin! Please read the advice. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ditto. Guettarda 18:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ditto, ditto. Dlyons493 Talk 22:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on being made an admin! I thought you might like to know of a javascript tool that may help in your editing by giving easy access to many admin features. It's described at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. The quick version of the installation procedure for admins is to paste the following into User:Graft/monobook.js:

// [[User:Lupin/popups.js]] - please include this line   document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="'               + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popups.js'               + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');  popupShortcutKeys=true; // optional: enable keyboard shortcuts popupAdminLinks=true;   // optional: enable admin links 

There are more options which you can fiddle with listed at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. Give it a try and let me know if you find any glitches or have suggestions for improvements! Lupin|talk|popups 01:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Graft, please forgive my comments made about you on the Talk:Evolution page. They were uncalled for. I will not, in good conscience, let it happen again. Salva 06:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the citation from Acts. The only argument that I have for you in that regard is again: according to the Bible, God has given each and every one of us free will. Even after Christ came and died for the sins of all, it is still a matter of choice whether or not we follow him into heaven. There are consequences for all bad actions. The Bible makes it pretty clear that poverty will be around until the end of the world.

I don't think that the Apostles were pushing Leninism when they said that. It's very difficult to know for sure. What I do know is that the modern Catholic church is heavily opposed to any form of communism. This would make a very good article...Salva 17:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic church is opposed to communism because it calls for an athiest state with no religion whatsoever. That's not freedom of religion, or seperation of church and state. That's no churches at all. You can see why Catholics might take exception to that. --Ignignot 17:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Graft and Guettarda's positions are that Christ's teachings allude to socialism. If most of Christianity is abiding by a doctrine that teaches socialism, there are several putative discrepancies that should take to mind:

1. This would mean that the modern Catholic church, as well as other denominations of Christianity, excluding contemporary Christianity (namely, liberation theology,) are all hypocritical organizations - fighting Communism while at the same time teaching its very "foundations."

2. Since socialism is said to directly (or indirectly) precede Communism, which is, as Ignignot stated, an atheist state, then the Church would invariably be calling for its own eventual downfall.

3. Socialism glorifies the proletariat and despises the bourgeoisie. Jesus never told slaves to rebel against their masters, or Jews to rebel against the Romans. "Give to Caesar's what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's," he said, therein urging his followers to be indifferent towards the leader(s) of their nation (or the class system - also a major target and mortal enemy of socialist doctrine), all the while remaining obedient to God first and then the Law. Jesus never called for a revolution - he commanded slaves and the poor to be happy in their servitude and the rich to be ashamed by "stockpiling" their wealth. Check this.

No, I'm afraid Christ was not a communist, and I'm afraid he did not teach socialism, nor did he even come close. You almost had me there! :-) MedCorpman 20:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Category:Wikipedians in Massachusetts for info on the continuing project of user categorisation --Vidkun 21:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems to be possible to twist your arm with respect to user categorisation, it's pretty lonely over at Category:Biologist Wikipedians (though I see I have finally gotten some company over there). Guettarda 16:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about your edit summary - I meant the whole arm-twisting thing as a joke. Apologies if it came across as more than that.  :( - Guettarda 17:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you look at my comment here [5]? Might you be one of the people who could respond to my point by adding accurate information to the "gene" article? Slrubenstein | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 19:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When (if?) you have time, please check this out [6] and see if you can turn some of your editing energies to the matter; thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:24.253.120.206 has to be seen to be believed. Never registered, tens of thousands of edits, and apparently all he does all day is edit wikipedia. Is there some way to get his attention? You're the only admin I "know".

I would like to wish you and your family all the best for the holidays and the New Year. Guettarda 15:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did mention the whole spelling-disabled thing, did I not? Please feel free to fix any spelling errors you see me make (with my thanks.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time please look at and comment on the most recent suggestion for reorganization. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And Happy New Year (and every other holiday) to you too), Slrubenstein | Talk 17:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agreed with your reversions on DDT. However, I noticed you reverted my "American biologist Rachel Carson" to "an American biologist named Rachel Carson". This doesn't match the way " Swiss chemist Paul Hermann Müller" is described just above and the latter seems more standard for an encyclopedia entry. Any thoughts on this JQ 22:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Ultramarine has re-reverted all of the changes you made. He seems way out of line to me, but I'm not clear on the procedures to follow JQ 10:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[7]

Could you look at the latest round of edits to the first paragraph, and the latest discussion, and comment? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 11:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure if you were aware of this or not, but I thought it would be of interest to you. Guettarda 19:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you call my sentence false dichotomy? Raphael1 22:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, that violence is not a hallmark of Islamism, but it is what many people associate with Islamism. Actually my sentence tried to explain, that virtually all Muslims desire to live by islamic principles in legal, social, political, economic and political spheres of life and therefore could be called Islamists by this articles definition. But still most muslims support peace and reject the use of their religion to justify violence of course. Raphael1 23:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind, but I copied our discussion to Talk:Islamism. Raphael1 03:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It's the height of conceit for you to assert..." Please, talk about content, not personality. "In other words, your writing style is atrocious." That's just gratuitously offensive. Pointless insults like that are disruptive. Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graft,

Not sure if you're out there are this precise moment, but both MuslimsofUmreka and Kyaa the Catlord :( have been blocked for 48 and 24 hours respectively, while I'm back. So come on over if you have the chance.

Thanks for your encouraging words on my talk page.Timothy Usher 05:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graft,

The conduct of User:24.7.141.159/User247 etc., with whom you'd discussed matters on the Talk:Islamism page, is being discussed on both WP:ANI and on El C's talk page, as is mine in relation to him. As I've linked several of his edits to you on El C's page, I invite you to weigh in.Timothy Usher 10:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Guettarda suggested to me that I should invite you to have a look at a new proposed version of the Natural selection page that we (User:Gleng and me) have been writing to replace the relative bad one that is currently around. The new version, for which we are inviting comments to improve it, can be found here: User:KimvdLinde/Natural_selection. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Graft. I'm not sure which page you are referring to, as I deleted several in the last two hours — all for the same reason. I'm sorry if your watchlist got messed up, but I'm sure you'll agree that things like real-life stalking, harassment, threats, anonymous letters, etc., are far more serious than the inconvenience of having to fix one's watchlist. A website was set up attacking certain editors, publishing their photos, giving their real names, linking to the personal website of one of them, which gave information about location, names of spouse, children, etc. That user had never given any of that information on any Wikipedia page, and had never linked to Wikipedia from his own webpage. An anonymous message was sent to his superior, either by the people who set up the website, or by people who found the information on it. He left Wikipedia as a result, but he requested specially that all references to that website would be removed from histories and archives of pages. So, I'm afraid I have to disagree that simply reverting would have been fine. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 22:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Arguing with you is like trying to hit a puppy by throwing a live bee at it." You are too friggin' funny!!!!! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please address this: [8] ?

[9] ;)

I tried to warn him, save him from your wrath, but the gods of Wikipedia were against me - my edit didn't save, and I didn't notice it until several hours later (by which time it just didn't seem funny any more...) Guettarda 23:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been following the argument, but I like the quote Arguing with you is like trying to hit a puppy by throwing a live bee at it The image of that made me smile. As a old bee cather from my youth, it got me thinking how would you hit a puppy with a bee? By putting honey on the puppy of course!--Nowa 11:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this suggestion. --Uncle Ed 19:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to add your "rant" to Ed's RFC? Guettarda 15:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that those three situations are the only cases in which abortion would be acceptable. Salva 16:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, I know you've told me that you are more of a liberal, and I am assuming that you are a supporter of abortion. If so, answer me this: why do pro-choicers say that abortion is "progressive?" Salva 14:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:DLH has raised some issues about Alu insertion at Talk:Common_descent/creationism#Contrary_ALU_insertion_sequences, stemming from Hedges et al. 2004. Genome Research 14:1068-1075 [10]. A reference in Perry et al 2006 [11] suggests to me that you might have some expertise on this topic, and might have something useful to add. Guettarda 21:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or not, if you don't want to waste your breath ;) Guettarda 22:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're mentioned briefly as a yellowish-green blob in a graph on page 21 of the July issue of Discover Magazine for your work on the evolution article. That's sort of neat. Did they contact you at all for permission to mention you and to verify who you are, or is this the first you've heard of it? --Mr. Billion 22:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not in my opinion. How detailed an explanation do you want? I can do it long or short. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long often is enjoyable, I am just not sure about this particular case. Okay, first of all I define postmodernism very narrowly. As a rule I am a splitter more than a lumper, I think precision is worth it. So it may clear the air right awy to say I do not identify postmodernism with cultural relativism, hermeneutics, idealism, or any of a number of things oponents of postmodernism often associate it with. I see postmodernism as starting as a movement within architecture that started in the 1970s that involved a rejection of modernist architecture (tall straight austere skyscrapers of steel and glass) in favor of an eclectic use of motifs and a melange of cultural referents (e.g. the doric signature on top of the ATT building in New York, or the glass pyramid addition to the Louvre), and then evolving into a movement within philosophy that too this cultural trend to be far more reaching in significance than architecture alone, and saw it as a symptom of a time when authoritative grand or master narratives common in the social sciences and humanities - e.g. marxism, or freudianism - no longer had authority. I take the view that both of these trends reflect a change in the world capitalist economy (that crystalized with the breakdown of the Bretton Woods Accord in 1973 I think) that involve two things: first, a rupture in our notion of a stable world order and second, the increasing importance of style over substance. If this sounds very abstract to you, I can give you a heterogeneous set of examples (to believe that all these different examples are tied together is enough to make one believe that we now live in the era of "postmodernity;" to believe that this is a good thing — which I do not — makes one a postmodernist): a simultaneous increase in the scale of global labor migration as well as a shange in its quality (e.g. Ecuadorians in New York actually buy appliances that will be delivered to their families back in Ecuador - my Russian great grandparents wouldn't even have dreamed of doing this even if the technological means were available); the fact that people are no longer just buying shares of owenership in a company but shares of ownership of the risk that interest rates may go up (JP Morgan perhaps would have liked the idea, but I doubt he could have imagined it); the fact that one can go to an African game park in Disney World or go to a MacDonald's in Kenya ... You can say that each of these have their antecedents in the late 1800s or early 1900s. But the scale and rate of such changes has been increasing exponentially. All of this I identify with postmodernity. Some people think that these changes should be emulated in the arts (i.e. there should be a "postmodern poem" or a "postmodern novel"). And this certainly has implications for scholarship, especially when postmodernity involves rejecting grand narratives like Marx and Freud. For example, for an anthropologist (like myself) how am I to represent the culture of a group of people who themselves use the internet? This is something new (anthropologists fifty years ago could safely assume most of the people they wrote about would never read the anthropologist's book, nor represent themselves on a web-page) and I do think it calls for new responses in how anthropologists think about their role and write.

But the claim that a text may have several meanings including meanings not intended by the author simply has nothing to do with postmodernism. If you were looking at things ahistorically, you may well argue there is an overlap. That is, I would expect postmodernists to agree with me that texts have multiple meanings. But this does not mean that they believe this because they are postmodernists (they can have other reasons). More importantly, there is no reason to think that someone who believes texts have multiple meanings also agrees with everything else postmodernists believe. But I would go further and urge you not to take the ahistorical view. I happen to think history is important. Postmodernism developed at a certain time and that timing is significant (we can argue over why it developed in the 1970s, but surely whatever is the right reason has something to do with that time). The view that texts have multiple meanings however predates postmodernism by a very very long time.

I will give a few examples. First, I bet even if you went back 100 years you would find few professors of English who would argue that "Hamlet" can mean only one thing. I bet you would find, then as now, scholars arguing over what Hamlet means and supposing many different meanings. You could go back even further to classic novels and argue that one of Melville's points is that "Whale" means many different things. Tolstoy represented multiple points of views in hisnovels, suggesting that a particular occurance could have multiple meanings.

You may point out that multiple meanings can be intended by the author and that there is a huge difference between saying there are multiple meanings and saying that the author's intended meaning is irrelevant. However, I personally would suggest this is a naive and false view of literature. I think any great poet, playwrite, or novelist understands that once they publicize their work of art, audiences will interpret it as they will. This by the way does not mean that any interpretation is correct. Surely, we can agree that Hamlet may have many meanings, but that its being an allegory for the Kennedy assassination is not one of them. I do not want to put words in your moth Graft, especially when I am certain you would never have uttered them, but it constantly amazes me when people think that to say there are several meanings means that anything goes, that if something can mean more than one thing then it can mean anything. This is precisely how fundamentalists respond and it reflects something about fundamentalism - their inability to distinguish between "it can mean several things" and "it can mean anything."

Finally, about the author's point of view. I have a set of examples, and also a rationale. I will give the rationale first. It is methodological in nature. What does it really mean when someone says "this is what Shakespeare meant" and "I do not care what Shakespeare meant?" First, let's consider how one could possibly know what Shakespeare meant. I can read Hamlet a thousand times and it does not give me the ability to travel back in time and read Shakespeare's mind. I can learn what I can about Shakespeare's life, and maybe I can discover something about Shakespeare's personal life that echoes something in Hamlet. So now what do I do? Do I say, "When Shakesepeare wrote x in Hamlet, he was alluding to something he wrote about in his letter to his wife?" Maybe. But did his audience know this? Is the play, Hamlet, just what Shakespeare wrote, or is it the play that thousands, millions, have watched? If none of the members of the audience knew of that letter to his wife, how would they have interpreted "x" in the play? I am sure it meant something to them. Indeed, even if Shakespeare had some hidden meaning to "x," if he wanted the crowds to like Hamlet he had to make sure it made sense within the logic of the play - i.e. something audiences could understand. So I am inclined just not to care about his letter to his wife. But now lest us suppose everyone at the time knew about Shakespeare's letter to his wife - that audiences "got" the fact that "x" in Hamlet was a playful reference to something in Shakespeare's life. This can happen, but let me suggest that if the play were mostly about such allusions to the playwrite's own life, most people would get bored of the play and consider it a self-indulgent disaster. It is a great play because it has so much else going on, not just whatever Shakespeare wrote about in that letter. Now, I bring up the fictitious letter because it is at least something materially real, we can say: here is the letter, here is what Shakespeare wrote "outside" of the text of Hamlet, without claiming to be mindreaders. What about everything else though? what about all the things in the play, all the meanings. How can we possibly claim to know what Shakespeare intended? My point is this: when we interpret Hamlet, what we have is the text. In interpreting it, we have context as well and that can include Shakespeare's biography ... but surely, in includes English history, the nature of the theater at the time, the English class structure, the lives of the people who would watch Shakespeare's plays. Drawing on these we can come up with many interpretations of Hamlet, and argue over which is stronger. But in the end, all the evidence we have for arguing the superiority of an interpretation is available texts. I am saying a superior interpretation of Hamlet is whatever interpretation best accounts for these texts. period. I simply do not need Shakespeare. I have the texts and those provide the basis fo interpretation. What if I had an essay written by Shakespeare entitled "What Hamlet Means." Well, I would argue that this too is a text and must be interpreted. let us grant Shakespeare wrote it. How do we know that he wasn't making a joke? Or that he really did think this is what Hamlet means - when he wrote the essay, but maybe when he was writing the play itself he meant something else? Or maybe as he was dying he got some incredible insight into himself and realized, with his last breath "Ah - THAT is why I had Hamlet say ..." The meaning of Shakespeare's essay, What Hamlet Means, cannot be taken at face value. Maybe Hamlet has a meaning that is very obvious but, at a certain point at his life, embarassed Shakespeare, maybe he wrote the essay to cover himself. You see what I mean, Graft? That essay isn't "proof," it just raises new questions and must be interpreted.

I think when someone says "This is what Shakespeare intended" they are really just saying to everyone else "Shut up. I know the truth. No other interpretations are allowed." This is the only value I can see to claiming authorial intent, to shut other people up. I do not like this position. I think it is just a clever way someone with no more insight into Shakespeare than you or I is able to efface his own interpretation - and the vulnerability that comes with it (me or you saying "Well, here is what is wrong with your interpretation. And tell us what is wrong with our interpretation?")

Graft, you do not have to agree with my position. I am just telling you that people had this position before postmodernism existed. Let me give two examples. first, the Bible. I cannot speak for Christians, only for Jews. But I will tell you this: even Jews who believe that the Bible was written by God believe that any Biblical verse allows for multiple interpretations. There is even a story in the Talmud where Rabbis are arguing over a legal interpretation. in the story, one rabbi takes one position, all the others are united against him. God takes the side of the one rabbi, and the majority tell God that His (God's) opinion does not matter. This is in the Talmud (Baba Metziah 59a). The majority ruling of the Rabbis outweighs the intention of the author. Surely you would not say that the Rabbis — fifty or a hundred years after Jesus was killed — were postmodernists?

A second example: the US Constitution. Some people play the game that the Supreme Court rulings are the "intent" of the founding fathers, but very few take that position seriously. When the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution they cannot make any ruling they please - they are limited by the text itself (some will say they are not, they invent things. But the Supremem Court Justices do not think this, or at least act like they do not think this, and I am sure that every justice will be able to come up with rulings s/he would vote against because they are not supported by the text. The text does matter to them). But I would not call the Supreme Court Justices, certainly not as far back as when Jefferson was president and it was established that the Court is the arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution, "postmodernists."

Does this help? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response on my talk page. I still beg to differ. My view (which I consider "anti fundamentalist") has in fact been held by non-post-modernists from before the modernist period. Also, i am not so sure that the opposing view (only the author's intention matters) is at all a "modernist view." Freud, Marx, Nietzsche, Weber, and Durkheim and others were all firmly in the modernist camp and all of them argued in one way or another that things have meanings people do not intend or are not aware of. This is the halmark of most modern social sciences which believe me are not post-modernist. So i just do not see my point 9about texts having many meanings, beyond the author's) as being post-modernist or anti-modernist, I really think it is a common well established view in Western thought. Actually, I think it goes back to Plato. And while many of your other view of postmodernism may be right (I am not sure I would call them nihilists but only because I probably differ with you as to the definition of nihilist; I favor Turgenev's, because his definition in his novel Fathers and Sons is the first example of the word i know of; the "things" nihilists reject in favor of nothing are, as I understand it, Russion Orthodoxy and religious orthodoxy in general, and authoritarian politics in general), I really do not think that the view that the author's intention is of no special significance is not a core postmodernist claim, meaning, I do not think it is what they spend most of their time arguing over or how they distinguish themselves from others. Most posmodernists are painters and architects and so on and if they reject the "artist" as creative god, it is more because they understnad that once you build a building or paint a painting and mor eimportantly sell it, you just lose control over it, people will interpret it as they want to, and really, if you want people to buy your painting or building, you are better off letting them ascribe to it whatever meaning they wish. I do agree with your bleak sense of post-Marxian politics. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question is a pretty die-hard and diecast creationist who doesn't appreciate my particular bent on the way to handle NPOV in regards to creationist articles. In particular, he is upset that User:Ed Poor has left the project over related issues. The abbreviation he chose for his user name stands for "Friend of Ed" and is related to many other users such as AdE, A.d.E., and User:Amigo del Ed. I've learned to grow a very thick skin with regards to these kinds of attacks. My favorites are those "friends of Ed" militia style attacks on my user page that have this charming quality. --ScienceApologist 22:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heya Graft. When I saw the comment you left on this edit, I'll admit that I chuckled a bit to myself because I know that I feel pretty much the same way about people who can't be bothered to check their spelling. It's probably best, though, if we try to be a little more civil in the way we express our frustrations. Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 23:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course, you make two excellent points. First, that I failed to check the revision hisory, and second that one cannot be uncivil to oneself, at least not in the traditional sense. – ClockworkSoul 20:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image is an orphan -Nv8200p talk 15:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graft. Any feedback on this article to help bring it towards FA status would be a great help. Peer Review. Thank you. TimVickers 18:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input and edits on this article, if you have any more comments or suggestions, it is up for FA candidacy and the discussion page is here. Thank you. TimVickers 20:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Okay, if YOU'RE Roland Deschain, who is this? Graft 22:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Nice catch. It's just one space that makes the difference ;).--Roland Deschain 22:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have missed you at the evolution article. I enjoyed our conversations. I think you have been a tremendous asset to the article and I miss your bright mind and retorts. There is a big move to change the evolution intro with little resistance. Roland is studying for exams. All the experts have voiced their opinions in the past so I figure it is fair to let the novices have a go. I have voiced little resistance so far, but I think you may find some of the changes awkward or not any better than the original. If you have time give it a look see!! Hope all is well. GetAgrippa 00:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's right - we miss you. No one else has been profiled in Discover for their work on the Evolution article! Guettarda 03:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear all's well. Have fun finishing up - and remember that everything takes 2-3 times as long as you think it will ;) Guettarda 22:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to know all is well. You have been missed. Good things take time. I dragged my Ph.D. out six years, because I was having so much fun. Well till I formed my dissertation committee. GetAgrippa 01:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the diss. Before you dissappear completely, could you consider making a comment at the talk:Race and intelligence page? If you go now, you will see at the top my proposing to mediate a conflict, followed by some discussion by participants in the conflict, followed by a request for Comment, followed by more discussion by participants in the conflict. It should take you 20 minutes or so to read over it, and I think it would mean a lot if you then left whatever comment you have under the RfC space. The portions I wrote (A second attempt to move ahead, and RfC) are needless to say my own take on the conflict. But if you want the basic empirical data on the conflict these two sections say it all: [12] and [13] Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[14] - Vandalistic editors are removing references Neptunion 10:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[15] [16] Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to revert your edits. We spent a long time fixing the references, and you chose not to follow what other editors have done. It's a well written article, and you have not utilized the modern footnote scheme. Thanks. Orangemarlin 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching your page, so you don't have to bounce back to my page to reply. First of all, I don't think you're an idiot and I seriously assumed good faith with your edits. Trust me, if I did think you were an idiot, I'd say it. Second, please review the editing history of Evolution. Our patience level is really short, because of all of the vandalism, etc. I guess I should have been a lot more polite, so please accept my apologies. Since you weren't vandalizing nor trying to put in a Creationist POV, I guess I should have run over to, given you a huge kiss, and thanked you for making useful edits (notwithstanding the reference issues). I also spent quite a few hours fixing the references on the page, so I guess I was a little grouchy. Anyways, I don't usually bite unless you're a vandal or Creationist POV type. Please accept my apologies. Orangemarlin 17:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been around lately, but believe me, I've been editing Evolution for a long, long time, and I'm well familiar with how contentious it is. Sorry for being cantankerous, anyway. Graft 18:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ie, [17]. Guettarda 06:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm confused but the image for your link does not look at all like the picture I had removed (and you reverted). Compare:

• 
  The image I thought looked commercial as it has a company's logo on it, so I removed and contacted the author/artist about.
• 
  The image I think looks like your link.

I assume you were hasty and didn't look carefully at my edit, so I'm going to revert your revert of my revert. -- Madeleine 01:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I resisted the urge to write "what he said" under your post at User_talk:Mandaclair#Tribalism.  :) Good luck writing up. Glad to see you back at Evolution. Gnixon 21:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK Gnixon, I'll cross post this and write it for you. TxMCJ 15:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Graft, about your last post: I've definitely felt that way myself many times in the past. I think the distinction, though, is not that I don't think you're "well credentialed enough to be debated", and that I am somehow the "elite authority", but more that: I don't come to Wikipedia to debate, and I seriously feel that 99% of the debate around here is counterproductive. I am sorry if that opinion comes across as arrogance, because I really do like to debate all kinds of topics over coffee, or in the classroom, or on a bar stool, et cetera. All these conversations you and I have had would be extremely fun and fascinating in another setting. I'm just not convinced that Wikipedia is the best or most productive *forum and context* for all of that debate, because here, we are trying to get a certain job done. Maybe some people view the Wiki community as a social community where it's fun to come and debate. I don't, and I am willing to accept that I might be in the minority, in that.

And I won't get into this much here, but your whole attitude about Harvard is also a very common form of anti-elitism that many alumni have to struggle against their whole lives. Harvard has such a mythologial stigma attached to it that is inescapable, that most alumni do *not* wear their alma mater on their sleeve because of the anti-elitism they encounter their whole lives. In short: the public tends to judge Harvard alumni as elitist snobs MUCH more than those alumni actually hold themselves to be elite, or conduct themselves to be snobs. I'm no brandy-sipping, turtleneck wearing, Vivaldi-listening, trust fund kid. I'm a roller skater and a Texas cowgirl/punk rocker who got interested in Evolution and pursued a degree in it, and then came back to Texas. I will be the first to say that Harvard's biology program is not among the best in the nation, and having gone through their system is not necessarily something I'm proud of. Most aspects of those years were a royal pain in the neck. Yes, I had certain experiences, learned certain things, and met certain people that I value now, in retrospect, but I'll be the last person on Earth to say that Harvard is somehow "better" or "more elite" than other institutions, and it is not something I necessarily take a great deal of pride in. It mainly seems to be the *rest of the world* that can't shake the ominous Harvard mythology, and so alumni have to battle that attitude most of their lives, and constantly defend themselves. It's not much fun. My alma mater is something I put on my resume because I have to, but not something I actively advertise. Sorry again if I've made you feel "unworthy of debate", but like I said, my objection has more to do with the fact that some activities (like writing encyclopedia articles, perhaps?) are just not helped or enhanced much by debate between too many people. Thanks, and sorry again. TxMCJ 15:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your last post on my talk page: I am curious to know why you believe that *I* believe I am the "first biologist to come through" or the "most educated or accomplished" or exempt from debate. All I have ever said (which is by NO MEANS a unique opinion) is that the majority of the debate around here seems quite pointless, redundant, unnecessary, and time consuming. As you will see on the article talk page if you read back a bit, I *actively* engage in many types of debates around here, on things such as superfecundity, modes of selection, the adaptationist perspective, the process of "natural selection", et cetera et cetera. Your accusations that I do not engage in debate because I feel "above it", are completely wrong.

The kind of thing I'm talking about is the maddening fact (for example) that I had to spend (WASTE) a lot of time convincing you that superfecundity is fundamental to the mechanism of selection. I am sorry if your *opinion* is that superfecundity is not important, but if you go to any authoritative source, document, or writing about selection, and you will find that it is. That is the kind of debate I look down upon, and cannot tolerate -- debating topics that are elementary. I also don't like spending a lot of time debating largely philosophical side-topics (like our "tribalism" thread which erupted from a comment I made to explain why I think fundamentalists will never be convinced by rationality and logic). Disagree with me? Fine! But I'm not pushing to put any of that in the article, and thus I don't really have the time or interest to debate that kind of thing here. Meet me for coffee or a beer somewhere, and I'd be happy to.

And despite your claim that many other "more educated and accomplished" biologists have been through here, I was pretty surprised to find that the Evolution article as of 3 weeks ago or so:

• Made no mention of viruses
• Had incorrect definitions and descriptions of mutation
• Incorrectly described the recognized modes of selection
• Did not break-down and describe the mechanism of natural selection
• Made no mention of the significance of the natural hierarchical nested order of life
• Characterized all mutations as permanent
• Characterized drift as a "statistical" phenomenon
• Made no mention of reinforcement
• Presented speciation as a geographic phenomenon instead of a genealogical one

All of those topics are *elementary* to Evolution. I'm not trying to characterize myself as Gnixon's brilliant holy authority that showed up and saved the day, but the fact remains -- and this is not meant to be an insult or criticism of anyone -- that the article had some VERY SERIOUS deficiencies and inaccuracies before I took a whack at it. So whoever the more educated and accomplished biologists were that were here before me, I can only guess that their suggestions and edits have been long since dissolved by the constant editings of others, or that they (like me) were turned off by the whole politics of the thing.

After all's said and done: you can call me arrogant, call me an elitist, call me a bitchy Harvard roller-derby girl or whatever -- but the fact remains I only came here to improve the article, because it's the FIRST HIT you get on Google when you type in "Evolution". As someone who lives and breathes Evolution (and more importantly TEACHES it), I was justifiably concerned about the quality of such a high-profile article. Despite what you may think of me as a person, the only thing I really care about around here is that the article has been greatly improved, and nobody who knows the first thing about Evolution can deny that. TxMCJ 17:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar! :) It is certainly true that the article was "synthesized" from bits and pieces found on other Wikipedia articles in combination with online resources. - tameeria 18:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've always seemed a reasonable person. Do you honestly agree with Orangemarlin and TxMCJ regarding my "contributions" to Evolution? I've always felt like I've contributed thoughtfully, intelligently, and humbly, but if you have a different opinion, I'll consider it sincerely---I'd be grateful to know about it. If you prefer to contact me privately, I'll open channels. Regards, Gnixon 05:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying anything here nor there about you, since I haven't observed the interaction between you two closely enough to form an opinion. I just agree with OM's attitude about being a reserved and civil editor. I think civility is the most important virtue on Wikipedia, and it's annoyed me considerably to see you two fighting so publicly on the Evolution talk page. Actually I would apportion the greater part of the blame to you, not because I think you're wrong (as I said, I don't even know what the full dispute is about, and frankly don't care), but because you've been here longer and should know better. I told TxMCJ what I did because I think she IS a good editor, and the page benefits greatly from her contributions. The most productive approach, though, is a cool and steady one, and I think we would all be much happier if both of you would observe that, without any "yes, but..." or "he/she started it" kind of business. Put it down. Bury it. Graft | talk 16:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. You're right to criticize our use of the page, and I owe an apology for my share of it. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, I don't think the two of us are capable of "burying it", so I'll just stay away. Good luck to all. Gnixon 18:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And please keep your snarky comments to yourself. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I decided to open up an AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Universal_genetic_code, it'd be great if you could contribute to it. Thanks! -- Madeleine 02:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graft. I'm very sorry to bother you (especially with that thesis to write - you have my sympathies and best wishes), but I was wondering if you could have a look at something in your capacity as a Wikipedian biologist? There's a bit of a dispute going on over at epigenetics to do with the significance of epigenetic inheritance for evolution. The specific section in contention deals with the so-called philosophical implications of epigenetics. Without wanting to colour your impression of the dispute, to my mind it seems that there's an attempt to overplay the importance of epigenetics (ulterior motives are in play). Anyway, I'm sure you'd be able to help - but don't bother if you're too busy midwifing your thesis! Cheers, --Plumbago 18:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, it's all fixed now. John Profjohn 07:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten it a bit. Do you think the new version is any better? Talk:Genetic_drift#Analogy Tim Vickers (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tried again, using bacteria, which could be simpler. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"You cannot, sir, take from me anything that I will not more willingly part withal." Tim Vickers (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sharifneuro (talk) 05:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC) You have not understood my word. You are not on any side. There is no concept of creation in Darwinism. “so why do you presume that what we have learned about evolution is not PART of God's power of creation? That this is all the working of God's plan?” Presumption and truth are just like traditonal and scientific medicine. Presumption does not lead to truth.[reply]

I told that every particle is living and working to express God. The plan of creatinon is made when the particles were created, and the images of God were kept inside each atom so that at last human beings were brought ino light according to the shape of God. No other creatures do not take the shape of God but take the shape of His servants. The plan of creation of the whole human being is kept in a single particle whatever small it is!! Imagine how a plan of human body is kept inside the atoms. Then you will be able to understand exactly the about God’s creation.

Yes, you must search for knowledge and explore new and new horizons. You will know more and more about the beautiful creations of God. Imagine when the unbelievers killed the prophets calling them liars. But now you can communicate how beautifully with each others and record life events! Why not God Who had created the whole universe and its rules can communicate with His selected peoples (prophets), send His messages and Books which you should abide by? And again can keep your record and re-create you and show your records and judge accordingly?

It is my pleasure that I meet all those passed before and see who are just in their thinking and who were not. I am apprehended that Darwinism end with death and thereafter.

The concept of God and Darwinism are different. You cannot correlate with each other. Will of God is active in the creation but not with Darwinism. Besides you, name some Darwinists or their works who believe in God and do not lead to denial to the works of the Creator. The existence of God starts at the atomic level to man. Try to explain events as a result of internal planning. You will find how God works at every level. He is expressed in His creation. Darwinism is just opposite to this truth and therefore to be condemned. Sharifneuro (talk) 05:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Managed to miss that fact both here and at your blog. This pretty much sums up how I felt when it happened to me. Guettarda (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations and welcome back. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on Talk:David Snoke. It would be great if you could help with this. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest poll really had me laughing. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.207.5 (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, hmm, guy, not sure how to answer your question since you don't have a talk page. As to how I made the figure - I wrote a little perl script myself - a wright-fisher model is pretty easy to construct, it took about five minutes. Graft | talk 05:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Well done mate! a post-viva video. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit much. I agree entirely with what you said, but not with how you said it. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, talk to you later. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did some editing and a little reorganizing. I think it is clearer, and I don't think I lost any of what you added, which I liked. It might be a good idea to get someone else to go over it again. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to clarify that I originally moved the section you added lower primarily because the other more refined sections, particularly with adjoining pictures, I think look a bit better.

Anyways, I think a necessary condition for a better section on this topic is that it includes references. But then I noticed you were actually referring to the scientific quality of the evidence from this phrase “…the best evidence for common descent comes from…”. Although much of the article could use better citations, this phrase in particular I think needs a citation.

Now I have no idea how “good” the various evidences are, as I’m not an expert in the field, or have even deeply studied it, but if that’s in fact not a verifiable consensus of the experts in the field it probably undermines the rest of the article – because it implies the rest are not as good. GromXXVII (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

on the genetic code talk page before the figure being discussed is inserted. Doug youvan (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Graft,

The graph is difficult to understand ... what is being plotted? Based on a 1 min look - but that's more than you'll get from most people.

Some feedback on the genetic drift stuff. I am not a biologist, but I do understand very well evolution by natural selection. I was a bit surprised to read about genetic drift. Initially slightly hostile, but then, reconsidering it's not much more different than rather human traits like "black somehow becoming the fashionale colour this year", why some artists make millions whilst others are in poverty, memes that become popular in human society whilst others don't, or even why some scientific theories take off, only to be forgotten 20 years later whilst more important ones are left to be rediscovered.

Maybe you get my drift.

On the other hand...

There are some things than any budding pop star (a career with great demand, and a very limited availailty of slots) has to have to make it (or more realistically, to increase their probability of making it). People like Simon Cowell base their rather successful careers on that. But again, can't imagine Simon Cowell spotting the Smiths...

I'm abstracting from your argument and reifying in a differant circumstances.

Coming back directly to your argument - genetic drift is: a random change that somehow becomes popular - in a Zoological sense. The question is why does it become popular? Is this not natural selection - is there not some reason why this trait is passed on, or not?

Or is it somehow a mixture of selection and randomness, which is - I think - what evolution by natural selection actually is. So in those terms, genetic drift is a subsidiary mechanism to E by NS. Trait generation that must ultimately be confirmed by evolutionary pressure. But nevertheless an important observation. Or am I mistaken?

What do you think?

btw: to get rid of global capitalism you have two major obstacles. 1: find something that actually delivers more to people across the board; 2: convince the world of it.

If you can do that, I'm with you - but then I would be by definition of point 2.

Mark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.134.93 (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that it's tempting to use blunt language, but please remember that article talk pages are also governed by WP:BLP. There's already enough friction between Wikipedia and certain bio subjects that we don't need to add any more. To that end, I've refactored your comment at Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course this is better. I don't know what I was thinking! Tim Vickers (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my rude actions. I think I must've been worn thin by vandals, and overreacted to something that isn't real vandalism. Thanks for putting me back in my place.—Tetracube (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What might we do with this "article"? I've rewritten the lead, but I'm not sure if it is worth keeping. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you happen to remember where [[18]] you got the MIT legend you added? I'm trying to find a reference. Please reply here. - Denimadept (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just MIT lore that's been passed down through the generations - I haven't got a source other than word-of-mouth. You might find it in either "The Institute For Hacks, Tomfoolery and Pranks", or "How to GAMIT", both of which might be hard to get ahold of. Graft | talk 23:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated New Black Panther Party, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Black Panther Party. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Radiopathy •talk• 01:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Graft,

Why did you remove the links to the Count Gaston Raousset-Boulbon and Ramón Corona from the article? They were legitimate links to the Spanish language wiki articles, and provided much additional information not on the English language pages. Is having links to other language wiki articles prohibited? Do not give me a story that someone that speaks and reads English would not find them of interest, as that is irrelevant. Most of the resources for these historical persons and events is has never been published in English, additional information in Spanish or French sources should be legitimate resources for interested persons to easily access. Thank you. Yaquifox •talk• 10:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Graft,

In response to your reply that the articles the deleted links refer to should exist in English, I can only say that it is very unlikely that we will see them in English anytime soon. I do not have the time to translate or re-write the Spanish language versions at the moment, as the Cajemé article and a few others that I contribute to take up what little creative time I have for such activities. The only reason that I have contributed so much to the Cajemé article is that he was my great great grandfather, and his story deserves to be accurately chronicled. There are many myths and untruths that have cropped up about Cajemé over the years, so I feel that accurate and closely supported (well cited) information needs to be used to portray the true incidents of his life. I believe that until someone has the time and interest to produce English language articles on Count Gaston Raousset-Boulbon and Ramón Corona, that the links to the Spanish language wiki articles serve a very useful purpose, and in fact may actually encourage someone to write the English versions when they see the Spanish language versions are the only ones available.

Yaquifox •talk• 20:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Graft,

I suppose that if it is the policy to have as few external links as possible, and those links should be in the same language as the article, then the redlinks are appropriate. I suppose since I am multi-lingual, I just move back and forth between the different languages with no discomfort. I also suppose someone that can not read Spanish will not see any purpose for the links to the Spanish language WP. It seems a pity that such a rich history is not easily approached or accessed by so many readers. I will abide by your viewpoint, even though I strongly disagree in principle with the idea of language separation.

Yaquifox •talk• 01:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found a number of concerns which you can see at Talk:Genetic code/GA1. I have de-listed the article as the referencing is so poor. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you made an interesting comment in the Talk Archives to the Aspartame page. I share your concerns. Can you remember where you got the information you present in the archives? It's being discussed all over again here. Thanks! TickleMeister (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Graft,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at [email protected] (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at [email protected]. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck (talk • contribs) 23:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was good to see you pop up on Talk:Evolution. It's been a while. Hope things are well with you - Guettarda (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - Sorry for the late notice, but since you have yourself tagged as living in the Bay Area, I thought you might appreciate notification that we’re having an event Saturday! It’ll be held at Hoyt Hall, an all-women's house of the Berkeley Student Cooperative from 3 to 6 pm tomorrow. The main event page is here. Anyone is welcome to show up, but we’re expecting a significant number of people to come who have literally never edited Wikipedia before. If you’re an experienced Wikipedian who would be able to provide useful help to some of the newbies, your presence would be especially appreciated (and it might be a good idea for you to show up at 2 or 2:30 instead of three. Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC) I’m AWB’ing this message to all Wikipedians who have tagged themselves in the bay area. I’m sorry if the message isn’t of interest to you; feel free to delete it. I’ll be unlikely to send future