Graft

I am a graduate student in biology, but I'd rather be overthrowing the systems of capitalism, white supremacy and patriarchy, or else cooking food. Look, I [http://rhinocrisy.blogspot.com/ blog]! Who doesn't, these days? Pet peeve: being called "Grant". ---- According to [http://www.bbspot.com/News/2005/02/website_quiz.php BBSpot's "Which Website Are You?"], I am Wikipedia.org. "You are a know-it-all. You are trustworthy, most of the time. You are versatile and useful. You like volunteering. You are free."

Graft

==Islamophobia article== Hello there. Please take a look at the Islamophobia discussion. It may interest you and you may wish to comment. User: John Ball 22/07/04. 9:55. THERE IS NO NEED TO SAY LIBERTARIAN SOCIALIST ON THE ANARCHIST PAGE EXCEPT TO SPECIFICALLY DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE TWO OR TO LINK TO LIBERTARIAN SOCIALIST. There are a lot of changes you aren't even addressing. The original page is still about several different types of anarchism. Have you actually read my changes? Its not about more than several different types of anarchism. Apparently the objectionable thing I have done is replace most of the spots where it once said, "libertarian socialist" with "anarchist" afterall it IS the anarchist page, No? Somebody said I added, 'Anarchists loathe capitalism'...IT WAS ALREADY THERE-Why are you people criticizing me for improving this document that they aren't even familiar with? A lot would be accomplished if you would explain what is wrong with my changes? I have done nothing that I could see as being in the least bit controversial. All that has been said to me is that Im not allowed to change the anarchist page to being about anarchism rather than libertarian socialism. Hello there, Welcome, newcomers to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to wikipedians. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or drop me a user talk:maveric149. BTW, some other biologists have been working together on WikiProject Tree of Life. The content on that page is a bit dated because we have switch to creating tables with taxonomic info. Examples: Sainfoin, Hominid, Arthropod, and Monera (there are different colors for each kingdom (biology). For more info visit Talk:Hominid. Cheers! --user:maveric149 ---- thanks for catching my mistakes/sloppiness! User:Slrubenstein ---- No sir-you are being to quick to revert changes-my version of the anarchist page states quite clearly in the first few paragraphs that libretarian socialism is a synonym of anarchism and to make things clear it lists numerous other synonyms-however And i do mean However The page is called anarchism There is a difference between anarchism and libretarian socialism (although a slight one). There is a seperate page for libreatarian socialism. My edits were not only clearing that issue up but discussing the geographic locations of anarchism, the historical contexts, spelling, and like edits You need to take a little bit of time and discuss before deleting changes ---- Above was from Lir. I lowered the volume a bit, but I basically agree, Graft. Be a little nicer, okay? --User:Ed Poor ---- On second thought, with the chaos I saw on the anarchy page, I can understand your frustration. But reverts which don't satisfy others just lead to re-reverts, which lead to re-re-reverts, and then we would have total anarchy. The irony would be delicious, if we all weren't so frustrated! --User:Ed Poor Might I suggest you read the page (the version I reverted) and then get back to me. :Sure, I'm what the Washington Post calls an "easily led" Christian. ;-) --User:Ed Poor ---- I put the reference you were asking for over on Talk:PNA, hope Scientific American is enough to at least provide a lead to a real paper. :) User:Bryan Derksen ---- Re: Kotoku Shusui
Thanks -- I plan to do a lot more on anarchists from Japan and Cuba, for a start. Writing it as a wikipedia article is a great way to learn. I hope to start articles on the anarchist movement in various countries, especially ones where its not so well known. -- User:Tzartzam ----- I've heard that's good, but I've never seen it either. I actually kinda liked The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air when I was about ten or eleven. At least he didn't pretend to be serious or an artist or anything. User:Tokerboy 18:55 Nov 18, 2002 (UTC) ---- Re: fascism on Wikipedia. Having been involved in a couple of edit wars myself, I've seen how the free-wheeling openness of Wikipedia can degenerate into some bitter feuds. I've found that one way to deal with this is not to focus my time here solely on a few ultra-serious, controversial subjects. For me, it's a lot of fun to go around looking at more light-hearted topics that I like to write about (movies, music, comic books, etc.) and touching up on those entries, in between the occasional writing about more serious topics (the Holocaust revisionism stuff, for instance). It helps lighteen up my time here. -- User:Modemac ---- Graft, there has been some talk about making it impossible for non-logged-in users to flag large edits as "minor edits" -- in fact, not letting them use the "minor edit" flag at all. --User:Ed Poor ---- Hi, I sorta tried to answer one of your old comment on Talk:Biological cell. I may have entangled myself though :-) user:anthere ---- No problem about Dresden,Graft. I never though you were interested in anything but a more accurate article. The others really insulted me (rather than disputing with me in a generally civilzed manner), but I'm sure they are lining up to apologize right now. Tom Parmenter, aka User:Ortolan88 ---- When you include negative info on Kissinger, please remember to do so in a neutral way. That is, do it so that the Wikipedia doesn't seem to be endorsing or opposing any view about Kissinger. Sure, I know you think he's the biggest war criminal and nogoodnik since Hitler (or maybe worse), but try not to come right and say that in the article. Instead, say that X doesn't regard Henry as gifted, and Y called him a war criminal. --User:Ed Poor ---- Hi, thanks for the encouraging comments. Sequence alignment is my main thing, so I'll probably edit it some more, extend it etc. -MockAE ---- Dropped you an e-mail before I realized I was responding to you. User:Ortolan88 ---- Hi Graft, it seems that 168 has been deleting huge quantities of talk from the Gene page. My understanding is that old material should be archived, not deleted. I'd like to give 168 the benefit of the doubt and think that he is not a vandal, but just did not know policy. I have restored all the deleted talk. But I recognize that the page may be getting too long for some servers to handle easily. This seems to be the problem for 168; I did a preliminary archive. But would you mind reviewing the page and archiving what you believe is appropriate? There continues to be some debate of the dogma, and I wouldn't want to archive too much; I'd trust your judgement, User:Slrubenstein ---- Graft, you know that I disagree with you about some things (for one thing, I still think it makes sense to define genes as sequences of nucleotides and get into DNA later). Be that as it may -- ''please'' do not give up on the Gene article where you have been making important contributions and bring an important view. User:Slrubenstein :Hi Graft, do you still feel like arguing? Check out the Global warming talk page now and look at the latest entry! Your friend, User:Slrubenstein ---- When you have a chance, please look at Genetic code -- I am not sure that the last revision (of the first paragraph) is an improvement over the previous version (which I wrote). I don't think the metaphor of mapping is used very well, and the specific example may be better left for the body of the article. But I'd like to know what you think, User:Slrubenstein :I don't have any problem with the mapping metaphor itself -- but is the code itself the map, or is the code our way of conceptiualizing the map, or is the code the key to the map? I just think the way the metaphor is worked out could be clearer. Also, I have yet to find your prose didactic... And anytime you want me to cut and paste onto your page any of VC's, well, whatever we are going to call it, I would be happy to do so. User:Slrubenstein ---- That was a reference to a note, Ill use roman numerals instead User:Vera Cruz What part of ''close to a hundred innocent people'' is NPOV? -- User:Zoe ---- Hi, I made some changes to the Henry Ford page, including reorganization and headings, and I'd like to know what you think, User:Slrubenstein :I am glad you like it -- by the way, I think Clutch is gone. I've read his stuff and I can tell you, I would have no patience with him (or her). Maybe RK does sometimes over-use the term, or use it too quickly. But I believe Graft really is a racist, and whatever his or her contributions have been to other articles, my policy with such people is simply to try to do good work on the article and avoid useless argument. User:Slrubenstein When you have some (okay, lots of) free time, check out Richard Wagner and the talk page, which has a discussion that in some ways parallels the Ford incident... User:Slrubenstein ---- Go ahead, have your fun, play your games, just count me out. Bad me, I made the mistake of thinking this was a place where we understood from the beginning that we can see knowlege from various points of view and allow others to therefore contribute as such. Who exactly are you to say I cannot experience my gender as a "Seperate Construct" which in my case, does in fact operate independantly of my physical sex? How would you know that? Perhaps you have not had that experience before. Furthermore, who are you to delete what I have to contribute accept someone who disrespects others (Under the guise of one who has a better understanding) amidst a community devoted to a better understanding? Count me out! User:Jaimenote ---- Graft: check your email. Something important about tonight coming through. Thanks, User:DanKeshet 22:03 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC) ---- Graft: Thank you for your comments re: Gulf War. I appreciate your position, and I think there is some room for your suggestions in the article. However, I think that your text is really clearly POV, so let me run an NPOV copy by you, and see what you think. ''Critics say that Hussein-fag hypothesis. public opinion--mainly conducted by hard-core supporters of the Hussein-fag hypothesis--indicate that the percentage of people supporting this perspective increased dramatically after the release of South Park, the Movie. Others respond that the polls were themselves biased, and that the Hussein-fag hypothesis is crippled from the start. The original critics usually then storm off in a huff and go have a bowl of Ben and Jerry's, because they're all obesity." ---- Graft, when you have a chance can you look at the genetic Drift article again? I made a major revision at 18:43 (May 19), could you compare it to the previous version? If I am way off, feel free to revert; if my version need ssome clarification or correction please help out, User:Slrubenstein ---- No, you shouldn't have a George V of England at all, redirected or not - it will mislead people into thinking of it as a valid alternate title, when it's outright wrong. PML. ---- Graft, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your message. I have always dreaded edit-wars, and am quickly irritated when someone gets hysterical when someone else doesn't understand their point. Yet now I fear I am the one getting hysterical. I certainly am at my wits end -- and a couple of times I have thought that I should just give up. But then I think, what if one of my students read the Wikipedia article on genetic drift? I have an obligation to them to make sure it is accurate and clear. In any event I am starting to get worn down. Any time you feel that you can intervene constructively, I for one would be relieved. I'd be very grateful if you would comment on my most recent version in comparison with 168's most recent version. In fact, if you had the time to review the day's talk, and comment on it, you would be adding a desperately needed fresh perspective (my version: http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Genetic_drift&oldid=947916 ). User:Slrubenstein :Hi again, I just made a few changes to the Neutral theory of molecular evolution page -- before 168 blows another gasket at the fact that I am screwing around with "his" article, could you take a look at the changes and tell me what you think (or correct them if I made a mistake)? Thanks, User:Slrubenstein :please would you review what I wrote about genetically modified food. I think this is a 'different'' topic than genetically modified organism and both should not be confused. Thanks User:anthere ----- Great user page! Hopefully you'll be able to do all that when you're finished with graduate school! User:172 18:55, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC) ---- Thanks, it's nice to know someone appreciates me... :)User:TUF-KAT 03:43, Sep 5, 2003 (UTC) == My born-again status == The term born-again shouldnt be politicized as it is now. But everyone who comes to a point in life where "God" (our word for that great thing that trancends naming or identification) taps us on the shoulder and says "hey buddy, remember me", is in some sense a born-again person. Whether they are also a Christian depends on which religious traditions they happen to have been born into (or chosen) assosiation with. There is also a scientific explanation for the "born-again" "phenomenon" - which I wrote into the intro on the born-again article. Normally my religion has no bearin on any discussion, nor should it. But the issue of that particular conflict is rarely discussed with normalcy, on reasonable terms, or with sincerity.
But the reason I added "Christian" to that comment was not because I think I have a monopoly on Christian thought, rather that in the case where two of the Abrahamic religions are at odds, the other one has a kind of duty to be a neutral mitigator. But it really isn't a religious debate--no is the norther-Ireland one a religious one either. The acrobatics of people one hand quabble over land, and then turn around to quote the same ten commandments is astounding. But religion is never so much for guidance, as it is to protect sinners from God's immediate penitence. People like to pray under fancy roofs, while God himself is everywhere. -User:Stevertigo 22:49, Sep 12, 2003 (UTC) ---- Hi, I just saw your request. The islamism page is protected now. -- User:Cordyph 17:43, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC) ---- You must be talking about your comment on talk:Saddam Hussein. Well, that's fine, you can keep the gulf war reader, so long as you send me my Manu Chao CD and my cat. User:DanKeshet 22:47, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC) ---- Graft, you do realize there are external links backing the facts that Al Qaeda was using the internet. Those links are discussing in detail about the Al Qaeda websites. U.S. crackers DID take down Jehad.net and Alneda.com. I'm going to revert the edit, but please give me feedback if you object. User:WhisperToMe 00:25, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC) ==Allegation article== Hi there, I saw you contributed to the Talk:Conservative views on American homelessness, what is your take on Oil for Food Allegations? User:Get-back-world-respect 03:38, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) ---- I saw your request in the edit summary, so I protected Gulf War. User:172 19:45, 12 May 2004 (UTC) ==Pinochet== Would you be interested in making some comments at Talk:Augusto Pinochet#Another poll about whether or not an assertion for U.S. backing of the 1973 coup is misleading? User:172 19:10, 19 May 2004 (UTC) ==Rewrite of article EXCELLENT IDEA!== I for one appreciate your effort to get the "al quada" entry torn down and replaced with something more closely resembling reality. Let's see if we can drum up a support base to get it done. It's you and me and I only see WhisperToMe opposed. Though I'm sure many others will jump on the other band wagon soon enough. Let's strike while this iron is hot, if you want you can post drafts to my talk page or here or whereever and we can discuss ways to get it to stick on the real entry before we submit it together. Sound like a plan? User:Energybone 18:36, 26 May 2004 (UTC) ==Teapot Tempests== G, There has been one a stormin' in the crypto corner of things, hence the reference. See Wikipedia project Cryptography at discussion cypher v cipher for the damp details. You might want to chime (or chyme) in, even if you're not a cryptiac. And if you are, join in, the water's fine and the tempest isn't raising waves which are too over dangerous. User:Ww 14:47, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC) ==Islamism and minor edits== Thanks for the heads up - I'm still new to this game so feeling my way around issues like this. Although I don't know why I made that, in particular, a minor edit, as it clearly wasn't!User:Gerry Lynch 10:57, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) ==Sociobiological theories of rape== I've started on reworking this. It needs to be fed through the grinder a few more times before anything acceptable comes out the other end. See the talk page, too. -- User:The Anome 16:54, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) == Talk:Sociobiological theories of rape == Sorry I got a bit ornery, but the slap in the face of a revert after you spend dang near an hour trying to edit in a compromise tends to ittitate a feller. I think you can do alot of good on this article, but not by deleting. Rather I think by adding information and alternate POV (I read yer user page, and caught a whiff of where yer comin from ;) you can help to balance things out. I am pro-balance, but anti deletionism, if you understand. Cheers, User:Sam Spade http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new Spade 19:11, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) == Abu Musab al-Zarqawi == Yes I do, in fact. From the New York Times: :''He became a reporter for a small jihadist magazine, Al Bonian al Marsous, whose name means "The Strong Wall."'' == Where did the quote from JPII on evolution go?== I moved the quote to evolutionary creationism, because I tended to agree with the suggestion by user:duncharris that it was a little bit out of place in the evolution article. Not that it wasn't on topic, just that it fits better in the other article, as it currently stands. However, an entire article devoted to "Evolution and religion" might be more appropriate still.--User:Johnstone 23:15, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC) == Bin Ladens and Saudis == I approve of your recent change to the Osama bin Laden article, the one you labelled "remove michael-mooreish nonsense conspiracy theory", because the info you removed was poorly worded and doesn't belong there. But the Bin Laden family ''does'' absolutely have close connections with the Saudi royal family going back generations. That's not really controversial. I suppose it's Michael-Moorish in the sense that it's accurate, but phrased in an inflamatory way. User:Quadell User_talk:Quadell 19:16, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC) == Quiet in the library! == Thanks for removing the chatter on Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq. (Some of us are trying to get some work done.) User:Quadell – User:Quadell ^{(User_talk:Quadell) (User:Quadell/Request for assistance)} 02:32, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC) == You didn't give a valid reason for your removal == On Talk:2003_invasion_of_Iraq you removed a discussion I was involved in, and you comment was that it was totally irrelevant. Please restore it and read it. It was on the justification for the war, and note that it was in a Talk page. Something relevant to the page might well have been worked out there. Furthermore, your removal does nothing but vandalize a discussion. It isn't as if you save wikipedia disk space as it will still be present in the history. We weren't discussing sports or wildlife, so your totally irrelevant comment was either a mistake or unjustifiable.--User:Silverback 03:41, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) I still think your removal was counterproductive. The issues raised are those discussed by everyone concerned about the issues on the main page, and without the page there it is doomed to be repeated (actually it'll probably be repeated anyway). Prior to your removal, I had already referred someone to the page, so we didn't have to cover ground already covered. Moving it to the archives would at least have allowed it to still be referenced, and those of us involved in the discussion had already suggested that such an action but neither of us knew how to do, but the suggestion was there for you to see.--User:Silverback 04:12, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) Much better. -- thanx--User:Silverback 05:42, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC) ==Genetic drift== Thank-you, thank-you, thank-you. That re-write was long overdue. The article was one of the first ones I visited when I came to Wikipedia, and has always stood out as a poor example. User:Noisy_|_User_talk:Noisy">User:Noisy|User:Noisy | User talk:Noisy 08:34, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC) ==Evolution controversy== Hi. I notice you've removed the heading ''Acceptance and controversy'' I added. The reasons I added it are: *This controversy is not an essential part of the theory of evolution, although it's an important side issue. IMO the article intro should outline the theory itself, with perhaps brief comments on its history. *Nevertheless, the controversy is important enough to have a section in the main article. It's all that many people know about evolution, especially in some non-western areas! Comments? User:Andrewa 21:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) Hi, I would like to ask you some questions: 1.) Is outdated information that also evolutionists consider false still used in some school textbooks (eg. the embryos series or the horse evol.stages sequence)? 2.) Did some parallel similar structures evolve independently? (eg. eyes of mammals and cephalopods or some microbiological structures) 3.) Are similar homologic structures in related organisms sometimes encoded by groups of genes located in completely different places of the genome? 4.) respose to behe's arguments about irreducible complexity 5.) isn't the design hypothesis just a call to the most reasonable explanation based just on our observation? (eg. what is the difference between claiming that the paintings in caves are painted by intelligent artists and claiming that the brain (or cell or any complex structure in nature) is designed by an intelligent designer?) 6.) are there any complete series of transitional fossils documenting all slight step-by-step changes found? 5.) are there any examples of imperfect not-fully-formed ancestors of the complete and fully formed fossils usually found? how did they survive if they were not fully formed? --User:Charon.sk 13:04, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) :Thanx for your responses, I appreciate giving your viewpoints. Ad 1.) I was not talking about missing cutting edge research, but including tens of years old information that causes informed evolutionists to hide in shame. The information in textbooks plays a vital role in the controversy because it keeps the public uninformed and might even be called by some brainwashing or propaganda. Ad 6.) Could you name the exact stages and specimen (location/date found) of horse evolution you referred to? Ad 7.) Now I see that I misnumbered my questions and you copied it :) It is true that some arguments of that sort are just a lack of imagination. The problem is that your objection would be valid in the area of philosophy, not science. In science, the proponen of the theory has to supply evidence and to say that "there must be some purpose for those not-fully formed structures" is similar to a "god of the gaps" explanation and would be circular reasoning in the big picture. Ad the feathered Trex: Are you referring to a specific article or specimen? Could you give a reference? --User:Charon.sk 21:15, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) ''"if evolutionists were interested in propagandizing the population, they'd want to present the best, cutting-edge information, not outdated material open to attack"'' - Actually, no. Anyone who is interested in propagandizing with anything would want to present only the information that does not contradict him or her. If someone's aim was to teach the students proper science (ie the truth), they would allow them to read recent research - but they don't. ''"Actually, no, this isn't how science operates."'' - allow me to disagree: IMHO science deduces theories based on known evidence rather than on unknown speculation. --User:Charon.sk 15:26, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) ''"what exactly convinces you that the theory of evolution is bunk?"'' - Hi. My faith has nothing to say about the scientifis theory of evolution. My faith can only adress the philosophical aspects of materialistic evolutionism. What troubles me about the theory is that after decades of new research it still builds on the pre-darwinian knowledge. it does not convince me from the scientific point of view: it lacks proper mechanism and factual evidence. Also, which troubles me (but is more about evolutionism than the theory of evolution itself) are the methods of education, interpreting of evidence and policy of publishing and reviewing those scientists that disagree with the "establishment". The more I learn about these thing, the more it reminds me of some big church (eg. catholic) rather than a scientific search for truth. And last but not least I'm startled witch some argumets which are plainly false or employ logical errors (circular, ad hominem or strawman arguments). To conclude in one sentence, it's not something specific that convinces me about the invalidness of the theory of evolution, it's the proponents of the theory that are unable to convince me about it's validness now that I know more about the facts that they are willing to admit. --User:Charon.sk 12:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::*''no mechanism:'' it is a shear unproved speculation that mutation+selection could account for the changes that evolution requires. I would say that what has been experimentaly proved only strenghtens this point. ::*''pre-darwinian knowledge:'' darwin built his theory whithout the knowledge of current genetics and cell microbiology and biochemistry. what we have today is only a sligtly modified darwinist theory trying to incorporate the new fact into an old structure based on old ways of thinking. For example in physics, Einstein did not simply add some formulas to the newtonian mechanics. It is completely rebuilt. However in the evolution case, there might be metaphysical implications which evolutionists are not willing to face, so they have to keep the old way of thinking. This way a big structure is being built on weak foundation and the more we know the more unstable it will be. The sad thing is that evolutionosists are balancing on the top, closing their eyes and ears and saying "there is no debate, the theory is not in crisis, etc." ::*''circular errors:'' I was referring to the education and public presentation, not the theory itself. Students are not being thaught everything, so to keep them quiet they are left with circular arguments. ::*''ad hominem arguments:'' The most visible one is labeling (often mistakenly) any oponent "religiously motivated" or "creationist" etc. without actually dealing with their arguments. ::*''other unscientific reasoning:'' The best known is probably "suboptimal design", vestigial organs etc, which also proved to be hindering scientific progress and caused problems in medicine. The idea of suboptimal desing is just the same as "the god of the gaps".--User:Charon.sk 13:47, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::::''"It's not unproved speculation - there's been a good amount of work..."'' - so why it is not publicly accessible? why there are only weak, circular and errorneous arguments presented? if the proof exists, why nobody knows about it? What precisely is proved beyond "microevolutional change"? ''" that's not true in this case. Genetics and microbiology did not repudiate Darwin"'' - I am not surprised you claim this, however I don't agree. I think this precisely is the weak point of the theory. == Minor edits == Hi I! Nice edit on Islamism, but just a note: usually, the minor edit tag is reserved for edits that do not substantially affect meaning, e.g. typos or insertion of conjunctions, etc. Thus, even the addition of a single word may not necessarily be a 'minor edit', depending on what the word is. This is a useful convention to follow since some people keep minor edits hidden, and it would be rude to slip contentious changes in meaning past their notice. (Perhaps your flag was merely an error - in which case I apologize for my presumption). Anyway, have a nice day! User:Graft 16:55, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) :You're right about the error. I have set my preferences to have the "This is a minor edit" flag to be "on" by default, so the wikification, grammar, and text edits that I am more often making (for subjects related to South Asia, Pakistan, Islam, etc.) aren't flagged as major changes. The problem is that I had stopped paying attention that flag. And now that you have mentioned it, I have recently created whole new articles (in fact, half of the entries at :Category:Chiefs of Army Staff, Pakistan) with that flag set. Thanks for the reminder. I did not intend to slip anything by anyone. I fully realize that the changes at the top of Islamism are pretty fundamental, and didn't mean to imply otherwise.User:IFaqeer—User:IFaqeer User talk:IFaqeer 23:21, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC) == read immediately and then destroy == Graft, you know that whatever disagreements we have ever had on WIkipedia I respect you and am glad you are here. This is why I suggest you delete what you just wrote on the talk page of the Jesus article. It doesn't matter that you have said ''exactly'' what I and I bet over a thousand other Wikipedians are thinking. Indeed, I have to thank you for making me laugh for the first time today; I have a headache and you have cheered me up. But however truthful your words, they can lead someone to legitimately accuse you of personal attackes, lack of wikietiquette and the whole tamale, and I would hate to see that happen to such a good fellow like yourself. User:Slrubenstein 21:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) :You don't need to apologize to me -- I am still laughing! It's just that if you were to get scolded for this, it would be too great an injustice for the world to bear. User:Slrubenstein 22:07, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) == Article Licensing == Hi, I've User:rambot#Free the Rambot Articles project to get users to Wikipedia:Multi-licensing all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (''CC-by-sa'') v1.0 and v2.0 Creative Commons Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The ''CC-by-sa'' license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at ''minimum'' those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information: *User talk:Ram-Man#Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered *Wikipedia:Multi-licensing *User:rambot#Free the Rambot Articles project To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "" template into their user page, but there are other options at Wikipedia:Template messages/User namespace#Licensing Templates. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page: :Option 1 :I agree to Wikipedia:Multi-licensing all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below: : OR :Option 2 :I agree to Wikipedia:Multi-licensing all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below: : Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "" with "". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. ''Please let me know'' what you think at my User talk:Ram-Man. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- User:Ram-Man ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit§ion=new comment]| User talk:Ram-Man == Anti-democracy forces and the U.S. == Graft, you cite lesser of two evils decisions the U.S. made during the cold war, and ignore those situations where U.S., has expended blood and resources with no thought of territorial gain. The aftermaths of WWI, WWII and the Korean conflict prove the U.S. has no territorial ambitions. If you are going to hold affiliations with dictatorships during the cold war against the U.S., I shudder to consider what you must think of the United Nations today. Why would you question the anti-democracy label when those wahabi insurgents themselves don't even embrace it, and even if they did think they were fighting for democracy rather than some virulent theocracy, tribalism or nationalist, with their most absent access to unbiased and alternative information, they would be highly likely to be as wrong as those forces that fought the U.S. in Vietnam. Whatever the Viet Cong thought they were fighting for, they got a totalitarian militaristic dictatorship or oligarchy. Something, which even it they wanted it, they had no right to impose upon another.--User:Silverback 08:15, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) == Global warming == (User:William M. Connolley 21:24, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Thanks for your contribution to the GW article (with only a minor complaint: I'm WMC or William if you want to abbreviate me...). I'm never quite sure if I'm a bit too heavy handed with this and related articles. Either I'm doing such a wonderful job that all the sane people rarely feel they need to contribute :-) or... I'm putting people off. ==Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared== Hello Grant, glad that you had a look at this page we're developing. I am not a creationist but I do think that this page can make a valuable contribution to wikipedia. If we have no such page then people will have to look elsewhere on the internet where there is no NPOV rule and where special interests are rife. I have suggested a new wikipedia guidelines page for pages of this type. This is a quote form the pages talk page. NPOV for a page structured like this needs set guidelines. None currently exists (correct me if I'm wrong). To remedy this I suggest we create a new page wikipedia: NPOV (comparison of views). I think this page should express the following guidelines: Each side should be represented on each subtopic of the debate. Each side should be allowed to express approximately the same number of viewpoints on each subtopic. *The number of facts presented should be limited only by issues of style. *When editing contentious topics facts should be added gradually to give the other side a chance to contest them. You should not flood the page with facts. *When a fact is challenged a source should be provided (the onus is not on the challenger) and if the fact is a deduction from experimental data/primary sources the experimental data/primary sources should be given and the deduction steps given or a link given (if they are too complex) to where they may be found. *If no source can be given for the fact after a reasonable amount of time the statement should be removed or modified in such a way that it can be sourced. *It is preferable to have facts rather than viewpoints. *Hyperbole should be used sparingly if at all. What do you think of this? User:Barnaby dawson 09:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC) Hello Grant, I have created a guidelines page setting out how NPOV rules apply to pages such as these. It is to be found at Wikipedia: NPOV (Comparison of views in science). Please take a look at it. I am planning to introduce this at the top of the talk page as the guidelines for additions to the page with also possibly a note to that effect at the top of the page itself. However, I think that before I do this others should have a look at it and check that it is a reasonable interpretation of the NPOV rules currently in existence. Regards :) User:Barnaby dawson 22:46, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) == reasons for breaking al-qaida history == Hi, Actually we broke the history of al-qaida because that section was getting bigger and bigger as more users were putting more information. For example Iraq section is expected to expand. Similarly other history portions. It was meant so editors can easily add new information. I am turning it back so it can accommodate future expansions easily. I hope you will understand it. User:Zain engineer 23:00, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) ==Steven Emerson== Thanks for your note about Emerson. I'm not recommending his book as such on these pages, just inserting him as someone who's regarded as America's best-informed journalist regarding these issues. I know many people have problems with him, but he probably has better intelligence sources than any journalist in America, and not just recently. If you go back and read his ''Secret Warriors'', his sources were excellent even before he started concentrating on Islamism. That doesn't mean the sources are right. All I mean is that he has access to high levels of govt and the intelligence community, so what you read in his books is probably pretty much what the American government is thinking. In that sense, he's worth reading. Best, User:SlimVirgin 21:53, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) ==Totally disputed notice== I've put a totally disputed notice on the page Views of creationists and mainstream scientists compared. I did this because Ungtss has started reformatting the page to be in the form fact, viewpoint, viewpoint. This will result in POV. Here is why: Facts should the main point of an argument. We can divide the facts on this page into several categories. Facts about viewpoints, facts about natural phenonomen, facts about deductions from theories, facts about mathematical principles. By introducing the style given above Ungtss is letting only facts about natural phenonomen and facts about viewpoints into the article. If theory A predicts X but theory B does not the article could say that: *Theory A predicts X. Adherents of theory B say it predicts X but many disagree. Wereas in the new format this could only be written: *Adherents of theory A believe it predicts X. Adherents of theory B believe it predicts X. I would ask that you help remedy this problem with the article. I shall not have the time I'm afraid (See my User page). User:Barnaby dawson 14:14, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) ==All hat but no Cattle== RSS Page reverts and other reverts I see no hope for you Graft you obviously fancy yourself a top level sub or an editor of others hard work. But off course you are entitled to be free with the revert button, BUT Next time you do so please present your reasons on the discussion page. I have studied your edits in other places � You are fond of clique phrases like �NPOV, ridiculous, wikipedia policy� etc � some people in the community have a name for, this attention seeking need in some contributors, to trawl our pages trying to assert themselves, but while playing at being an intellectual show us what�s in your little head even if it means risking a caning from those who know the subject better than you � Next time let us know how your brain is working when you conduct a revert so that we get to know if there is any cattle behind the big hat. == My RFC == (User:William M. Connolley 22:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)) You might be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley ==Request for Support== I've filed a complaint against user Jayjg for abuse of Admin powers, and for Anti-Arab and Anti-Islamic bias. This link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Evidence_presented_by_A.Khalil will take you to the Arbitration page. I think that you too have been subject to similar treatment with biased edits and reverts of your contributions to Wikipedia, and I would appreciate any additional evidence you can provide in this case. User:A.Khalil 04:37, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC) ==Strong words, both sides!== I did word that rant rather strongly didn't I? I wanted to draw attention to the fact that there are still lots of issues with the article, so it's not yet time to declare this article perfect by a long shot yet. Having said that, at your option, we can continue more civilised-style, or keep up this level of intensity. Frankly, I don't mind either way. As long as neither of us take it to a personal level and can keep things under control, it might be fun and interesting to hold a more intense debate than usual. I noticed that you're a biologist too, and I take your opinion seriously. User:Kim Bruning 16:48, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==What is the evidence, Graft?== There is more evidence for intelligent design than there is for evolution! How can you prove to me that rock + time = life? Everything tends towards ''disorder,'' right Mr. Biology graduate? Even though that's physics, you must have learned that in order to attain your degree, right? Let it be known that this is not an argument between science and religion! This is an argument between two religions. And I don't care if these things have already been talked about -- obviously there is something very fundamental that you don't understand or ''want'' to understand about the evolution theory. I have read the article, I have skimmed over the archives, so DO NOT try to inferiorate me by calling me ignorant. You sir, are proving to be quite ''arrogant'' if that's the best way that you can think of to solve the argument. This is not a closed issue because this article is far from being neutral. If you want to get me to shut up, I told you what needs to be done. :Now, about the formation of stars. No one has ever seen a star form. We see them blow up all the time, and that's not really good proof for the evolution of stars, so why did you mention that? I could blow up this computer right now, but the only way that it would change would be from one big collaboration into a million pieces. If you think Crab nebulae or any other star is evolving, you are wrong. According to your theory, doesn't it take millions of years for this to happen? This mistake has been made before. There have been incidents when what astronomers thought was a star in the process of formation was actually a cloud of interstellar dust or debris clearing, and the spot in their telescopes was getting brighter. Now, I am begging you to slow down and open up your mind a little. Ask yourself these questions -- ''do I know everything?'' If your answer is no, then ask ''do I know half of everything?'' If no, then ask yourself if there is a possibility that in that half of the spectrum of things you don't know, there might be a divine Creator? Look, I am not going to preach. But you seem to skepticize on anything that is not your own theory. Science, my friend, is a self-correcting process. Scientists have been wrong many times throughout history. I am not saying that evolution is wrong and creation is right or vice versa, but until ''you'' can prove, with empiracal evidence, that Evolution has overthrown the "outdated", biblical philosophies and sciences so forth and so on, we need to find some sort of peace between these two incredibly complicated beliefs. User:Salva31 11:51 10 Apr, 2005 (UTC) == Macroevolution == Could you have a look at the discussion at Talk:Macroevolution? Is my definition of macroevolution wrong? As I understand it, macroevolution is speciation and above. Microevolution is evolution within species. So if you accept speciation, you cannot reject macroevolution unless you re-define macroevolution as "evolution at a level which I do not accept". If I'm wrong, I'm fine with that, but I would like to hear that from someone who knows more about the topics than I do, not from people who know less than I do. Thanks. User:Guettarda 13:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Sorry== Sorry Graft. Honest mistake. User:Barnaby dawson 13:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) == reading comprehension == I suppose it says something - if someone can't get your name right after all this time, how do you expect them to actually understand what they read? User:Guettarda 21:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) :The above comment, which I regret as rather mean spirited, has ''nothing'' to do with the message from Barnaby dawson immediately above it. The proximity is purely coincidental. User:Guettarda 20:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::I didn't notice the proximity until Barnaby asked about it. I displayed a lack of "reading comprehension" myself - I should have seen the way it looked, based on proximity. User:Guettarda 21:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Galileo == The Galileo page doesn't include it for some reason, but in the paper he put out on a heleocentric universe he had two people in discussion, one was someone with galileo's views and the other was one with the catholic church's views (and specifically, the pope's). Unfortunately for galileo, one way to translate the name he gave the pope's character is "idiot." == ...who no longer say "Ni!" == Thanks! I do not understand how or why, but I think my sense of humor is slowly returning to me ... User:Slrubenstein | User talk:Slrubenstein 17:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC) == Jesus == Please comment on Jguk's most recent actions [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&curid=1095706&diff=0&oldid=0], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus#Problems_with_this_article]. It seems to me that he is destroying what I thought was a carefully constructec (though not, of course perfect) NPOV article. I trust your committment to NPOV and would like to know what you think. Frankly, I think we may have reached the point where arbitration or at least mediation is required. I honestly do not believe Jguk understands or cares about NPOV. User:Slrubenstein | User talk:Slrubenstein 15:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC) == NPOV == Please check out Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate, User:Slrubenstein | User talk:Slrubenstein 00:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC) Sorry I wasn't clearer (laziness). It is true that earlier I had issues with Jguk's attempt to rewrite the Jesus article, but I think several people have responded to that. Now, I am making a proposal to ammend the NPOV policy. The link above goes to my proposal. It draws heavily on the arguments at Talk:Jesus concerning dating conventions. However, the poll on that page is explicitly only for that article. Moreover, when the debate first began, and I made my first argument, someone told me that what I really needed to do was to change policy (what they meant was, until the policy changed they didn't think I had a valid argument). So, well, now I am trying to change the policy. The proposal is legnthy because I try to address every argument. If you have time to read it I would certainly appreciate your comments (and you may even see obvious edits to increase readability or clarity). Or, you could just read the first paragraph and consider voting. Whatever, I just appreciate your opinions, User:Slrubenstein | User talk:Slrubenstein 00:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC) == SLR's talk page == Not sure what's going on, but according to the diffs you whiped out TBSDY's comments with your post on SLR's Talk page. I'm guessing it's a Wiki bug, but I'm not sure if it is in my display of the page, or that your edit was saved on top of TBSDY's. User:Guettarda 00:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC) == ID == Heard you converted. What's the plan - work your way into the organisation and bring it down from within? :) User:Guettarda 17:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Sounds like a plan to me. You wouldn't be the first desi drawn to the Dark Side. User:Guettarda 18:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::PS - surprised you didn't make the annoucement in your blog. Trying to fool your hordes of devoted readers? User:Guettarda 18:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::BTW - good blog, great post. User:Guettarda 23:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Not an admin? == I noticed that you're not on the list of admins. How come not? Looks like you've been here since before the Dark Ages. User:Guettarda 04:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Well, if you ever feel thus inclined, I'd be happy to nominate you. User:Guettarda 05:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Graft

*In horticulture, a graft is where the tissues of one plant are affixed to the tissues of another; the process is called grafting. *In medicine, the same term is applied, particularly often for skin grafting, but also for other body tissues moved and re-joined: coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), bone grafting such as in vertebral ankylosis procedures etc... See medical grafting. *In politics, graft is a form of political corruption whereby someone profits personally from the public budget.

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

G

GA | GB | GC | GD | GE | GF | GH | GI | GJ | GK | GL | GM | GN | GO | GP | GR | GS | GT | GU | GW | GX | GY | GZ |

Words begining with Graft:

Graft
Graft
Graft
Graft-De_Rijp
Graft-versus-host_disease
Graft-versus-host_disease
Graftal
Graftal
Graftals
Graftals
Graftgold
Graftgold
Grafting
Grafton
Grafton,_Australia
Grafton,_Australia
Grafton,_IA
Grafton,_IL
Grafton,_Illinois
Grafton,_Iowa
Grafton,_MA
Grafton,_Massachusetts
Grafton,_ND
Grafton,_NE
Grafton,_Nebraska
Grafton,_New_Hampshire
Grafton,_New_South_Wales
Grafton,_New_South_Wales
Grafton,_New_York
Grafton,_NH
Grafton,_North_Dakota
Grafton,_OH
Grafton,_Ohio
Grafton,_Vermont
Grafton,_VT
Grafton,_West_Virginia
Grafton,_WI
Grafton,_Wiltshire
Grafton,_Wisconsin
Grafton,_WV
Grafton_(MA)
Grafton_(town),_Ozaukee_County,_WI
Grafton_(town),_Ozaukee_County,_Wisconsin
Grafton_(town),_WI
Grafton_(town),_Wisconsin
Grafton_(village),_Ozaukee_County,_WI
Grafton_(village),_Ozaukee_County,_Wisconsin
Grafton_(village),_WI
Grafton_(village),_Wisconsin
Grafton_and_Upton_Railroad
Grafton_Centre_Railroad
Grafton_Correctional_Centre
Grafton_County
Grafton_County,_New_Hampshire
Grafton_County,_New_Hampshire
Grafton_County,_New_Hampshire
Grafton_County,_NH
Grafton_Elliot_Smith
Grafton_Lakes_State_Park
Grafton_Regis
Grafton_saxophone
Grafton_Street
Grafton_street
Grafton_Street,_Dublin
Grafton_Township,_Minnesota
Grafton_Township,_MN
Graft_rejection