--- Royal We <rkscience100(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
So why do we now have:
Gaia (goddess)...including BIOLOGY theories?!?!
Gaia theory (Biology)
We do not have Gaia (goddess).
We have Gaia.
As such, it does not necessarily imply it is about the
goddess only. And since the word Gaia is evocating the
hypothesis to more and more "english speakers" as
compared to the goddess, it is perfectly relevant to
introduce the topic here
Anthere's obsession with having more and more
the same topic is unjustifiable, confusing, and
Wikipedia was stuck, so I add the info now, since you
appear to claim I am also responsible for the
existence of the [[Gaia]] article.
The Gaia article was set on the 25th of february 2002,
by The Epopt. I am not the creator of it. Unless I am
The Epopt ? And The Epopt put the initial link to the
I just improved it in march. But nobody complained
about me improving it. And I don't think this is a
tribunal where I need to justify any of my edits. I
stand by it.
However, Eloquence rephrase is fine by me.
This article should be about biology, because most
speakers who want to discuss this subject will use
name. What about this is so unreasonable? All I am
is that we follow the same rules as we follow
All you are asking is that you remain the only author
of these articles, and can remove everything that does
not suit your pov. That is very sad.
This is what you have started to do here
But I will let you do it entirely and remove
everything non scientific on the topic. The english
wikipedia is not only about science.
Of course, I meant to write "I will not let you do it
entirely and remove everything non scientific on the
But, of course, my poor english is responsible of my
typos. You suffer no such typos problems.
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!