LexCorp

Disclaimer: If you ask or comment something to me I will usually answer on this page, it makes the discussion much more readable to have it in one place. Please add new topics at the bottom.

Large Hadron Collider is Science Collaboration of the Week

You voted for and this article is now the current Science Collaboration of the Week! Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article.

Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design Talk

Could you please go here and give your opinion on my proposed change to the intelligent design article. Thanks! Bagginator 10:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Scientist_stub.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Scientist_stub.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 22:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons

Hi! After seeing your work on Keep on the Shadowfell and Thunderspire Labyrinth, I was wondering if you'd be interested in joining the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, a collaborative group of editors working to increase the quality of D&D articles. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer but my contributions will surely be short. I have some free time right now and in the mood to improve D&D articles, that I am afraid won't last.--LexCorp (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

We appreciate it all the same. :) Thanks for the images! BOZ (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the alignment in some of the monster infoboxes there! -Drilnoth (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

FfD to delete Time cover image

Hi. As you were involved in some of the recent discussion and debate about the images in the article on Intelligent design, I thought you might like to know a separate proceeding was brought to try to remove the Time image by outright deletion from the wiki . It's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_February_12#Time_evolution_wars.jpg . If you are at all interested in the issue, it would be reasonable to post a "keep" or a "delete" at that page. .. ... Kenosis (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for alert. Voted Keep.--LexCorp (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:RSN: The Sun

Hey LexCorp. I think that this edit of yours at WP:RSN was spot on. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

THF has commented about you here. Best, Verbal chat 10:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Bias

you don't "own" this article.   It seems that there is much bias going on here.   And slanting.   The phrase in one part of the article was simply an opinion but was stated as fact.   No real objectivity.   "However, these ideas contradict Darwin's own views," is really a matter of interpretation and it's actually just an OPINION.   And it shows bias and lack of fair objectivity.   Many creationists believe that the views of Social Darwinism DON'T "contradict" many of Darwin's own views.   So I made the statement MORE OBJECTIVE....saying that "however, the consensus among most evolutionists today as that these ideas contradict Darwin's own views".   Phrasing it THAT way is no longer an opinion, but an objective fact.   But saying dogmatically and assertively "these ideas contradict Darwin's views" is MORE OF AN OPINION THAN AN ACTUAL NEUTRAL STATEMENT OF FACT.   Is "advanced races of men will eliminate the savage races" (written by Darwin) a "view" contradicted by the idea of Social Darwinism?   I was giving the info that creationists bring up sometimes, but IN A NEUTRAL WAY......for the READER to decide.....and NOT for someone like YOU to decide for them.     You're in violation of the rules, with your obvious bias and disrespectful warrantless "reverting" of my needed edits on the convenient grounds of "poor grammar and low value."   Sure, how convenient and how coincidental.     Remember.......this is NOT a blog.   This article is not supposed to be a pro-Darwinism blog.......but simply rounded-out OBJECTIVE AND NEUTRAL presentation.   And no one person can dominate it or "own" it, or get arrogant over it.   This is a collaborative effort, and other people's honest edits should be respected.   If you maybe changed my own wording a bit, that's a bit different.     But you out-and-out removed it, with no real justification.     "Reverts" should NOT be done willy-nilly just because you personally DON'T LIKE what's being said or how something is being legitimately cleaned up, because of some "pro" bias towards something.   It's not my fault that creationists think this, nor that Darwin thought that Caucasians were above Asians and Africans in the Evolutionary Scale.   Those things DO EXIST.   And suppressing that is not objective or honest.     Again, the original statement: "However, these ideas contradict Darwin's own views" IS A MATTER THAT IS IN CONTENTION, and is just your opinion. There's NOT total agreement on that.   But the statement of "most evolutionists say that these contradict Darwin's views" is simply a neutral fact.   And so it should be stated that way.   I will continue to put that in there, too keep the article as fair and as objective and as honest as possible.   What you did with my edits was rude and biased.     And against Wikipedia rules and policies.   This Evolution article REEKS of bias in many places........and needs to be improved in certain ways. I agree that carefulness should be exercised on all sides.   But honest facts and points should not be suppressed, because of prejudice, neurosis, and arrogance.   There's too much of that here.  And it's a violation.   Opinions should not be dogmatically worded as facts.   Even if they're believed to be facts.     Phraseology and information are important.   so the edits are needed.   case closed.

Sweetpoet (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, the thing with Gould and Equilibrium was simply to CLARIFY AND ELABORATE what "bursts" and "periods of stasis" refer to, to make it clearer to the average lay person.   Many editors forget that ordinary people also check these things out for research......and too much technical stuffy difficult language permeates much of this stuff.   There was nothing "low value" in what I did. Sweetpoet (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't clarify anything by introducing creationism wording into the article. The fact that another editor also reverted your edit speaks volumes as to the merit of your edit and please take this conversation to the articles' talk page.--LexCorp (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You just DODGED everything I wrote and addressed NO SPECIFICS about how your obvious bias is all over the place.   What was the "Creationism" in what I added?   Did I say Darwin and Evolution were fallacies and lead to moral degradation or something?   No.......   Did I say that the gaps disprove Macro-Evolution and that Gould was wrong?  No.......I put nothing of the sort on there.   What IS stated already there is STATED AS FACT, THAT "However, these ideas contradict Darwin's own views" and it's NOT neutral in tone.   You're not supposed to be PRO-EVOLUTION OR PRO-DARWINISM ON THIS ARTICLE.   But as neutral and objective as possible.   You throwing "Creationism" charges at me shows how biased and deliberate (and in violation) you actually are........   Suppression and bias run RAMPANT on this thing.   And I won't put up with it.   You evaded specfiics in my argument, with the shallow arrogant knee-jerk talking point of "aarrgh, creationism, arrghh".   Spare me. YOu assume much, and understand little....  

Also.....the words "gap" and "sudden appearing" are NOT necessarily "creationism wording"...... These are terms that have been acknowledged and used by evolutionists too.   Talk about hyper-sensitive and suppressive.    You can't expect to state dogmatically and idiotically as "fact" when there are things IN CONTENTION.   That's not encyclopedic, but rather POLEMIC.   And it's not tolerated, by Wikipedia rules.   Sweetpoet (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, your remark about another editor reverting my edits "speaks volumes" is ridiculous, because that other editor is JUST LIKE YOU IN ARROGANT BIAS.   It speaks volumes about just how bad this Evolution article actually is in its biased tone, and the suppressive neurotic editors wanting to squash anything that smells of honest objectivity.   THAT'S what it speaks.  I mean, what?   That other editor couldn't be as neurotic and arrogant and uptight like you?   That IS possible. There are many of them, you know. Sweetpoet (talk) 12:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Evolution article is constantly been attacked by creationists. The wording "sudden appearing" and "gaps" are classic creationism straw man representations of Gould's punctuated equilibrium. They only serve to confuse readers and muddle the issue. Again further discussion about the merit of your edit should be done in the article's talk page.--LexCorp (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well no one should be "attacking" anything, from any side.   That's against the rules.  NO SIDE should be doing that.  And if I saw an actual Creationist putting garbage on this article, I would be the first to revert it.   If I saw "Young Earthism" disruptions and tones somehow incorporated on the article, that was blatant and non-sensical, I would remove it.   I'm for neutral objectivity on here, which is how it's SUPPOSED to be on Wikipedia.   As for "sudden appearing" and "gaps" being "straw men" things, did you forget what was ALREADY stated in that section?   It was basically the same thing, BUT WITH DIFFERENT WORDING....   The word there was "bursts"......right?  So I simply ADDED to that to make it more understandable.   Isn't "bursts of evolution" the same basic thing as "sudden appearing"?   Whether from a creationist or evolutionist perspective?   Also, the other thing of "gaps"......that was only to complement the phrasing that was already there that means the same thing of "long periods of stasis, where species remain relatively unchanged."  So?   I did NOT mean it as pro-Creationism as I meant it as SIMPLER WORDING AND CLARIFICATION.   But tell me, bro....tell me how "bursts" is so different in basic meaning than "sudden appearing"?   Or how "gaps" means something radically different than "long periods of stasis".   Do you think the average Joe Schmo researcher or ordinary person is gonna know off-hand what the hell "stasis" means?   Some will, but some may not.   I simply wanted to make it clearer.   So rudely undoing my well-meaning edit was NOT necessary.   peace out.......Sweetpoet (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No they are not the same thing. They are classic creationism straw man misrepresentations of Gould's punctuated equilibrium. Thus hardly a clarification. Take it to the article's talk page.--LexCorp (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NScover20041218.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NScover20041218.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:NScover20050122.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:NScover20050122.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Adam appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. You have now committed 3 reverts on this article. You are in Danger of Edit warring. SAE (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I know about 3RR and also NPOV. Use of "myth" is not only not against NPOV but it is also more encyclopedic than the use of "narrative".--LexCorp (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)