Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical development of physical cosmology

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical development of physical cosmology

This page is just a random collection of POV biographies. If any parts are thought to be salvagable, they should be merged with their individual biography pages. GoodSamaritan 02:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Discussion

• Delete. Per the comments above. GoodSamaritan 02:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

*Weak keep It needs a lot more work, but is not particularly POV. BTW, Good Samaritan, it is not good form to nominate, then vote of an AFD. --Michael Johnson 02:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC) now Delete based on the debate below, it is obvious this article ain't going anywhere. --Michael Johnson 00:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The article does not represent current scholarship on the subject. It was originally written at Biblical cosmology with the specific intention of bashing religion. Notice how the text focuses only in instances of perceived conflict between religion and science, while saying little regarding the actual scientific advancements... ... ... Before voting, editors should be aware that many 19th century ideas related with the conflict thesis are still popular among a general audience (which includes most WP editors), but are not supported anymore among historians of science. Please check the conflict thesis article if you can. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 05:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The section about Giordano Bruno is a good example of the "POVness" of the article. Bruno gave no real contribution to the "historical development of physical cosmology", since his work wasn't scientific at all. I think he has a section devoted to him only because of his problems with the church. Moreover, the text does not mention that when Bruno was burned at the stake "there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy". It is also not mentioned that many believe his condemnation actually "had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology." (see source: *here*). --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 05:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The original article was about the implications of Biblical cosmology, not "actual scientific advancements". Bruno was a "natural philosopher" and not a scientist; the scientific method was not developed until centuries after Bruno's gruesome execution. The original contributor stated these points, but they were segregated when these paragraphs were removed to this article. The original contributor also stated that Bruno championed "free speech", but never stated specifically why Bruno was executed. If you have a reference stating that Bruno was instead burned alive as an advocate of free speech, you should have added the reference instead of sweeping multiple sections under the rug. --DixiePixie 09:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Galileo and Copernicus were the true "natural philosophers" of the time, not Bruno. But you are right in pointing that, as I also mentioned, the text was originally related with the "Biblical cosmology" article. Your reply was important because I forgot to consider this when I wrote one phrase above (now stroked). But it doesn't change the problematic bias of the text, a bias that becomes clearer when those sections are inserted on more proper articles for them. Notice that one subsection of the text from "Biblical cosmology" was inserted in the article "Relationship between religion and science" (instead of moved here), and the text immediately brought POV concerns on that page too - see *here*. Even after changes from the editors of that page to reduce the bias, the POV tag is still above that section of the article. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 17:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Who appointed you to designate the true "natural philosophers" of history? Who appointed you to designate "bad scholarship" as you claimed in your revert war at Biblical cosmology? These are simply your biased POV's. We would all probably agree that Bruno left little, if any, evidence of adhering to the scientific method that was developed centuries after his death, but that only precludes him from being considered a "scientist" by the more modern definition. We would all probably agree that Bruno's published work was not nearly as significant as that provided by the long careers of Galileo and Copernicus, but that does not preclude him from being considered a "natural philosopher". It is worth repeating that I "never stated specifically why Bruno was executed". The more in depth references I read stated that no conclusion could be certain about the charges upon which Bruno was convicted due to a lack of primary source material from the convicting (religious) court. Regardless of the specific reason, I believe that, just like the scientific method, Bruno's pleas for freedom of speech are actually more relevant to scientific advancement than Bruno's brilliant extension of Copernican concepts. There was no need to strike through your "problems with the church" comment. His fiery demise is exactly what earned Bruno's inclusion in Biblical cosmology. As for your latter remarks about where my contributions belong and "bias", please read my "vote" below. --Arbeiter 11:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The section about Bruno belongs neither here nor in the original article, but for different reasons. An article about "Biblical cosmology" is simply not the place for a collection of biographies about historical figures. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 16:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Comment. This article was not created to be useful to anyone. These paragraphs are actually a subset of paragraphs torn away from Biblical cosmology where they were used to offer historical support for specific Biblical interpretations. They were placed here without a meaningful category so that few would ever see them. Once these supporting paragraphs were safely exiled, the original article predictably fell apart into its current form at the hands of less experienced editors. This "divide and conquer" strategy employed by ScienceApologist, Leinad-Z, and Dragons_flight is simply shameful. --DixiePixie 09:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Now that the author and defender of the text left Wikipedia, there is little point in keeping it. A merge would fail sooner or later given the type of editors it has attracted. --DixiePixie 10:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

These sections were initially moved to Cosmology by ScienceApologist because they did no fit the original article. But the text was also regarded as off-topic by the editors of the Cosmology article, so this new article was created (by Dragons_flight) to accommodate it. Your comment above is a blatant assumption of bad faith toward experienced WP editors. No more conspiracy theories, please. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 17:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I would hesitate to accuse Dragons_flight of involvement in the "divide and conquer" strategy used on Biblical cosmology; instead, see my vote below. As for the other two... Given their past contributions and that they are such "experienced WP editors", it is hard for me to accept that other scenarios are likely. They engaged in a revert war to scatter the historical sections of Biblical cosmology to places where they were off topic, non-cohesive, and taken out of context to a degree that even confused Leinad-Z; see his strike-through above. --Arbeiter 11:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbeiter, as I just found out, DixiePixie and YOU seem to be one and the same person. I also noticed that the whole so-called "revert war" you mention all the time appears to have been promoted by you using another sock puppet (Witch-King) to revert ScienceApologist’s move. After realizing these things, I feel little need to reply to your accusations. Maybe you should look in a mirror to see who is really using "shameful strategies" around here. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 16:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That is quite an accusation. I would like to see you present your "evidence". Is it all circumstantial speculation? Do you feel the accusation is enough to justify such a claim? You should note that everything I claimed about you is backed up through article histories available to everyone. I think you're just floating this idea to distract readers from your behavior. --Arbeiter 00:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Other users can easily check to see if they agree with me by reading the edit history of Arbeiter, DixiePixie, and Witch-King. I don't need to distract readers from anything, since your conspiracy theory is completely bogus. My engagement in what you like to say was "my" "revert war", for example, was limited to a single edit. And I don’t know how you can assume that ScienceApologist decided to move your text as some kind of evil scheme to protect religion, the bible, whatever... As a materialist, (read his user page), I really don’t think he would be inclined to defend any sort of biblical cosmology. Also, as his name implies, he does apologetics in favor of science; if anything, it can be said that he devotes his time in Wikipedia to defend science against religion, precisely the opposite of what you seems to be thinking.

There were basically two problems with those sections you wrote on Biblical cosmology: (1) they were off-topic regarding the original article, (2) they were (and are) POV. Personally, I doubt ScienceApologist was much concerned with problem number 2, but he rightly noticed problem number 1 and moved the sections that did not belong there accordingly. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 13:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

See the call to attention at the top of the page --Arbeiter 15:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you had no real rebuttal, after all. You didn't know very obvious facts about ScienceApologist, it is as if you haven't even take the time to carefully read our userpages, let alone our edit history, before claiming that "it is hard for me to accept that other scenarios are likely.". Well, other scenarios were likely. Your edits were moved here because they did not fit the original article, not because of some conspiracy. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí, chapa. 20:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Given your convoluted conspiracy theories above, are you actually complaining about conspiracy theories? In case you didn't catch it, Arbeiter has left Wikipedia. It might be safe to stop waiting for Arbeiter's rebuttal. --DixiePixie 18:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep -- next to no resemblance to the unwritten article which is needed on the subject, but it may be a start if someone picks it up. --Pjacobi 19:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Personally I think it is easier to inspire someone to write an article from scratch which is obviously lacking rather than try and figure out whether it is worth their time to hobble out decent text from an inherently flawed article. (If someone deleted the Manhattan Project article I am willing to wager that there'd be a better article there within two weeks than there has been for a year.) Just my two cents on this issue. --Fastfission 01:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I am the author of this text. It appears to me that nobody was actually interested in creating this article. Instead, Dragons_flight exiled the text here because it did not fit where ScienceApologist moved it. The intention of this text was to "offer historical support for specific Biblical interpretations" at Biblical_cosmology. The supported Biblical interpretations served as a counter-balance to the Biblical interpretations there claiming the Bible foretold the big bang theory. I would have written this text differently for other subjects, such as the Historical development of physical cosmology. --Arbeiter 11:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - complete scrap and rewrite --The page physical cosmology is large enough to warrent not including all the details of the historical development. Thus I should like to think that there would be good reason to keep this article as s long as the time and interest of those better aquainted with the history of science were willing to help improve it. As a concept, it's definately interesting and worthy of encyclopedic attention. As an article it needs work. --Homecomputer 16:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Edit.. I agree with Andrew C, probably easier to completely scrap and create entirely new.--Homecomputer∴Peace 18:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Home Computer that the topic is notable, but the arguments above have convinced me that the text does not match the topic. We need to start from scratch, and I deleting for the time being is the best way to go (as opposed to removing most of the content to create a stub). If we had peopel committed to upgrading this article, then I'd support their work, but as is, I don't believe we can keep this article.--Andrew c 04:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah.. now that I think about it it's probably easier to scrap and rewrite. --Homecomputer∴Peace 18:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't see anything salvagable here. A real history of physical cosmology could be an interesting article but it would require taking quite a different approach (starting before Copernicus, for one thing, and covering a much wider range of views, for another, to say nothing of better usage of secondary sources). --Fastfission 01:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Completely out of place sock puppet discussion

Attention: I now believe that user:DixiePixie is actually user:Arbeiter disguised in a sock puppet account. Arbeiter was the original creator of the text that we are currently evaluating. DixiePixie is a new account whose main purpose in Wikipedia appears to be agreeing with Arbeiter's POV. "Both" are participating in this discussion. (The account user:Witch-King may be an even clearer example of Sock puppetry by Arbeiter, but he didn't show up yet in this specific discussion.) --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 16:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Update: Wow... OMG... is it possible that even GoodSamaritan is also a sockpuppet? Arbeiter accused GoodSamaritan of being MY sockpuppet bellow... And, looking at GoodSamaritan's edit history for the first time, he certainly seems to behave like a sockpuppet!! At first I was in shock and didn’t know what to think, but then I realized: what if GoodSamaritan, (which is a new account made after the text by Arbeiter was moved against his will for this article), was created to be some kind of straw man sock puppet for Arbeiter? What if this yet-another-sockpuppet is also part of Arbeiter's plan to delete the current article and merge its content back to the original page? So far, it is the most logical conclusion that I could reach. It is either that or I'm being completely paranoid with this whole sockpuppet issue. There are way too many apparent socks hanging around here. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 11:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That is quite an accusation. I would like to see you present your "evidence". Is it all circumstantial speculation? Do you feel the accusation is enough to justify such a claim? You should note that everything I claimed about you is backed up through article histories available to everyone. I think you're just floating this idea to distract readers from your behavior as discussed below. --Arbeiter 01:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Both sockpuppets were made after your controversial edits to Biblical cosmology and Biblical literalism. You barely changed the user page when you made DixiePixie. Both sockpuppets hold your sacreligious POVs. Both sockpuppets defended your articles that only its mother could love. All three accounts block vote together. Its pretty obvious. --GoodSamaritan 10:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually the approach is just a bit more elegant, (see the talk pages): it seems that Arbeiter wants us to believe that he and these "new users" that came out of nowhere to agree with him in polemic issues are becoming great friends after a few edits together. Following that line, Arbeiter allegedly became so impressed by DixiePixie’s user page that he "copied" it [1]... Arbeiter also welcomed Wich-King [2] and took the liberty to edit Witch's userpage [3] ("to protect him from WP 'oppressive' rules", as was stated in the welcome message"). --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 13:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbeiter, other users can easily check to see if they agree with me (by reading the edit history of "Arbeiter", "DixiePixie", and "Witch-King", as user GoodSamaritan just did update: as explained in the update of my 1st post, GoodSamaritan may actually be Arbeiter's straw man sock puppet). And I don't need to "distract" readers from anything, since your conspiracy theory is completely bogus (see my complete reply when you repeat the same questions in the debate above.) --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 13:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

In the last couple of months, there were ~3000 new users/day that came out of nowhere. I want you to understand that they are all my sockpuppets. Everyone you ever clash with will be my sockpuppet. In fact, you are my straw puppet... Instead of saying "the approach is just a bit more elegant", might you mean "This is not likely, since it actually refutes User:GoodSamaritan's accusation"? There is nothing wrong with reaching out to new users, or offering sympathetically worded corrections according to the guidelines. User:GRBerry and User:HomeComputer did it for me. In turn, I did it for DixiePixie, Freddulany, and Witch-King. You should try it; it's good to be friendly sometimes. It doesn't indicate an ever-widening sock puppet ring. --Arbeiter 14:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

First, notice that I haven't yet presented the stronger reasons that make me think Wich-King and DixiePixie are your sockpuppets, I'm saving this information for latter (i.e. for if/when a more official WP investigation happens, or at least when an administrator steps in this discussion.). You are right in saying that GoodSamaritan's weak version of the sock puppetry accusation was refuted by you. From the moment I read Goodsamaritan's reply, it was obvious to me that it was an incomplete response that you were more than prepared to rebut. So, I stepped forward to supplement his post by noting that you were being more astute than GoodSamaritan seemed to assume. (PS.: Considering that I now think GoodSamaritan may actually be your straw man sock puppet, It's no wonder why his view was so easy to rebut in the first place.) --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 11:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Secret evidence!!! Why not just tell us to trust that you are always correct? He rebutted your accusations just as easily. Are you, in fact, Arbeiter's straw puppet? --DixiePixie 18:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think others should evaluate whole the situation and make their own minds about it. No one should trust in my "secret evidence" yet, since I haven’t presented it. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí, chapa. 18:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Attention: I now believe that GoodSamaritan is actually Leinad-Z disguised in a sock puppet account. Leinad-Z and ScienceApologist teamed-up to weaken Biblical_literalism, and then GoodSamaritan delivered the blow that completely reversed the article's meaning. A similar one-two punch tactic was also used by Leinad-Z & co. to completely reverse the meaning of Dedication to Pope Paul III. This is especially telling since a link to "Dedication to Pope Paul III" sat very uncomfortably next to Leinad-Z's nearly opposite statement here. GoodSamaritan is a new account whose main purpose in Wikipedia appears to be agreeing with Leinad-Z's POV and acting as a bad hand account. "Both" are participating in this discussion. (Other accounts also appear to be good examples of Sock puppetry by Leinad-Z, but they have not yet surfaced in this specific discussion.) Leinad-Z & co. block voted twice in this discussion page alone (early support for deletion + sockpuppet allegations). It seems that Leinad-Z wants us to believe that a "new user" came out of nowhere to agree with him in polemic issues including the account's first two edits. Following that line, after a few edits together, Leinad-Z allegedly became so impressed with yet another sockpuppet account as an "editor and a WP administrator" that Leinad-Z went straight to him for "advice, and maybe more direct assistance" instead of going through an established process. Leinad-Z & co. also vigorously defend yet another sockpuppet account, ScienceApologist. On this page, Leinad-Z even explains ScienceApologist's motivations for co-trashing Biblical cosmology. Leinad, you're not supposed to let it slip out that you're privy to your sockpuppet's motivations. How can you look in the mirror, Leinad-Z & co.? --Arbeiter 15:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

(*I just want to make clear for a more distracted reader that Arbeiter intended the above comments as a mock argument. For example: he pretended to accuse both an editor with more that 10,000 edits and a wikipedia administrator of being sockpuppets... Also, GoodSamaritan never participated in any edit or discussion at Biblical literalism). --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 23:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This would not necessarily have to be a mock argument if you actually are "Leinad-Z & co." instead of one individual. --DixiePixie 16:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Look familiar? I almost admire the subtle, rhetorical tactics Leinad-Z employed, but we should see through them and understand that such speculation can be employed without merit. Obviously, all these accounts couldn't be one person, but it made a suspicious-looking case for it anyway. That said, while preparing the mock argument above, I noticed a couple amazingly coincidental edits that were hard to swallow. Now, I'm not sure whether Leinad-Z was offering his accusations as a smoke screen or actually shifting the spotlight to hide questionable behavior. With the mock argument in mind, anybody with the time should compare GoodSamaritan's first two edits with Leinad-Z's edits of the same articles to see how one article relates to this edit by Leinad-Z. I was involved with all three places at some point. My low tolerance for questionable behavior was surpassed long ago at Wikipedia. As some of you now know from my past edits, it is my desire to wash my hands of Wikipedia, and so this will be a parting shot. For everyone, I hope something worthwhile arises from the wreckage. --Arbeiter 15:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbeiter, there are several paradoxes that arise if one wants to consider GoodSamaritan as my sockpuppet. For example: the first edit by GoodSamaritan, the one used as "evidence" that he may be my sock, seems to be very odd behavior from "Leinad-Z & co". Why? Because the link you provided above makes clear that I had a sourced quotation by two historians of science that would very easily allow the modification of your biased text. It makes no sense to think that, instead of taking the easy and policy-approved route for changing that article, I would go through the trouble of creating a sockpuppet account and its elaborated userpage to edit it. BTW, as you very well know, much before GoodSamarintan's first edit I had already clearly told you that I would need to change the article's POV problems eventually. However, the most noticeable problem with your new theory may be that bringing the very issue of sockpuppetry (as I did at the start of this discussion) would be the most stupid thing to do if I were trying to hide a sockpuppet myself. Gosh, I was even trying to bring the current discussion to the attention of administrators, (again an incredibly stupid thing to do if what you say was in fact true). --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 00:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you allegedly did come back "to change the article's POV problems" in the guise of a sock puppet. Also, your own arguments here (including the one you use as the "most noticeable problem with [the sock puppet] theory") apply equally for your accusations of GoodSamaritan being Arbeiter's sock puppet. Going to a WP administrator with which you share an edit history (and therefore possible association) is also suspicious behavior. --DixiePixie 16:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't apply "equally" at all. Arbeirter was trying to defend himself from suspicion of sockpuppetry and needed something to try even out the discussion on the topic. On the other hand, I had no reason to put my alleged sock under the spotlight. All the time, I was perfectly aware that the argumentation you "both" were making toward me and ScienceApologist was completely flawed. Read again the deletion discussion and you’ll see that, as soon as Arbeirter tried to imply that I was denouncing sockpuppetry as a "rhetorical strategy" to hide my "shameful behavior", I wrote a key reply showing the allegations were unfounded. Until now, no one was able to rebut. Also, any attempt of deleting this article and merging its content back from were it was removed would necessarily be much harder than a simple NPOV edit. Especially because the move would be against the commonsense notion that articles should stay their respective topics. The fact is that I needed no socks, while Arbeirter did need them if he wanted to see his text back where he edited. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí, chapa. 19:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It does apply equally since your were trying to defend yourself against suspicion of misbehavior in the form of a "divide and conquer" tactic. "Until now" meaning that I recently provided its rebuttal? Sorry. I would have offered the rebuttal earlier if you had invited me to defend myself against your accusations, but instead you simply started accusing the new users who ever sided with Arbeiter without even leaving them notice of your accusations. You were here arguing with yourself. HomeComputer stopped by to ask you to take it elsewhere, but you kept arguing with yourself anyway. I guess you have a hard time feeling lonely. Again, your alleged motivation is pure speculation and even contradictory. Arbeiter needed no socks for this purpose, because Arbeiter never even asked for a merger; he voted to "delete". In fact, nobody has voted for a "merge", and this accusation taints the discussion so that fewer will have the courage to vote that way. (They might just get themselves added to your ever-widening sock puppet allegations.) Again, questionable tactics on your part. --DixiePixie 22:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously claiming that the note you "recently provided" is a rebuttal? Your comment there is only saying that I shouldn’t complain about the baseless accusations you were making toward me and ScienceApologist. It makes nothing to change the fact that you were completely wrong. Again, the suspicion of misbehavior was bogus, I knew exactly how to respond to that, and I did so effectively in the discussion above. It was soon after that key comment (when I mention that ScienceApologist is a materialist) that Arbeiter made the desperate accusation that I was the one using a sockpuppet; it seems that he really didn't know how to reply to that, (and so does you). Also, Dixiepixie, the edit summary of your own first edit in this page reads: “Merge back to its orginal location” [4] So, please stop pretending that there was no intention to move the text back to the original article. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí, chapa. 00:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I only repeated it. You were the one who said, "Until now, no one was able to rebut." Until now here means the opposite recently happened. With the phrase, until now, you led me to believe that I had already provided the rebuttal, and so I did not even look for this reply. Looking for it now, I think you're either asking me to defend a quote made by Arbeiter or defend the text written by Arbeiter. In case you didn't catch it, Arbeiter left Wikipedia at 15:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC). You have already missed the chance to discuss anything with Arbeiter. As for me, I am only in this discussion to defend myself against your sock puppet accusations. It was you who originally resorted to "desperate accusations" of sock puppetry so that you could "feel little need to reply to" Arbeiter's accusations. Well, it's embarrassing that I didn't think to look back at my edit summary, but great that you found it. This is further proof that I am not Arbeiter's sock puppet: we voted differently! In Arbeiter's discussion page, I asked Arbeiter to "come back", and "defend your edits". I thought my encouragement and a merger would get Arbeiter contributing again. Now that Arbeiter voted to "delete", and especially now that Arbeiter left Wikipedia, I feel ambivalent about the merger. In fact, I will change my vote. It's very frustrating that my efforts to retain a Wikipedian not only failed, but got me stuck with Leinad-Z's sock puppet accusations. --DixiePixie 10:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you don't want to challenge my reply for Arbeiter, please be consistent with this decision and stop spreading the false theory that I needed some stunt to hide shameful behavior. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí, chapa. 18:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, once you accused me of being a sock puppet, you trapped me into exposing holes in your style of logic. Your type of logic could be employed against almost any user, and as continuously demonstrated, it can even be turned against you yourself. --DixiePixie 23:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This is NOT the place to be throwing around accusations. You people are getting WAY OFF TOPIC. If you want to go accuse somebody of sock puppetry gather your information and take it to the appropriate forum. In his defense Arbeiter and I got into some seriously heated disagreement over at another Biblical article but there was no evidence of any sock puppetry though I could tell how mad he was gettin he probably wanted to. ;) hehe. --Homecomputer 16:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Homecomputer, you are probably right in saying that this discussion got too long, sorry. I don’t know exactly how one should deal with suspicion of sock puppetry in Wikipedia. Yesterday, before Arbeiter's last accusation, I tried to contact an administrator about this specific issue, and I even asked if he could take charge of this whole situation, but he didn’t reply yet. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 22:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, for a delete discussion, you're really only supposed to comment on the article, but that's ok, live and learn, you do the right thing by going to the sock puppet page. 'brigado. --Homecomputer∴Peace 16:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Home Computer, thanks for the kind reply. But I still want to make one (last?) comment/question that is related with your first post. I did some research to find which specific discussion you were mentioning when you said that "Arbeiter was involved and there was no evidence of sock puppetry". My best guess is that you were talking about this AFD discussion for Biblical literalism. Am I right? If so, can you please review the participation of a certain User:Millstone in that discussion while keeping the concept of straw man sock puppet in mind? --Leinad ∴ -diz aí, chapa. 23:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I will not review the material. Again, this is not the place to bring up or discuss such issues. The appropriate places to raise such issues are talk pages (click on someone's name) and the sock puppet forums which you've allready found. Peace.--Home Computer∴Peace 22:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I got it. Actually, I have presented my suspicions but have been (from the beginning) restraining myself from advancing the evidence in regard to that. Most of the discussion now actually consists of me defending myself from accusations by Arbeiter and DixiePixie. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí, chapa. 09:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Leinad-Z: Since you have openly questioned my gender, I feel it is no longer off topic to ask you a personal question. Does somebody pay you to provide censorship at Wikipedia? Your editing efforts obviously exceed an unpaid interest in history. By shielding those traditionally associated with the church while leaving Martin Luther to appear as the lone holdout against scientific advancement, you have led me to believe that you are a paid censor of the Catholic church. After all, this exception is completely inconsistent with your stated POV of dispelling the "conflict thesis". Beside this point, let me see if I understand (the up-to-date version of) your accusations. You want people to believe that:

• Arbeiter voted to "delete" this content, but secretly maneuvers to "merge" this content back to the original page.
• Although Arbeiter lacked the patience to join a revert war to defend his own edits or even stay with Wikipedia, Arbeiter actually cultivated an account to look like your sock puppet, because Arbeiter somehow knew that one day, you would start a round of sock puppet allegations, and wanted to be ready to turn the tables on you. Following that line, Arbeiter^* then nominated this article for deletion with the foreknowledge that it would lure you into the discussion to make sock puppet accusations just in time to beat Arbeiter's pre-declared retirement date.
• Arbeiter created the account named Millstone simply to join the Biblical literalism AfD, but then objected to the vote Millstone provided because the account was too new. (Wow... OMG... is it possible that even Freddulany is also Arbeiter's sock puppet? After all, just like Millstone, Freddulany agreed with Arbeiter's understanding that Biblical literalism exists. Arbeiter offered friendly encouragement to the new user just like Witch-King, and even declared that he valued Freddulany's opinion. After all, by using competing sock puppets, Arbeiter^* brought the vote tally closer to his own position -- to abstain. Don't you see it? Or am I being as paranoid as you?)

Leinad-Z: Do you really think this is the simplest explanation possible? There are simpler explanations: Perhaps your overbearing approach to editing and disregard for the discussion process is spawning troll accounts by unknown persons?

Arbeiter: Perhaps your sharply pointed mannerisms in the discussion pages are doing the same.

Leinad-Z & Arbeiter: Are you discussing your edits with your personal friends and co-workers? If so, might one of them be attempting to support you? ...antagonize you? I guess the simplest & most obvious explanation of all might be that people actually exist with POV's aligning with your apparent opponent. Of course, I feel confident that I exist, but if the rest of Leinad-Z's accusations are true, I would like to tell both Arbeiter and Leinad-Z to look in the mirror, and say hello to each other. You both missed the opportunity to discuss your differences, and pull each other towards reality. If you had spent half this effort in a discussion page for the articles in question rather than hatching sock puppet accusations for each other, you two probably would have created something worth reading. For my part, I still maintain that dumping this content here was completely inappropriate. Leinad-Z should have taken his concerns to the discussion page once Witch-King reverted it back (even if you always suspected he was a sock puppet), and there was no attempt made to make this material appropriate for this article's subject; it was just dropped off here as if this page were the city dump. If ScienceApologist really wants this page to happen, he should have taken an active hand in it; throwing out the suggestion is not a sufficient effort. As for my apparent coordination with Arbeiter, it was the wikify tag that lured me into Biblical literalism's discussion page. The rest was documented on our discussion pages. As for always agreeing with Arbeiter, this is a fallacy. If I had followed his editing early on, I would have agreed with HomeComputer that his definition at Biblical literalism was off base and this threw the entire article into confusion. I also would have objected to some POV statements in the Darwin section of Biblical cosmology. However, because I only investigated this debacle after Arbeiter announced his retirement, these had become mute points since they had been deleted by the time I became involved. --DixiePixie 17:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I intend to leave further discussion about the sockpuppets for a more appropriate place. Just defending myself from the yet-another ad-hominem attack: in this edit, I am reverting Witch-King’s previous reversion of the move. To leave the section about Martin Luther in the article was actually ScienceApologist’s decision. It seems to me that the section about Luther was somewhat more connected to the original topic of Biblical cosmology, since it simply mentioned Luther's interpretation of the bible without being a report of yet-another "instance of conflict". That said, maybe the section would have to go soon or latter, anyway. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí, chapa. 22:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess arguing with yourself was more fun. Don't pretend you were above the ad-hominem attacks. Your ad-hominem attacks against me lured me back here. Luther used a scriptural reference from the Biblical book of Joshua as evidence that Copernicus was a fool and actually a astrologer instead of astronomer. How could this not be an instance of conflict between science and religion? Once the rest was gone, it was guaranteed to face opposition by the first Lutheran to see it. I wouldn't doubt if the person who deleted it was a Lutheran who saw Luther being isolated as the lone holdout against scientific advancement. --DixiePixie 23:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE PUT ALL COMMENTS re: THE ARTICLE DELETION IN THE FIRST SECTION

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.