User talk:Phantym

Welcome!

Hello, Phantym, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at Naming Conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my talk page.

---

Additional tips:

Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:

• If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
• If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
• Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
• You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
• You might want to add yourself to the New User Log.
• If your first language isn't English, try Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language.

Happy editing!

→ JarlaxleArtemis 22:28, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Hey Phantym! You've spelled abiogenesis wrongly at least 8 times. Please take out the "m". I fixed a few on the main page, but I just found 8 on the Talk page. RossNixon 01:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

To do lists

Hi,

please only put to do lists on discussion pages, not on the article pages themselves, which should be as free of Wikipedia-internal content as possible. Thanks,--Eloquence* 22:56, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Creation Science versus Scientific Creationism

I agree that merging is appropriate. Pls read the talk pages where that is specifically discussed. Nothing has been obliterated and the relevant sections were in the process of being incorporated. Creation Science was chosen as the base article instead of Scientific Creationism because it is by far more coherent and understandable, not to mention more balanced.

I think you are picking nits by requiring Scientific Creationism to remain as it was. A person searching for Creation Science or Scientific Creationism is likely to be looking for the same information. Why not take the discussion of theories that you want to keep and make a new article that specifically addresses them? This would help keep the confusion to a minimum. S.N. Hillbrand 28 June 2005 19:05 (UTC)

scientific creationism

Dear Phantym, I am afraid that I regard this article as blatant POV pushing on wikipedia. I have converted it into a redirect. However if you continue to bring the text back I shall nominate it for VfD. Further your edit summary for user:Joshuaschroeder's change to a redirect was not merited in my opinion. Please try to work with others on wikipedia not against them. User:Barnaby dawson

If you wish to see "Blatant POV pushing on wikipedia," I suggest picking a random editing by Joshuaschroeder or Bensaccount. Joshuaschroeder constantly puts his own semi-scientific opinion about parts of an article, essentially writing in "original research" wherever he feels the desire. He also completely deleted an entire section on Creationist Cosmologies because he didn't bother to read the article before blindly editing...and then he had the gall to claim that he hadn't done so! He actually began his version of Creation Science with the phrase "Creation Science is an unscientific..." and then went on in diatribe for nearly the entire article. The article posted in Scientific Creationism gave standard scientific criticism to almost every point mentioined. Perhaps you could be more clear about what exactly is POV about it?

Furthermore, user:Joshuaschroeder's change was vandalism as the appropriate measure would be to merge two "redundant" articles, as I pointed out on the page. User:Joshuaschroeder is not easy "to work with" as you request, given that he violates wikipolicy constantly by blindly reverting anything he does not like. His comments on Talk pages show a bias so inextricably part of his character as to make his edits hopelessly POV. He even has posted proudly on his userpage a self-congratulatory reward made by another for keeping "wikipedia free of creation bias." If you wish to look for POV pushers, perhaps you should look in your own camp. Phantym 4 July 2005 17:00 (UTC)

I don't agree that user:Joshuaschroeder's change constituted vandalism as I don't think that the article scientific creationism was encyclopedic enough to remain in the presence of a much better candidate. I would reiterate that I think the best way for you to take matters forward would be for you to slowly, carefully and in an NPOV manner incorporate material from the history of scientific creationism into creation science. Barnaby dawson 5 July 2005 08:02 (UTC)

Creation Science

Phantym, the Scientific Creationism article has been moved to 'Creation Science'. We would love to have your help editing it. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 09:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)