The following will be posted on Wikipedia as the new article for SciForums whenever it is sufficiently completed. I will update this original post as comments and suggestions are given. Fill in the blanks:

"SciForums.com (an acronym for Science Forums) was founded in May 1999. It's goals were general science discussion, with a specific interest in machine intelligence and "exoscience" - the possibility of extraterrestrial life. Since then, the forum has diversified considerably, so that now discussions tend to focus more on the social and ethical implications of science and technology, rather than "hard science" as such, although there is still room for such discussions. And in fact, many discussions have delved into topics of considerable hard science interest. Discussions of current affairs and politics have also proven to be very popular, along with general discussions of ethical issues and religion.

Today SciForums has evolved into a more general user-based forum. The SciForums community is composed of all levels of experience and expertise; and as such is a valuable educational resource where ideas can be proposed for critique by peers and practising scientists.

The following subject categorizes are listed on its website for its members to post on. Feel free to browze through its collection of thoughts and to join in on humanity's quest for knowledge, answers and discussions about today's imposing topics:

Life (Free Thoughts, Art & Culture)

World (World Events, Politics, Business & Economics, History)

Science (General Science & Technology; Science & Society; Human Science; Earth Science; Astronomy, Exobiology & Cosmology; Biology & Genetics; Physics & Math)

Technology (Computer Science, Intelligence & Machines)

Philosophy (General Philosophy, Religion, Eastern Philosophy)

Subcultures (SciFi, Pseudoscience, Parapsychology)

First, make sure it is sciforums, with an "s".

It was founded in May 1999, with Dave W as the first registered user (as can be seen from the member list).

Originally, as I understand it (I joined in 2001), it's goals were general science discussion, with a specific interest in machine intelligence and "exoscience" - the possibility of extraterrestrial life.

Since then, the forum has diversified considerably, so that now discussions tend to focus more on the social and ethical implications of science and technology, rather than "hard science" as such (although there is still room for such discussions). Discussions of current affairs and politics have also proven to be very popular, along with general discussions of ethical issues and religion.

And muslims.
categorizes
'categories'

to serve as a forum for the general scientific community to express their thoughts, to ask questions, to delve deeper into

How many times does it need to be pointed out to you that this is wrong?

This forum was not created for the general scientific community.
Sorry that you seem to draw some sort of prestige from the idea, but it's just not the truth.

Not only this, but the forums were an afterthought.

You don't even know the history of the place.


Now, you mention updating your orignal post?
You might think to update it first to humbly ask the people who do know the history of this place to write the story, instead of providing a mad lib in which they might 'fill in the blanks'.


Plus, I note that you missed four forums. Wonder why?

I would also point out that it is hardly a science forum at all. It is rather a general forum with a science subsection, which is generally minimalized for the other sections, in which far greater discussion takes place.

It was originally called Styleforums, too.

Invert: Add content not criticism. The last four are for Sciforums internal issues, not original posts. "Cesspool" is where the garbage is redirected. Remember, this will be a guiding force into who and what Sciforums is. We must not dwell on downward trends [questionable]: look toward the future.

James R: New edit/update/suggestions?
I could post it now as is but will let this thread run a few days.

Sciforums Members' Favourite Threads: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58686

It needs to be noted at some point on the main page that - as the forum elders constantly remind us - Sciforums was far, far better in the old days before we all came along and spoiled it.

Invert: Add content not criticism. On Wiki, should I add the last four? Including "cesspool"?
Are they part of Sciforums? Will this be a strongly revisionist history?

[b]Sciforums Members' Favourite Threads: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58686 It needs to be noted at some point on the main page that - as the forum elders constantly remind us - Sciforums was far, far better in the old days before we all came along and spoiled it. This we be added at the discretion of the "forum elders." This is not a "history," nor a "revisionists history," of any kind. It is an intro.

I can already tell that this article will soon be heavily sprinkled with {{fact}} requests.

invert_nexus:

If you think you ought to write the article, have a go and post it here. Put your money where your mouth is.

The community is composed of all levels of experience and expertise; and as such is valuable educational resource where ideas can be proposed for critique by peers and practising scientists.

First thread 06-22-99, 10:38 PM "Evolution vs. Creation." http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=2106?
Also, maybe we should add something about the humor, sarcasm and wit?

05-29-99, 11:07 PM "Re: Netscape difficulties" http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=90

Not as interesting, I grant you.

Valich, Communist Hamster had this idea before you. And it failed (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Sciforums).

However, he had started it with little actual content. It wouldn't hurt to try it again. I just don't think it should usurp my idea of a dedicated wiki. In fact, I think having our own wiki would strengthen the relevance of a Wikipedia article on us.

Also:

SciForums.

It shows this at the top of every page in the link to the index page. It's also the title of the webpage which shows in the top bar thing in your browser window.

16:21, 14 May 2006 Bhadani (Talk | contribs) deleted "Sciforums" (content was: '{{db-empty}}' - contents described as nonsense)

What I have above is not nonsense. The Wiki Users who deleted those first posts seem a bit on the nonsense side to me and I'll take care of that. I don't know what the original article stated; but, we have good content: it will fly.

I can't double bold the "S" and the "F" because Wiki style dictates that the first word of the entry be entirely bold and be the title of the article itself. I will add links so that anyone who searchs "Sciforum" or "Sciforum.com" will be redirected to "Sciforums." Cases have been corrected.

Perhaps it would help cement the article's relevance if a lot of members from here on SciForums went and did some edits on the article where they could. I'm already there under the same username. I can certainly get on it.

If you believe the article will survive as it is, create it. Then I and hopefully others will go over and do our stuff.

And make sure the article's title is SciForums — note the cases.

It was founded in May 1999

I remember that month fondly. I hit my best score in Links386 of -19. Last shot just made it over the water and bounced within 9 feet of the hole and I sank it for an eagle and punched the air in delight.

lol

Okay, the article is created (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SciForums).

EDIT!!!

The article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SciForums&oldid=104788455) has been nominated for speedy deletion. Valich, add {{hangon}} to the top of the article and tell them (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SciForums&action=edit) why you think it shouldn't be deleted.

Added {{hangon}}. Voice your concerns at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sciforums and lets see what we can do.

I've voiced my concerns on the (apparently new) article. It would help if you shared those articles where SciForums is cited:

'''SciForums''' is taken very seriously by many in the scientific community and asserts its goals as important. Although it is now a forum for general users, a search through its threads will reveal to you the depth and complexity of insight that it has offered. In fact it is sited in five Wiki articles as a direct reference, including two references as credentials for two world renowned physicists.
:I also believe SciForums is taken very seriously by many.

:But it would help to see those articles in which SciForums is cited. — [[User_talk:Athelwulf|Äþelwulf]] <Small>[[Special:Contributions/Athelwulf|See my contributions.]]</Small> 07:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, for archival and historical purposes, I'm preserving the article as I have edited it, in full wiki mark-up:

'''SciForums''' was founded in [[May]] [[1999]] as an [[Internet]] [[discussion group]]. Its name stands for "Science Forums." Its goals were general [[science]] discussion with a specific interest in [[machine intelligence]] and "[[exoscience]]"—the possibility of [[extraterrestrial life]]. Since then, the forum has diversified considerably, such that now discussions tend to focus more on the [[society|social]] and [[ethics|ethical]] implications of science and [[technology]], rather than [[hard science]]. However, there is still room for discussions on hard science; in fact, many discussions have delved into topics of considerable hard scientific interest and are taken very seriously by some in the scientific community. Discussions of [[current affairs]] and [[politics]] have also proven to be very popular, along with general discussions of [[ethics|ethical issues]] and [[religion]].

The SciForums community is composed of all levels of experience and expertise, and is a valuable educational resource where ideas can be proposed for critique by peers and practicing scientists.

==External links==

[http://www.sciforums.com SciForums.com]

I took out your stuff about "come and read our site, here are some forums you can check out", because that's advertising, which they don't like on Wikipedia.

''SciForums''' is taken very seriously by many in the scientific community

Seriously.
This is just ridiculous.

The last four are for Sciforums internal issues, not original posts.

And yet, they are subforums at sciforums, yes?

Remember, this will be a guiding force into who and what Sciforums is.

Yeah.
Right.

However.
If you don't even know the past, how can you select the future?


Will this be a strongly revisionist history?

Revisionist isn't the word.
"Manufactured" would be far better.

If you think you ought to write the article, have a go and post it here.

I'll pass. I'm not qualified to write it either. And I've been here for a number of years. Long enough to have gleaned some of the history from forum oldtimers. Unlike Valich who seems to be just making it up from whole cloth.

James.
Do you think that Sciforums is created to cater to the scientific community? A lot of scientists hang out here? Ever? Doing a lot of science here, are we? Got any posts that lead to eventual inclusion in reputable scientific journals?


Anyway, if I recall the given history correctly, the forums were an afterthought. The site was originally a science news site with a forum added in for good measure at some point. Eventually the forums superseded the original object of the site and took over.
Right?

Or.
Did Dave create the site so that scientists from around the world would finally have a place to discuss science when not in the lab?


Anyway. Not my concern really. I just know from past experience with Valich that this isn't going to turn out well. Especially from how he's begun. It's nonsense.

"To serve as a forum for the general scientific community" indeed.
Heh.
Ridiculous and you know it.


Edit:
where ideas can be proposed for critique by peers and practising scientists.

Anyway. I see you took out the part about created for the general scientific community. Thank you for that. And I'll apologize for jumping on your case so early in the game.
Just gets on my nerves, that's all.

But, you still try to cater to the idea that there are a lot of scientists around here. Of course, you use the word 'can' which basically relieves you from the label of being a 'liar', but still.

Anyway.
The article has been deleted, I see.
And, not really surprising.
This is pretty much against their rules. I don't see how this could be seen as anything but advertising.
However, there are some sites listed on wikipedia, yes? I wonder how the advertising label is excluded? I suppose someone objective and unaffiliated with the site would have to create and defend the article?
But, no one unaffiliated with sciforums would have the desire nor the knowledge to create the site.
So, a catch 22.


Oh. Guess it wasn't deleted. Athelwulf gave a shitty link up there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sciforums

I cited the two science articles: "Robert S. Shankland (1908–1982) was an American physicist and historian." External links: Time : the scientific account (this one is absolete?) and the "Fox Fur Nebula." The other three are computer gaming articles. What's with the link on Shankland?

Invert: Your just an old grump. Why don't you go look for a pine box and get nice and cumphy in it somewhere.

For archival and historical purposes, I continue to preserve stuff:

'''SciForums''' is taken very seriously by many in the scientific community and asserts its goals as important. Although it is now a forum for general users, a search through its threads will reveal to you the depth and complexity of insight that it has offered. In fact it is sited in five Wiki articles as a direct reference, including two references as credentials for two world renowned physicists.
:I also believe SciForums is taken very seriously by many.

:But it would help to see those articles in which SciForums is cited. — [[User_talk:Athelwulf|Äþelwulf]] <Small>[[Special:Contributions/Athelwulf|See my contributions.]]</Small> 07:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


Robert S. Shankland (1908–1982) was an American physicist and historian. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Shankland]]
External links and references: * [http://www.sciforums.com/archive/index.php/t-1171 Time : the scientific account]

Fox Fur Nebula is a Nebula located in Monoceros and included in the NGC 2264 Region. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Fur_Nebula]]
External Links: * [http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=8667 The Fox Fur Nebula - SciForums.com]

* The first one is a dead link. The second one is just shows text that was copied directly from http://www.astronet.ru/db/xware/msg/1167693. Nice try, but this article doesn't belong on Wikipedia, and I recommend '''strongly''' that it is deleted. --[[User:Adam12901|Адам12901]] ^{[[User talk:Adam12901|Talk]]} 07:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
**As for the first link, [http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=11278#post11278 this link] will work better. — [[User_talk:Athelwulf|Äþelwulf]] <Small>[[Special:Contributions/Athelwulf|See my contributions.]]</Small> 07:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the dead link. You also state "I also believe SciForums is taken very seriously by many." I add "by many scientists." So what's with your back turn?
:The four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>)are your friends, valich. Also, you misconstrued my words in order to find malicious intent. I don't appreciate that. Assume good faith. — [[User_talk:Athelwulf|Äþelwulf]] <Small>[[Special:Contributions/Athelwulf|See my contributions.]]</Small> 07:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
How so? I did not suggest or say it was "malicious." And this accusation on your part is malicious. I think what you stated and then recommend is contradictory. Perhaps I do not understand. So please explain your intent? [[User:Valich|Valich]] 07:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
::I had no intent other than to back you up in trying to convince the higher-ups here that this article is worth keeping. By asking why I've turned my back—and thus implying that I've betrayed you and hurt your feelings or something—you suggested, perhaps unintentionally, that my words had malicious intent. I was saying the same thing you said, only I failed to put "in the scientific community" at the end, because I thought it was assumed given the context. — [[User_talk:Athelwulf|Äþelwulf]] <Small>[[Special:Contributions/Athelwulf|See my contributions.]]</Small> 08:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

External links: Time : the scientific account (this one is absolete?) and the "Fox Fur Nebula."

Come on.

Both of those are copy and pastes from other web sites.
The first is a long article and god knows if it's for real or some crackpot.
The second is just a quick little copy and paste from an apod wannabe.

You're making us look bad, actually.

Seriously.
This is just ridiculous.

And yet, they are subforums at sciforums, yes?

Yeah.
Right.

However.
If you don't even know the past, how can you select the future?

Revisionist isn't the word.
"Manufactured" would be far better.

I'll pass. I'm not qualified to write it either. And I've been here for a number of years. Long enough to have gleaned some of the history from forum oldtimers. Unlike Valich who seems to be just making it up from whole cloth.

Who are you talking to?

Oh. Guess it wasn't deleted. Athelwulf gave a shitty link up there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sciforums

No I didn't. Valich created a new article with the new name after the first was deleted. Here's a deletion log (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=SciForums) for the first one.

Who are you talking to?

Everyone and no one.
If you can't work it out, then I must not be talking to you, eh?

...

Or am I?

Valich. Four tildes are your friend. ~~~~

Everyone and no one.
If you can't work it out, then I must not be talking to you, eh?

...

Or am I?

I'm still on sleep-deprived mode. Don't mind me. :(

Valich, don't take this as an insult, but I'm starting to feel like I know how Wikipedia works better than you seem to. You don't just edit talk pages willy-nilly like that. Also, I would've assumed anyone would know by now that they need to sign their comments. How much actual editing have you done?

I'm a very busy person involved with many endeavors with a short memory at times. I've written over 50 original articles on Wiki. Four tildes have been reinserted. Sorry.

Yes, I agree. Apparently you do know Wikipedia better than I do. And probably SciForum too. Cyberspace is only a small fraction of what I concern my limited time to.

Muahahahahaha!!!

Ha!

Ah.
Man.
Wish I didn't have to go to sleep so I could watch this unfold. But, I must. I'm late already.

That talk page is priceless.
Valich should have his own wikipedia page.

Or his own SciForums wiki page. :p

Muahahahahaha!!!

Up your ass.

Did you find the pine box yet? worthless drift wood.

I'm giving this up. I need to go to sleep, and I feel that getting our proper recognition on Wikipedia is futile. Thanks for the valiant effort though.

Night! :m:

I agree. I'm giving this up too and going to sleep. This Äþelwulf person makes me want to toss my computer out the window and never contribute to the Wikipedia Project again. Talk about demotivating. How did Sciforums ever get nominated for speedy deletion in the first place?

How did Sciforums ever get nominated for speedy deletion in the first place?
It's good to maintain a healthy sense of perspective. Thankyou Wikipedia.

worthless drift wood.

A shame you fail to realize just how far you might go if you'd only take the advice I've offered you countless times.

I do thank you for your effort as well, Valich. And yet it was fatally flawed from the outset in too many ways.

You were falsely representing sciforums for one thing, and it was this that drew my initial ire. I have since apologized after seeing your retraction of the statement which drew my ire, but I'm not surprised that you don't accept my apology. Nor do I hold it against you. (Too many other things to hold against you to add in one more... Ha!)

Also, your went against the rules of wikipedia. Your article never stood a chance. And the examples you gave hoping to provide some sort of relevance to sciforums were just not adequate. The link on Time would be the best, but it was just a copy/paste from some other site and thus is not a real source.

There was also a recent thread where it was claimed that Crichton claimed to have listed a sciforums thread as a source for one of his books (on nanotechnology) but it seemed fake to me. Probably an adept advertising ploy.

Regardless, the attempt was doomed to failure as it goes against the wikipedian ideals.
Also, wikipedians are an even more stubborn lot than your typical sciforumite. Plus, they have a lot more conceit about what they do.


Anyway.
I do thank you for your efforts, Mr. Valich. But I just wish you had gone about it in a different way. Perhaps I could have been more constructive in my contribution to this thread, but I wasn't completely negative. My criticisms were and are valid. Although perhaps overshadowed by my negativity.

Said negativity, you realize, stemming from multiple encounters with how you operate.

Carry on, Good Valich, carry that torch into the long, dark night.

Muahaha!!!



Anyway.

How did Sciforums ever get nominated for speedy deletion in the first place?

Gee. I wonder. It couldn't be that the whole article was against the rules as cited on the page?
Gosh.


And stop blaming Athelwulf....
Heh.
Wait.
I bet you didn't even comprehend that Äþelwulf is Athelwulf. Did you?
Hahahahaha!!!!
That explains the backbiting going on in that thread. You didn't even understand that Äþelwulf was on your side.
That. Is. Pure. Valich.
That's why you deserve your own wikipedia page.
Gosh.
(Ha!)

And stop blaming Athelwulf....
Heh.
Wait.
I bet you didn't even comprehend that Äþelwulf is Athelwulf. Did you?
Hahahahaha!!!!
That explains the backbiting going on in that thread. You didn't even understand that Äþelwulf was on your side.
That. Is. Pure. Valich.
That's why you deserve your own wikipedia page.
Gosh.
(Ha!)

I was about to chew him out over that comment. But now reading this, I'm gonna not bother.

A shame you fail to realize just how far you might go if you'd only take the advice I've offered you countless times.

I do thank you for your effort as well, Valich. And yet it was fatally flawed from the outset in too many ways.

You were falsely representing sciforums for one thing, and it was this that drew my initial ire. I have since apologized after seeing your retraction of the statement which drew my ire, but I'm not surprised that you don't accept my apology. Nor do I hold it against you. (Too many other things to hold against you to add in one more... Ha!)

Also, your went against the rules of wikipedia. Your article never stood a chance. And the examples you gave hoping to provide some sort of relevance to sciforums were just not adequate. The link on Time would be the best, but it was just a copy/paste from some other site and thus is not a real source.

There was also a recent thread where it was claimed that Crichton claimed to have listed a sciforums thread as a source for one of his books (on nanotechnology) but it seemed fake to me. Probably an adept advertising ploy.

Regardless, the attempt was doomed to failure as it goes against the wikipedian ideals.
Also, wikipedians are an even more stubborn lot than your typical sciforumite. Plus, they have a lot more conceit about what they do.


Anyway.
I do thank you for your efforts, Mr. Valich. But I just wish you had gone about it in a different way. Perhaps I could have been more constructive in my contribution to this thread, but I wasn't completely negative. My criticisms were and are valid. Although perhaps overshadowed by my negativity.

Said negativity, you realize, stemming from multiple encounters with how you operate.

Carry on, Good Valich, carry that torch into the long, dark night.

Muahaha!!!



Anyway.



Gee. I wonder. It couldn't be that the whole article was against the rules as cited on the page?
Gosh.


And stop blaming Athelwulf....
Heh.
Wait.
I bet you didn't even comprehend that Äþelwulf is Athelwulf. Did you?
Hahahahaha!!!!
That explains the backbiting going on in that thread. You didn't even understand that Äþelwulf was on your side.
That. Is. Pure. Valich.
That's why you deserve your own wikipedia page.
Gosh.
(Ha!)

Trash.

We can't have a legitimate Wikipedia article without the Gestapo coming out because of disgusting worthless old farts like you who troll and gauk and crow and criticize and waste other people's time with gibbering nonsense.

Little Nonsense Invertedness. Your Mother is calling you now. She's telling you it's time to go to sleep.

Ha!
Funny little man that you are.
I do wonder if someday you'll ever open your eyes, Mr. Magoo.

Ha!
Funny little thing!
More!

Trash

Aww.
That wasn't funny.
Please? Talk about my momma and bedtime some more.
I'll cut you a deal. You continue your little comedy routine here and I promise not to laugh next time you walk into a tree. Ok?

Ha!

Bonk.

it has been deleted for the third time now?

A sign surely.

A flame war?

I HAVE JUST THE PICTURE!

I made it just now, specially for this flame war. :)

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y65/Athelwulf/MoarColerful.jpg

Not an old style flame war though. You know...one that is interesting.

True, but the pic still fits, I think.

I dunno. It's rather large.

You don't like large?

No, I'm a heterosexual.

Not an old style flame war though. You know...one that is interesting.

shall i start one?

You have to make longwinded posts...can you do that?

No, I'm a heterosexual.

Breasts can be big too.

that's funny. They used sciforums as a reference in one article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-Life_2_controversies_and_criticisms

maybe it has been mentioned before, but I can't be bothered to read the whole thread.

You have to make longwinded posts...can you do that?

i suppose so.
who should be the target?

Someone longwinded.

Since there is STILL no Wikipedia entry on Sciforums, I challenge anybody to post one, that will LAST.

The first person writting it gets the prize...

Since there is STILL no Wikipedia entry on Sciforums, I challenge anybody to post one, that will LAST.

The first person writting it gets the prize...

In time, there will be a Wikipedia article on us. In time. :)