User talk:Ymmotrojam/Scientific Theory of Evolution

Thanks for hosting the backup. ***. What's the appropriate action? Should we restore it?-AmesG 21:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Not right now. Wait a while to develop the article more. --Ymmotrojam 21:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Alright :-/ Work on it here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AmesG (talk)

Yeah, lets just work on making as strong an article as we think will be allowed. Tmtoulouse 21:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

What sections do we want to add?-AmesG 21:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

There is lots to add....but before we jump in I, at least, need a gut check on this. What exactly is it we are doing here guys? Is this really worth it? Tmtoulouse 21:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I think it's worth it. The goal is to have a copiously cited verifiable article on evolution to present as an alternative to Conservative's presentation. On any other cite, we'd fess up and say ours is correct. Here, we just want to "teach the controversy" and have it accepted. As a final solution, I thought that the disambiguation compromise was a good one. I think even user:Conservative didn't mind it - he didn't delete it a second time and I know he was online :-O. So I think it was gaining acceptance, and would work next time.-AmesG 21:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I guess participation here is leaving more and more of a bad taste in my mouth. Pearls before swine and all that. Maybe I just need to give it a rest for a while. Tmtoulouse 21:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Me too, I think, but I'll return, I hope you will.-AmesG 21:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

They nuked our disambiguation page :-(