User talk:TxMCJ

We were getting off-topic over there at Talk:Evolution. I'm not sure what your specific complaint is.

The specific complaint is one of the most common complaints of Wikipedia: that anti-elitism and no regulation of who gets to chip into an article results in a tremendous waste of time and unneccessary debating and article re-editing with passionate individuals who may not be the best qualified to be involved as editors. Simple as that, and it drives away a lot of people who might have a lot (maybe the most) to contribute. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a classroom, or a "meeting of the minds". I basically just wish people would keep away from articles outside of their field, especially when it comes to science. TxMCJ 22:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've empathized with you before about the frustration of dealing with a multitude of eager novices, but I think your last sentence is incredibly arrogant and foolish. Gnixon 00:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're certainly entitled to that opinion, since "opinion" seems to be much more what this whole process is all about, rather than straight up information. The reason I wish that people would keep away from articles too far outside of their field (especially science), is because it results in a gigantic mountain of wasted effort from individuals who truly have something to contribute. TxMCJ 01:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely non-experts can contribute to articles in some ways and experts don't need to have their holy authority worshipped at every turn?

It's not about "holy authority", and your tone is really unnecessary. All I care about is accuracy and completeness. And more specifically, my answer to you is NO. Non-experts RARELY contribute to articles at the helpful level that Wikipedia writers believe themselves to be contributing, via mass revisions, endless changing of information, and endless debating about topics that are not debated among people working in the field. TxMCJ 22:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't intend "holy authority" to be personally directed at you, and I'm sorry if it seemed that way. Gnixon 00:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Experts are often truly horrendous writers. Gnixon 00:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Statistically, non-experts are much worse. TxMCJ 01:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's the creationist vandalism that you're thinking of, that's a separate issue, but I'm sure an encyclopedia article on Evolution can benefit from the input of creationists in order to properly address the social effects of evolution's ideas. As for language, again we have to remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a textbook. I've been trying to push for an explicitly technical version of the article, which an encyclopedia like Wikipedia has the luxury of providing through its virtually unlimited space.

I hope you don't find it too personal for me to allude to your rollerderby and accordion interests that I came across during a quick Googling. Gnixon 22:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all, although I can't imagine what the point is. It seems pretty irrelevant and certainly more OFF TOPIC than anything I've posted. TxMCJ 22:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I was simply trying to be friendly. Give it a shot sometime. Gnixon 00:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am plenty friendly with people who don't try my patience with politics, irrelevant points, and rhetoric. And you and I both know that your googling of me and publicizing of my irrelevant outside interests has *nothing to do* with "being friendly", so please quit trying to characterize it as such. Anyone can see through that. TxMCJ 01:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll respond to that. Think what you want---and I can see how it'd be misunderstood when good faith erodes---but I was honestly only trying to be light and friendly. I like playing poker and chess, I'm an overweight jogger who can barely puff his way through 3 miles, and I occassionally butcher a few bars on the trumpet. Put it on a billboard if it makes you feel better. Gnixon 01:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't make me feel better, or worse, and I frankly don't care one way or the other. My main question is WHY ARE YOU WASTING WIKIPEDIA SPACE AND MY TIME with these trivial personal conversations *at all*, when we are supposed to be here working on the article??? You might have time for it, but that doesn't mean everyone does. TxMCJ 02:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I also have to call B.S. on this, because if you were truly trying to be "friendly", you might have spent more time seeking out some of the relevant things you could have posted about me here, such as my education, my research projects, my teaching record, my writing awards, my invited educational NSF seminars on teaching in Evolution, my publications, my research funding history, etc. etc. and a number of other factoids you could have focused on that would have been much more relevant and supportive of my participation here. But instead, you choose to focus on my eccentric outside interests. So again, I call B.S. on the "friendly" excuse. Nobody's buying it. TxMCJ 05:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Not B.S. Gnixon 07:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've responded at greater length to your comment on my talk page. This has been a very disappointing experience for me. Gnixon 00:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Manda,

Just disagreeing with your contention that our beliefs have always been "irrational, stupid", etc. I doubt this is historically true.

I didn't say "always", I said that there has always been stronger selection for gregariousness than for logical thought. That's all. TxMCJ 22:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

We haven't believed, for example, that keeping hot, burning coals in our trousers is a stupendous idea (by and large), or that we should stab our eyes out with sharp sticks as soon as we are able.

Agreed... and... your point is....???? TxMCJ 22:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, the beliefs you might label as "irrational" are most likely beliefs that you believe are dated - that is, a superior system of belief has since arisen that you feel should replace it, but hasn't yet. Unsurprising - even the most powerful selective sweep takes time (to run with your evolutionary analogies), and we shouldn't necessarily despise the stubborn, willful less fit variant for refusing to die instantly.

The only argument I was making was one about education, and why attempts to educate fundamentalists and creationists in Evolutionary science will *almost always* fail. It is because of a greater human urge to be tribal/gregarious/accepted by your social cohort, than to be a rational and logical thinker. Even the most flawless logic and evidence will rarely convince a person to turn against the majority opinion of his or her "tribe". That's my only point, and it is one of the biggest reasons that the debate with creationists is completely pointless. TxMCJ 22:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, as with natural selection, it's not always clear that superior fitness comes at no cost - pleiotropic effects may be in play, especially for the sort of religious beliefs I think you're referring to. The resistance that comes to abandoning them perhaps occurs because they enable other sorts of social interaction that might be destroyed by their replacement. Atheists, for example, lack convincing social mechanisms for exhortation to moral behavior, something religion excels at. It's thus not necessarily clear that it's more "irrational" to be one as opposed to the other, all things considered. Graft 21:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, sure, fine. None of this is really relevant to the point I was making, though. TxMCJ 22:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I still don't think this is necessarily true. Flawless logic is only germane if it's cogent, which means it must first be appreciated. When you're arguing with someone who simply has no apprehension of the relevant facts, your flawless logic and evidence aren't even in order. Then, of course, you might attribute it to competing tribalisms (or, rather, different sources of authority, I would say). But that's not because your flawless logic is failing to prevail over brutish tribalism, it's because the other party is not equipped to understand your argument. When I'm explaining things to you in Bantu, you're certainly not going to be convinced (I'm assuming you don't know Bantu, here), even if my reasoning is perfect. This isn't a triumph of tribalism over logic, it's tribalism vs. tribalism.

It's also not clear to me that this is an inferior manner of operating. Received wisdom is very useful. It's why we're having this conversation on the Internet, while octopuses are still struggling to open lids on jars.

Anyway, your categorical statement seems to be wrong - that education doesn't penetrate into the world of religious fundamentalists? Not true. Many of them routinely abandon their faith. I read one such account today, here. There are strong social systems set up to maintain that faith - I don't think it's obviously spontaneous or robust. It requires effort. Graft 01:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa, Graft, you are taking this whole thing on a needlessly complex tangent that I never intended. I am not talking about superior or inferior manners of operating, etc. My ONLY POINT has nothing to do with any of that. My ONLY POINT is that, for the most part, fundamentalist creationists will never, ever submit to even the most flawless logic, because natural selection has made it more important for humans to be accepted by their peers and be wrong, than be rejected by them and be right. Fundamentalist creationists will almost never "get" evolution because they don't WANT to "get" evolution, and thus, as you say, the logic will never be cogent or appreciated. I grow quickly weary of this topic, though, and don't want to spend a lot of time on it. But your opinions are valued and interesting to me, so thanks. TxMCJ 01:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies. You triggered my evolutionary-psychology-bullshit button. Coming from an argumentative family and pluralistic culture, I don't believe your blithe observations about tribalism, and I don't think you have much reasonable evidence to support them.

Also, you seem to grow quickly weary of everything. Sorry you have such little patience - one hopes you're reserving it for your students instead. Graft 01:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, students who come to me to *learn something* get due patience from me, in that educational environment. I do run out of patience though, debating in a forum of individuals who are not academic peers, but demand my attention as if they were. I know this sounds a bit arrogant, and I apologize, but just imagine the metaphorical frustration of a carpenter trying to build a house surrounded by a hundred eager guys with hammers in hand who don't know a thing about construction methods or codes. It does get tiring when you're trying to get work done. Again, sorry if that seems arrogant -- it's just the truth. This is not the approach I take to education though, but I just don't feel that Wikipedia is intended to be an educational forum. TxMCJ 01:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your pardon - I may yet be a lowly graduate student, but that's good enough for most professors and post-docs to treat me as their academic peer, or at least to give me some level of courtesy. In all my interactions in academia I've never yet been faced with the attitude that I'm not well-credentialed enough to be debated. You seem to suffer from a severe rash of elitism that I think you might want to reconsider. It's largely misplaced. Yes, you've been trained as a biologist at Harvard. Congratulations. Take the chip off your shoulder. There are other people in the world besides yourself. Graft 14:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Gnixon "resisted the urge to write "what he said"" under this post. TxMCJ 15:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I hear you, Graft (and Gnixon). I've definitely felt this way myself many times in the past. I think the distinction, though, is not that I don't think you're "well credentialed enough to be debated", and that I am somehow the "elite authority", but more that: I don't come to Wikipedia to debate, and I seriously feel that 99% of the debate around here is counterproductive. I am sorry if that opinion comes across as arrogance, because I really do like to debate all kinds of topics over coffee, or in the classroom, or on a bar stool, et cetera. All these conversations you and I have had would be extremely fun and fascinating in another setting. I'm just not convinced that Wikipedia is the best or most productive *forum and context* for all of that debate, because here, we are trying to get a certain job done. Maybe some people view the Wiki community as a social community where it's fun to come and debate. I don't, and I am willing to accept that I might be in the minority, in that.

Consider this: working evolutionary biologists don't debate all these general concepts a *fraction* of the amount that the folks around here do. There is a lesson to be learned in that fact.

And I won't get into this much here, but your whole attitude about Harvard is also a very common form of anti-elitism that many alumni have to struggle against their whole lives. Harvard has such a mythologial stigma attached to it that is inescapable, that most alumni do *not* wear their alma mater on their sleeve because of the anti-elitism they encounter their whole lives. In short: the public tends to judge Harvard alumni as elitist snobs MUCH more than those alumni actually hold themselves to be elite, or conduct themselves to be snobs. I'm no brandy-sipping, turtleneck wearing, Vivaldi-listening, trust fund kid. I'm a roller skater and a Texas cowgirl/punk rocker who got interested in Evolution and pursued a degree in it, and then came back to Texas. I will be the first to say that Harvard's biology program is not among the best in the nation, and having gone through their system is not necessarily something I'm proud of. Most aspects of those years were a royal pain in the neck. Yes, I had certain experiences, learned certain things, and met certain people that I value now, in retrospect, but I'll be the last person on Earth to say that Harvard is somehow "better" or "more elite" than other institutions, and it is not something I necessarily take a great deal of pride in. It mainly seems to be the *rest of the world* that can't shake the ominous Harvard mythology, and so alumni have to battle that attitude most of their lives, and constantly defend themselves. It's not much fun. My alma mater is something I put on my resume because I have to, but not something I actively advertise. Sorry again if I've made you feel "unworthy of debate", but like I said, my objection has more to do with the fact that some activities (like writing encyclopedia articles, perhaps?) are just not helped or enhanced much by debate between too many people. Thanks, and sorry again. TxMCJ 15:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Also: I'd like to shake your hand someday, because I have a gigantic evolutionary-psychology-bullshit button of my own. I never meant to trigger a big ol' debate like this with my statement that (basically) "ignorance often prevails over logic because of social factors relating to the higher fitness of cooperative gregarious individuals". The context I said that in was within an side-argument and I never really meant to fight for the concept as a principle. I'm not too fond of evolutionary psychology either... Thanks TxMCJ 02:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Although, I *still* think that when presented with a trade-off between gregariousness and rationality, gregariousness always had the upper hand, at least in human evolution... Just an opinion, and not one I really need to fight for though :) TxMCJ 02:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't maligning your Harvard credentials, mostly because I've lived in Cambridge for ten years, and I've experienced and spent time in the academic environment both at Harvard and at MIT. Let me assure you, my attitude about Harvard comes from direct experience. But I wasn't reacting to my perception of Harvard (which would be dumb, since I'm at least as infected as you) - I was writing about you. I've edited the Evolution page for a long time, and believe me, you are NOT the first biologist to come through. You are also not the most educated or accomplished biologist to come through, and your insistence that you have a level of experience that somehow removes you from debate is simply wrong. So please, put down your ego. This is the way Wikipedia works. We're all anonymous, more or less, and we are NOT operating by meritocracy of degrees or years of academic experience. So your writing will be debated and your edits will be challenged, sometimes by idiots who you think are beneath you. If you don't like it, I suggest you go consult for Britannica or some other encyclopedia that follows the model you seem to favor. Assuming they'll have you, of course. Graft 15:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am curious to know why you believe that *I* believe I am the "first biologist to come through" or the "most educated or accomplished" or exempt from debate. All I have ever said (which is by NO MEANS a unique opinion) is that the majority of the debate around here seems quite pointless, redundant, unnecessary, and time consuming. As you will see on the article talk page if you read back a bit, I *actively* engage in many types of debates around here, on things such as superfecundity, modes of selection, the adaptationist perspective, the process of "natural selection", et cetera et cetera. Your accusations that I do not engage in debate because I feel "above it", are completely wrong.

The kind of thing I'm talking about is the maddening fact (for example) that I had to spend (WASTE) a lot of time convincing you that superfecundity is fundamental to the mechanism of selection. I am sorry if your *opinion* is that superfecundity is not important, but if you go to any authoritative source, document, or writing about selection, and you will find that it is. That is the kind of debate I look down upon, and cannot tolerate -- debating topics that are elementary. I also don't like spending a lot of time debating largely philosophical side-topics (like our "tribalism" thread which erupted from a comment I made to explain why I think fundamentalists will never be convinced by rationality and logic). Disagree with me? Fine! But I'm not pushing to put any of that in the article, and thus I don't really have the time or interest to debate that kind of thing here. Meet me for coffee or a beer somewhere, and I'd be happy to.

And despite your claim that many other "more educated and accomplished" biologists have been through here, I was pretty surprised to find that the Evolution article as of 3 weeks ago or so:

• Made no mention of viruses
• Had incorrect definitions and descriptions of mutation
• Incorrectly described the recognized modes of selection
• Did not break-down and describe the mechanism of natural selection
• Made no mention of the significance of the natural hierarchical nested order of life
• Characterized all mutations as permanent
• Characterized drift as a "statistical" phenomenon
• Made no mention of reinforcement
• Presented speciation as a geographic phenomenon instead of a genealogical one

All of those topics are *elementary* to Evolution. I'm not trying to characterize myself as Gnixon's brilliant holy authority that showed up and saved the day, but the fact remains -- and this is not meant to be an insult or criticism of anyone -- that the article had some VERY SERIOUS deficiencies and inaccuracies before I took a whack at it. So whoever the more educated and accomplished biologists were that were here before me, I can only guess that their suggestions and edits have been long since dissolved by the constant editings of others, or that they (like me) were turned off by the whole politics of the thing.

After all's said and done: you can call me arrogant, call me an elitist, call me a bitchy Harvard roller-derby girl or whatever -- but the fact remains I only came here to improve the article, because it's the FIRST HIT you get on Google when you type in "Evolution". As someone who lives and breathes Evolution (and more importantly TEACHES it), I was justifiably concerned about the quality of such a high-profile article. Despite what you may think of me as a person, the only thing I really care about around here is that the article has been greatly improved, and nobody who knows the first thing about Evolution can deny that. TxMCJ 17:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm going to get *reamed* for this posting, but in the interests of furthering some measure of intelligent and constructive progress on this article, I am willing to take whatever fall may be needed. Especially since in the sections above, I have been accused of “spitting on people” and being generally arrogant and nasty and elitist and ungracious, et cetera, when in fact all I am doing is expressing frustration at micromanagement and the apparently constant need for debate. I feel that many things that have been said fall into the “personal attack” category, but I don’t really care too much about that. However, two can play at that game, but I want it made perfectly clear that the only reason I am even engaging in this B.S. at all right now (and posting this) is because I want to see the article grow and improve and not be hindered by social and political obstacles. This is not a personal attack. But what I need to say belongs right here, on the article talk page, and not the user pages. I am sorry it is messy but I feel it is necessary.

I recently reviewed the Evolution article contributions of another editor (Orangemarlin) who recently left here in total and utter exasperation with the incessant head-butting that occurs with Gnixon. Objectively, upon review, I generally found Orangemarlin's history of contributions to the Evolution article to be mostly high quality, on-topic, frequent, and helpful. He seems to work primarily on *the article*. On his talk page, (and I'm *really and sincerely sorry* to be doing this, I know it’s awful and possibly immoral, but in the interests of academic progress I feel that I must); Orangemarlin recently posted about Gnixon: “Hopefully, others will stand up to his POV pushing and ranting, and his subtle ownership of every article”, and also posted to Gnixon directly: “I cannot continue editing your articles. But I know what you're doing, and others will too. There are cooler headed individuals who will stand up to you. I don't have that kind of patience with an individual such as yourself, obviously intelligent, but with an agenda that is blind to what others believe. You are arrogant, loud and obtrusive--assuming good faith, maybe you think that's the way to force whatever belief set you have onto these articles”

My goal here is not to point fingers or mud-sling. But at great risk of lighting a fuse to a huge bomb now, I am hereby volunteering to be one of those “others” Orangemarlin called for, to stand up to the abovementioned ranting and subtle ownership. Contrary to what Gnixon would have you believe, Orangemarlin is not a troll. Look at his contributions to this article. I do not “side” with Orangemarlin for any reason other than the fact that he has contributed meaningful scientific content to this article, and belongs here (like I do) more than people who do not contribute scientific content. If I get my head cut off for posting this little diatribe, fine, but Gnixon’s involvement has apparently always been in *both* the Evolution and the ID articles (and interests?), which is a bit peculiar given the fact that he contributes precious little to the content of the Evolution article.

Gnixon, forgive me. But in the interest of academic progress, and by the indirect request from Orangemarlin who has contributed more to this article than many other editors have: I respectfully request that you back down significantly on your participation here. This is a *scientific article* and if you do not have scientific content to contribute, you will only continue to exasperate and infuriate hardworking contributors like myself and Orangemarlin. Thank you for the "facilitation" you do, but if you are not contributing meaningfully, it unfortunately becomes one-step-forward, two-steps-back. Forgive me for doing this, but “the call was put out there” and I just felt that I had to answer it. My intention is not to insult you, humiliate you, offend you, anger you, or provide a personal attack. My only intention is to help this high-profile scientific article develop and improve for the millions of people around the world who may read it, and I strongly second the already-strongly-voiced opinion that you are an obstacle to that end. To the others: thank you for listening and I hope you will trust in my sincerity and good faith, no matter how arrogant or elitist you may personally feel that I am. TxMCJ 03:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of only improving this article, which MCJ opened with, I'll resist responding to much of what she said. I will make a couple points. Another editor described OM as a troll, not me, and I protested that he was not all troll despite many of his comments. I hope I haven't owned articles or pushed a POV---I've tried hard not to, but others should correct me if necessary. I've taken an interest in controversial articles on Wikipedia, and that has made me some enemies, but I've tried to focus that interest on improving the articles, and I've also contributed significantly to non-controversial articles where I'm an expert on the content---I'd appreciate whatever contributions to those articles can be made by anyone here. On this article, which has often been subject of many long-winded debates, I think I've helped to limit the amount of bickering over creationist objections to evolution so that experts can focus on improving the scientific content of the article. I knew it would be a thankless task, but I never expected to be criticized for it. MCJ, I've appreciated your improvements to the scientific content of the article, but I personally think they've been outweighed by the attitude you've shown---lots of people can contribute as much expert knowledge, but not many would be so rude. Clearly we're both interested in improving this article, and clearly we both think the other has a net negative impact. I suggest we both try to continue making the contributions that have been recognized as positive, and that we both try to keep our big mouths shut regarding everything else. I just want this article to get better, and I think you do, too. Gnixon 04:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I certainly will not have you label my interaction with Enormousdude "editing without expertise." You should have learned enough from your high school physics class to know that's inaccurate. Gnixon 03:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, please stop stalking me. That is absolutely unacceptable. Gnixon 03:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Me stalking you? That's the most ridiculous, hypocritical thing you've said yet. It's been YOU who has clearly, on a number of occasions, taken it upon yourself to Google who I am and publicly post your little reports on my hobbies, experience, and credentials without asking. THAT is stalking, sweetcheeks -- not me doing a bit of investigation to see if you're as difficult to deal with elsewhere as you are here. In this case I don't give a rat's ass about Wikipedia's definition of "anonymous user stalking", because I looked up your prior interactions on other articles with good, valid reasons. TxMCJ 08:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've already asked you once nicely to not address me with diminutives. Gnixon 14:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that certain editors have accused several of us of "stalking." Theses kinds of editors seem to have a low self-esteem or something to think that I or any other editor cares one bit whether one editor or another is editing an article. I track articles (and you probably do too) rather than the editor. I watch all evolution and creation articles. I challenge any POV edit. So to accuse anyone of stalking leads to a couple of conclusions. First, I'm starting to feel stalked because after cutting off all conversation with that editor, they continue to post on my page. Second, from a psychiatric point of view (and yeah, I actually took psychiatry in medical school, so I guess I am an expert), I'm noticing a little narcissistic personality disorder manifesting itself in several types of anti-social behavior, including paranoia. The Narcissistic Personality Inventory includes the following: superiority, exhibitionism, entitlement, vanity, authority, exploitativeness and self-sufficiency. Interesting. To accuse someone of a defect may, in fact, mean that the accuser actually has that defect. Being accused of being a stalker or being paranoid by an inventory may, in fact, be a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black! Orangemarlin 15:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page)

Hey Gnixon: please do let me know if you decide to seek "administrative assistance" and/or mediation here, as I would enthusiastically participate and contribute to that process. "Who's afraid of the big bad wolf?" -- Not me. Could be helpful -- keep me updated. TxMCJ 19:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's trying to scare you---just trying to get you to interact with others decently. See WP:ANI#Harassment and stalking. You're right, I should have let you know immediately, but I've been trying to follow my mom's advice about "don't say anything at all." I would love it if we could find a way to communicate in a civil manner. Gnixon 20:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I prefer civil communication, but I will continue to be frustrated and impatient with you (and stick up for myself and for this article's integrity) as long as you continue to complicate the editing process. If you want peace, you will have to focus on content above all else, remove all POV from your participation, listen to the input of others and back down when you don't get your way, and accept scientific/professional criticism of your contributions (such as our conversation about Genome projects) without feeling threatened or "discredited" by it. I'm sorry if I am forced to say "you're factually wrong" sometimes, but it's all part of the process. Realize that you can learn a lot by listening to others, as can I. If you want peace, you must also cease in calling the kettle black: accusing me of personal attacks while engaging in the same, or accusing me of "stalking" after you engaged in much more serious "stalking" long before I investigated your previous edits. Thanks. TxMCJ 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

TxMCJ 00:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC) crossposting: "I won't accept an ultimatum in order to have peaceful, civil communication with you, and I certainly see no hope of communication between us while you continue to spread falsehoods about my personal beliefs with malicious intent. Making a 4-5 comment issue of the fact that I typed "gene" instead of "genome" (after correctly using genome several times earlier) is not "part of the process"---the nicest word for it is "nitpicking," and given the totality of your other comments, it seems extremely unlikely that you did it merely for the sake of scientific precision. I've told you before that I'm not interested in your advice, and I'll appreciate it if you offer no more. " Gnixon 23:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I am fully aware that "gene" was a typo. Not the point. I wasn't sure whether "can" (vs. cannot) was a typo, and originally your suggestion was to include information about a single genome project to constitute "evidence for evolution". My point was not nitpicking your typos, my main point was a very clear and sound argument that discussion of any genome project IN ISOLATION (without comparison to other genomes) provides no information about evolution. That's all. Also, I hardly think my requests above can be viewed as an "ultimatum"... on the contrary, all of the items in my "ultimatum" seem to be pretty reasonable requests for a fair and functional editing environment around here. Finally, I am sorry if you are not interested in my advice, but I will continue to post that advice to the Evolution talk board, to the extent that I disagree with a suggestion or statement you may make. I know it can be uncomfortable when someone disagrees with you (or demonstrates that you are wrong about something), but you'll have to learn to accept it sometimes if you want to work in a cooperative environment. Please note that I have also agreed and applauded some of your comments, ideas, and edits as well. TxMCJ 00:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Crosspost by TxMCJ 19:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC), originally posted by David D. at the admin. page: " I don't think it is good etiquette to disparage an editor rather than their edits. I think you'd agree, TxMCJ, that is not going to win you friends. On the other hand, Gnixon, to deleve into a users personal history is even worse. I'm not going to look into the history of this interaction to see how this was all initiated because it seems you should both be able to take and step back and rationally see that both parties have been wronged. In reality, the best way forward from now is for you both to avoid each other as much as possible and keep your relationship strictly professional i.e. just comment on the edits and not each other. Do that and i think you'll both be a lot happier. David D. (Talk) 18:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Lovely -- great feedback -- and thanks, TxMCJ 19:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you know how annoying I find Gnixon. I think the comments by FM and Jim are spot on, and his attacking FM is not the wisest move he ever made. However, it is my humble opinion that you do yourself a disservice in engaging in this battle with him. I know your background (when you first edited on here, I did some checking, because I am a big believer in Wikipedia:Ignore all credentials), so I believed and still believe you make great edits to the Evolution article. Honestly, you should expand your efforts to other Evolution related articles. Whatever Gnixon's background is, and actually, I don't care, you lower yourself to his pettiness level by writing the comments that you have. Of all of the POV editors that I've watched on these articles, Gnixon is by far not even close to being the worse. He's subtle, yes, but smart people have reverted his edits whenever necessary. There is no need for you to crush him completely, because it will make you look bad. There will be future battles, where someone will file a complaint, and use what you have written here as part of a case or of a history of violating the WP:CIVIL recommendations.

Gnixon has shown himself to be uncivil on a number of occasions. His personality type is to ignore his own issues, and transfer those issues to others. I fed him for awhile, but I just stopped. You should do the same, and focus on improving the article. I took a one-week break from editing these articles, so I could wait until other editors joined in. Many of those editors are admins who have little tolerance for bad behavior. FM has reprimanded me when I took a bad faith creationist to task, although, in the end, we discovered he was a sockpuppet, so I was right!!!! Just kidding.

Anyways, relax. Don't feed bad behavior with your own bad behavior. I'd ignore him, trusting the fact that several admins have now taking note of his behavior. His latest ANI against you probably showed him in very bad light, but it doesn't exactly make you out to be an innocent party. You are a high-quality editor, someone we need on the Evolution article. Your credentials (at least as far as I can tell) are exemplary, and you have improved the article more than Gnixon will ever. Focus on that. Ignore Gnixon. Move on. Orangemarlin 18:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Just seconding, especially the last paragraph. Graft | talk 18:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Great advice Orangemarlin, and thanks for your support too, Graft. I don't like this arguing either, but I have a very low tolerance for micromanagers and charlatans, especially those who try to monopolize and maintain a controlling grip on the hard work that others are trying to do. Also, a lot of the back-and-forth over the past 2 days has been necessary to defend myself against twisted, manipulative attempts to have me either warned or blocked, which I will not allow to happen if it happens because of inaction or nonresponse on my part. I don't need to "crush" him, but we *ALL* need him to take a back seat for a while while we whip the article into shape. I think he's been a huge bully on the article in the past, and if it takes another bully to restore a fair, impartial, intellectual, and productive environment over there, then I am willing to buck-up and be it -- not for my own sake, but for the article's sake and everyone else who contributes to it meaningfully. As soon as he stops his campaign of attack against me, I will stop responding. Hopefully that will happen soon. Thanks for your support and I'll see you "on the page" TxMCJ 18:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't sweat that kind of stuff. Just be a useful and sane editor, and others will come to bat for you when the time comes. Graft | talk 19:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated... I hope I've been useful, if not always sane... ;-) TxMCJ 19:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are personally attacked in the future, in edit summaries or on a talk page, I'd advise you to simply report it to an admin such as myself and not respond to it personally. TimVickers 04:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)