User talk:AC+79 3888
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Feel free to leave me a message. I will reply on your talk page, unless you request otherwise, and I would prefer it if other users replied here. Thanks.
[edit] Discussion at Talk:The_God_Delusion#Grammar
Please note, and feel free to contribute towards, the discussion at Talk:The_God_Delusion#Grammar regarding the use of apostrophes. WLU (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Noticed the appearance, and disappearance of text on my talk page, no doubt by now you're reading the section in the God Delusion. Please discuss there, as there are multiple editors besides myself with an opinion. Thanks, WLU (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Notability of The Irish Atheists
A tag has been placed on The Irish Atheists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}}
to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. JohnCD (talk) 11:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Notability needs to be established by citing references from independent sources, not just your own web-site. See WP:WEB#Criteria. (By the way {{hangon}} is all you need to put - I have corrected the tag for you) JohnCD (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Creation/Creationism
the correct term is creation. If you think the correct term is creationism, please explain why that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mothmas (talk • contribs) 02:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's widely known to be creationism. See the Wikipedia article on the subject here. Alternatively, perform a quick Google search. AC+79 3888 (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hello!
Hello AC+79 3888. Thank you for your contributions to the article Richard Dawkins. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your note. The biography of Richard Dawkins should achieve FA status. I think we should work together. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Secular humanism and Humanism (life stance)
Hello AC+79 3888. How are you? I agree with you— it is more accurate to call Dawkins a secualar humanist. I think the articles Secular humanism and Humanism (life stance) should be merged. What's your views? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Richard Dawkins
Hello AC+79 3888. I have nominated the article Richard Dawkins for FA status. You might be interested in this. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hello AC. Thank you for your contributions to the article Richard Dawkins. However, more contributions are required. Please keep working on the article. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll keep working away at it as quick as I can. I added a bit more there, and I'll try to proof-read some of the article later on, as it was claimed that there are inconsistencies in the use of punctuation. AC+79 3888 (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:OBMSW.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:OBMSW.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Italics
Hey there AC. Don't forget your italics for publications like The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing and New Scientist. Richard001 (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Reply
Hello AC+79 3888. I have replied on my talk page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Richard Dawkins
Hello AC+79 3888. Please visit the talk page of Richard Dawkins. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Citation
Hello AC+79 3888. How are you? In the citation template, you did the following:
author=The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science[1]
In 'author', we should put the name of a person, not organisation. You should have used 'publisher'. I think you should look at the following templates:
- {{cite web}}
- {{cite book}}
- {{cite journal}}
- {{cite news}}
- {{citation}}
Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Few things...
Hello AC. How are you? Thank you for your contributions to the article Richard Dawkins. I would like to tell you something. Years usually not wikilinked when they are alone. Guidelines recommend not wikilinking to years when they are alone, without specific context and rationale for linking to them. Hence it's "(2007)", not "(2007)". On the other hand, full dates should always be wikilinked so as to ensure the date will be rendered as formatted according to the reader's date preferences; hence, "(April 4, 2008)", not "(April 4, 2008)". And, keep up the good work. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Page Protection
Hello AC+79 3888. How are you? An IP has once again vandalized the page of Richard Dawkins. It is so irritating. I think we should request page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. What's your view? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have requested page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I think you should submit it for peer review. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Hello AC. I think we should download some images of Richard Dawkins. What do you think? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Image
Hello AC. Thank you for finding the image. We may have to work on references. I think the article is ready for the FA status. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Rationalism
Hello AC. I think you are a rationalist. Some atheist believe in pseudoscience such as parapsychology. Being an atheist doesn't mean that you are a rationalist. I think you should include your name on Category:Rationalist Wikipedians. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Now your user page looks great! I also like the image of Pale Blue Dot. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Richard Dawkins FA
I have nominated the article Richard Dawkins for the FA status. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hello AC. Please look at the following line:
- "He has also been called "the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell",[9] and has been compared to German biologist Ernst Haeckel.[10]"
- I think this line should be deleted. It is unnecessary. The line was also critized by other users. What's your view? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello AC. You should have removed only the last line. I have included the following line:
"Dawkins has widely been referred to in the media as "Darwin's Rottweiler",[7][8] by analogy with T. H. Huxley, who was known as "Darwin's Bulldog" for his advocacy of evolution."
I hope everything is alright. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- FAs are the best articles on Wikipedia. We have to listen to criticism and try to make the article as good as possible. Please give your best. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Hello AC. I have removed antitheism from the lead. Sources don't suggest that he is an antitheist. Look at the following line:
-
- "In addition to his biological work, Dawkins is well-known for his outspoken atheism."
-
- People want everything to be correct and well-sourced. I hope you will agree with me. Please look at the article. If you make any major change, please inform me. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
AC, I have made another change. I have removed "outspoken" from the lead. Look at the following line:
"In addition to his biological work, Dawkins is a well-known atheist.[3][4][5]"
What's your view? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- AC, the sources do suggest that he is outspoken and an antitheist. However, here on Wikipedia, the sources must say "he is an outspoken atheist/antitheist". And, we must remember about NPOV. Our work is quite difficult. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- AC, we have to try as hard as possible! Please give your best. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello AC. Do you have the book The Extended Phenotype? I don't have any book written by Richard Dawkins. The Extended Phenotype is a widely cited contribution to evolutionary biology. References from the book can be included in the article. If you have that book, please include some references in the article. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, do you have other books of Dawkins? You can add book references! Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello AC. Please look at the following:
"In his 2006 book The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that religious faith qualifies as a delusion—as a fixed false belief."
Do you have the book The God Delusion? I think we need a reference fir this. In which page Dawkins argued that God almost certainly does not exist and that religious faith qualifies as a delusion—as a fixed false belief? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you! We have to work hard. It is difficult to get support! Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello AC. Thank you for your effort. I also feel that you and I should work in other articles. Some users are pushing their POV by including the views of Pope Benedict XVI in the article agnosticism. It is quite inappropriate. What's your view? You are invited to make comments at Talk:Agnosticism. I also think that some people are pushing their POV in the article Francis Collins (geneticist). We have to watch these articles. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Totally undeserved, when ...
you guys are doing all the hard work, but thanks for showing your appreciation, it is important to do so, Merzul (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Richard Dawkins
Hello AC. I have made some changes in the article Richard Dawkins. In the section Publication, I removed the table. I have also added cite book templates.
What is the name of the publisher of the book The God Delusion? I think it is Bantam Books. However, in references, it is Transworld Publishers. And, loction=United Kingdom is wrong. In that parameter, you should put the place of publication. See: {{cite book}}. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hello AC. I think this FA nomination will fail. It is very disappointing. However, even if the nomination fails, we have to keep on working on the article. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] FA nomination failed!
Hello AC. I have a bad news. The FA nomination of Richard Dawkins has failed. I would like to thank you for your contributions and your support. We have to improve many things. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The Invisible Pink Consolation Prize | ||
I present the Invisible Pink Consolation Prize to AC+79 3888 and Masterpiece2000 for their brave attempts to prove that "Richard Dawkins" almost certainly contains no flaws. Merzul (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC) |
- Thank you, Merzul! I tried! :D AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 21:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dawkins
Hello AC. It is very disappointing. However, we have to look towards the future.
AC, we should nominate the article Richard Dawkins for the FA status for after two months. We have to inform many people about the article and do everything possible to improve the article. I am determined to make sure that the article Richard Dawkins achieve the FA status. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Author's name
Hello AC. Look at the following:
Grafen, Alan; Mark Ridley (eds.) (2006). Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-929116-0.
In this case, only the surname of the first author should come first. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dawkins
Hello AC! How are you? Do you have the book Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think? I think we should include some information from the book. Please find some information from the book and include those information in the article with references. I think that would be very useful. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am fine! I hope you will find a copy of the book. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dawkins, again
Hello AC. Please look at the article Richard Dawkins. What more can we do? Well, references from the book Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think is important. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)