Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution

message: Moved from FA page:--Random Replicator (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See discussion on talk page.  --Amaltheus (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Amaltheus was asked to join a group of the page's editors and myself on our revision of the lead of the article (he subsequently erased this invitation from his userpage), but s/he refused. See here. I specifically made an effort to invite him/her because I know s/he had felt excluded in the past. I agree with him/her that many of the sentences are problematic; in fact, I identified them as such just today on the talk page. We will be fixing them tomorrow. Awadewit | talk 08:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I was asked why I bothered to post to a discussion on the lead section.  Then I was told that I was not invited.  Then I was scolded by someone for getting ticked off at trying to provide useful changes to the article in spite of being mocked by the editors for a week.  Then I got Awadewit's invitation.  I think I will allow myself the utter incredulity that this was really an invitation.  My comments about evolutionary biology stand regardless of this continued personal assault on me.  --Amaltheus (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: These comments about ownership, "getting ticked off", "being mocked", and a "personal assault" are completely unjustified. I suggest that any further discussion of these matters should take place at User talk:Amaltheus.Snalwibma (talk) 09:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More owneship issues. 

message: For clarity:
* Supports
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: 
:
:
* Strong Oppose 
: On-going
*Oppose
*: comprehensive, 1b
*: comprehensive, 1b, stability, 1e
*: stability 
* Oppose No obvious resolutions
:: use of secondary references
*Oppose, User Inactive
: :no follow-up to invite
:: no follow-up to invite 
:: no follow-up to invite
Edit at will: --Random Replicator (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Late Game Summary 

message: What are you talking about? Show me what it says now, and what you suggest to rewrite. I've answered the question enough, and it's tiresome that my answers don't get read, get ignored, then I get asked to answer the same question again. "The problem is raising the double helix to the level of one of the most important breakthroughs in the biological sciences when it pales in comparison to what their published insight into the base pairing does. I don't think the sentences about the base pairing G-C A-T have added anything to the article or are necessary to an article of this nature. But Waston and Crick should be clarified because that little sentence in this one tiny article is the foundation of a new era in science, and in evolutionary science, and the double helix, as important and interesting as it is, is not the same thing." I'll repeate myself. --Amaltheus (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please never address me in such a dismissive manner again: I've answered the question enough, and it's tiresome that my answers don't get read, get ignored, then I get asked to answer the same question again.  Whether it was intend or not --- it is insulting.  I've attempted to clarify on the introduction evolution talk page.--Random Replicator (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's tiresome having one's comments completely dismissed.  So, you don't like it either?  But I don't get to ever ask any of you not to do it to me.  Stop it! Cheers! --Amaltheus (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both stop; stick to the article, don't engage the other.  Random Replicator asked a legit question; I'm not clear on the answer either.  Graham tried to help, it seems to me that we all want to know if you're happy with what is there now, after the changes.  Patience, please.  You've come this far, it's not necessary to get snippy at this late stage.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He asked a question about a section I had already struck.  I answered the question he asked, then he asked it again.  And I answered it again.  And I addressed it with Graham's post.  How many times is his question legit?  Once seems enough.  RR is asking about "adequate to your concerns" when I've already struck out my concerns on this issue.  What concerns?  --Amaltheus (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I interpreted it as a good faith question; there were several changes made.  If you're happy with what is there now, there's no problem.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I was happy or unconcerned about any issues with the way it is now, that's why I struck it out.  It would be nice if my strike out had been considered a "good faith strike out."  I don't agree with everything in the article, but not all things are important enough to the quality and substance of the article to raise as issues. I'm not keen on including the description of DNA base pairing, but it would be easy enough for any of thousands of living evolutionary biologists to argue its importance in an introduction to the topic of evolution, because genetics is how evolution is primarily studied today, so it is a matter of opinion not critical to the article whether it stays or not.  IMO.  --Amaltheus (talk)22:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Amaltheus, I really thought RR was asking a different question that whan you had struck, but perhaps I misunderstood.  The article has come a long ways, and it looks to me like your suggestions are being read and understood and dealt with.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I was asking if I could address his concern in a different manner to avoid the need to expand so much. Perhaps by simply deleting the term "double helix" as a point of emphasis, we could meet the need without expanding so much. I've address it at the articles talk page with three examples. If you no longer have the patience to help me through this then I recommended using the same edit option I have access to. As it currently stands; I attempt to clearly understand your concerns, put them in the article, then wait for the blazing criticisms. Certainly not any joy in that. --Random Replicator (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "blazing criticisms" are about issues related to genetics and evolution.  The article has a number of serious problems about the topic itself.  I generally have my papers edited by critical people prior to submitting them for any reason.  It's standard in the sciences to do this.  It's hard to adopt a completely different standard when discussing the sciences-a standard that is foreign to the sciences.  Blistering criticisms?  If the article says evolution is something it's not, it should be pointed out before the article goes to number one on Google.  --Amaltheus (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Until you are willing to use the edit this page option at the top; you will unfortunately have to depend on others to address your concerns. As such, it is better not to lace every suggestion with derogatory commentary about either the article or the editors. I have no ownership here; I'm simply trying orchestrate compromise; which until now - I've been successful. If you goal is to improve --- then jump right in. If your mission was to be a disruptive force --- then consider it accomplished. As the last survivng member of the Wikigang -I formally declare that I've had a belly full of this crap. I'm done --- you win! Someone e-mail and let me know how it comes out. Cheers! --71.77.211.77 (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop it! Cheers!  --Amaltheus (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The part that says "you win" then turns around and calls me an asshole.  Thanks for the congratulations, by the way.  That was nice of you.  --Amaltheus (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from FAC page