User talk:DIA-888

Welcome![edit]

Hello, DIA-888, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome!

Teahouse[edit]

Hello! DIA-888, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. The Teahouse is an awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us!

July 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Eric Chaisson, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Eric Chaisson was changed by DIA-888 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.910361 on 2011-07-29T23:20:37+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Epic of evolution may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

x,33,57,137, ISBN 0-8006-6093-5 [http://books.google.com/books?id=4wMcBvErCX0C] retrieved 3-17-09]</ref> It would seem as though he was equating God to the evolutionary story. This is similar to
scientific analysis of evolution in its broadest sense — [[Cosmic Evolution (book)|cosmic evolution)]] — implies an unidirectional, meandering process extending from the big bang to humankind on

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Big History[edit]

Wondering what your take is on Cosmic evolution. Is it a separate subject of its own right? How does it relate to Big History, like is BH a subset of CE, or are they separate disciplines. Should CE have its own article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The science of "cosmic evolution" used to have its own article on Wiki, but religious folks kept deleting it or transferring it to their spiritual pages, and colleague cosmologists kept redirecting it to their more specialized article on physical cosmology, which is where it now redirects. "Cosmic evolution" should definitely have its own article, but I don't know how to defend it against those who wish to suppress it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.254.34.8 (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Wikipedia has a learning curve, takes time to learn. In the article 'Cosmic evolution' history I see this version; it needed inline references; it struck me as mostly being original research, (and Wikipedia strives to be a tertiary source using secondary sources), meaning the article in that version was not a particularly good fit. In the deletion debate of Cosmic evolution, I checked every user, and I did not find any that I thought were particularly religious. I did some checking of the term in popular usage; in the science press, the term 'cosmic evolution' seems to denote the physical history of the cosmos, processes unfolding, how after the Big Bang, hydrogen and helium atoms formed clusters, then stars, and such. In this sense, the term simply identifies these historical processes, like users could have said 'cosmic history' without any appreciable change in meaning. I do not see much of the Darwinian sense of 'evolution' in this sense of 'cosmic evolution', in the sense of 'survival of the fittest', since cosmic evolution, essentially, deals with inanimate structures like planets and stars, which do not live and die of course. Then, there is a second sense of 'cosmic evolution' posited by Chaisson, that is, a sort of umbrella theory of everything, encompassing human evolution, time and matter, cosmic history, as the article reads: scientific study of universal change... intellectual framework that offers a grand synthesis of the many varied changes in the assembly and composition of radiation, matter, and life throughout the history of the universe. I do not get any sense that this second version has caught on in the academic/scientific community, as best I can tell, and it seems speculative. So if I tried to refloat an article 'Cosmic evolution', it would probably run up against the same arguments for deletion, since I'd need sources talking about the subject of 'Cosmic evolution' in the second sense, talking about it as a subject not merely mentioning the term in passing. If you can find such sources, with inline citations, alert me.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it happen[edit]

that a Wikipedia contributor who focuses on a few articles gets carried away, adds promotional and non-neutral content to an article, the thing builds up, grows, add a line here and there, and then -- surprise -- its up for deletion. It happens. I suspect there is a tipping point in these things. My two cents.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, DIA-888. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Eric Chaisson‎, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]