![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Please don't revert my or any other editors good faith edits. See Help:Reverting. Not only is it incredibly rude, but it is also primarily used to combat vandalism.
I do understand your reasons for restoring the list of medications, however, in my opinion, they fit much better in the Psychiatric medications article. But, to prevent an edit war, I'll leave the psychopharmacology article alone. Chupper 16:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Such reversion would have been avoided if you had consulted other editors of that article on the discussion page first before making such large edits. It is extremely rude to delete an "entire text" based on an uninformed opinion. In fact, it is very much akin to vandalism. I make no apologies for making the reversion. mezzaninelounge 16:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Apology accepted. I in turn apologize if I had caused any offence. mezzaninelounge 17:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:User Neurobiologist requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 04:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:User electrophysiologist requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 20:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
mezzaninelounge (
talk)
09:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I removed the editsemiprotected template from that talk page. I'm not sure why you added it in the first place; the page isn't semiprotected and you are autoconfirmed and could edit it even if it were. Your previous edit had been to revert some IP vandalism on the talk page. Were you trying to request page protection? That would be WP:RFPP. Otherwise, let me know what you are trying to do and I will try to help. Cheers, Celestra ( talk) 01:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Celestra, thanks for the prompt response. Yes, I am trying to request semi-protection. I must have misunderstood the instructions on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi_protection#semi. The Organ (anatomy) page has been subjected to vandalism, almost daily. Undoing these vandalism has become quite taxing. I would like to request that all edits to this page be made by only registered users. Thanks again for your time. mezzaninelounge ( talk) 16:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
{{lat}}
template, so it was a request to semi-protect the talk page. You might want to try again with the {{la}}
.
Celestra (
talk)
20:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Thanks for clarifying that. I suspect that was the primary reason why is was declined. I will change it. Either way, hopefully they stop coming back. mezzaninelounge ( talk) 21:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello - You, or someone with your username, has voted in the Global Sysops Vote but you don't have a Unified Login (SUL account). Please could you:
This is necessary to confirm your identity or your vote may not be counted. Thank you -- (RT) ( talk) 11:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I just merged the accounts.
mezzaninelounge (
talk)
16:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I have done it myself, plenty of times - Wikipedia offers lots of such temptations. I'm usually glad when someone steps in and gives me a reason to give it a break; I am glad you don't mind. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello mezzaninelounge...I recieved a response from both Eva Lamb and Brian Hall about epigenetics. Dr. Hall is travelling and said he will get back to me soon - he said it was timely because he is working on a paper on the history of epigenetics. Here is a copy of the e-mail exchanges between myself and Dr. Eva Lamb:
Subject: Conrad Waddington and epigenetics....
Dear Dr. Jablonka,
I have read through many of your publications and have enjoyed learning about epigenetic evolution through your work. I am a contributor in Wikipedia and recently got into a debate about the etymology of the term epigenetics. I argued fiercely that Conrad Waddington first coined the term in the 1940’s or soon before (this paper Description: http://www.sciencedirect.com/scidirimg/clear.gifdoi:10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2007.06.027, says that he coined it in 1938). However, another contributor pointed out that the term epigenetic appears in an earlier text in 1883 ( http://books.google.ca/books?id=IykCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA28&dq=On+the+difference+between+physical+and+moral+law,+Fernley+lecture+%C2%B7+1883.&hl=en&ei=SFJATemFKIu4sQOj7MGyCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=germ%20to%20organ&f=false) – see page 160. I thought I would notify you of this, because it has been falsely reported numerous times over in the literature that Conrad Waddington was the first to coin this term from the Aristotelian term for epigenesis ( http://oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/63355). I would agree that Waddington was the first to define and use epigenetics in its modern sense and meaning, but it is irrefutable that the term epigenetic was used in 1883 in the Aristotelian sense. Perhaps you might have some insight to add to this? Were you aware of this etymology?
Sincerely,
Mark D. Thompson
-- Dear Mark,
Thank you for your question. As to epigenetic, the term epigenetic was used adjectively for a very long time indeed ro refer to epigenesist. I think (I an not sure!) that Harvey used it in the 17th century in this sense, and it was a certainly used a lot as an adjective in the 19th century (you may want to consult Dr. Linda van Speybroek about all its usages - she wrote a PhD thesis about epigenesis and epigenetics; she is in the University of Gent, Belgium) . However, I am not aware that epigenetics as a noun was used before Waddington used it. What is important, I think, is that Waddington used the term as a noun and gave it a new meaning..
I hope that this is of some use.
Best,
Eva
Thought I would pass this information along for your future reference and because I thought you would be interested out of curiosity. Take care. Thompsma ( talk) 02:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Here is the link to Dr. Linda van Speybroek's publications: https://biblio.ugent.be/person/801001264895 ...I'm reading through to see what she has to say about this. My French is rusty, but some of it is in English and I can read French slowly, but surely. Thompsma ( talk) 02:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear Mark, I disagree; the 1883 text you refer to uses the term “epigenitic”, not “epigenetic”. These are 2 different grammatical constructions of the root words and have not only different spellings, but also different connotations. I do not think the 1883 reference coined the term epigenetics as it is currently used in biology, but rather epigenitics [sic] which, as you point out, referred to the long-debunked theory of epigenesist. Just my opinion. Rick Domann
If you make a bold edit, as you did at Science, and someone else reverts you, the onus is now on you to go to talk and discuss your addition and try to get consensus for it. This process is called Bold, Revert, Discuss, and is a pretty common editing pattern on Wikipedia. The key, though, is that you can't insist that your edits automatically stay until after someone else discusses on talk first. Thanks. Qwyrxian ( talk) 23:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
In this Richard Dawkins edit, the common English word "science" was wikilinked. Please see WP:OVERLINK.which begins:
What generally should not be linked An article is said to be overlinked if it links to words that can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia. Overlinking should be avoided, because it makes it difficult for the reader to identify and follow links that are likely to be of value.
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mark Shaw ( talk) 16:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
If you have something to say. Say it. But don't threaten me with "blocking." I have already written on the talk page and you did not respond. mezzaninelounge (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Following our earlier discussion, I think the ideal eg of mutation bias as evolutionary mechanism for your intro class might be the evolution of genome size / compactness, as studied in the Petrov refs. It's pretty simple conceptually, and you can teach them about junk DNA while you are at it. Joannamasel ( talk) 20:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
— Jess· Δ ♥ 18:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I understand you recently had some dealings with Qwyrxian, and I think, in doing so, you have the unique vantage point of telling us about whether you think he is qualified to become an administrator. So, I would like to hear what you have to say about Qwyrxian, and here's your chance to do that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Qwyrxian. CHEERS! Diligent007 ( talk) 16:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest you refactor your comment. Referring to another editor as "simpleminded" is a clear violation of WP:NPA. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
ARE YOU INSANE, Black Kite? You can't tell him to restate why he opposes the editor's nomination. You ask people to freely vote, and yet here you are telling Danielkueh how to think and express his reasoning for the way he voted. That's his reasoning, so leave it alone. By the way, Danielkueh, thanks for your courage to speak your mind--I may be banned soon, but I spoke my mind (Wikipedia revolves around censorship) (Copy to Black Kite) Diligent007 ( talk) 20:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
|
Thank you for your participation on my RfA |
Thank you for your participation at my RfA. I will always try to keep the human aspect of the project in mind as I perform admin actions, not sacrificing good work or good people to an abstract set of rules. If you ever have concerns, feel free to let me know. Qwyrxian ( talk) 08:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
Congratulations on your new role. mezzaninelounge ( talk) 14:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Danielkueh...I was editing with you at the same time in the same parts on the evolution article. I will go over your edits and incorporate your changes in with mine. Thanks for the assistance. I hope to get this simplified and truncated even further. I didn't want to expand on this section, but previous versions didn't explain things well and contained misinformation. Thompsma ( talk) 17:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Daniel, I k now you acted in good faith but the sentence Thmpsma deleted had been in the article for several years. He needs to reach consensus before deleting it. I di dnot just write it, I restored a consensus version from a week or two ago that thompsa preemptorally deleted. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your comment on my talk page. I do not want to go into detail about what I think about the Menand quotes because my views - our views - are not supposed to enter into articles. You raised an "accuracy" flag and I am the first person to admit that my writing may not always accurately represent the view expressed in a source. But I have provided page citations as well as two quotes, so if you can rephrase the summary of Menand's view so that it is a more accurate account of his view, I welcome your help.
With all due respect, I do not think you understand the way research in the humanities is organized. Please take a look at recent edits to the Evolution article:
So the fact that someone has a PhD in medicine or paleontology would not I assume signify to you that the person is not an evolutionary scientist. So is it truly that hard for you to imagine that the Humanities may also have fields of overlap? I assure you that many important works of history - especially intellectual history (because of the nature of the sources) - are not written by people with PhDs in History, or who do not teach in History departments. All that matters is the source and the source is a book that is accepted as a scholarly work of intellectual history.
Yet you say that the view is "false." This is very much about NPOV: NPOV tells us to include views we believe to be wrong. I assure you there is much content in WP that I do not believe to be rue but that I have not deleted, because it complies with policy.
And ... you say that the views are false but if you do not mind my asking, are you a historian? From what position to you judge them to be false? Thompsma has provided his own answer and frankly, his response is just a violation of WP:NOR.. Thompsma has clearly read a lot and on that basis has his own views about this history of evolutionary thought. I am not saying he is wrong. I am saying that our policy is we do not put our own views into the article. We have the principle, "verifiability, not truth" precisely to prevent us from stacking articles with our own views, and removing views that we do not like.
Now, if you know of other intellectual historians who take opposing views to that of Menand, the Wikipedia-way is to add the other views from other verifiable sources. Why delete, when you should be adding the views of whatever historian you know who holds another view?
You suggest that you think this edit conflict is disproportionate. Had I added a couple of paragraphs to the article, I would take your concern very seriously indeed. But we are not talking about two paragraphs or even one, but one sentence. I have to ask what kind of prejudice is so great that it cannot tolerate even one sentence of a view it does not like.
You have asked me to consider my actions and I promise you, I have taken this time to write to you (1) because I respect you personally and (2) because this is meant to illustrate how much I have thought about the edits.
I courteously ask you to reflect on your own feelings and actions here. You do not need to respond on my talk page - I think you have expressed yourself at length already and believe me, I have read what you have written. It is having read what you wrote that leaves me with these questions about your position. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Daniel, did you not notice that the last two versions of my edits that you deleted did not have the word "Enlightenment" in them? Believe it or not, I changed the wording based on your comment. that is what I do: when someone criticizes an edit of mine, I try to improve it. Is this not how collaborative editing works? it disappoints me that you deleted what I wrote without reading it.
Menand is a respected intellectual historian. The book is on the massive changes in the natural sciences in the 19th century and their impact on philosophy. Darwin is central to the argument. You know, our article includes a reference from philosopher Daniel Dennet. I don't see you deleting that sentence. If we can include Dennet, we can surely include Menand.
The reason I did not quote Kuhn is because I have not read Kuhn making this particular point. Menand does. So we should quote him as the source for the idea.
If you wish to cite other people - and in the process perhaps provide multiple views - I would have no objection and would be glad to work with you on that.
But please let's be clear: this has been my position all along, that we always add views from verifiable sources, and if any editor feels that another viw is being left out, the thing to do is to add more views. But not to delete.
In an act of good will you could add the Menand citation back - and if you do not like the sentence as I phrased it, rephrase it. I still fail to see how you can object so dogmatically to one sentence. It is the pattern of a POV-warrior, not of a respected Wp editor. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I hope you like it. In the meantime, your comparing Menand's book to work by Shakespeare and the Bible just make you look silly. You cannot possibly mean it. Neither Shakespeare nor the authors of the Bible ever won a Pulitzer in the non-fiction category nor would they were they elligible. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Menand is a notable intellectual historian.
Make up your mind - do you object to Menand, or to my summary of his views? You throw out so many objections it is hard to keep track of which ones you really man. If you think my summary is an inaccurate account of Menand's view, I have invited you to rewrite it.
I am not embarrassed. You invited discussion on the article talk page but on my user talk page you try to shut me up. Should I feel embarrassed? Why? I am complying with NPOV, V, and NOR. I have demonstrated that you do not even understand our verifiability policy. Why are you so threatened by someone who does not think like you do? Or are you really just threatened by the fact that Wikipedia actually is an encyclopedia anyone can edit? Look, if you want so much control over an article, why not write something and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you just admit that you haven't read the book and do not understand Menand? It is okay for you not to have read everything. As for me being alone in my views, did you not read Dave Souza: "It's certainly true that Darwin shifted attention from the type form to the range of variations in a population species concept?" Or ... did you think that I would not read them, and think you could get away with your trying to bully me? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Re: "If in doubt, leave it out. Consensus before contentious." - Be my guest! -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
-- DQ (t) (e) 02:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of
edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on
Evolution. Users are expected to
collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mathsci ( talk) 00:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
You thought it was interesting people participated in the conversation more so than normal at evolution (and I agree, it is interesting). For me, I had seen previous talk page discussion but I shied away as it required a strong and in depth knowledge of the subject, which I don't have. Jesanj ( talk) 02:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
When I arrived mid discussion at Talk:Evolution I didn't have any preconceived notions about any of the editors involved. At this point I am finding that a lot of your comments and replies to my comments do not seem collaborative. I ignored your condescending question "Have you actually read Darwin?". I have also tried to ignore or respond rationally to your repeated flat dismissals of my arguments and proposals. Several times you have dismissed them without any argumentation or a rationale other than you don't like them. But now you are looking back into old discussions and picking out statements of mine that seem to contradict current statements I am making when taking out of their original context. That is really not nice, and it makes me wonder what exactly I have done to annoy you? The one thing I can think of was when I responded to your claim that a phrasing of mine was ungrammatical (which it clearly was not, although it was certainly not an example of very clear writing) by suggesting that your own grammar skills might not be up to scratch. That was uncivil and unconducive to good discussion on my behalf and I apologize for that. Other than that comment which I made because I felt that you were being overly critical of my writing, I have not had any intent to bug you or make you feel bad, and I apologize if I have inadvertently done so. I think that we can collaborate productively by putting such quibs in the past and see what is actually best for the encyclopedia. I think intelligible writing that is not condensed by un-explained jargon is a necessity for writing a good encyclopedia, and I think that you largely agree with this. Lets work together to see how to do that in the best possible way. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 18:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey I go to a university that is creating Wikipedia pages as a project and we need to find 2 people in our related field to review our article for improvements. Can you look over mine? It'd be much appreciated. I can send you the link if you're interested. OneThousandTwentyFour ( talk) 13:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
You have now reverted four different people to enforce a 'consensus' that there is no such thing as the academic field of evolutionary biology distinct from the phenomenon of evolution itself. You cannot possibly in good faith believe that this is correct, so I have restored the article again. The information in the article is perfectly legitimate and does not exist elsewhere in this form. Please stop this vandalism and start reasonable discussions aimed at a proper consensus. Hans Adler 01:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, this is to notify you that I have started a more indept discussion about whether the Evolutionary Biology article should be restored and in what form exactly. Please see Talk:Evolutionary_biology#Restoration_of_Evolutionary_biology for the discussion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I found this question in the archive, reviewing your changes [3] (though quite some time after they were done), and I would like to give you an answer: The hypothetico-deductive method clearly belongs to empiricist schools and, despite common misunderstanding, it is opposed to Popper's philosophy. It attempts to confirm theories by evidence and the only improvement over standard inductivism perhaps is that it acknowledges that the theory precedes and is needed by the observation. You can find a discussion about that in David Miller's Critical Rationalism: A restatement and defense. As Miller wittily puts it, the right buzzword for Popper's philosophy would be hypothetico-destructivism. Hope this answers your question. -- rtc ( talk) 12:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Please don't revert my or any other editors good faith edits. See Help:Reverting. Not only is it incredibly rude, but it is also primarily used to combat vandalism.
I do understand your reasons for restoring the list of medications, however, in my opinion, they fit much better in the Psychiatric medications article. But, to prevent an edit war, I'll leave the psychopharmacology article alone. Chupper 16:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Such reversion would have been avoided if you had consulted other editors of that article on the discussion page first before making such large edits. It is extremely rude to delete an "entire text" based on an uninformed opinion. In fact, it is very much akin to vandalism. I make no apologies for making the reversion. mezzaninelounge 16:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Apology accepted. I in turn apologize if I had caused any offence. mezzaninelounge 17:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:User Neurobiologist requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 04:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:User electrophysiologist requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 20:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
mezzaninelounge (
talk)
09:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I removed the editsemiprotected template from that talk page. I'm not sure why you added it in the first place; the page isn't semiprotected and you are autoconfirmed and could edit it even if it were. Your previous edit had been to revert some IP vandalism on the talk page. Were you trying to request page protection? That would be WP:RFPP. Otherwise, let me know what you are trying to do and I will try to help. Cheers, Celestra ( talk) 01:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Celestra, thanks for the prompt response. Yes, I am trying to request semi-protection. I must have misunderstood the instructions on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi_protection#semi. The Organ (anatomy) page has been subjected to vandalism, almost daily. Undoing these vandalism has become quite taxing. I would like to request that all edits to this page be made by only registered users. Thanks again for your time. mezzaninelounge ( talk) 16:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
{{lat}}
template, so it was a request to semi-protect the talk page. You might want to try again with the {{la}}
.
Celestra (
talk)
20:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Thanks for clarifying that. I suspect that was the primary reason why is was declined. I will change it. Either way, hopefully they stop coming back. mezzaninelounge ( talk) 21:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello - You, or someone with your username, has voted in the Global Sysops Vote but you don't have a Unified Login (SUL account). Please could you:
This is necessary to confirm your identity or your vote may not be counted. Thank you -- (RT) ( talk) 11:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I just merged the accounts.
mezzaninelounge (
talk)
16:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I have done it myself, plenty of times - Wikipedia offers lots of such temptations. I'm usually glad when someone steps in and gives me a reason to give it a break; I am glad you don't mind. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello mezzaninelounge...I recieved a response from both Eva Lamb and Brian Hall about epigenetics. Dr. Hall is travelling and said he will get back to me soon - he said it was timely because he is working on a paper on the history of epigenetics. Here is a copy of the e-mail exchanges between myself and Dr. Eva Lamb:
Subject: Conrad Waddington and epigenetics....
Dear Dr. Jablonka,
I have read through many of your publications and have enjoyed learning about epigenetic evolution through your work. I am a contributor in Wikipedia and recently got into a debate about the etymology of the term epigenetics. I argued fiercely that Conrad Waddington first coined the term in the 1940’s or soon before (this paper Description: http://www.sciencedirect.com/scidirimg/clear.gifdoi:10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2007.06.027, says that he coined it in 1938). However, another contributor pointed out that the term epigenetic appears in an earlier text in 1883 ( http://books.google.ca/books?id=IykCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA28&dq=On+the+difference+between+physical+and+moral+law,+Fernley+lecture+%C2%B7+1883.&hl=en&ei=SFJATemFKIu4sQOj7MGyCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=germ%20to%20organ&f=false) – see page 160. I thought I would notify you of this, because it has been falsely reported numerous times over in the literature that Conrad Waddington was the first to coin this term from the Aristotelian term for epigenesis ( http://oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/63355). I would agree that Waddington was the first to define and use epigenetics in its modern sense and meaning, but it is irrefutable that the term epigenetic was used in 1883 in the Aristotelian sense. Perhaps you might have some insight to add to this? Were you aware of this etymology?
Sincerely,
Mark D. Thompson
-- Dear Mark,
Thank you for your question. As to epigenetic, the term epigenetic was used adjectively for a very long time indeed ro refer to epigenesist. I think (I an not sure!) that Harvey used it in the 17th century in this sense, and it was a certainly used a lot as an adjective in the 19th century (you may want to consult Dr. Linda van Speybroek about all its usages - she wrote a PhD thesis about epigenesis and epigenetics; she is in the University of Gent, Belgium) . However, I am not aware that epigenetics as a noun was used before Waddington used it. What is important, I think, is that Waddington used the term as a noun and gave it a new meaning..
I hope that this is of some use.
Best,
Eva
Thought I would pass this information along for your future reference and because I thought you would be interested out of curiosity. Take care. Thompsma ( talk) 02:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Here is the link to Dr. Linda van Speybroek's publications: https://biblio.ugent.be/person/801001264895 ...I'm reading through to see what she has to say about this. My French is rusty, but some of it is in English and I can read French slowly, but surely. Thompsma ( talk) 02:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear Mark, I disagree; the 1883 text you refer to uses the term “epigenitic”, not “epigenetic”. These are 2 different grammatical constructions of the root words and have not only different spellings, but also different connotations. I do not think the 1883 reference coined the term epigenetics as it is currently used in biology, but rather epigenitics [sic] which, as you point out, referred to the long-debunked theory of epigenesist. Just my opinion. Rick Domann
If you make a bold edit, as you did at Science, and someone else reverts you, the onus is now on you to go to talk and discuss your addition and try to get consensus for it. This process is called Bold, Revert, Discuss, and is a pretty common editing pattern on Wikipedia. The key, though, is that you can't insist that your edits automatically stay until after someone else discusses on talk first. Thanks. Qwyrxian ( talk) 23:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
In this Richard Dawkins edit, the common English word "science" was wikilinked. Please see WP:OVERLINK.which begins:
What generally should not be linked An article is said to be overlinked if it links to words that can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia. Overlinking should be avoided, because it makes it difficult for the reader to identify and follow links that are likely to be of value.
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mark Shaw ( talk) 16:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
If you have something to say. Say it. But don't threaten me with "blocking." I have already written on the talk page and you did not respond. mezzaninelounge (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Following our earlier discussion, I think the ideal eg of mutation bias as evolutionary mechanism for your intro class might be the evolution of genome size / compactness, as studied in the Petrov refs. It's pretty simple conceptually, and you can teach them about junk DNA while you are at it. Joannamasel ( talk) 20:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
— Jess· Δ ♥ 18:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I understand you recently had some dealings with Qwyrxian, and I think, in doing so, you have the unique vantage point of telling us about whether you think he is qualified to become an administrator. So, I would like to hear what you have to say about Qwyrxian, and here's your chance to do that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Qwyrxian. CHEERS! Diligent007 ( talk) 16:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest you refactor your comment. Referring to another editor as "simpleminded" is a clear violation of WP:NPA. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
ARE YOU INSANE, Black Kite? You can't tell him to restate why he opposes the editor's nomination. You ask people to freely vote, and yet here you are telling Danielkueh how to think and express his reasoning for the way he voted. That's his reasoning, so leave it alone. By the way, Danielkueh, thanks for your courage to speak your mind--I may be banned soon, but I spoke my mind (Wikipedia revolves around censorship) (Copy to Black Kite) Diligent007 ( talk) 20:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
|
Thank you for your participation on my RfA |
Thank you for your participation at my RfA. I will always try to keep the human aspect of the project in mind as I perform admin actions, not sacrificing good work or good people to an abstract set of rules. If you ever have concerns, feel free to let me know. Qwyrxian ( talk) 08:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
Congratulations on your new role. mezzaninelounge ( talk) 14:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Danielkueh...I was editing with you at the same time in the same parts on the evolution article. I will go over your edits and incorporate your changes in with mine. Thanks for the assistance. I hope to get this simplified and truncated even further. I didn't want to expand on this section, but previous versions didn't explain things well and contained misinformation. Thompsma ( talk) 17:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Daniel, I k now you acted in good faith but the sentence Thmpsma deleted had been in the article for several years. He needs to reach consensus before deleting it. I di dnot just write it, I restored a consensus version from a week or two ago that thompsa preemptorally deleted. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your comment on my talk page. I do not want to go into detail about what I think about the Menand quotes because my views - our views - are not supposed to enter into articles. You raised an "accuracy" flag and I am the first person to admit that my writing may not always accurately represent the view expressed in a source. But I have provided page citations as well as two quotes, so if you can rephrase the summary of Menand's view so that it is a more accurate account of his view, I welcome your help.
With all due respect, I do not think you understand the way research in the humanities is organized. Please take a look at recent edits to the Evolution article:
So the fact that someone has a PhD in medicine or paleontology would not I assume signify to you that the person is not an evolutionary scientist. So is it truly that hard for you to imagine that the Humanities may also have fields of overlap? I assure you that many important works of history - especially intellectual history (because of the nature of the sources) - are not written by people with PhDs in History, or who do not teach in History departments. All that matters is the source and the source is a book that is accepted as a scholarly work of intellectual history.
Yet you say that the view is "false." This is very much about NPOV: NPOV tells us to include views we believe to be wrong. I assure you there is much content in WP that I do not believe to be rue but that I have not deleted, because it complies with policy.
And ... you say that the views are false but if you do not mind my asking, are you a historian? From what position to you judge them to be false? Thompsma has provided his own answer and frankly, his response is just a violation of WP:NOR.. Thompsma has clearly read a lot and on that basis has his own views about this history of evolutionary thought. I am not saying he is wrong. I am saying that our policy is we do not put our own views into the article. We have the principle, "verifiability, not truth" precisely to prevent us from stacking articles with our own views, and removing views that we do not like.
Now, if you know of other intellectual historians who take opposing views to that of Menand, the Wikipedia-way is to add the other views from other verifiable sources. Why delete, when you should be adding the views of whatever historian you know who holds another view?
You suggest that you think this edit conflict is disproportionate. Had I added a couple of paragraphs to the article, I would take your concern very seriously indeed. But we are not talking about two paragraphs or even one, but one sentence. I have to ask what kind of prejudice is so great that it cannot tolerate even one sentence of a view it does not like.
You have asked me to consider my actions and I promise you, I have taken this time to write to you (1) because I respect you personally and (2) because this is meant to illustrate how much I have thought about the edits.
I courteously ask you to reflect on your own feelings and actions here. You do not need to respond on my talk page - I think you have expressed yourself at length already and believe me, I have read what you have written. It is having read what you wrote that leaves me with these questions about your position. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Daniel, did you not notice that the last two versions of my edits that you deleted did not have the word "Enlightenment" in them? Believe it or not, I changed the wording based on your comment. that is what I do: when someone criticizes an edit of mine, I try to improve it. Is this not how collaborative editing works? it disappoints me that you deleted what I wrote without reading it.
Menand is a respected intellectual historian. The book is on the massive changes in the natural sciences in the 19th century and their impact on philosophy. Darwin is central to the argument. You know, our article includes a reference from philosopher Daniel Dennet. I don't see you deleting that sentence. If we can include Dennet, we can surely include Menand.
The reason I did not quote Kuhn is because I have not read Kuhn making this particular point. Menand does. So we should quote him as the source for the idea.
If you wish to cite other people - and in the process perhaps provide multiple views - I would have no objection and would be glad to work with you on that.
But please let's be clear: this has been my position all along, that we always add views from verifiable sources, and if any editor feels that another viw is being left out, the thing to do is to add more views. But not to delete.
In an act of good will you could add the Menand citation back - and if you do not like the sentence as I phrased it, rephrase it. I still fail to see how you can object so dogmatically to one sentence. It is the pattern of a POV-warrior, not of a respected Wp editor. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I hope you like it. In the meantime, your comparing Menand's book to work by Shakespeare and the Bible just make you look silly. You cannot possibly mean it. Neither Shakespeare nor the authors of the Bible ever won a Pulitzer in the non-fiction category nor would they were they elligible. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Menand is a notable intellectual historian.
Make up your mind - do you object to Menand, or to my summary of his views? You throw out so many objections it is hard to keep track of which ones you really man. If you think my summary is an inaccurate account of Menand's view, I have invited you to rewrite it.
I am not embarrassed. You invited discussion on the article talk page but on my user talk page you try to shut me up. Should I feel embarrassed? Why? I am complying with NPOV, V, and NOR. I have demonstrated that you do not even understand our verifiability policy. Why are you so threatened by someone who does not think like you do? Or are you really just threatened by the fact that Wikipedia actually is an encyclopedia anyone can edit? Look, if you want so much control over an article, why not write something and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you just admit that you haven't read the book and do not understand Menand? It is okay for you not to have read everything. As for me being alone in my views, did you not read Dave Souza: "It's certainly true that Darwin shifted attention from the type form to the range of variations in a population species concept?" Or ... did you think that I would not read them, and think you could get away with your trying to bully me? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Re: "If in doubt, leave it out. Consensus before contentious." - Be my guest! -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
-- DQ (t) (e) 02:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of
edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on
Evolution. Users are expected to
collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mathsci ( talk) 00:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
You thought it was interesting people participated in the conversation more so than normal at evolution (and I agree, it is interesting). For me, I had seen previous talk page discussion but I shied away as it required a strong and in depth knowledge of the subject, which I don't have. Jesanj ( talk) 02:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
When I arrived mid discussion at Talk:Evolution I didn't have any preconceived notions about any of the editors involved. At this point I am finding that a lot of your comments and replies to my comments do not seem collaborative. I ignored your condescending question "Have you actually read Darwin?". I have also tried to ignore or respond rationally to your repeated flat dismissals of my arguments and proposals. Several times you have dismissed them without any argumentation or a rationale other than you don't like them. But now you are looking back into old discussions and picking out statements of mine that seem to contradict current statements I am making when taking out of their original context. That is really not nice, and it makes me wonder what exactly I have done to annoy you? The one thing I can think of was when I responded to your claim that a phrasing of mine was ungrammatical (which it clearly was not, although it was certainly not an example of very clear writing) by suggesting that your own grammar skills might not be up to scratch. That was uncivil and unconducive to good discussion on my behalf and I apologize for that. Other than that comment which I made because I felt that you were being overly critical of my writing, I have not had any intent to bug you or make you feel bad, and I apologize if I have inadvertently done so. I think that we can collaborate productively by putting such quibs in the past and see what is actually best for the encyclopedia. I think intelligible writing that is not condensed by un-explained jargon is a necessity for writing a good encyclopedia, and I think that you largely agree with this. Lets work together to see how to do that in the best possible way. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 18:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey I go to a university that is creating Wikipedia pages as a project and we need to find 2 people in our related field to review our article for improvements. Can you look over mine? It'd be much appreciated. I can send you the link if you're interested. OneThousandTwentyFour ( talk) 13:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
You have now reverted four different people to enforce a 'consensus' that there is no such thing as the academic field of evolutionary biology distinct from the phenomenon of evolution itself. You cannot possibly in good faith believe that this is correct, so I have restored the article again. The information in the article is perfectly legitimate and does not exist elsewhere in this form. Please stop this vandalism and start reasonable discussions aimed at a proper consensus. Hans Adler 01:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, this is to notify you that I have started a more indept discussion about whether the Evolutionary Biology article should be restored and in what form exactly. Please see Talk:Evolutionary_biology#Restoration_of_Evolutionary_biology for the discussion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I found this question in the archive, reviewing your changes [3] (though quite some time after they were done), and I would like to give you an answer: The hypothetico-deductive method clearly belongs to empiricist schools and, despite common misunderstanding, it is opposed to Popper's philosophy. It attempts to confirm theories by evidence and the only improvement over standard inductivism perhaps is that it acknowledges that the theory precedes and is needed by the observation. You can find a discussion about that in David Miller's Critical Rationalism: A restatement and defense. As Miller wittily puts it, the right buzzword for Popper's philosophy would be hypothetico-destructivism. Hope this answers your question. -- rtc ( talk) 12:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)