Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 2

message: About the original question:
* Even a mere trivia like the shared birthday establishes a connection between the two persons that is just not there. It would imply that there is some more of a connection beyond the coincidence. That would be misleading. I even think building those coincidental bridges would actually cast doubts on our selection of the factual data in the article. Unprofessional!
* The factoid doesnt say anything specific about either Darwin or Lincoln because so many people were born on the same day. And if I keep looking I will find someone else who is considered a historical celebrity born on that day. But if it is not specific it is not interesting or relevant. We might as well include that they both had two hands and needed to eat once in a while.  
* That many people believe in the significance of coincidences and write about it on websites doesnt make something eligible for an encyclopedia.
So, I am for removal.
About the discussion:
* This is one of those rare examples where a compromise in the decision itself is not an option. Either the factoid is in or not. As there is apparently no one prepared to make a final judgement and Vincent doesnt want to accept the majority vote, but none of the parties want mor e attrition editing, there is only one option left. Someone has to back down! Someone has to go over all the arguments and admit that the other side has got better ones; say f... it, at least I had a good discussion that is preserved for eternity and then move on honourably. Because,
* This thing has been, and is, sapping resources from wikipedia. A lot of people have devoted a lot of their time and brainpower on this discussion. So, I would ask you to ballance the weight of your cause against the effort that insisting further would demand from everyone. I think it is time to stop now and fight for other causes.   
  
Floflei6 09:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-instate very recent comment from 20JAN05

message: ===Against trivia===
reverts: 18 Fvw, Psychonaut, Mrfixter, Nunh-huh, Jonathunder, Adamsan, Fredrik, Solipsist, aaarrrggh, Robert Pendray, Duncharris, Noisy, William M. Connolley, Adraeus, 80.250.128.5, Mgekelly, gK, PxT 
no reverts, but voted against: 15 Floflei6, Cburnett, Curps, Nasrallah, Joe D, BM, Neutrality, Peter O., Zero, Jerzy, Dan100, Morven, Tuf-Kat, Fastfission, PaulHammond
talked against, but no votes or reverts: 9  XmarkX, JamesMLane, Rd232, Cortonin, Janust, dave souza, jguk, Cortonin
Grand total: 42 (or 88%)
===For trivia===
#Vfp15 218.176.34.86 (also Vincent:"<sigh> Fighting the ignoramuses three times day 'til me dyin' day!!!")
#Neigel von Teighen 21:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Camps

message: #Vfp15 218.176.34.86 (also Vincent:"<sigh> Fighting the ignoramuses three times day 'til me dyin' day!!!")
#Neigel von Teighen 21:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: For trivia

message: Hey, I think you did the request in the wrong way! There's no request put in the WP:RfAr but a subpage calling for evidence. I don't care who did the requst, but I'm sure he doesn't know how to perform one. Thus, I'll make the request as it must be done. You surely know that the ArbCom must approve (I think now it's by 7 or 6 votes) the request before. --Neigel von Teighen 22:04, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you are getting confused by the previous WP:RfAr that Vincent started. It was turned down because Mediation hadn't been tried. User:Mrfixter was pointing to it as a starting point for collating the evidence, much of which will be the same. -- Solipsist 22:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm talking about Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Vfp15_and_Charles_Darwin and its subpage Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Vfp15_and_Charles_Darwin/Evidence. I did the request by myself, specially against those who Vincent wanted (I'm his advocate and it's my job. I don't like to do this sort of things...). Now, we're officially making a request. --Neigel von Teighen 22:42, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, you're openly admitting you're Vfp15's sockpuppet? Okay. Thanks. Adraeus 23:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm saying I'm his advocate. Do you remember me? I also was in the Atheism dispute with you. --Neigel von Teighen 17:17, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration unknown for the ArbCom!! 

message: See WP:RfAr. Adraeus 00:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration From The Light Side 

message: The Charles Darwin/Abraham Lincoln debate has now made it to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever. 4.232.141.25 12:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I should start a revert war to put it at the top since it's the lamest one of all!  Though, the oddnes of 3 is pretty classic. Congratulations Vincent, huzzah! Cburnett 18:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lamest edit wars ever?