LexCorp
Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, LexCorp, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
Hi, welcome. The more the merrier on these {{Creationism}} pages... Alai 16:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. I hope I can contribute to some pages but I won't be able to keep constant guard. First because the time it takes and secondly because it truly depress me to argue with irrational people like the creationist. Having said that I fully support your effort and that of the rest to keep the wikipedia as factual as possible, especially regarding to the distinction of scientific methodology vs irrational thinking (Which is very legit as long as it doesn't cross the line to rational thinking areas). --LexCorp 19:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Cesare Emiliani
You may find this article interesting. It gives an adbridge Bio of Cesare. askewmind 12:13, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Feynman Lectures
Good edit! Looking back, I do remember it being called that now, and the addition of chapter topics is a useful addition. Now it just needs to be linked to the appropriate articles... Eric Herboso 01:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Update: Never mind -- you already took care of it. (c: Guess my browser was using a cached copy, and I didn't notice till now. (c; Eric Herboso 01:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
scientist re-stubbing
I'm trying to help you re-stubb all scientics at wikipedia. Askewmind 01:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- See your Talk page. --LexCorp 01:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Created kinds edit
Now that we have Creation biology up and running, would you help out with Created kinds? It really helps to have a third person in these edit processes with User:Ungtss.
Thanks,
Joshuaschroeder 01:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I will try but I must warm you that I am about to change home and they are gonna cut my internet connection anytime now. So if I drop out of the scene you know what happened. It may take a long month to get connected in the new place.--LexCorp 01:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Creation science
Ummm the way the vote is going at the moment, I don't think even a change of vote to merge will do anything. Megan1967 09:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yep, I am becoming more dissatisfied and disenchanted with the wikipedia project by the day. I do believe on the concept of a free unbias encyclopedia. But it is now my believe that the current policies and their aplications prevent that from been a real objective. A pity really. Futher more I have been recently reverted quite rudely for pointing out a possible flaw in the wikipedia. Episodes like that one do not help at all. A project that do not consider the criticism from its own users is not good at all.--LexCorp 09:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I've changed my vote to merge but the keeps still look like they're in front. It probably end up "no concensus" at best. Megan1967 11:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Large Hadron Collider is Science Collaboration of the Week
|
You voted for
Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article. |
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)
- We appreciate it all the same. :) Thanks for the images! BOZ (talk) 17:56, 17 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)
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 a lot 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" or "sudden appearing" are NOT necessarily "creationism wording"...... These are terms that have been acknowledged and used by hard-core Evolutionists too. Talk about hyper-sensitive and suppressive. You can't expect to state dogmatically and idiotally 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 nonsense 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)