to kmh and mark i am not slipping i have taken responsibility for my actions said i should not have created the bio of duncharris i shouldn't have done this two wrongs do not make a right i also realize that mark is right i should use the term non bsf thirdly i am very aware via the creationism article that it is the minority view people who are not respected are they given a chance to present info or is the article overrun by the consensus contrary to the minority view article policy i think we know the answer to this question but wikipedia doesn't really care about respecting minority view articles in many cases now i realize that some want to take a cookie cutter approach and let the consensus view dominate overrun and even trample minority view articles this is not wikipedia policy though now you can say i am unreasonable but it is simply not true now i saw mark's assuming that wikipedia doesn't work comment i do think it is fair to ask if the creationism article is working is it working is there much civility like some not many internet creation evolution forums i have seen no there isn't civility it is a failure i believe wikipedia fails in issues like creationism i think it is a failure due to mismanagement or due to premeditation but i believe it is a failure i know it is not blasphemy to say wikipedia fails in issues like this minority view people are often not respected at wikipedia even in minority view articles now why was the conservative christianity repeatedly changed to christian right is it because of magnaninimous generosity of a person in the non bsf camp no it wasn't perhaps in the future articles like creationism will have the minority view truly aired and done in accordance with the current wikipedia rules but i think this is unrealistic at this time as i see no commitment at this time