User talk:NBeale/Archives

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Richard Dawkins 2 Reasonable explanation for reverting your edits to Richard Dawkins 3 Regarding reversions[1] made on October 26, 2006 to Richard Dawkins 4 Blocking 5 Wording of "General Notice" 3RR Template 6 217.158.22.35 7 Re: Dawkins 8 Suspected Socks 9 Regarding reversions[6] made on November 1, 2006 to Richard Dawkins 10 Richard_Dawkins/Sandbox 11 Hello 12 Your Post to Dawkins User Page 13 Comments 14 I think wikipedia practices censorship in regards to the evolutionary position and... 15 Warning 16 On Propriety 17 Dawkins 18 Assume good faith in edits on Dawkins talk. 19 Creationism 20 Simonyi Prof 21 User notice: temporary 3RR block 22 Regarding reversions[8] made on December 4, 2006 to Viruses_of_the_Mind 23 Positive Contributions 24 On Impossibilities 25 Cooperation in Evolution 26 Bach 27 Cooperation in evolution 2 28 AfD 29 Rough draft of article on creationist organization 30 Tower of babel 31 Why was Argument from Free Will changed? 32 Omnipotence 33 Christian Existential Humanism 34 Antitheism factcheck 35 I assume you are not in the US and probably are an Anglican 36 AfD "excuses to delete content" 37 Orr link rises from the dead

[edit] Richard Dawkins

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

[edit] Reasonable explanation for reverting your edits to Richard Dawkins

The detail you added on Betrand Russell, Huxley and Haekel is unsourced and this, along with the other detail you have added are riddled with POV and weasel words and are generally unencyclopedic in style all of which are against wiki policy and/or guidelines and I do not consider them an improvement. This article is very well sourced and well written so such additions are, more than likely, going to be reverted, if not by me, then by someone else.--KaptKos 19:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

a. Nothing in the first para is sourced. And I cannot see what is controversial about the assertions I make. If anything I am too kind to Dawkins in comparing him to Haeckel who was a first-rate scientist.

b. if there is PoV or Weasel Words then please amend them.

c. And why delete the references to Bob May and Dennis Noble (both truly world-class scientists)?

NBeale 19:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Four separate editors have reverted you. You've gone way beyond the 3RR. World class scientists can be mentioned in their own articles in a neutral way. *Sparkhead 19:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The answer to all your points is POV, weasel words and style and editors are under no obligation to ammend contributions from other editors who add such detail. You're obviously passionate about your angle on Dawkins so why not try to engage other editors on the articles talk page in order to get the changes to the article you desire in a way that is acceptable to all. Just a suggestion as the approach you have so far taken has led you to a block. Regards --KaptKos 07:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi KaptKos - thanks that's a v constructive suggestion. What I objected to was the fact that you and your colleagues simply reverted by changes without discussion or suggestion of improvement (until your contribution at 19:02 by which time you and your colleagues had done this 8 times!) NBeale 08:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Reverts by other editors were accompanied with edit summaries which in most cases surfice (except me, I'm bad;) but by the time of my rv I assumed the suituation was clear so I didn't bother but I really should have used one anyway). Justifications on talk pages are common when editors are going to make controvertial changes, which yours were, editors in gereral will not justify reverting on talk pages, so in my experiance what happenend was inevitable. The 3RR rule applies to the individual not the article. BTW they're not my colleagues, they're my, and your, fellow editors, I'm not part of any cabal or clique although I have been accused of this in the past, and I'm not aware of any existing in Wikipedia. One of the most important policies in Wikipedia, IMO, is Wikipedia:Assume good faith and I always do, its stops you going nuts when things don't go your way and stops you seeing phantoms where none exist. There are over a million registered editors, its inevitable that on occassion everyone will make edits that cause seperate editors to react in similar fashion, this may seem coordinated but really its just a bunch of individuals doing what they think is right, it was just unfortunate for you it happened early in your wiki experiance. Happy pedying --KaptKos 09:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding reversions[1] made on October 26, 2006 to Richard Dawkins

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 20:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Re your mail... quality of edits is not the question, please read WP:3RR carefully (and hopefully WP:1RR too). Now, if you're new and didn't really appreciate this, and are prepared to prmoise to be good in future, you can be unblocked (though I'm just off to bed so maybe someone else will...) William M. Connolley 22:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking

I am not going to get involved in determining the quality of your edits or their relevence to the article in question, but there does seem to be an issue with WP:BITE in which User:Sparkhead seems to not have recognized that you are a newer contributor who isn't aware of our policies here about the number of reverts. Feel free to post the {{unblock}} tag here and an administrator will review the situation and maybe unblock you...this is not something I am almost never willing to do since I do not agree with overturning another administrators decisions.--MONGO 21:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, it appears you didn't review the content in question. It seems if it were some unknown editor that submitted the 3RR report your involvement would have consisted of this. He cited policy regarding reverts[2], reverted after that discussion multiple times, including once with an edit summary "Restoring facts...that Dawkins's acolytes seem to want to hide. I wonder why?",[3] which doesn't foster the idea of working within the community. Finally, he reverted after the 3RR template was placed and the report made, at which point he clearly had full knowledge of the policy.[4]. If you think the 3RR template is too harsh as it stands, perhaps you could fix it and create one you feel is more suitable for newer editors. *Sparkhead 22:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I was asked by NBeale to look into the edits on that page, but wasn't looged in when the edit war was going on. I only see that he has few edits under this username, and within 11 minutes of you issuing the 3RR warning to him, you have a report filed at 3RR, (which is about the time it takes to compile the diffs). I also see, (without determining the quality of the edits since I am unfamiliar with the subject matter), that you reverted edits that he had added that were referenced [5]. I haven't unvlocked him and you better start assuming good faith soon.--MONGO 13:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As should you. Read above and associated talk pages. References weren't the issue. If the fact that he reverted after being explicity told of 3RR doesn't convince you a 3RR block was the proper course of action, I'm not certain what will. Try to disassociate me from the action and remember to focus on content. Thanks. *Sparkhead 13:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sparkhead. If you had signed your warning or explained why you objected to the changes or even added "sorry I haven't got time to explain why I don't like your changes but I suggest you post them on the talk article first" it would have carried more weight. I honestly thought it was designed to scare me off :-) NBeale 20:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't intended as such, and my lack of signature was an oversight. It's the first template for 3RR in Template:TestTemplates. If you feel the wording is harsh, you can propose a new wording for possibly a "General Note" version of the warning. In fact if you want to work on that I'll support it or help with the wording and attempt to get it into that template grid. *Sparkhead 20:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Point is not whether the block was a good one, it was that after warning him of 3RR, the next edit you did was to report him...that's a bite whether you think it is or not. He didn't "cite policy" as you claim...he merely stated it was against policy...citing it would have meant he would have done something like WP:NPOV or similiar. Do you have proof that NBeale is a sock or something along those lines? If not, then you need to slow down and stop assuming that newbies are going to get the point of 3RR right away...next time, think about that.--MONGO 04:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not a bite, it's an appeal for an uninvolved administrator to review the situation. *Sparkhead 12:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

How about "Hi! I sense that you are frustrated that your changes are being reversed. But simply re-instating them won't help because you are likely to get hit by the 3RR. The best way is to put your suggested changes into the talk section of the article and then wait for feedback. When a consensus emerges the article will be stronger." NBeale 21:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mongo - I agree with you about WP:BITE. And IMHO relevant facts that are referenced to world-class authorities should certainly not be deleted without discussion. But they will still be true tomorrow. And I am very keen on constructive dialogue - I repeatedly appealed to the rev-ers to give some reason. Well we live and learn. NBeale 12:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wording of "General Notice" 3RR Template

(copying your text down here)
How about "Hi! I sense that you are frustrated that your changes are being reversed. But simply re-instating them won't help because you are likely to get hit by the 3RR. The best way is to put your suggested changes into the talk section of the article and then wait for feedback. When a consensus emerges the article will be stronger." NBeale 21:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Was thinking more along the lines of a message with links, something like what's there but lighter wording:

Please note that repeatedly undoing other people's edits (as you are doing in <article>,) can be considered disruptive. The Wikipedia blocking policy states you could be blocked from editing for doing so. The three-revert rule states nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. This also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert. Please revert only when necessary. Thank you.

The part in parentheses would be a only show if a parameter were included with the template. That last sentence may need work, and the "revert only when necessary" is an essay, not even a policy or guideline, but seems useful. *Sparkhead 22:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well let's use your links but lighter wording. What about: "Hi! I sense that you are frustrated that your changes are being reversed. But simply re-instating them (as you are doing in <article>,) can lead you to be blocked from editing (see the three-revert rule). The best way is to put your suggested changes into the discussion section of the article and then wait for feedback. When a consensus emerges the article will be stronger." NBeale 00:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Still don't like it. The "sense you are frustrated" line is simply no good. How about: Please do not repeatedly revert other people's edits, it could be considered a violation of three-revert rule. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. *Sparkhead 12:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That still feels like a Bite! We need to (a) be friendly and (b) offer a constructive suggestion on what the poor editor should be doing. How about: Hi! Simply re-instating your changes when they have been reversed (as you are doing in <article>,) can lead you to be blocked from editing (see the three-revert rule). The best way is to put your suggested changes into the discussion section of the article and then wait for feedback. When a consensus emerges the article will be stronger. NBeale 13:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Review the "General Notice" templates at Template:TestTemplates, which is what I'm attempting to use as a guideline. I'll post a thread in the talk page over there with our last two revisions and get some other input as to whether it's even necessary and if so what form it could take. *Sparkhead 13:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I put a thread in the 3RR talk page here: Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule#.22General_Notice.22_3RR_Template. *Sparkhead 13:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 217.158.22.35

Is 217.158.22.35 your IP? *Sparkhead 23:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding WP:3RR, see User_talk:217.158.22.35 and please undo your last revert. Thanks. *Sparkhead 23:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops. On Sunday I was getting error messages about "session data" saying that I had to log out and log in. This must have posted when I was logged out. Was puzzled that you suggested I was at 3RR but on close inspection you could count the removal of Kelvin Medal from the Notable Prizes box as a revert (a bit pedantic! the intention was simply to clear up a confusion and it is non-controversial that THIS Kelvin Medal is not a "notable prize" (Not even the Dawkins website considers it so) though the IoP's one would certainly be. I think you have kindly got someone else to undo for me, since I was offline. NBeale 09:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That person undid it on their own without input from me. *Sparkhead 13:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Tx. BTW are you comfortable with what seems to be a consensus between me and Lawrence on Balanced listing of notable academic critics and supporters (see Dawkins talk page)? NBeale 16:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But as stated on the talk page, take care. You might want to discuss any large additions on the talk page or create it in your user space for review before inclusion. *Sparkhead 16:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Dawkins

I'll be more specific on the talk page of the Dawkins article. ;) mensch • t 23:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected Socks

FYI: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/NBeale. I've also commented in your 3RR report regarding mensch. You've violated 3RR yourself. *Sparkhead

Note that it has now been officially determined that these people are not "socks" so can we please stick to the issues and not throw insults around? NBeale 07:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the terminology, consult WP. Per Meatpuppet: "A meatpuppet is a variation of a sockpuppet; a new Internet community member account is created by another person at the request of a user solely for the purposes of influencing the community on a given issue or issues." That's exactly what was done. *Sparkhead 12:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No it wasn't. I've been wanting to contribute on various subjects in my area of expertise to Wikipedia for some time, and that's what I've been doing recently. User:Rclb

[edit] Regarding reversions[6] made on November 1, 2006 to Richard Dawkins

The duration of the block is 8 hours.

Using my skill and judegment I assess that there is a fair chance that the anons are your socks; and even by yourself you are close enough. Please back off a bit and let things calm down.

William M. Connolley 23:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard_Dawkins/Sandbox

You'll want to put this into your own user space as I suggested in talk on the main article. Thanks. *Sparkhead 13:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I believe we met years ago, in Cambridge, when you were a student. Charles Matthews 12:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed - how are you? Donkeys Years - have you seen it? NBeale 15:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Post to Dawkins User Page

WP:NOT. You seriously need to review some of the basic policies and guidelines. *Spark* 12:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, what is your problem exactly? NBeale 13:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Per your statement "The carefully crafted consenus we had on the definition of Delusion has been removed by two of the "defenders of the faith" who systematically remove things that may be seen as critical of the Great Man." [7], remember WP:AGF and WP:NPA. *Spark* 16:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I think wikipedia practices censorship in regards to the evolutionary position and...

I don't think the evolutionist inquisition at wikipedia will allow criticisms of Dawkins from creationists. I have decided to end my contributions to the article. But thanks for the email. ken 04:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] Warning

If there is insufficient support for a change and you cannot revert anymore, asking someone else to make the change for you is inappropriate. This is considered using a “meatpuppet” and is disruptive at best. A glance at your talk page reveals you have difficulty accepting positions different from your own and that you have mad repeated efforts to push your own changes through despite considerable opposition. This poor behavior will not be tolerated. Also, I believe you fill find your arguments carry more weight if you refute their position with logic and rational arguments, rather than trying to insult them. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Propriety

Regarding this comment, I thought you might be interested to know that it's generally considered inappropriate, on Wikipedia at least, to round up like-minded allies to help sway a vote, and the discovery of such efforts is usually enough to sway administrators' judgement of the consensus in the opposite direction. Cheers, Kasreyn 07:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kasreyn & co. Thanks. The point is that user put the POV tag up and (naturally) assumed it would stay until the matter was resolved. It was very rapidly removed (on a Friday night) and a vote was called without notifying him. I thought (and still do) that it was reasonable to notify him of this, and to keep the flag up until at least he had his chance to put his case. In no way is this meatpuppetry. NBeale 14:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dawkins

The issues of WP:BLP are nonnegotiable, so any negative material that is put in biographies has to be cited from completely reliable sources. I see that you have been doing this for the most part, but the consensus seems to be against you on this issue. You can draw up and article request for comment to attract new editors to the issues you have concern over, or if you look at the intoduction, is does appear to me that Dawkins is clearly labelled as being:

Dawkins is an outspoken atheist, humanist, and sceptic, and is a prominent member of the Brights movement. In a play on Thomas Huxley's epithet "Darwin's bulldog", Dawkins' impassioned defence of Darwinian evolution has earned him the appellation "Darwin's rottweiler".

Which in my opinion is about as clear an indication that he is a hardnose about his atheism as we can say without slandering the guy. Again, I am not blowing you off, but suggest either an Rfc or possibly moving on to something new. Let me know what else I can do to help.--MONGO 14:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This raises an interesting question, MONGO. What is slanderous about being called an atheist? For example, my brother is a staunch atheist and skeptic and a member of AU. If there were a WP article on him, it certainly wouldn't be slander to call him one. In fact, he might take offense at being inappropriately labelled a Christian (which some might consider a compliment). So isn't this concept of "negative material" somewhat subjective? I mean, if someone accuses Dawkins of raping and eating babies, I think we can all agree that that's negative and BLP would definitely mandate tougher standards. But atheism? That's only negative if you hold the opposing viewpoint. I think the BLP standard should be "controversial" material, not just negative material. That would cover this issue better. Cheers, Kasreyn 19:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assume good faith in edits on Dawkins talk.

Regarding your edit of, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Dawkins&diff=prev&oldid=88858682 (last para, last sentence)...offhand comments like this "regarding supporters of Dawkins" are really not in the spirit of WP:Assume good faith. If you have a specific issue with edits with any person or persons then take it up on their page. Ttiotsw 21:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ttiotsw. What I meant was that when people are listed as supporters of Dawkins in the article detailed references to substantiate this are not required (eg Pinker). Will clarify - thanks. NBeale 21:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creationism

I've been reading your most recent edits to Creationism, which I don't have any problem with. However I note you include a rather long statement in the references, and don't think this is particuarlly helpful: This does not mean that adherents of this view doubt the truth of the Biblical accounts, their view is that these accounts should not be read as scientific treatises. If this is a sourced position, of course it can be included in the main text, with appropriate references if possible. If it is just your opinion, as original research it shouldn't be there are all. Cheers, --Michael Johnson 08:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simonyi Prof

Thanks for implementing that change re. origins of the Simonyi Professorship. TimRR 22:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Positive Contributions

NBeale, you're equating "addition of material" to "positive contribution". You consistently ignore policy and add content that falls outside the realm of the article, reliability guidelines, and is in conflict with the consensus, even to the point of adding material while it is still under discussion. Your latest addition to World view doesn't belong. You're defending a religious person's belief in a god, not defining the topic. --*Spark* 17:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, NB - I have just spotted your contribution on the village pump page, viz: ... One Editor's "footnotes and glosses on minor points" (etc...) can be another Editor's "inconvenient facts that people are trying to hide". I was going to reply there, and then thought maybe I'd do it here instead (not sure why - maybe because it seems a rather specific issue that I don't want to make too big a deal of). I think one of my problems with some of your additions has in fact been that you put (IMHO) too much stuff in footnotes. I would argue that it is you who are trying to hide them by footnoting them (as well as making the thing harder to read). Why put it in a footnote? If it's worth including, include it where all readers can see it at a glance. A footnote sometimes looks like trying to sneak something in by the back door. Or a cunning way of having the last word. It looks fishy. A footnote is a good place to put details of sources, but it is not the right place for something that is a bit dubious POV-wise, or for something that is "probably not really worth including but I want to have my say at all costs"! Snalwibma 18:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Snalwimba: Yes I'm possibly a bit over-keen on footnotes (my book has 175 of them) but I think the idea of them is to put 2nd level information which a reader might want to know but which would break up the flow of the main body. So if a reader wants to know more, (s)he looks at the footnote. Is there a WP:Policy on this? (BTW you were not someone I had in mind, I think you do make a reasonable number of constructive contributions. And I really don't want to personalise this issue). NBeale 18:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Impossibilities

Have a question for you that isn't relevant on the article talk page. You changed a line from "it is equally impossible to disprove the existence of" to "it is also impossible to disprove the existence of" with the edit summary: '...Also Dawkins does not say "equally" which would be absurd' .

They're saying the exact same thing. Why would "equally" be any more absurd than "also"? --*Spark* 21:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Spark. It is impossible for humans to run faster than 40mph. It is also impossible to travel faster than light. But it would be absurd to say "equally". NBeale 23:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you see the existence of Zeus, Thor, Apollo, Yahweh, Vishnu, or any number of gods all being equally impossible to disprove? --*Spark* 23:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Spark. No. There is no reason to think Z, T, A are real, as opposed to Mythological. There is also a profound logical contradiction in polytheism. But pretty well everyone agrees that if the Resurrection of Jesus happened as claimed by c.1bn Christians this would be conclusive evidence of the existence of Y. as interpreted by Jesus (of course like any [alleged] historical fact you can never quite prove whether it happened or not). It is also pretty obvious that if an Ultimate Creator exists this UC is unlikely to be incompetent, so if God exists, one of the major religions is likely to be a reasonable approximation. Even Dawkins seems to agree that, if he had to choose, he'd be an (anglican) Christian. NBeale 07:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cooperation in Evolution

I think this section could stand a lot more expanding out - you hint at several major biological concepts, but, ideally, we should be pulling them into the limelight. As my father arrives tomorrow, I can't guarantee I'll be able to do much, but some concepts to consider:

• Orginisational levels in developmental biology tend to interact with each other to modify the action of the genes in the levels above and below them. While to some extent competition between different orginisational levels, the manipulation of the levels allows many body plans to be created through the interaction of them, which is similar to cooperation

• Dawkins' The Selfish Gene itself mentions how genes tend to keep meeting the same groups of other genes, and thus can evolve to work with them well. Hence, Dawkins himself allows co-operation as a higher-order orginisation.

• The formation of complexity, with all its co-opting of other genes (and copies of genes) and such is a clear example of the formation of cooperative systems of genes.

• Kin Selection is an important top-level version of this.

• T. H. Huxley's Evolution and Ethics Prologomena (fairly easy to find online) points out that ethics are necessary for society, and society provides protection from the struggle for survival, thus ethics can be evolved.

I will be able to help more in January, but I hope this helps a bit. Copy this to the Evolution talk page if you like. Might as well copy it now. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bach

Thanks for your recent edits! Tony 08:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that the portrait should go? Tony 09:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC) No it's a nice portrait and could perhaps be Bach, but according to New Grove all these other portraits are doubtful. NBeale 10:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cooperation in evolution 2

Axelrod and Hamilton introduced cooperation in a Science article in 81, before that sociology and pschology evolution studies back in 71. It is not a new concept of Nowak's. I appreciate you introducing the topic but I personally don't think mention of the author is neccesary as every reference could cite the author in a sentence. GetAgrippa 13:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi GetAgrippa! Thanks for the ref - I've looked at the article (Science 211, 1390 (1981)) but although of course it's a pioneering discussion of cooperation (following Trevis's 1971 paper) I can't see any suggestion in the paper that cooperation should be added as a fundamental principle of Evolution. It is this suggestion that I am attributing to Nowak. Have I missed something? NBeale 14:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not at odds with Nowak's work. I feel uncomfortable with mentioning living scientist as it sounds self promoting. I have a significant number of papers (not in field of evolution) and I could toot my own horn on that subject, however I see that as self promoting. I rather concentrate on the significance of the contribution rather than who did it. This does not diminish the significance of Nowak's work nor the just respect he deserves. I don't feel so strongly as not to mention his name as I realize this is my POV. I guess it is just an anal tendency. Sorry!!GetAgrippa 18:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi GetAgrippa! I've now refed Axelrod & Hamilton whilst also recognising the fundamental principle advance in 2006, but without crediting by name in text in deference to sensitivities about naming living scientists. (Doesn't apply to Dawkins apparently but maybe he's not considered a Scientist :-)) Of course I am not Martin Nowak! NBeale 21:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah the Dawkins thing bothers me, but many see it as heresy not to mention him by name. Thanks for expanding the references. Go ahead and mention Nowak as it is my POV and problem and not a real argument. Sometimes I need to Get A Grippa! GetAgrippa 22:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Sorry if you feel it was discourteous of me not to alert you specifically to my AfDs on Argument from beauty and Argument from love. But I did leave comments on the articles' talk pages two weeks ago saying I was planning to do this, and giving detailed reasons. Snalwibma 10:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rough draft of article on creationist organization

Please look at it and give me your comments: User talk:Filll/AllAboutGod--Filll 03:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Here it is as a real article: All About God Ministries--Filll 15:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tower of babel

Why not campaign against linguistics? And the teaching of many aspects of linguistics in colleges and high schools? Grammar? Etymologies? A lot of information taught and studied in linguistics disagrees with the biblical account, after all.--Filll 03:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It is hypocritcal to be offended by evolution and not to be offended by the field of Historical linguistics.--Filll 03:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Filll. Somewhat confused by this post - I don't campaign against evolution and I'm certainly not offended by it! NBeale 07:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why was Argument from Free Will changed?

I am still waiting for you to respond on the discussion page for Argument from Free Will about why you changed the argument from “omniscience precludes human free will” to “omniscience precludes God’s free will.” You spent plenty of time modifying the old argument, but once you dropped the AfD, you suddenly changed the argument altogether. From what I can see, there is only one reference that refers to your version of the argument, while the others all refer to the previous version. I have not changed it back, because I am waiting for you to justify the changes, but I am disheartened to not see any response from you yet. 75.17.113.113 03:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anon. This article is about a (supposed) argument for the non-existence of God. The only ref quoted that has such an "Argument from Freewill" is ref 1 which has the argument as stated. Obviously Maimonides firmly believd in God and was not making an argument against God's existence. The problem with the old article was that there were no refs so it was impossible to see what the notable argument was. NBeale 14:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Omnipotence

It is really my intent to reference the text, but I also have a busy job, and a day is really short for referencing, since I want to do a proper job on it. I have already asked for help on referencing and inproving on the WikiProject Religion, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hinduism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Taoism and we are working on it to make the "other views" text quality. If you remove the text, there will be nothing left to reference and the article will be a one sided view. If you want to see a specifiek reference placed please insert the {{fact]}} tag and I (we) will accelerate our search. You are ofcourse encouraged to place references yourself. Please remember, it is in no case my intention to press my thoughts, I have only experienced different first-hand religious views and do believe it is valuable to incorporate them. It is in no case my intention to express right or wrong of the views already stated or the views I try to add, but if a view or concept exists it should be mentioned, that's what an encyclopedia is for. Teardrop onthefire 13:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Existential Humanism

Thanks for the notification on the deletion of the page on CEH. I created that page as a new contributor to Wikipedia. Had I understood the policies better at that time, I would not have created it, therefore I do not oppose its deletion. There is a new page more properly located on my own website at [9].

Hopefully someday enough people will agree with that perspective independent of myself so that the page can return in a more legitimated form. Kitoba 05:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antitheism factcheck

In the antitheism article, you added a section including, "in revolutionary France, where in 1773...", citing Michael Burleigh's Earthly Powers. But of course, the French Revolution didn't really get under way until 1789. Could this be a typo for 1793, maybe? I'd appreciate it if you could double-check that (and maybe double-check Burleigh, for that matter, if he does indeed claim 1773). --John Owens | (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

oops - 1773 should indeed be 1793 - thank you NBeale 08:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I assume you are not in the US and probably are an Anglican

Do you realize that if you were in the US and a regular Anglican, there are a large fraction of these religious fundamentalists that would classify you as an evil atheist or a satan worshipper? Probably not a Christian, for sure. And at the very minimum would scream over and over in your face and tell you over and over and over about how evil you are and deserve to be punished forever in hell? And how much they hate you and loathe you and want to have you killed for being such an evil blasphemer? Spit in your face and threaten you physically. These people are NOT some reasonable rational group that you can just dismiss. That is what has been tried for a long time, and it does not work very well, unfortunately.--Filll 22:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Filll. Yes I live in London and FWIW I suppose I'm a Catholic-Evangelical Anglican. I'm sure that a negligible fraction of the r.f.'s would so classify me (if they were aware of my theological views), although a lot of people (not just r.f.s) have very grave concerns about some aspects of the theology and practice of much of ECUSA. Anyone who acted in the way you described would certainly not be acting in a Christan manner, and if you have had personal experience of this from "christians" then it is wholly deplorable. But there are tens of millions of r.f.s in the USA, so I honestly doubt whether it is anything other than a tiny fraction. And we must be careful not to demonise "the other". I don't "dismiss" reasonable rational groups, I try to debate with them in a constructive way. Hence my engagement with many atheists in Wikipedia for example :-). NBeale 07:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello. As a lifelong American Christian who has attended a wide variety of churches and known many Christians across varying church denominations, I can safely say that I have never once heard anyone even remotely make any of the comments attributed above against believers in the Anglican church. Please do not be misled into considering a negative view of American Christianity that does not match our culture. Whackos can always be found across just about any group, but to in any way try to make that sound like the norm of any particular religious group is way out of bounds. Bbagot 08:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hiya folks - see [10] but Filll you are right; there is something very disturbing about the way that people participate in US religions. I suspect money is the root of this evil with the use of soft contributions and 501.3c charity status for political purposes partners in crime. The sheer level of contributions (the largest recipient of donations in the US) to religions make it simply a business and one has to question what good it does other than lining the pockets of a few. As the poll (highlighted by Mr NBeale) at [11] shows the UK situation is quite a contrast where "non-believers outnumber believers in Britain by almost two to one". The beneficial side effect of this skepticism is apparent in the [12] survey which helps keep the UK in the top-tier of European countries for "Public Acceptance of Evolution". Italy, a profoundly Catholic country also has high acceptance of evolution; but then the Holy See has expresssed that Evolution is not incompatible with the Bible. Without a clear leadership in the form, the independant US protestant factions are like Islamic fundamentalists and invent it as they go along. I pity those in the US who are moderately religious or even moderately non-religious; its a pity Europe is now too expensive (EURO/US cross rate), Canada is too cold and Mexico too undeveloped. The problem is that "non-belief" is too sematically overloaded as meaning "communist" but it is the moderate non-believers who are potentially the majority in any post-Enlightenment country including the US. They have no voice though because religion is politics and soft funding focuses on denigrating the opposition: "no belief" makes for an easy target because of the conflation with communism. Fix soft funded sound bites and that levels the playing field. I notice Daniel C. Dennett presents a similar situation with the gay lifestyle choices, [13] by showing how Gay has gone from a hated and illegal concept, to more or less socially acceptable or illegal to descriminate against. The UK has had a similar reversal, though what the law says and what homophobics actually express in public is another matter. It is a trusism that homosexuality and atheists are equally descriminated against in Islamic countries today and until recently in so-called "Christian" countries. It is water under the bridge now but we can only imagine what Alan Turing would have contributed to computing if the so-called Christians in the UK had not given him a choice of prison or oestrogen hormone injections. He died in 1954, the same year that Fortran [14] draft specification came out; this is more or less the start of the history of modern computing. Like I say, water under the bridge, but we need not repeat the errors of our parents. Ttiotsw 08:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ttiotsw. The poll you refer to is an excellent example of Guardian spin. What it actually showed was that only 1/3rd of people answered yes to "would you call yourself a religious person?" This is not at all the same question as "do you have any religious beliefs" Actually, as we know from the Census, the overwhelming majority of adults in the UK (72%) consider themselves to be "Christians" although most of them rarely attend church. Turing's death was indeed tragic (I had a colleague at Ferranti who had worked with Turing BTW) though suicide can't really be blamed on others, and Godel's was in many ways similar. NBeale 09:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Nbeale, to give you a bit more insight into where I am some of the others in the US who object to Christian fundamentalism are coming from, the statements you made above about Turing would definitely result in you being branded nonChristian or worse. The viewpoints I am discussing often advocate summary arrest and execution of homosexuals. Some even dispute the need for trials; just herd them up and kill them like animals. And if you disagree, you are not a REAL Christian, at least in their eyes. And you cannot argue with them, because they get angry and want to get violent. THAT is what I am talking about. I think they are nuts. And not at all Christian. But they have phenomenal political power in the US. And seemingly a fair number of supporters (although obviously not all as extreme as what I am describing). But in their eyes, Anglicans are not Christians and neither are Catholics or Greek or Russian Orthodox or Methodists or Presbyterians etc etc. There are all manner of strange beliefs, like "God has ordered us to despoil and pollute the earth, as fast as possible, to force the 2nd coming of Christ", or "It is best to launch nuclear weapon attacks worldwide to destroy the earth and all life on earth and force the 2nd coming of Christ" and similar kinds of nonsense (you think I am joking: the secretary of the Interior under Reagan belonged to a faith that believed the first one it is called dominion theology I think). And if you disagree, they get in your face and get red and sweaty and start to scream at the top of their lungs about how you are a blasphemer, an atheist, etc. Isn't America fun?--Filll 15:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Filll. I have no doubt that there are some fringe lunatics in all kinds of fields who believe all kinds of things. But you might, in all good faith, have got the wrong impression - I wonder whether the people you are talking about really do believe the things you suggest? I'm pleased to find that the only google hit for "despoil and pollute the earth, as fast as possible" is this talk page. And, apart from anything else, the idea that humans can "force the 2nd coming of Christ" is completely alien to Christian theology, and seems to be a trope that exists in a few atheist blog postings. Be careful of demonising "the other" because it is bad for clear thinking. NBeale 07:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should get you a few references so you can see for yourself. I do not claim they have a large following, but they certainly exist.--Filll 15:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD "excuses to delete content"

Hi, calling it a personal attacks was maybe a bit over-stating it. I was referring to "Arguments based on multiplicity, notability, in practical terms are excuses to exclude the content of this article". Of course, the next comment almost proved that the accusation was justified, but it was unfair to accuse all the notability concerns of being attempts to exclude content. Barte, for example, changed his vote when he found an external source. --Merzul 08:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Thanks. Don't let's forget WP:BITE NBeale 11:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orr link rises from the dead

Sorry about removing that live wikilink on H. Allen Orr. I swear it was dead when I clicked on it earlier today, but even when I went back to your initial version, it was very much alive.-Barte 06:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No probs. It was dead - I then created the article - he seems to be quite notable NBeale 07:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it.-Barte 20:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)