User talk:Johnpseudo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Johnpseudo, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! NSR (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Medical Slang

Hello! I agree with the deletion of the unsourced material from the Medical Slang page, however I was wondering by what criteria you are saying some blogged stuff is poorly sourced and other blogged stuff is okay. Could you please clarify either on my talk page or on the talk:medical slang page. (I've raised the questions What Constitutes Good Sources there and not received any answer yet) Orinoco-w (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] speedy

I deleted the Peter Parker quote. Good catch! Uncle Ed 16:03, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Harriott Project

Are you sure this band meets the notability policy? I was planning on PROD'ing Joe Harriot Project until I saw you changed it to a redirect. SquidSK (1MC•log) 04:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you're right, I'll just move the information to Ken Vandermark's article. johnpseudo 04:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion of Arthur Butz

Did you read the article before you reverted? The article's text would indicate that he belongs in the category in question. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 11:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, please don't take this revert to be support of Butz or his actions. Few would argue that Butz is not anti-semitic, but his actions and words are not by themselves proof of anti-semitism. Holocaust revisionists are almost always motivated by anti-semitism, but by itself, disagreeing with history does not classify a person as anti-semitic. johnpseudo 15:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no reason to assume that you would support Prof. Butz's actions, as I assume good faith. Nonetheless, Holocaust denial is itself a form of Anti-Semitism. His motivations are immaterial, we're talking about his actions here. His actions include writing a book which endorses an Anti-Semitic belief. A person who holds Anti-Semitic beliefs is by definition Anti-Semitic. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 15:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I would disagree with your points that 1. holocaust denial is a form of anti-semitism and 2. that holding a belief in common with anti-semites defines a person to be an anti-semite. Anti-semitism is defined to be "hostility towards Jews," but Holocaust denial is by itself hostility to a particular (in this case widely accepted) version of history. If you can find a quotation of Butz attributing this version of history to Jews, I think that would establish that his hostility towards history translates into a hostility towards Jews. As long as Butz restricts himself to the primarily academic activity of arguing the factual merits of one version of history over another, he is not being openly hostile to the Jewish people. johnpseudo 16:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:JammX-lauren1.jpg

I deprodded the above image for technical reasons, as WP:PROD is currently for articles only. Consider one of the options over at WP:IfD. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 15:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Optical fiber

My thinking was that fiber optic communications already has a whole section in the article, with a prominent link to the more detailed article. No one should be looking in "See also" for a link to Fiber-optic communications. Nor does the Manual of Style support including links in See also that already appear in the article. See also is specifically for the marginally-relevant stuff, the things that are somehow related, but not so tightly related that you can work them into the text. Optical communications seems like an example of this to me. --Srleffler 02:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just wanted to understand.

Just wanted to understand the benefits of your edit [[1]].

Swadhyayee 09:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Zip-cord
Graded-index fiber
Gateway (telecommunications)
Laser science
Randy Livingston
Mirrored server
David Payne
Doppler cooling limit
Certificate server
An Experiment in Criticism
Fiber in the loop
Parallel optical interface
Optical fiber connector
CSU/DSU
Catalog server
Hybrid fibre-coaxial
OFNR
John Evans (governor)
Nuvo Newsweekly
Cleanup
Wireless network
Narrative
Power-law index profile
Merge
Intermodulation
Online marketing
Fax server
Add Sources
Arryx
Heat pump
Envelope detector
Wikify
Integrated Services Digital Network
Fiber Bragg grating
Bandwidth cap
Expand
Astrobiology Field Laboratory
Recording medium
Memory hierarchy

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 01:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deeceevoice

to my way of thinking africoid is something like coffeeish. coffeeish means similar to coffee but does not fit into a encyclopedia. one recent edit here. i think she is making it up as she goes along Afrocentrists have observed that Caucasoid is applied inconsistently and challenge as eurocentric and inappropriate the use of a term which contains a European geographic referrent to refer to indigenous, black Africans. Further, they argue that the term is misleading and that, as a result, it erroneously has been conflated by some to mean non-black or even white — despite the fact that so-called Caucasoid indigenous African blacks range from brown to blue-black in skin tone

J jackson 00:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent AfD

If a nomination is retracted with no delete votes, anyone is allowed to close it as keep, including you. Next time, you can just close it. -Amarkov blahedits 23:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what?

you just left a note on my talk page, but did not tell me what category or whatever you are referring to. Thanks Hmains 19:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

please tell me more. I have not worked on these categories recently and do not, any any case, find any empty ones. Where are they? Hmains 19:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I see. To get anything deleted, there is a tiresome deletion process which I have rarely nominated anything to. I wonder what the creators of these categories had in mind? Hmains 19:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea to work on. I hope you can add something about what to do after the deletion, such as the article/category to become a member of the [next] higher category. Hate to let articles and subcategories becomes lonely, dangling objects. Hmains 19:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of marathon races

I left a response. Maybe you can help out. Thanks. --DJREJECTED 02:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leon Sullivan vandalization

Hi, I noticed that somebody vandalized the Leon Sullivan page and that you fixed it. I'm curious how you knew it had been vandalized, did you just happen to be reading it? Thanks, Dov

[edit] Your reversion on Computer networking

You reverted my edits on Computer networking, stating "article is about computer networking, not the profession of network engineering". It appears that the article about computer networking is Computer network, which has a <<for>> which says "For the scientific and engineering discipline studying computer networks, see Computer networking". This caused me to prepend similar text to Computer Networking. Regardless, many people have been making edits on this assumption. --Porkrind 21:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good point. The introduction does describe "computer networking" as an engineering discipline. I'm not quite sure this is an accurate description, however, and I disagree with your assertion that other have assumed the literal meaning of this description for their edits. To me, it seems that the the article as it is is about the technological field of computer networking, not about the engineering discipline, per se. Again, I think the article Network engineering would be better suited for your Cisco certification image and related information. That article as it is is very deficient for such a growing field. Let me know if you agree with changing the opening sentence of "Computer networking" from "engineering discipline" to "technological field". johnpseudo 22:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand your points, but I'm not sure about the differentiation between a technological field and a engineering discipline, but agree that the most correct name for the article I was attempting to add to would be network engineering. If that article was up to snuff, I'd probally advocate merging computer network and computer networking. Alas, the whole area needs a lot of attention from someone with more time than I. I defer to you. Porkrind 03:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your reverts

Re [2] - Could you please kindly explain your reverts? You're not reverting edits that were related to any category. Thanks in advance. — Instantnood 22:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[3] - Could you please stop and explain why? — Instantnood 22:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much. Would you mind helping undo them? — Instantnood 22:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much. But please note this edit was not meant to add the template to any category. It was made to undo an undiscussed modification back in February (which emptied the corresponding stub category). — Instantnood 22:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
It would have also been best to cite an article, talk page, whatever (arbcom page?) in your edit summaries. I did a fair amount of exploring to ensure you weren't on a bender there. :) --Auto(talk / contribs) 22:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Instantnood is also on general probation (expanded from China related Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#Instantnood_placed_on_probation to ANY article Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_3#Instantnood_placed_on_general_probation) if his edits are disruptive. You didn't necessarily misread anything. SchmuckyTheCat 22:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Who's being disruptive, in the first place? — Instantnood 22:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Both those links explicitly say that he is not banned from posting on the talk pages of such articles. You should not be reverting his messages on the talk pages. From WP:PROB: "The banned user may continue to edit the talk page, making suggestions as to content and discussing content." —Umofomia 22:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atheism

I've added a short paragraph which summarizes the section on Rationale. Let me know what you think (and please consider changing your vote to Support). Thanks for the help! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-14 18:45Z

Regarding your comment to me regarding the surveys from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, I should point out that I did reference them. They were, however, deleted by those who claimed that the reference from another encyclopedia should have primacy. As you can see from my comments with Brian0918, his only argument against the references I provided were that he didn't like them...and thus he deleted them. Rrhain 20:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm referring to both Infidel.org's own definition of atheism (read the FAQ) and the Freedom From Religion Foundation's own definition of atheism. And it would seem that you have the same problem that Brian0918 has: You don't like the reference. You don't really have any reason to reject it other than a personal dislike of the result. You have your source, I have mine. Mine are taken from atheists. Where do the philosophical definitions come from? They seem to be armchair activities. I don't deny the abilities of the philosophers who have come up with them, but there is a difference between theory and practice. If the atheists themselves disagree with the philosophers, then the philosopher has made a mistake. --Rrhain 09:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
You claim to be a member of FFRF and you say no objective survey was conducted? Now I know you're not actually a member.
"Even if I were to concede that atheists have a right to self-definition"? You did not just say that, did you? You have the temerity to claim that a group of people do not have the right of self-definition? Who else could ever hope to be capable of defining them? Such arrogance!
I never said no one organization can speak for all atheists. I see that many people have a hard time remembering this, so let me say it yet again: Yes, we should talk about the variations of atheism. I have directly said this in practically every post I have made in the article discussion section. You will note, for example, that I didn't touch the section regarding "strong" and "weak" atheism. And you will note in the graph that they made of the positions, it considers strong atheism to be a subset of weak atheism, indicating that more atheists consider the statement "I don't believe in god" to be more accurate than "I believe there is no god." The ONLY action I have been trying to take is to change the lead sentence to match more closely to what the majority of atheists would say about themselves. To lead with a minority position is inappropriate.
And generally, the very last people to turn to in order to find a definition of atheism are philosophers of religion. Does the phrase "conflict of interest" mean anything to you? It is extremely difficult to understand the atheist position if one is still enmeshed in the theistic view. What reaches a consensus in philosophical encyclopedias is all too often the view of theistic apologists. --Rrhain 06:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I did. It was deleted. It seems that you have the same problem that Brian0918 had: You just don't like the conclusion. Can you find me a single reference that was written by the atheist community that says that atheism is primarily the "belief there is no god" rather than "no belief in god"? Yeah, there are encyclopedia entries written by philosophers, but that wasn't the question. What do the atheists think? What do they say?
And you seem to be ignoring the rest of the article with regard to how many "implicit" vs. "explicit" atheists there are. For cyring out loud, the very first paragraph regarding the subject says straight out, "most of which treat atheism as 'absence of belief in deities' in order to explore the varieties of this nontheism." So if the section of the article that delves into the variations of atheism says that the most common conceptualization of atheism is "lack of belief," what on earth is the justification for having the primary definition cited in the lede to be "belief of lack"? Later on, in defining "explicit" atheism, it says, "the more common definition of deliberate disbelief." Notice: "Disbelief," not "belief in the non-existence of."
So with the main body of the article supporting "lack of belief" as the primary meaning, what is the deal with the lede? --Rrhain 07:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
(*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? A collection of people don't have a collective opinion? There is no atheistic dogma, yes, but if a group of people come to the same conclusion independently, then how on earth do we deny that the group doesn't think what it does? You're trying to say that an atheist is the last person you'd want to listen to when trying to determine what atheism is. What I am trying to point out is that atheists are the only people to listen to when trying to determine what atheism is. Who else can possibly define what it means to be an atheist?
"Their opinion is not relevant to the philosophical definition"? What an assinine and arrogant thing to say. The only way you could possibly have a philosophical definition is to ask the atheist what his philosophy is. Atheists are the sole and only authority as to what the philosophy of atheism is. A philosopher might do a survey of atheists and do a report upon what atheists say when it comes to their philosophy, but the philosopher who does not speak from a position of atheism has absolutely no ability to speak as to what atheism is. Only atheists can do that.
If the philosopher comes up with a definition and the community of atheists says, "No, that's wrong," where on earth do you get off saying that the atheists are wrong and the philosopher is right?
For the umpteenth time. This is not about suppressing the concept of strong atheism. This is simply having the article reflect the reality of atheists, most of whom say they have a lack of belief, not a belief of lack, and thus having the opinion of most atheists be listed first. What part of "listed first" is so difficult to accept?
And now you're contradicting yourself. First, you say that we should go with the philosophical definition. And then when it's shown that the philosophical definition is first and foremost "lack of belief," you claim that we can't go with that one. So where does your justification for "belief of lack" as the primary definition come from? Where is your reference? Can you give me a single reference written by the community of atheists that says "belief of lack" is the primary conceptualization of atheism? All I want is one.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation's treatise on what freethought is includes a section on atheism which says, "Atheism is not a belief. It is the 'lack of belief' in god(s)." The FAQ from Infidels.org has a very good definition of atheism:

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism."

Notice that it includes the concept of atheism as an active belief, but it starts with the most common understanding among atheists, "lack of belief." So once again, I have to ask: What is the problem with starting with what atheists as a group think? Who else could possibly have any authority as to what atheists think but atheists?
Why is this so hard for you? I truly cannot understand how anybody could say that atheists have no say as to what atheism is. --Rrhain 07:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Re "no, you didn't show that": Yes, I did. I quoted the main article to you. You just didn't like what it said. In the main section, the very first definition of atheism is "absence of belief." So if we're going to define it that way in the main section first, why are you so hesitant about using it in the lede?
Re "Encyclopedias of philosophy. They have a consensus on the definition.": But the point is they're wrong. But the point is that they are written not by atheists but by philosophers. Thus, if the philosopher says something about what atheists think and the atheists themselves say it isn't true, then the only logical conclusion is that the philosopher is wrong. By your logic, Christians get to say what Judaism means. After all, Christians have studied the Torah, too. And on top of that, there are more Christians than there are Jews. We'd all call that "anti-Semitism" with regard to Judaism, so why does atheism get to be the whipping boy?
Re "That's the entire point- the definition that you are advocating does not specify what atheists believe, it simply broadens the definition to include more people.": So what's the problem? If the definition that includes the largest number of people who claim the descriptor of atheism is "lack of belief," shouldn't we lead with that?
Re "If indeed Infidels.org and FFRF constituted the final word for atheist beliefs, it would be perfectly reasonable to state that "Atheists are people who believe that God doesn't exist, and that the definition of atheism is 'lack of belief in God'.": Um, you do realize that you just contradicted yourself, right? If atheism is the "lack of belief," then atheists are not "people who believe." What on earth would be the point of having a "lack of belief" if you believed in something? And for yet another time, I have never said that I.o or FFRF "constitute the final word for atheist beliefs." How many times do I have to repeat myself before you remember it? What I have said is that these groups are more reliable than other, non-atheist-originated material because they provide information compiled by and surveyed from atheists.
Re "Atheists have no set of shared beliefs, so a definition based on shared beliefs is hardly possible.": Of course. Please do not insult my intelligence. The fact that atheism has no shared beliefs mean we can't define it by shared beliefs but instead must define it by a shared philosophy. And that philosophy overwhelmingly states that it is a "lack of belief" and not a "belief of lack." You seem to want to define atheism on theistic terms which defeats the entire purpose.
Re "The strange thing is how a lot of atheists who want to define 'atheism' to mean lack of belief actually do believe that God does not exist.": Huh? That makes no sense. You just contradicted yourself again. If it's a lack of belief, then how could they possibly "believe that god does not exist"? That defeats the entire purpose. This is the precise reason why we cannot turn to philosophers to indicate what atheism means. That's like turning to a Christian to tell us what Judaism means. The only logical way to understand what atheism encompasses is to look to the atheists.
Re "'Lack of belief' simply isn't a philosophical definition.": (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? We've been through this already. Of course it's a philosophical definition. It's what separates those who have heard of the concept of "god" and have rejected it from those who haven't. The former are actually atheists because they have carried out the philosophical work required to come to the conclusion that there is no god while the latter are those who are simply ignorant. That's why babies aren't "atheists." They are incapable of doing the work.
Re "People have the right to say what they believe, but they don't have a right to claim the right of self-definition if their proposed definition includes people who they do not speak for.": You do realize that that's my argument, yes? Philosophers do not speak for atheists. Therefore, they have no right to claim the definition of atheism. Only atheists can do that. Philosophers can report on that and atheists who are philosophers can detail the philosophical underpinnings of atheism, but those who are not atheists have no ability to say what atheism is. By your logic, Christians get to say what Judaism means.
Re "Infidels.org and FFRF do not constitute a majority of people who lack a belief in God.": Says who? You? Why should we believe you? I've repeatedly asked you to provide a single reference written by the community of atheists that says "belief of lack" is the primary conceptualization of atheism, and you have yet to do so. I have provided multiple sources written by atheists that say it is "lack of belief" and the only response you have is that you have an encyclopedia, written by non-atheists, that says otherwise.
Does the phrase blood libel mean anything to you? Yes, it is that serious. It is because there is a pervasive idea that atheism is a "belief" that leads to ridiculous Supreme Court rulings that declare it to be a "religion" and conflate the absence of comment about god with active denial. It is the dismissal of atheism as "just another belief," that leads to Kennedy saying that the phrase "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance doesn't actually mean, you know, under god.
Re "If they were to have performed an objective, public survey of the definition, we might have something else to talk about, but they haven't.": I think you have that backwards. If the philosophers were to have performed an objective, public survey of the definition, we might have something to talk about. Since they haven't, their conclusions are necessarily suspect. Thus, we are left to look where we should have looked in the first place: Atheists and their collected works as gathered by such organizations as Infidels.org and the Freedom From Religion Foundation and by the works of atheists such as Sam Harris, Anthony Flew, Dan Barker, Michael Martin, etc. Here's a quote from An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism:

The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses 'atheist' to mean a person who denies the existence of a God. Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority) would fit this definition. However, most atheists would stongly dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold that an atheist is a person without a belief in God.

How many more examples of atheists speaking for themselves must you see before you consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the philosophers are wrong? --Rrhain 07:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: "The main article uses the 'lack of belief' definition for the purposes of distinguishing between the different definitions of atheism.": Yes! That's the entire point! Since the main body of the article starts off trying to define atheism with the concept of "lack of belief," what on earth could possibly be the justification to use something else for the lede?
Re: "It has no relevance to the question of what the most-commonly accepted, accurate, or primary definition is.": (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? The consensus of atheists has no relevance to the question of what atheism is?
Re: "Because unlike Judaism, atheism has no consensus.": (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? Atheism has no high priests, no, but the idea that there is no consensus among atheists is simply laughable. Why do we keep finding the same answer ("No, I have no belief") when we ask the atheists (rather than the philosophers) what they think? Once again, you're trying to judge atheism using theism's standards. You're trying to say that because atheism doesn't have a high priest, that means it has no standards. It is that attitude that directly leads to the claim that atheists have no morality.
Re: "They have no central authority or centralized decision-making structure.": So? What does that have to do with anything? You seem to be saying that because there isn't a single source telling a group people what to think, that makes it impossible for a group of people to come to the same conclusion in the same way independently; that they cannot possibly agree on their attitudes and opinions.
Re: "But people with a simple 'lack of belief' don't claim the descriptor of atheism.": (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? First, you have the arrow backwards. That is, you don't look to the definition and then try to find what the label is. Instead, you start with the label and look to see what those who claim it define themselves as. All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. This is why the "philosophical" definition of atheism that is promulgated here is so worthless: It confuses those who are incapable of carrying out the logical and philosophical actions necessary to conclude atheism (such as infants and animals) with those who have done the work. It does this by introducing the artificial distinction of "implict" and "explicit" atheism. Now, do I think it is important to talk about the difference between those who don't have a belief in god because the entire concept of god is foreign to them and those who don't have a belief because they have been presented with the idea of god and rejected it? Yes. But the former isn't "atheism" in any practical sense of the word.
But, let's ignore all that. Let's go with the illogic of starting with the definition and going to the label. Then by the very article itself, "lack of belief" is atheism. If you haven't been presented with the idea of god, if you are an infant, if you are an animal, then you are an "atheist." An "implicit" atheist, to be sure, but an "atheist" nonetheless.
And since the overwhelming majority of people who consciously and deliberately claim the title of "atheist" say that their defining characteristic is "lack of belief," then it would seem that the largest collection of "atheists" are those who have a "lack of belief." We have the total community of "implicit" atheists and the majority of the community of "explicit" atheists.
Thus, by your own rules, "lack of belief" is the most common conceptulization of atheism and therefore, it should be the primary definition given in the lede. You don't get to have it both ways.
Re: "I'm saying that FFRF and Infidels.org can only speak for their own beliefs.": Of course. I never said otherwise. You're missing the point, though. The people speaking at FFRF and I.o are actual atheists. They have surveyed other atheists. They go out of their way to find atheists and find out what they think.
Your only complaint against them is that you do not like their conclusion. That is why, despite my repeated requests for you to do so, you have to provide a single source that defines atheism primarily as "belief in lack" that was written by atheists. We've got a reference to a philosophical encyclopedia, but it seems that when we start to ask the atheists themselves whether or not they agree with that definition, they disagree.
And that means, by definition, the philosopher got it wrong.
Re: "That belief does not project onto anyone else.": Even when those "anyone else" tell you it does? If you aren't going to believe the atheists regarding what atheism is, who are you? How many atheists have to tell you that they think it means "lack of belief" before you consider it to be the primary defintion? I really want to know the answer to this question. It is not rhetorical: What would it take for you to think that "lack of belief" is the primary definition? If we can't ask atheists, where do we go for the justification?
Re: "If you could perform a representative survey of people with a 'lack of belief' in God, and those people used the term "atheism" to refer to their lack of belief, then you might have a case for self-definition.": First, you've got the arrow backwards again. You don't start with the definition and then go to the label. You go to the label and look for the definition. All squares are rectangles. Not all rectangles are squares. When trying to determine what "atheims" is, you don't look for those who claim "lack of belief" and then see if they claim to be atheists. Instead, you look for those who claim to be "atheist" and then see if they claim to have a "lack of belief." After all, we're trying to define "atheism," not "lack of belief."
Second, the FFRF did just that (surveyed atheists to find what they thought, that is). Your only complaint is that you don't like their conclusion. The burden of proof is now upon you to provide a representative survey of atheists (not philosophers and not those who "lack belief") that concludes atheism to be primarily "belief of lack."
Re: "But such a survey is impossible, because the demographics of people with a "lack of belief" are too vague to allow an accurate cross-section of the group." There is so much wrong with this statement, it's hard to know where to begin. First, you've still got the arrow backwards. All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.
Second, why on earth could you not survey those who have a "lack of belief"? All you have to do is ask them.
Re: "Instead what we have is a survey of the group of people who actually CALL themselves atheists. This is not an accurate representation of people with a 'lack of belief'.": Of course! We're not looking for a definition of "lack of belief." We're looking for a definition of "atheism"! OF COURSE we're going to start with those who call themselves atheists! Where else on earth would we start?
Re: "What philosophy do people with a 'lack of belief' share?": Who cares? We're not looking for a definition of "lack of belief." We're looking for a definition of "atheism." Do you truly not understand this?
Re: "My question is, do babies have a 'lack of belief' about God?": Who cares? We're not looking for a definition of "lack of belief." We're looking for a definition of "atheism." Do you truly not understand this?
Re: "Okay, but who gets to speak for the vast majority of those with a 'lack of belief' who do not call themselves 'atheists'?": Who cares? We're not looking for a definition of "lack of belief." We're looking for a definition of "atheism." Do you truly not understand this?
Re: "People with a 'lack of belief' DO NOT ORGANIZE themselves into communities.": (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? What do you think American Atheists, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, Infidels.org, etc. are? They are organizations of atheists! They are organization of peopel with a lack of belief! No, they aren't representative of all people who lack belief, but that's not what we're talking about. We're not looking for a definition of "lack of belief." We're looking for a definition of "atheism." Do you truly not understand this?
Re: "That's why they cannot be said to hold a consensus.": And yet, they do. So since your conclusion is trivially proven false by simple inspection, we conclude it is mistaken.
Oh! You're talking about those who "lack belief." Who cares? We're not looking for a definition of "lack of belief." We're looking for a definition of "atheism." Do you truly not understand this?
Re: "Infidels.org and FFRF are anti-religious and anti-theists.": Hah! And you know this because of what? Be specific. Chapter and verse, please. I see nothing in any of the publications that indicates that theism should be banned. If you're going to insult them with the claim of "anti-religion" and "anti-theist," then you're going to have to come up with evidence. Otherwise, we're just going to have to conclude that you're making it up as you go along.
Re: "True, but we have no better source of consensus on the definition.": (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? Atheists are not the best source of consensus on the definition of atheism?
Re: "Well they're right. That definition isn't adequate. It needs to be much more nuanced, with clear distinctions among the variety of different levels of non-belief people have.": Huh? You respond to evidence that the vast majority of atheists would say, "That definition isn't even close," with a claim that it needs to be "more nuanced"?
Let me try to spell it out: It needs to be thrown completely away. It is not a question of nuance. It is getting it completely wrong.
Re: "However, the primary, consensus, most-recognized definition of atheism, which should come first in the article, is belief in the non-existence of God.": So why does every single group of atheists say otherwise? Who are you to tell them that they don't understand their own philosophy?
Burden of proof is on you. Show me where you justify your claim. No, not a definition pulled out of a philosopher's behind. You need to show me that ATHEISTS claim that atheism is "belief in the non-existence of god."
After all, we're talking about the definition of "atheism," not the definition of "lack of belief." Do you truly not understand this?
When the overwhelming majority of ATHEISTS tell you that your insistence that they "belief in the non-existence of god" is nothing but a load of crap, where do you get off telling them that they're wrong?
Re: "Examples aren't sufficient, unless a group of examples (i.e. a survey) can be shown through demographical information to accurately reflect a cross-section of those with a 'lack of belief'.": Oh, my lord...here we go again. Once again, you've got the arrow backwards. "Lack of belief"? Who cares? We're not looking for a definition of "lack of belief." We're looking for a defintion of "atheism." Do you truly not understand this?
And the FFRF did exactly that (surveyed atheists to find what they thought, that is). Your only complaint is that you don't like their conclusion. The burden of proof is now upon you to provide a representative survey of atheists (not philosophers and not those who "lack belief") that concludes atheism to be primarily "belief of lack."
Re: "You seem to be relying on anecdotal evidence.": Hah! I'm the one documenting my sources. You haven't even provided one. Where is your representative survey of ATHEISTS that says that they "believe in the non-existence of god"? Burden of proof is on you. I've already shown you the surveys of atheists that say they "lack belief." Your only complaint is that you don't like that conclusion. Thus, it is now your responsibility to show us where ATHEISTS' say they "believe in lack."
Hop to it. --Rrhain 03:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: "no, the main body of the 'distinctions' section defines atheism differently from the rest of the article, because this definition helps to draw distinctions.": Yes, but that means that the lede needs to use the definition that applies to the largest number of atheists. Since "lack of belief" is the definition that covers the most number of atheists (both the trivial "implicit" atheists and the vast majority of those who call themselves "atheists"), then that means "lack of belief" should be the primary definition of atheism.
Why is this so difficult to accept?
Re: "I was saying that the decision to use the 'lack of belief' definition in that section of the article has no relevance to the question of what the most-commonly accepted, accurate, or primary definition is.": (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? The definition that covers the largest number of people who could conceivably be called "atheists" has no relevance to the question of what the most commonly accepted, accurate, or primary definition is? The fact that you can't even find an example of an atheist who says, "I believe god doesn't exist rather than having a lack of belief in god," doesn't tell you something?
Re: "This little survey you're proposing is just impossible": Except that it's already been carried out. Therefore, your claim that it is impossible is trivially proven false by simple inspection. You are once again making the error of reversing the arrow of implication. All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. You want to start with "lack of belief" and then demand of me that I prove that everyone who would say, "I have a lack of belief," would then say, "I am an atheist."
But that is completely backwards. We aren't trying to define "lack of belief." We are trying to define ATHEISM. The name of the article isn't "Lack of Belief." The name of the article is ATHEISM. Therefore, all we have to do is survey atheists and ask them, "Do you believe god doesn't exist or would you say that you have a lack of belief in the existence of god?" If more people say the latter than the former, then that's the primary definition of atheism.
Do you truly not understand this?
Re: "this would entail a survey of children": Children aren't atheists, really. The "philosophical" claim of "implicit atheism" is nothing more than navel gazing. Atheism requires active philosophical activity to conclude that the concept of god is invalid. If that action hasn't taken place due to ignorance or incapacity, then the individual is not an "atheist." "Non-theist," perhaps, but not "atheist."
Re: "people who have never heard of atheism before": Such people aren't atheists, really. The "philosophical" claim of "implicit atheism" is nothing more than navel gazing. Atheism requires active philosophical activity to conclude that the concept of god is invalid. If that action hasn't taken place due to ignorance or incapacity, then the individual is not an "atheist." "Non-theist," perhaps, but not "atheist."
Re: "people who have never heard of God or religion before": Such people aren't atheists, really. The "philosophical" claim of "implicit atheism" is nothing more than navel gazing. Atheism requires active philosophical activity to conclude that the concept of god is invalid. If that action hasn't taken place due to ignorance or incapacity, then the individual is not an "atheist." "Non-theist," perhaps, but not "atheist."
Re: "people who have spiritual beliefs but who lack the specific belief in a deity you're referring to": Such people are called "Buddhists" and aren't atheists. Unless you're trying to be cute and say that we should call people who don't believe in Zeus an "atheist." In such a case, everybody is an atheist and the term loses all meaning.
Re: "And you're saying that a survey of FFRF, Infidels.org, and American Atheists is representative of this group?": Of the FFRF? Yes. That's what they do: They survey atheists. Of Infidels.org? To an extent. It is written by atheists for atheists and cannot be ignored. American Atheists? Hard to say. It became a cult of personality toward O'Haire.
But compared to the evidence that you're presenting? They are infinitely more valid than yours for they are surveys of actual atheists. Since you don't have any evidence written by atheists that claims atheism is "belief of lack," we are left only with the writings of atheists; all of which so far have said that atheism is "lack of belief."
Just one. That's all I'm asking of you. A single reference written by atheists that says the primary definition of atheism is "belief of lack" and not "lack of belief."
Re: "are you claiming that 'active, conscious, outspoken nonbelievers have the right of self-definition' or are you claiming that 'people with a lack of belief have a right of self-definition',": Neither, and that is why we keep going around and around the merry-go-round. Once again, you have the arrow of implication backwards. You keep trying to start with the definition of "lack of belief" and then try to find some label that will apply to it.
What I am claiming is that the community of ATHEISTS has the right of self-definition. If the community of atheists says that they lack belief, then that is what atheism is, primarily.
Re: "Good point... and you are including this group of people under the descriptor 'those with a lack of belief in god'." Incorrect. You are. I have been telling you over and over again that you're going about it backwards. All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. There are lots of ways to lack belief, but not all of them are atheism.
But, we are not trying to define "lack of belief." We are trying to define ATHEISM! Therefore, who cares about the myriad ways one can lack belief? It is completely irrelevant. The fact that you're stuck on it indicates you truly do not understand the entire point of an article titled "Atheism."
Re: "Sure, that may be one common characteristic, but in order to want to claim the title of 'atheist', they must also believe something": (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? That violates the entire point of lacking belief! If you believe in something, then you do not lack belief! This is basic logic: A and ~A cannot both be true.
Re: "for instance that religion is a sham": Huh? What on earth does that have to do with god? You do remember that we're talking about belief in god or lack thereof, yes? What on earth does "religion is a sham" have to do with anything? Logical error: Red herring.
Re: "or that lacking a belief in God is a good way to live.": Huh? What on earth does that have to do with god? You do remember that we're talking about belief in god or lack thereof, yes? What on earth does "good way to live" have to dow ith anything? Logical error: Red herring.
Re: "Their common characteristic is not a sufficient characteristic.": (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? The common characteristic shared by the overwhelming majority of atheists is not sufficient to characterize atheists?
Re: "People with no thoughts on the matter do not claim the title of atheist.": That's because they're not atheists! We've been through this already. "Implicit atheism" is nothing more than philosophical self-justification, amounting to no more than coming up with a label for the trivial case. Infants aren't atheists. Animals aren't atheists. Inanimate objects aren't atheists. Theoretical people who have grown up on a desert island with absolutely no contact with any other human aren't atheists. They have not carried out the philosophical activity required to come to a conclusion that the concept of god is invalid either because they are unaware of the concept of god, incapable of engaging in philosophical activity, or have no mind to speak of.
None of that is atheism.
Re: "My primary point is that, if the definition is 'lack of belief' there is no practical way to ask that group": But we already have! We asked the atheists, they said it was "lack of belief," so where do you get off saying that we can't ask the group?
Wait a minute...you're back on this kick of starting with "lack of belief" and then demanding that I prove everybody who has a "lack of belief" would definitively claim, "I am an atheist," aren't you? How many times do I have to spell it out for you before you remember it?
We aren't looking for a definition of "lack of belief." We are looking for a definition of ATHEISM! Do you truly not understand this? If you were looking for a definition of atheism, who on earth would you ask if not atheists?
I keep bringing this up, but you keep seeming to miss the point: All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. Let me see if I can clarify it. A square has all the properties of a rectangle. All rectangles are quadrilaterals and all squares are, too. All rectangles are equiangular and all squares are, too. All rectangles have two sets of parallel sides and all squares do, too.
But squares have properties that cannot be generalized to all rectangles. A square's two diagonals are equal, but not all rectangles have that property. The length of all sides of a square are equal, but not all rectangles have that property. Thus, while it is true that a square is a rectangle, it is not necessarily true that a rectangle is a square.
And thus it is with the relationship between atheism and lack of belief. Atheists have the properties of those who lack belief, but in addition they also have properties that not all those who lack belief do. If left to their own devices, those who lack belief will display no activities regarding a relationship with god. This is the same with atheists: If left to their own devices, they do not go around proclaiming their lack of belief. Unless you specifically introduce the concept of god, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between one who merely lacks belief and one who is an atheist.
But it's that introduction of the concept of god that does it: One who merely lacks belief will look at you quizzically when you say the word "god." They don't understand what you're talking about. An atheist, however, will simply tell you that god doesn't exist.
Squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
Atheists lack belief, but not all who lack belief are atheists.
That you keep insisting that I prove that all who lack belief are atheists shows you truly do not understand what the point of an article named "Atheism" is. We are looking for a definition of "atheism," not a definition of "lack of belief."
Re: "What you're saying (if I understand you correctly) is that 1. Atheists have a right to self-definition. I then say, 2. Okay, then how do atheists define themselves? You ask the group who use the label and they say, 3. Atheism means lack of belief. I then say, okay, well if atheists are people with a lack of belief, and they have a right to self-definition, then 4. Ask people with a lack of belief (atheists) how they define themselves.": Stop right there. You just tried to reverse the arrow. Step 4 is invalid. Notice how you have equivocated "atheism" with "lack of belief." Notice how you have tried to take the group of "atheists" and turn them into the group of "those who lack belief." You cannot do this.
All squares are rectangles. Not all rectangles are squares.
1) Squares have a definition.
2) Okay, what is that definition?
3) It is being a special kind of rectangle.
4) So let's define rectangles (which are all squares)....
Do you see the error there in step 4? All squares are rectangles. Not all rectangles are squares. It is logically invalid to go from square to rectangle and then expect to be able to return back to square. Atheists lack belief. Not all who lack belief are atheists. It is logically invalid to go from atheists to those who lack belief and then expect to be able to return back to atheists.
Atheists are a special kind of people who lack belief.
Re: "You are unable to do this.": Because I don't have to. It is irrelevant. We're not talking about the group of people who lack belief. We are talking about ATHEISTS. The name of the article is "Atheism," not "Lack of Belief."
Re: "The only people you are asking are people who have thought about the question and have rejected theism.": Precisely. They're the only atheists around. Merely lacking belief is not enough to be called "atheism." "Implicit atheism" is nothing but a triviality.
Re: "Well, if atheism is lack of belief, then I think we ARE talking about all people who lack belief.": Yes, but not the entire group of people who lack belief. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
Re: "FFRF is based on the idea of keeping religion out of government. They oppose religion in government.": How does that make them "anti-religion" or "anti-theist"? Are you saying that the Constitution is "anti-religion"? After all, the Constitution makes it explicitly clear that no religious test shall ever be required for public office. How is that "anti-religion" or "anti-theist"?
Re: "Infidels.org's slogan is 'Culture jamming theistic memes since 1995'. They are obviously anti-theistic." (*chuckle*) You really haven't read their site, have you? Does the term sarcasm mean anything to you? What about satire? Hyperbole?
Oh, and if arguing against the existence of god is "anti-theism," then all religion is by definition "anti-atheism." This makes the term meaningless. You are converting a difference of opinion into bigotry.
I'm still waiting for your reference. Just one. That's all I am asking for. Just one reference written by atheists that says atheism is "belief of lack" rather than "lack of belief." Since you don't have any, how can you possibly refuse to accept the references I have provided that were written by atheists who claim it is "lack of belief"? --Rrhain 07:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate image

Please do not add duplicate images to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Mitt Romney. Ward3001 22:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subdivisions of Martinique

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Subdivisions of Martinique, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Kiwipete 08:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obscure?

Hi,

I accept that you won't want the link to Lifetut in the Global Warming page. But... why did you define Lifetut "obscure"? Did you have a look at it?

Bye,

Merc.

[edit] Notability of Lisa Bjergaard

A tag has been placed on Lisa Bjergaard, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, 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 assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. 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.

In addition, please read WP:BLP. Such allegations that you made in the article cannot stay there unless you provide reliable sources to verify them. Corvus cornix 22:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Got it!

Hi,

Got your message in my talk page. Thanks a lot...!

Merc.

[edit] watch the reverts please

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Athiesm. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. .. Cheers, Debivort 22:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Marching band

You're Invited!! Based on your Wikipedia contributions, you may want to consider joining WikiProject Marching band. More information can be found on the project page. We hope you'll join us!


.

--Littledrummrboy 23:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


Johnpseudo, I notice you added the Marching Band box to your user page. The one you have is the infobox (for use on article's talk pages) rather than the userbox. You'll probably want swap it for {{User WikiProject Marching band}}. The main page for the project was a bit confusing so I made the same mistake. --Wordbuilder 20:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hmmmm

Regarding this edit [4]. What exactly do you think is the matter at hand? The article is entitled Global warming, is not information pertaining to it's creation relevant, or are you just pushing the anti humanist agenda.Prester John 22:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The scope of the Global warming includes as you say "agricultural sources of global warming". Why would it need to be under a different article? That last sentence doesn't make any logical sense, sorry.Prester John 23:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just so you are aware...

I have "borrowed" a couple of your userboxes. I'm not sure if I've done it the right way. Are there any "links" showing your username I can add instead of the whole text? Let me know if that's ok. Thanks! Tanyawade 17:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clear Lake HS

Those unreferenced tags are for different sections.

Let's look at the language of the two:

This article does not cite any references or sources.

  • This is clearly not true, as some sections have sources. On the other hand:

This section does not cite any references or sources.

  • Several sections in CLHS do this, but some have sources.

WhisperToMe 00:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United States housing bubble, featured article candidate, 28 June 2007

Please take a moment to enter your thoughts for this article as featured at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#United_States_housing_bubble. Frothy 13:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archived British Mensa Magazines

Unfortunately I don't have access to archived magazines in general but if there is something specific you are looking for perhaps I can help. What is your interest in British Mensa magazines? Matthew 19:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mensa removal

Hi! Why did you remove the second part of that paragraph, the Argyle part? I don't think the consensus is that that is unreliable. Debivort 16:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries, nice to see it back. Debivort 16:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project Vote Smart

Mr. Psuedo:

I recieved your message about the changes to the Project Vote Smart article, though I did not make them. I was not logged into Wikipedia at the time I recieved the message; so I presume that it was done by someone at this IP address. This ordinarily would not interest me, but I am at Project Vote Smart's Great Divide Ranch for the summer, which means it was one of our people (logically) that made the change. Your addition to the article concerning Mr. Kimball's compensation package was factually correct but misleading. Project Vote Smart's form 990 for 2006 indicates, in an attachment, that the board authorized a one-time bonus of $400,000 for Mr. Kimball. I was not around at that time, so I do not know what happened at the 2006 board meeting. Mr. Kimball's salary, as far as I am able to determine, is in the range of $117,000 per annum. If you have any further concerns, please contact me at slartibartfast at mailinator.com, from where I will be able to communicate with you via my real e-mail address (spam, you know). While I am affiliated with Project Vote Smart, I do not speak for them and all opinions I have expressed are my own, and I do not wish to tell you one way or the other whether a form of that information should be on Wikipedia.

--cuiusquemodi 03:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

Good job on the Agriculture in China article. It looks very polished. I'll contribute a bit, since I did to the History of agriculture article.--PericlesofAthens 18:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I just made some additions and added citations.--PericlesofAthens 19:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposed: ValueRx → Express Scripts Incorporated

It has been proposed to merge the content of ValueRx into Express Scripts Incorporated. Since you have previously edited one of these articles, I thought you might be interested. You're welcome to participate in the discussion if you like. --B. Wolterding 13:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Re: Mena

Sorry to take so long to get back to you. Yes, I am, I took an entrance test a few years back and was accepted. Stefano Magliocco 00:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of nontheists AfD

Hello Johnpseudo! I am RS1900. How are you? I would like you to reconsider your position on AfD for Nontheism and List of nontheists. Recently, List of Christians was deleted. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christians (2nd nomination). I think we should delete unencyclopedic articles and lists from Wikipedia. And, if you don't agree with me, no problem. Thank you. RS1900 02:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

== Undoing my addition? ==

I've recently changed the page concering young earth creationists. With what right do you think you could remove referenced material? This was a good addition. Could you email me if you want to change anything to my story or at least have the courtisy to email me after you change anything?? I'm reinstating my article and expecting a message from you if and to what you don't agree on! I will report you if you think you can just change or delete anything you want without any good reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris g79 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Young earth creationists

"I reverted your edit because you gave no source for your addition"

As you can see, Yecs are a group of fundamentalists. Fundamentalists is a protestant word evolved after 1860. when the beliefs that the earth became into being by chance and nothing and a very great bit of luck obliterated beliefs of millions and millions of christians around the globe. Things like the gap theory evolved. It refers to beliefs that the bible is the unfailing word of god, in which everything is to be taken literraly and in acount of this view most texts are to be unchallenged and not prone to error like any human works. I have a very good reference, namely the bible. genesis 3:14-19. If you could think of any source less prone to error then please tell me. But i strongly believe that when 10 people in a chain hear a story then the last of them will tell you an entirely different story. This is also the case with biblical explanation. If i referr to biblical text it is as good a source, if not better than any CSE book or website. So the source is the book that made christianity happen, if thats enough source for you... Could you please reconsider deleting it. Because it is a very good piece of text, lending insight in whats realy going on with YECs. I'd realy say, if you challenge my addition, your realy challenging all the texts because i'm just adding up the odds. of the above text clearing the view to the biblical explanation which is not scoffing like the above text which calls death and decay a miracle of god instead of the scriptural curse.

3:14 The Lord God said to the serpent, 36

“Because you have done this,

cursed 37 are you above all the wild beasts

and all the living creatures of the field!

On your belly you will crawl 38

and dust you will eat 39 all the days of your life.

3:15 And I will put hostility 40 between you and the woman

and between your offspring and her offspring; 41

her offspring will attack 42 your head,

and 43 you 44 will attack her offspring’s heel.” 45

3:16 To the woman he said,

“I will greatly increase 46 your labor pains; 47

with pain you will give birth to children. You will want to control your husband, 48

but he will dominate 49 you.”

3:17 But to Adam 50 he said,

“Because you obeyed 51 your wife

and ate from the tree about which I commanded you,

‘You must not eat from it,’

cursed is the ground 52 thanks to you; 53

in painful toil you will eat 54 of it all the days of your life.

3:18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, but you will eat the grain 55 of the field.

3:19 By the sweat of your brow 56 you will eat food

until you return to the ground, 57

for out of it you were taken;


Convinced???

If you would know how to reference my addition to this text, then please help me, as it is one of my first additions to wiki. And don't give me the personal view or self proclaimed science stuff. this is as close to the account as you will ever get. If you want me to find some YECs or anothers writings then those 2 people differ in view already. So there are no real Yecs or fundamentalists. Every single human being must learn. And all children fantasize about what and how they became living and breathign and what caused all this. Even christians. And people giving their faith without holding back. fundamentalists or more defined Yecs too. If you ever want to see a more liable source then the bible. its "the source" of which all biblical teachings come.. Chris g79 (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your views

I believe you made your views very clearly. Jibber and jabber. since that jibber and jabber is accountable information which can be traced to a reliable source. Which clearly you fail to see. I'll sleep over this and find my own way and reference this text tomorrow as it is in history. And i'm sorry if you feel offended by my writings, but i took you for someone who reads articles out of interest and not out of desire to obscure and obstruct intelligence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris g79 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock-auto request

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 199.64.0.252 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Mangojuicetalk 18:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Liberty Dollar

You added an "out-of-date template" to Liberty Dollar. Could you post a note on the talk page explaining how it needs to be updated? I took a look on Google News and didn't see any significant new stories recently. If you're aware of something let us know so we can fix it. Thanks, ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move of article

I've moved the article from Energy policy of the United States to Energy policy in the United States. If you disagree, let me know, and if consensus is against me, I'll move it back myself. Thanks! I'm trying to make all the US policy pages consistent, and eventually make a "US policy" template to include monetary, foreign, fiscal, agricultural, social, etc... johnpseudo 16:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please move it back immediately. See Category:Energy policy by country. Energy policy "in" the United States is a very poor name. I can sort of see what you were thinking of when I look at Template:United States topics, but bear in mind that you have individual activity such as agriculture, politics, etc. "in" a country, but governmental decisions (i.e. policy) "of" a country. 199.125.109.52 (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obama Reversions and Consensus

John, there is a discussion on my talk page and on scjessey's talk page. He continues to remove material without justification. He falsely says that it has already been discussed and to "take note of the overwhelming consensus against the stuff" I posted. This is false, as Obama made the comment about his grandmother yesterday, which I simply quoted on the page. It was also false when two days ago he removed new material without suggesting any substitution.

Wikipedia's consensus policy states: "Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject." Consensus does not come from simply deleting entire subjects with which he disagrees. The policy also states that "refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice." An editor who removes material violates the consensus policy by doing so without suggesting either a revision or offering an explanation why the material is not relevant to the article.

Jwvoiland (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)jwvoiland

[edit] Good job

The Society Barnstar
Great job on keeping the Bush econ policy article NPOV and reverting the unwarranted removal of relevant and sourced information. Signaturebrendel 06:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


I think its deserving of a barnstar! - I chose the society barnstar since economics is a social science (I also thought about the copyeditors star, but this seemed more appropriate. Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barack Obama

Are you going to remove the website from all the other senator's infoboxes or just his? This is not controversial on any other page. Please stop.--Dr who1975 (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You realize user:Scjessey said he made a mistake on my talk page and that he didn't mean to revert it. Did you revert it just because Scjessey called it silly in his edit summary?--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your response.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wright, take 382

I've worked on a new version of the Wright paragraph in Barack Obama, and I'd be interested in your thoughts at Talk:Barack Obama#New attempt by Josiah. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fugitive

way to beat me to fixing that! yEvb0 (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Your userboxes have shown remarkable self-contradiction. You are pro-choice, yet you believe the death penalty should never be used? I assure you, good sir, that abortion is the death penalty to unborn fetuses. Also, one cannot be atheist and agnostic at the same time. If you are atheist, then you believe there is no deity and therefore you cannot think there is a god "somewhere out there" like the agnostics do.

I would love to stay and say more but the warden is getting out the belt.

Love, T. McVeigh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.139.44.161 (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] United States presidential election, 2008

An honest mistake on my part. These sudden changes among the super-delegates are difficult to keep up with. PS- Just curious - Why does CNN continue to claim 2,025 as the 'magic number' for the Dems presidential nomination (thus claiming a total of 4,049)? GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The Clinton campaign prefers an even higher number (concerning Michigan & Florida). Interesting stuff, though. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Now, that would be interesting. The DNC breaking (I mean changing) its own rules. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revision Question

For the most part, I understand why you believed it was appropriate to remove the external link to BiobasedNews.com from the pages I posted them on, but I only posted them there because I thought they were relevant in the context. What I probably should have done was to follow the link with an explanation of what the site is, which is definitely not obvious just from the site's name. BiobasedNews.com is a database for business-related information on biofuels, new crops, biobased products, and industrial biotechnology in the United States. It has been, in the past, a very helpful resource for students and small business start-ups, providing press releases from companies involved in the field, government sources, and media outlets.

If it is properly labeled, so that users know what it is, I feel like it would be a great addition to pages such as biofuels, biomass, bioenergy, industrial biotechnology, etc.

Let me know what you think about this.

Acschwim (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)