Talk:Wesley R. Elsberry

message: This article was vandalized early in the morning July 1st. I deleted most of the junk that was inserted, but it still needs to be restored to what it was.-anon, 1 July 2007
: My, what a class act the antievolutionists are putting on. --Wesley R. Elsberry 15:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, could someone please revert this to a pre-July 1st version? There was nothing "attempted" about my Ph.D. program; you can verify my success via pulling up my dissertation record at the Thesis Office of Texas A&M University. --Wesley R. Elsberry 17:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I have also sent email setting up an abuse report with Verizon. If anyone wishes to communicate with Verizon about it, the email is abuse@verizon.net and you should refer to case "[AB-C3117683A] Wikipedia vandalism incident". If anyone has suggestions for getting an actual identity of the libelous vandal, please contact me. --Wesley R. Elsberry 17:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted back to my version from earlier today, and have protected the article for 5 days against anonymous and newly registered users. I suggest you might want to take any issues about the article to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard where administrators with experience in these matters could help out. SGGH speak! 18:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you kindly. --Wesley R. Elsberry 19:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I proposed deletion for this article. It was one of the early things I edited, before I had read up on various Wikipedia policies. A WP:AUTO problem is nonetheless no less bad due to my ignorance then.
There are also the WP:BIO criteria to consider. Do I merit a Wikipedia article? That can't be my decision. IIRC, I was filling in a blank article due to my name being used elsewhere, but I don't recall which article that might have been.
So this will have to be hashed out by the rest of Wikipedia. I can provide links for verification of things on request. --Wesley R. Elsberry 21:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD 

message: Contribution to 1997 NTSE conference
Committee membership in the Society for Marine Mammalogy
Participation in "Interpreting Evolution" conference, Haverford College, June 17, 2001
Staff at NCSE
Dissertation (2003)
Co-editor of Optimality in Biological and Artificial Neural Networks
Co-author of chapter in Why Intelligent Design Fails from Rutgers University Press
First Amendment Law Review, 2006
Chabot College lecture, 2005
Book review of Pennock's Tower of Babel
Greer-Heard Forum, 2006
OU OSLEP seminar, 2005
Year of Physics 2005 lecture at OU
UT Austin seminar, 2006
Stanford RATT group meeting
--Wesley R. Elsberry 23:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Should the article on Wesley R. Elsberry's blog called The Austringer be merged as a sub-section of this article? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Discovery Institute blog complaint about the Wikipedia entry on me This is pretty meta, but the Discovery Institute is aggrieved that media noticed that I opposed them and other religious antievolution efforts and was actually a marine biologist, too.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesley R. Elsberry (talk • contribs) 17:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Boo hoo. See here for the pretty good reasons for the deletion of the Günter Bechly article: "lack of secondary sources", and "article was almost entirely created by the subject himself". This article does not have those weaknesses. For some reason, Klinghoffer forgot to mention that when comparing the two. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Thanks Wesley, there has been excessive deletion recently of unsourced content, so I've undone that and will do some work on sources. Any help with this will be greatly appreciated! . dave souza, talk 21:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery Institute complaint 

message: Just a note as I see this article uses it a lot: the article's name is now rejection of evolution by religious groups because there is no real scientific debate about if evolution occurs.  It may be possible to reword these instances (or some of them) to avoid supporting an impression of false balance.  There of course are political and religious debates about it however, especially in the United-States in relation to teaching creationism and biology in schools...  —PaleoNeonate – 04:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I made an attempt. May need grooming. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for picking that up, have made a couple of modifications. . . dave souza, talk 09:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I had no idea this would be so fast and done by familiar editors.  It's already much better, many thanks,  —PaleoNeonate – 10:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation–evolution controversy