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 38 Kudos and comment 39 Thanks 40 So is that a Keep for the 747 argument then? 41 Humor and Boeing gambit 42 Gambits 43 re:747 argument 44 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit 2 and AfD tactics 45 Your list - AfD 46 DYK 46.1 March 2007 47 My complaints about your behaviour 47.1 Reasonable criticism 48 Unrebuttable rebuttal :) 49 Very disappointed... 50 H. Allen Orr -- procedural quibbles??? 51 About your Current Dispute 52 Nicholas Beale 53 Martin Beale 54 Consensus! 55 Question 56 WP Christianity 57 Regarding the recent AfD 57.1 Summary of present situation 58 Debrett's 59 AfD 60 Start-class 61 Comment 62 So you are a sailor 63 FA review 64 Epigenetics 65 Atheism criticism, suggestions? 66 God doesn't exist 67 "Facing the truth" and reverting 68 Darwin's Angel 69 Leave Derek Parfit alone 70 MATT RIDLEY: correction 71 Northern Rock 72 An application of BIO 73 AfD nomination of James W. Sire 74 Preserving Wikipedia's reputation 75 WikiProject Christianity Newsletter

[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)

[edit] Kudos and comment

Kudos on starting the McGrath book articles - he has written so much that is notable. I noticed that in Category:Non-fiction books there are sub-cats Religious studies books, and under that a number of sub cats, one of which is Christian studies books. There is, however, no Theology books sub-cat. Do you think Theology books should be a sub cat seperate from Christian studies, or do you think there would be insufficient support for that cat? It seems to me that Theology books would be a more accurate cat than Christian studies for some books. I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 06:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi KC - thank you. There are things we don't agree on, but collaboration across these differences of views/background etc.. is what makes Wikipedia great. Yes I think theology should be a separate cat - that is what is taught at universities not "Christian Studies", and of course there is non-Christian theology of various kinds as well. BTW do you think we have reached a keep consensus on the AfD Debate yet? NBeale 06:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Its beginning to look that way, especially as you've been editing down the summary a bit, and a few sources are starting to appear, which were my two main concerns. I'm not sure what the end result will be, but if its keep we will need to expand the non-summary part of the article, which is doable now that there are a few sources. If it is a keep, I hope for a good bit more in the sourcing department, because two of the three found in the newssearch are Christian sources and as such of course biased in favor, which will hardly help in NPOV. I notice the Belfast Telegraph article is in External links, not being used as a source yet - are you planning to do so? And apologies if this post is a little run-on and unclear, I'm sick and sleep-deprived (only common cold, but stuffy and cannot sleep.) So let me know if I'm unclear anywhere and I'll try to make more sense.

So make a new cat? Or discuss on talk of Religious studies, or one of the projects? I'm not sure the best way to proceed with this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 06:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Know how you feel - have had annoying cold for nearly 2 weeks playing havoc with my marathon training :-(. I'm inclined to wait for a few more sources to appear and some reviews, and then do a balanced reviews section. Re the Cat, u r a much more experienced WP person than I am so I'd follow your judgement, but my inclination would be to make a separate category. The idea that there are theology books is hardly controversial: whether or not God exists the idea of God certainly does! NBeale 06:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sympathies on the cold. Its going around I think. I agree with the wait and rewrite, sensible approach. Regarding the experience: Yes, but this is more your field. I tend to watch controversial articles and weigh in when it appears things are getting unbalanced, or hostile - and of course I warn and block POV vandals, you know the ones who change the God article to a redirect to something derogatory, or replace Abortion with MURDER (somehow its always in all caps.) I'm really an NPOV warrior and a CON warrior more than anything. I know more about some subjects than others, but not Theology. I can ping some other editors, get input. I'm leaning towards Christian theology books, sub-cat of Religious studies, but as I said, others may have different views and I'd prefer wider input. Its a real PITA to rename a cat. KillerChihuahua^?!? 07:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I went with the simple route - the idea has been posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity#Request for input (new cat?) so if you wish to add your input or if anyone else comes to mind who might be able to give valuable perspective on this, point them there so we have the discussion in one place. Thanks! KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much for your kind prayer on my talk page - that was much appreciated. I'm semi-back now, barring relapse or something else interfering, and find that we have as yet received no feedback on our proposed new Cat. I've pinged them again, and suggest if we don't hear anything this time we just Be Bold and Do It. Concur? KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks very much for your kind words and gently-put suggestions. You have a way with words.<3
I started out trying to edit just one section each morning, with the idea that the overall structure of the piece was as it should stay. As I finished each section I put up the Copy Edit template in the Discussion page to summon a proof-reader to check me...now I look back and am embarrassed by how those big boxes stick out...I don't see a Proof Reader anywhere on the horizon either. Underneath each of the Copy Edit templates I tried to account for what I had done that day but found that was much too vague for the other users, who were noticing changes and sometimes becoming unsettled. One user wiped out fifteen paragraphs' worth of commas, for pete's sake, when s/he put back in a single word s/he disagreed with me on by using Revert To rather than just typing the pet word back in. ACK! And Arrgghh!
So it's my current philosophy to make my work transparent - I save often to avoid edit conflicts, and religiously explain exactly what I've done (and why) in the Edit summary box. The suspicious can scan the list on the History, to see if an edit was just a comma or italics for a book title, or if Otterpops was getting political and needs some disciplining. :) The "Albert Einstein" copy edit is indeed a race to burnout, but I'm almost done with the job I took on there, and when I've finished I'm going to summon the Proof Reader (once and for all) and move on. "Albert Einstein" will not be on my watchlist.
All that I've learned will go with me, however, and if you find that you have the time to check in on me now and then, see how I'm doing on future articles, I'd really like getting your more-seasoned advice and feedback.
~ Otterpops 20:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you guys call for a copy editor? Oh no. Has there been some mistake? ~ Otterpops 16:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It was probably partly a mistake: User:Rayis added the {{copyedit}} tag to “Nature Paper” section on 27 February, probably intending to refer only to that section. But the whole article needed copy editing as is shown by the fact that since its demotion from Featured Article status little was done to improve it. User:Otterpops has done a generally good job with it—although some of her changes needed to be reverted. (Often the reversions occurred where the original text was ambiguous, and she made an unambiguously wrong interpretation—thereby pointing out the ambiguity.) Originally I too thought that she was going too fast, but now I see that a slower pace would only draw out the pain: She has been copy-editing for two weeks now; at a slower pace it would have been months. Inasmuch as the page is semi-protected, there are no bad-faith edits, and it is not urgent to review every change. --teb728 23:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So is that a Keep for the 747 argument then?

Hi RJH. I note your comment - I infer that this means you'd vote keep but for the record it'd be great if you stated this. Thanks NBeale 21:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope it's just a comment. Effectively I was undecided, so I left the preference for others to choose. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Humor and Boeing gambit

Well, it is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia, not uncyclopedia.JoshuaZ 23:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gambits

You are reverted by 4 separate editors on the redirect and squeal "its not fair - lets have an afd to see what others think". I waste my time fiddling with templates to do it the legit way that you asked for so that other editors could comment and you regard this as unbecoming stealth behaviour???? I haven't queried anyone's comments on the AfD - all I have done is respond to your comments on my vote and point to links in a neutral way. I have not rallied the troops [15], messaged admins [16] or tried to get policy changed to suit may agenda [17].

You cannot have this article both ways - it is either about this phrase or more general in which case it should be redirected or merged. If it is about this phrase then NPOV means it MUST be presented in the authors own words - how is that making the article worse? Trying to get me banned from the article is a new low point in your editing career.

As for losing on the AfD - I never considered it in those terms or canvassed votes to bolster my "side"[18]. I have also never colluded with anyone else to avoid 3RR [19]. Rather than accusing someone else of disruptive editing you should be taking the plank out of your own eye. Sophia 23:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well spotted, Sophia! This is amazingly sneaky behaviour by NBeale. Snalwibma 23:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re:747 argument

I have great respect for Polkinghorn & his work, and am glad to see editors on WP interested in contructive theist arguments in the field of the philosophy of religion. However, neither that fact, nor your your on Prof Polkinghorn's website, make me want to reconsider my vote on the AfD. Indeed, your involvement with Polkinghorn and his web presence - and especially your involvement in Polkinghorn's debate in the public sphere with Dawkins, make me wonder if perhaps you have the sort of significant conflict of interest that ought to give you much more caution when editing articles like this.
Neither does the fact that others have used this theory as a point of criticism against Dawkins sway my argument. My vote was not based on my own religious beliefs, or my opposition (or support for that matter) of Dawkins. They were based on the merits of the topic -- I believe it is better suited to fit within the article on the book itself. That some have set this argument up as a straw man in effigy of Dawkins does not make this notable enough - for me - to spin it off into its own article outside of the book.
In closing, I don't know that contacting editors who vote in a way you disagree with in order to change their vote is in accord with the policies of WP. At the very least it is unseemly, and combined with your comments about other editors (instead of the topics in question) it reflects poorly on the very things you stand for. -- Pastordavid 02:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• NBeale - please engage in the discussion at Talk:Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit, and do not just keep reverting carefully considered and well-argued edits. Also, please stop scattering baseless personal attacks, in which you make wholly unwarranted assumptions about my motives, in your edit summaries, on the AfD discussion, and on numerous other people's talk pages. Snalwibma 22:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit 2 and AfD tactics

Congrats on the keep. While I agree with you on the merit of the article (and voted so in the AfD), I think it may be worth reconsidering tactics in the event of future AfDs. I know how instinctive it is to become defensive when an article of yours comes under AfD (not unlike a cornered mongoose), and I've reacted the same way as you did many times. I'm finding that taking a deep breath, waiting a minute or two, trying to address possible issues, and trying to find a middle ground may be more effective approaches to "winning" an AfD. Now that it's over, reread the discussion flow in the AfD and talk pages and reconsider the benefit of alternative approaches. Ive been guilty of the same myself and I hope this helps keep your blood pressure down. Alansohn 04:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your wise words. One should try not to loose one's cool! NBeale 07:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your list - AfD

I've nominated your list for AfD; letting you know as a courtesy. We'll get the community's wisdom on such a list, no doubt. Cheers. Metamagician3000 11:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that the AfD is almost certain to succeed, and given your view and mine that the information is encyclopedic, there should be some alternative way to do this that people will accept. Too late at night to think of any, right now. DGG 08:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't dispair of reason prevailing, but I agree it's worth considering a plan b in case it doesn't. NBeale 08:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still torn between delete and keep but I've added quite a few who support humanism so I guess one side effect of this AfD has been to highlight some missing articles on some FRS so thanks in order I guess. I'm still with delete as I do not think "atheist" or "humanist" to be religious stances per se but whilst we're forced to group these disparate views in this way I might as well add supporters of humanism. I do not see why dead people are excluded. Their stance remains as valid today as it did a few years ago. Ttiotsw 11:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 24 March 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article International Society for Science and Religion, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 12:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Unfortunately, an article you recently created, Ernan McMullin, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Real96 06:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I responded to this bizzaire action on Real96's talk page and in the article!! NBeale 07:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My complaints about your behaviour

Hello, NBeale! First I should of course state the various ways in which I value your contribution.

1. You do cite your sources, I thank you for doing so.
2. Your edits often serve to balance mine and other editors, for example here you balanced my take on Shermer's review, and sometimes I get the good feeling that we are complementing each other to reach a more neutral presentation.
3. You have created many articles that are relevant and helpful.

I think your dedication to presenting the theist view is highly valuable, especially when it is used in the right place. However, I feel you waste your own time and much of our time by focusing on quantity instead of quality. Here are the various points that upset me.

1. Your create articles with a heavy bias, often based on original research and synthesis of sources, and you aren't very subtle about the POV-pushing either. Then you essentially dump sources without using them to elaborate the article, the sources aren't that helpful to the reader, but essentially only serve establish notability and make the article survive an AfD, see this short discussion.
2. When we get upset at the many ways these articles violate Wikipedia's content policies, you accuse us of wanting to censor and suppress information. That is obviously not at all the case! Note that in rewriting your source dump at the 747 Gambit, I added the critical opinions of Graham Oppy and Richard Swinburne, because I find them relevant and interesting.
3. And this is what annoys me the most. You don't even bother with an honest attempt at creating a neutral article. It's as if you expect someone else to add the contrary views. If you are creating an article, then it is polite to try your very best to give a charitable presentation of the other side. Look at the external links section of the argument from nonbelief. I picked all those link myself (except the first one), it's basically 5 theist sources versus 2 atheist ones. And I'm also recommending a theist writer, Daniel Howard-Snyder, as a starting point to explore the argument because Schellenberg, who presented the argument, doesn't seem to have a web-page.

If you really want to refute Dawkins, then let's write interesting and high quality articles on the arguments for and against the existence of God to show that the philosophy of religion is an interesting topic. However, if you instead continue the, in my opinion, rather unchristian approach to refuting and attacking Richard Dawkins, I will request for comment on your behaviour. Thank you for listening, and I apologize for being harsh, but I (and some others) feel your energy is misdirected. --Merzul 22:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above, you edit in a way that generates work for other editors. 1Z 12:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I suppose creating any article generates work for other editors. Otherwise most of the "work" I generate - though not all - seems to be when other editors try to supress the carefully refed information that I add. To paraphrase Warren Buffett, if trying to get articles deleted (and reverting edits) isn't trying to supress information then what is it? You may say that you are justified in trying to supress the information but I don't see how it can be denied that this is what the people who push for this are trying to do. NBeale 12:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"Well I suppose creating any article generates work for other editors". Not to a major extent. It is possible to write in a balanced way". "if trying to get articles deleted (and reverting edits) isn't trying to suppress information then what is it?". Implementation of policies about POV, notability etc.1Z 12:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Those may or may not be good reasons for suppressing the information - but it doesn't alter the fact that this is suppressing information. The correct response to concerns about NPOV is to balance the article, not to delete it. NBeale 12:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

So your inclusionist stance would support categories such as {{cat:Christians who are murderers}} and {{cat:Ordained Christians who are paedophiles}}. Surely to ban these would be suppression? I personally would see it as pushing an agenda which is why I would vote to delete them. Would you revert a Hindu who has sources that consider Christianity to be polytheistic or would that be suppression? Let's tag the whole of Christianity as delusional using Dawkins as references - I hope you will support this inclusion of properly referenced facts. Sophia 17:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sophia. If it were a properly referenced fact that someone was a Christian and a Murderer I don't see how I or anyone else could reasonably object to a list of such people, though we might want to distinguish people who were converted after they committed a murder from the others. St Paul would presumably head the list! I think it's Muslims who suggest that Christianity is polytheistic and I would certainly not try to supress the fact that eg "Some Muslims suggest that Christianity is polytheistic" if it were refed, though it would probably be fair to add "although Christian Theologian affirm that The Trinity is one God" or that RD suggests that Christianity, along with any other theism is a delusion. I can't see any valid objection to including such information - though I would of course object to "RD demonstrates that ...." which would not be NPOV. NBeale 17:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The correct response to POV is to fix it yourself, or not do it in the first place.1Z 17:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi 1Z. It's NPOV to say "A suggests X" - we are not obliged to say "and B suggests not X" every time. The idea is that together we make WikiPedia better, not that each editor has to demonstrate perfection! NBeale 18:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You are obliged to make articles as NPOV as you can in the first place. The point is to be adequate not perfect. Most editors do not garner criticism the way you do.1Z 18:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi 1Z. I suggest you re-read WP:NPOV - as I just have - and you will see that this is a misunderstanding. we make the article balanced together - no individualt can be expected to balance the article all on their own. NBeale 18:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi NB. Have just come across this. Interesting to see these comments from you and others. Just one small contribution from me: I suggest you go to the dictionary and look up the word "together". I think it is generally taken to mean something more like pulling in the same direction, not in opposing directions in the fond hope that opposing forces will somehow create a balance. Maybe turn back a few pages and look up "cooperation" while you have the dictionary down, as well! I have also had an interesting time reading your blog, and have noted your canvassing of support against various AfDs, along with various frank admissions that you see WP as a medium for POV-pushing! ;-) Snalwibma 07:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Snalwibma. Glad you enjoy my Blog. Seems that we have another English Irregular Verb: "I have reasonable opinions, you push your POV, he is a Troll" :-) Please realise that everyone has points of view, and get over it! NBeale 08:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It is fine to have a POV, but I think you are going to far in pushing your POV in places where one must be more sensitive. The Richard Dawkins article should be a biography about a living person, that is, a person, who in spite of his deluded behaviour, the Christian religion teaches one should love and forgive. Do you not accept this? I think all our biographies need to be sensitive, kind and charitable in their treatment of the subject. They should not be a platform for attack, and a place to insert quotations that are insulting. --Merzul 10:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Merzul. I indeed love and (to the extent that he may have wronged me eg in making foolish remarks against my Lord and my fellow-Christians) forgive him. However this does not alter the fact that I consider some of his views profoundly mistaken and harmful and that it is doing a service to fellow-Wikipedia users to draw their attention to notable reasoned criticism of his views, so that they can make up their own minds on the basis of well-refed information. I hope that's OK with you? NBeale 11:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That's an admission of POV. Why not draw attention to both sides of the argument? 1Z 12:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi 1Z. We all have POVs (see above)! When I am writing a new article (like Argument from Love) I do of course try to give pros and cons. But in articles like Dawkins there is already massive representation of one side of the argument so it's a question of adding things that overall balance the article. NBeale 12:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasonable criticism

I more than welcome reasonable criticism of Dawkins's views, and were we to rely on Dawkins in our presentation of say God, then you are justified in throwing all the criticism in there, but I see some (certainly not all of your edits) as violating the spirit of our policies on the biographies of living people. I mean, what is the following?

The cultural theorist Charlie Gere suggests that: "It is extraordinary in this day and age that anyone can still believe in such a cruel, heartless and frankly improbable figure as Richard Dawkins...dictating to us what we should and should not believe"

A cruel, heartless and frankly improbable figure?? You call that notable and reasoned criticism of Dawkins's views? I think that's a malicious personal attack, and is in no way appropriate on a biography, no matter who the source is. --Merzul 12:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There was an element of irony here (D suggests that God is cruel, heartless and improbable) but irony sometimes gets lost in translation. I'm sure Gere didn't intend it as a personal attack, and nor did I: it's a philosophical point made with some wit that the tropes often used against God can be applied in other directions. NBeale 12:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of the context. Dawkins attack on an invisible being that only some people can sense is turned around into a very witty philosophical point, brilliant, and then it's okay to call him cruel and heartless, because he said that about the God as described in the old testament. In any case, this context is not lost in "translation", it is lost because you cut material from various sources without much care for how things fit together. --Merzul 13:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unrebuttable rebuttal :)

Good morning! Some good news, and some bad news about the argument from love.

• Good news: I removed the merge tags. Added argument from consciousness to Template:God Arguments. BTW, I think consciousness is more notable than love.
• Bad news: I posted an unrebuttable rebuttal about its validity.

At the very least, you have to admit it is dialectically awesome in exelcis, whatever that means. :) --Merzul 02:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Very disappointed...

I'm very disappointed that your refuse to accept the concerns raised at Talk:H. Allen Orr. --Merzul 18:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

NBeale please read WP:BLP and I warn you that problems of this type are taken very seriously by the foundation. If you continue to unbalance this article then an RfC will be needed to make sure we are not going to hit problems. Sophia 18:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

NBeale - I have just restored something closer to the consensus version of H. Allen Orr. Please discuss and propose what should be done before dumping great lumps of text back into the article. Snalwibma 07:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] H. Allen Orr -- procedural quibbles???

This is at the very core of my objection to your editing. And you call this procedural quibbles? The policies are there for a reason...

1. It's our obligation to do our absolute best in representing people's views, not just select the most biting personal attacks they have used. Please, take a disinterested look at what you have picked from Orr's review: every sentence is questioning Dawkins's ability to reason, none of it reflects Orr's extensive discussion and his justifications for disagreeing with Dawkins.
2. It should be obvious that a biography entry should at all time give a fair reflection of a person's notability. It is an unfair reflection of this man's contribution, if we were to dedicate an entire paragraph on his review of Dawkins, while just briefly mentioning his science output.

The only reason I have to cite policy is because you are reluctant in applying such intuitive criteria of what is fair and respectful. I find your fascination quite fascinating, given all that has been said on that page. --Merzul 10:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• NBeale - which bits of what people are saying to you do you not understand? Please, please, please discuss the way you think the H. Allen Orr article should go on its talk page. Snalwibma 11:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed, but I take back some of what I said above, NBeale's recent edits are much appreciated and are going in the right direction. This might not satisfy everyone, but this is a step in the right direction. --Merzul 11:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About your Current Dispute

Regarding the dispute that you are currently having with a few other editors, I wonder if you could please look at the following and let me know whether or not this would be something you would be willing to take part in. Thank you. -- Pastordavid 23:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi PD: This sounds good. What is a "mentor-editor" exactly. NBeale 07:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Good morning. I have added some more, explaining a little more clearly (I hope) what I mean. -- Pastordavid 15:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas Beale

Just assuming that this might be you, given the similarity between it and what you have said about yourself. If so, may I suggest that you not edit this article. When it comes to this sort of autobiography-writing/editing on Wikipedia, it is best to not only avoid impropriety, but to avoid all appearence of impropriety. -- Pastordavid 01:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify -- your edits appear to be pretty NPOV. It just has the appearence of being inappropriate (editing your own article), and is definitely a conflict of interest. Might I suggest only editing it to remove obvious vandalism. If errors in fact creep into the article, I would suggest letting other editors know (through the talk page), and let them fix it. -- Pastordavid 02:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes thank you this is helpful. The person who created it told me that it had been tagged as like a resume (understandable since the main source he used was Debretts) so I thought I should probably and with some trepidation flesh it out a bit, with great caution as per the guideline. But it would be best to sit back and let others (if they are so inclined - there are many many more interesting subjects) take it further. NBeale 06:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Nicholas, I wanted to apologize for my above moralizing comments. I noticed this article and commented on it. I see no serious problems with it, but I'm almost certain someone will AfD it unless you provide more third party sources, I think that's what the {{likeresume}} tag implies. In any case, I enjoyed reading it! --Merzul 14:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Beale

One editor has suggested that there ought to be an article about my late father. I am far from convinced that it would be appropriate for me to write one (:-)) but there is a fair amount of material (Times & Telegraph obits, Biographical Memoirs of the Royal Society etc..). I'm touched to see that Roderick Little in his 2005 Presidential Invited Address to the ASA listed him as one of his statistical mentors. NBeale 18:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct in trusting your gut and not starting this article. You may be interested in the following note that I left for Sophia in response to the maintainence tag on Nicholas Beale. I don't think you have done anything out of line on the article ... however, for future minor tweaks and references, leave a note with the info on the talk page, and let someone who is not the subject of the article make the change to the article itself. A blessed Easter to you. -- Pastordavid 17:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus!

Hi Merzul. You should not just delete a POV tag (as in Atheism) without discussion, you should discuss it and allow others to. Please undelete. Also I think you inadvertently put a "start class" tag on the Argument from love page, but we need an independent reviewer to do this, it shouldn't be done by someone working on the article. NBeale 16:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There is clear consensus for my edit: your edits were independently revert by other people before I removed the unjustified POV tag. Please read WP:CONSENSUS, regarding "start class", yes that was quite in the beginning, you can ask someone to reassess it now. --Merzul 16:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Since your POV-pushing drives me completely hostile, I have decided to completely step out of your ways, and let you do whatever you want on Wikipedia. Meaning I will not revert you on anywhere other than perhaps on argument from nonbelief, which I will now focus on. I'm not putting the tag back though, these tags are there to warn readers and draw attention to problems, but just like text on the page, they are subject to the consensus process, and you are welcome to put it back, and we could edit-war over it just like anything else. So feel free to put it back. But what is this "start class", I can't find it, which article are you talking about? --Merzul 19:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The Routledge Encyc. Phil. that you cite actually agrees with us. It says: "As commonly understood, atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. So an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God, whereas a theist is someone who believes in God. Another meaning of ‘atheism’ is simply nonbelief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God. These two different meanings are sometimes characterized as positive atheism (belief in the nonexistence of God) and negative atheism (lack of belief in the existence of God)."[20] Please respond at Talk:Atheism#POV Tag. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-16 20:31Z

Done NBeale 21:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Nicholas, I will tell you the same thing I would tell anyone in this situation: ignore it. Nothing good can come from making a big deal out of this -- not that it is right, I think it is out of line. However, it is best to just move on.

That said, I would make one other suggestion. Looking over how heated things seem to have remained, perhaps it would be helpful if you took a break from articles related to philosophy of religion and atheism. From time to time, it helps to get some perspective if one spends time working on projects less near and dear to them. Take a week, remove some of the most contentious articles from your watchlist, and find something esle to keep you busy on wikipedia - perhaps maintence like stub-sorting, copy-editing, or patrolling recent changes. I think you would find it very helpful. -- Pastordavid 22:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A further thought, just a general piece of editing advice. Your edits - both additions and removals - make very clear where your POV lies. I am not saying that you shouldn't have a POV - we all do, and I think it is best if we are open about what those are (which is a big part of why I use this particular user name). That said, I try to edit in such a way that a person could not tell my own biases just by my edits to articles. I have found myself supporting "positions" that were not my own on wikipedia - because the "position" was including well-documented information, my agreement with it was irrelevent. Just something to think about. -- Pastordavid 02:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Browsing your recent contributions, I am very happy with the work I see you doing -- especially your contributions to AfD discussions. Keep up the good work! -- Pastordavid 18:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas! Your behaviour on Talk:atheism is encouraging. I hope you will continue in this fashion by respecting consensus and making your case with good arguments. If you do, I will owe you a HUGE apology. For now, this is a tentative and cautious apology. --Merzul 21:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

How kind. Thanks. Together we can make WikiPedia better. Having different POVs and experiences is really helpful. NBeale 05:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, we have more similar POVs than you would imagine, most of our conflicts have been more due to my obsession with being right about policy at the expense of more important human values. My view is (as opposed to Dawkins) that the question of God's existence is a very difficult one. You and I have reached different conclusions, but I'm sure we both agree it is not such a simple decision as Dawkins implies. I believe that belief in God can be rational and justified, and is not a delusion. Indeed, if we work together and present the best case for and against God, we can show that this is an important question. I don't think we can convince anyone that God exists or doesn't exist, what we can do is convince people that it's a question worth taking very seriously. That's how you can refute Dawkins, not by arguing against him, which is precisely what he would want, but by ignoring him and focusing on atheist and theist philosophers who discuss religion seriously. --Merzul 17:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP Christianity

Hi, I saw your name on the WikiProject Christianity Membership page.

I've made some changes to the WP Christianity main project page, added several sup-project pages, created a few task forces section, and proposed several more possible changes so that we can really start making some serious progress on the project. Please stop by and see my comments on the project talk page here and consider joining a task force or helping out with improving and contributing to our sub-projects. Thanks for your time! Nswinton 14:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the recent AfD

Nicholas, I agree with you that the AfD closed a little too quickly. However, your recent actions regarding the AfD have pushed the limits of civility. (1) To demand that you be notified of the AfD is out of line. It would be a courtesy, not a requirement, to let you know. Many AfDs only have the original creator notified, not later contributors. It is certainly not what you want to make your main bone of contention in this issue. (2) Accusing the closing admins of sockpuppetry (diff)is no way to win friends (or garner support for your case).

It would have been enough for you to simply place your request at deletion review, and then leave it alone. The fact that it closed early would probably been enough to get the AfD relisted. Your campaigning to get the article back up, however, is likely to have the reverse effect. Sometimes, less is more. And, just as you shouldn't be the primary editor on your own article, you also should not be the one to campaign for its inclusion.

One last note, the 100 articles on your watchlist is a little low if anything (mine is currently 500, I trimmed it down yesterday). It suggests to me that perhaps you need to expand your editing activity. 100 articles is a very narrow focus for editing, and probably means that you are spending too much time with each article (leading to conflicts with other involved editors). Your average edits per article is 4.75, a fairly high number (compare to my overly low 1.4). Spread out some, get your hands in more articles. And learn to let go of the outcome - it is part of the wiki process that someone could very well come along behind you and totally change everything you just added.

Nicholas, you are a good editor, and you have a great deal to add to the wikipedia project. I hope you will learn to edit with more civility, and let go of the outcome some. In the end, the more you back off and just let these sorts of things happen as they will, the more likely it is that your additions will remain in the wiki and your opinion will be listened to. I apologize for the length of this note, and hope you will take it for what it is: friendly advice from another editor who wants to see you adding important information to wikipedia without conflict. -- Pastor David ^† _(Review) 17:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi PD. Thank you for your friendly advice. I certainly was not intending to accuse the closing admin of Sockpuppetry! (and am somewhat mystified as to how my question about their relationship could be so interpreted). Of course I cannot "demand" that policy be followed, but it seems reasonable to expect it. And I am a bit concerned that having taken a possibly excessively hands-off attitude to the article was part of the problem: the independent reviewer who rated it Start class said that there was not a problem about COI but the problem that the article was badly written, and it would have been quite easy to fix the concerns he raised which would I think then have left it clear of these rather unfair accusations. Ah well -let's see what happens. NBeale 05:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of present situation

At present the situation on the Deletion Review on Nicholas Beale seems to be as follows:

• The originator and I want the article relisted.
• 3¾ Editors all of whom have disagreed with me before on my edits (BRIAN0918, >Radiant<, Snalwibma and Sophia - although she seems to agree that the AfD should have been allowed to run its full course, hence the ¾) endorse the Delete.
• 7 Editors, including all the ones who haven't been involved with me at all, want the article relisted. I salute in particular Gnusmas who although he thinks the AfD should result in a delete, and we have disagreed before, agrees that it should be re-listed.

Any advice on what, if anything I should do (or any support that anyone felt able to give :-)) would be much appreciated. NBeale 17:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• My advice would be to refrain from further comment on the deletion review. Let it run its course, you have made your opinion known. As it stands right now, there is a pretty even split on the discussion, but it looks to be leaning toward relisting at AfD. When (if) the AfD come back up, simply post once your reasoning for keeping the article, rather than responding to every comment made by others. -- Pastor David ^† _(Review) 17:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well 9/4 I guess is encouraging, but I'm concerned that it will look like "no consensus" if people who have previously been kind enough to say that the article was notable (about which there can be a resonable debate) refrain from even saying whether it was deleted out of process (which seems very clear). However I do think if/when it gets relisted for AfD it is legitimate for me to follow the recommendations of the independent reviewer who rated it Start class and clean it up, whilst preserving NPoV. With hindsight I suspect that I should have done it earlier, and then the deletion wouldn't have happened. But of course there are many many more important things to do - even in WikiPedia! NBeale 19:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debrett's

If it's anything like Who's Who?, then it's basically a pay service for labelling yourself as notable. Who's Who is definitely not a reliable source, nor a be-all-end-all for determining notability. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-02 15:15Z

Hi Brian. There are, as you say, publications with names like "Who's Who in X" which what you suggest, the original Who's Who (UK) is definitely not a pay service. As the article explains: "Inclusion in Who's Who, unlike many other publications, has never involved any payment by the subject, or even any obligation to buy a copy. Inclusion has always been strictly regulated by prominence in public life or professional achievement." The same goes for Debretts. The main difference is that once you are in Who's Who you remain there for life, whereas Debretts is reviewed every year. NBeale 16:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Debrett's will put you on the list of possibly notable individuals, just as the Find-A-Grave list will. From there, it's up to us to individually decide who is and isn't notable enough for WP. That's the point of the AFD. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-02 16:34Z

So I think we are in complete agreement (on this): it is a reliable source, which is relevant to notability, but does not on its own confer it. I quite agree that the proper place to resolve notability (if contentious) is in an AfD debate and I am not at all agruing against having one, because I'm quite confident that if people look fairly at all the available information (eg Debretts, Patents, Harvard Business Review, Sunday Times, Prospect, Freeman of City of London, work with Royal Society, John Polkinghorne etc.. and the fact that it was independently rated as a Start Class Bio) it will not be deleted. The problem is that the AfD Debate was unfortunately closed prematurely so people didn't have a chance to consider all the relevant facts, many of which are on the article's Talk Page which is now inaccessible. Could we have a fair process on this please? NBeale 17:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Nicholas, just to make sure that you are aware, Nicholas Beale has been relisted at AfD - its entry is here. Pastor David ^† _(Review) 18:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Start-class

I'm afraid you may misunderstand the "start-class" rating. The class rating is based on a standard {{Grading scheme}}. "Start" basically means that the quality of the article is a little bit more than a stub (see the template linked above for the whole rating scheme; there are 4 "classes" that are higher than start). Having provided a rating or assessment to many, many articles, here is what I considered a start-class article: Has section divisions, maybe a picture ... but has serious problems with sourcing, POV, and not a great deal of info. Further, the "class" rating has nothing at all to do with notability. The more pertanent rating in that regard is the "priority" - a rating system of "top - high - mid - low" importance (the article in question has no importance/priority rating). I just wanted you to have a clear understanding of what that meant -- and if you have further questions about it please feel free to fire away, I have provided assessments for ... I don't know how many, but at least over 1,000 articles.

All that said, yes I will notify the editor who provided the assessment of the AfD - I think that would be appropriate. You were right to not do that yourself, as that would be perceived of canvassing. Pastor David ^† 22:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I spoke to soon. I should have looked first. The user who provided the assessment, Duribald was already notified, as he had voted on the first AfD. In fact, he has already voted on the 2nd AfD as well -- both votes to delete (as I said, "class" has nothing to do with notability). Pastor David ^† 22:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Your latest comment on the AfD was in very poor taste. Simply put - you are better than that. People have provided reasons for their objects to the article - people that you haven't interacted with before the AfD. The fact that you disagree with their conclusions does not mean that they are making decisions based on what they think of you personally. Reasonable people can look at the same evidence and draw different conclusions. Please don't resort to insulting comments like this. Pastor David ^† 14:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to prepare yourself for the fact that this will probably close as delete sometime today. My rough count is 10 delete, 3 Keep, and 1 each weak delete and weak keep. Taking out the obvious conflict of interest votes - people whom I know have - on the one side - been in edit conflicts with you, and - on the other side - have some off-wiki connection to you, I come up with about 6 deletes, 1 keep, and 1 weak keep.

I ask you to please consider you reaction, if it does in fact close this way. Realize that this is not a decision about you, but about the this article and its place in the encyclopedia. I hope that you will continue to find ways to constructively (and collaboratively) build the encyclopedia, and quickly put this whole incident behind you. Pastor David ^† 17:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this encouraging message. In fact every delete voter except -Andrew c, SR13, Duribald and Mais oui! has 'crossed swords' with me in the past. Interestingly all the "delete" voters conceal their identities behind pseudonyms. Andrew c did indeed give reasons, though I think that the hard work of John Vandenberg has addressed these, and I have asked whether he'd reconsider his vote, as he suggested he might. Probably too late I suspect. NBeale 18:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Technically people have not crossed swords with you but the community may have issues with your contributions to articles for whatever reasons (poor citations, 3RR, NPOV etc). The reason for using pseudonyms is obvious as it is not the person but what they are contributing that matters. Why would knowing the real name of the person matter ?. Does this add some kind of verisimilitude to what they say ? That is the wrong approach as it is not what you know on Wikipedia that counts but what you can verify. The problem with real names is the risk to family from some of the low-lifes on the Internet. I happily revert vandalism on subjects ranging from Zionism, Terrorism, Islam knowing that it is unlikely that I can be tracked back to where I live. You must have looked closely at the concept of identity in the online world and would know that on balance I trust that you are NBeale only so far and for instance I wouldn't countersign a digital key affirming that unless I was face-2-face with you and saw your UK Drivers license and Passport. On Wikipedia I could call myself anything; it does not mean I have ID to match that name. Therefore it is best to not really trust the Wikipedia name. Ttiotsw 20:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So you are a sailor

Thanks for your response on the BIO issue. I'm not satisfied with that section, but thought that your changes made it a bit more restrictive than necessary. Maybe we could collaborate a bit on a fix. Where do you sail? What types of boats? I sail mostly in San Francisco Bay. I have a 38 foot cruising sloop, which I like to race from time to time in low key races. --Kevin Murray 14:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I just sail a little Cat with my 15-year-old daughter, mainly off Shoreham but sometimes in Cornwall. I also occasionally sail yachts, most memorably on a friend's Oyster off Trafalgar on the 200th anniversary. I utterly agree about collaboration - let's do it on the article's talk page. NBeale 15:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

N, sorry that I haven't had much time to work with you on this. Perhaps tomorrow. Had a great day on SF Bay yesterday with great winds and beutiful weather. --Kevin Murray 05:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA review

Could you please stop adding comments to the Mimi Smith FA review? Kingboyk (who is an admin) stated that your comments were, "Irrelevant to FAC and not actionable", yet you still persist. An FA review is not the place to argue your case about who is notable. You made your point, so let it go. I thank you. (BTW, my user name is egde, and not edge.) egde 21:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Epigenetics

NBeale, as we're both well aware, we've had many disagreements over the past few months, but despite this experience, I've been taken aback by your hostile and condescending remarks to (particularly) Madeleine over at Talk:Epigenetics. For example:

• "But I fear that they have not looked at the sources refed and applied their own PhD-level understanding"
• "You don't yet seem to have any publications in science or philosophy. Perhaps you could explain on what basis you consider yourself qualified to ban another editor (who has) from contributing to a section on philosophical implications"

These remarks are clearly aimed to intimidate Madeleine, though it's very much to her credit that she responded with a cool head. Other people, especially graduate students who are just finding their way in the world, might take these far more seriously, and remove themselves from the forum. What's particularly galling to me is that you drag the debate onto editor credentials, something that WP tends to steer clear of, and an arena where one might imagine a self-confessed amateur on epigenetics would tread carefully (especially when facing an editor who actually works in epigenetics).

Part of my concern over these comments stems from my responsibility in inviting Madeleine over to Epigenetics. From previous encounters with her, and from the details on her userpage, I judged her to be in an excellent position to comment (Snalwibma and myself not being strong on genetics). And I did this because you stopped properly responding to remarks I made more than a week ago (for example, I received no comments on my dissection of the text you originally added to the article).

Anyway, I'm hardly a paragon of editing virtue myself, and I'm well aware that things can get fairly knock-about at times, but I can't let this sort of behaviour pass unremarked. --Plumbago 08:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Plumbago. I certainly didn't intend my remarks to be in any way intimidating - I actively welcome her involvement in making positive contributions. it's just a bit rich for anyone to lay down the law about what another editor can post. I'd be reluctant to take this from my son, who is a few years ahead of her in a similar path! Sorry about the lack of reply to your posts, work and life are VV busy at present and i cant respond to everything. NBeale 12:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I came here from the epigenetics talk page because I was slightly taken back by your comments about Madeline's, "inexperience and (comendable) youthful zeal" today which, to me, seemed to a slightly patronizing response to what I thought was a very reasonable series of explained edits. I was surprised to see similar comments about previous comments you'd made to the same person described by another concerned editor. Intentional or not, your comments are having that effect. You might want to take that into account in the future or maybe cool off a little bit`. mako (talk•contribs) 21:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mako. Thanks for your message. I'm happy, of course, to defer to you on WikiPedia style. However there is no question that ITRW (a) quoting an article abstract as I did with a reference it is neither copyriht violation nor plagarism and (b) to accuse an author, by name, of copyight violation (which is in principle a criminal offence!) and plagarism is quite a serious personal attack. NBeale 08:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, NBeale - Maybe this is the best place to clarify a remark I made at Talk:Epigenetics, which you appear to have misunderstood. I suggested that there was perhaps a case for disqualifying you from editing the page. Your response ('Ah the well-known WP Policy "Atheists are entitled to block theists from editing science-related articles and to hide information they don't like"') suggests you thought I meant you should be disqualified because you were a theist. Not at all. What I was trying to say was that your clearly expressed intention to use the article as a means of pushing your POV, and your intemperate reaction to others whose POV you assume to differ from your own, was possible grounds for disqualification. I pass no judgment on what that POV is, or whether I agree with it. GNUSMAS : TALK 16:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gnusmas. All editors have POV - some may be more documented than others. The fact that I, Robert Winston, Patrick Bateson and others consider that the facts about epigenetic inheritance are one significant aspect of demonstrating that "the selfish-gene" is indeed over-simplistic does not at all disqualify me from adding properly refed NPOV facts into the article. NBeale 08:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism criticism, suggestions?

Hello, Nicholas! I haven't harassed you for a long time (except a little bit of self-refuting sarcasm), but I'm actually going to ask you for a bit of help. Could you have a look at the atheism article again. We are trying this recent trend of scattering criticism across the page to create a more balanced reading of the article. Perhaps you can look over the article, and point out where it could be more balanced. I would recommend that you experiment with a different approach though, perhaps you could state your well-informed opinion on the talk page, and trust that we will incorporate it. I'm just thinking that perhaps gently guiding us instead of fighting to get your changes through will be more effective. What do you think? --Merzul 13:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. Just one note about this "annexing agnosticism" issue. Well, I personally prefer the strong definition of atheism, but there are many sources that push the weak definition, and Jack Smart in SEP is actually also blurring this issue. He is essentially making the case that many people who say they are agnostic do so on faulty philosophical grounds, and he even speculates that "another motive whereby an atheist might describe herself as an agnostic is purely pragmatic."

But I recall an interview with Bart D. Ehrman on the Colbert Report, when Ehrman answered "I'm not sure!" This wasn't a kind of I can't prove it, hence I should be agnostic that Jack Smart is criticizing, it seemed to me like very genuine uncertainty. Anyway, I'm not so sure about how to fairly cover the issue, but thanks for your review, I think we can slowly address your concerns. --Merzul 20:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] God doesn't exist

Hello. I am RS2007. Sir, I read your profile on your talk page. It is quite obvious that you are a religious believer. You studied Mathematics at Trinity College, Cambridge University. You studied at the same university (in fact, the same college) where once Sir Isaac Newton studied. And, you believe in God? Religion is absolutely incompatible with science and reason. God is a human invention. God doesn’t exist. I think you should study the book The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

You are older than me. So, I don’t want to argue with you. And, thanks for making so many contributions for Wikipedia. Best of luck! RS2007 03:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Facing the truth" and reverting

NBeale - it would be helpful if you would engage meaningfully in the discussion on the talk page, instead of resorting to bluster and accusing others of bad faith and "mob rule". Hard-won consensus is not mob rule. If you have a problem with others' opinions on the best way of developing the Daniel Dennett article, please discuss it in the appropriate place. As things stand, I see no argument for including that quote other than that you find it interesting. Since it appears to suggest that Dennett supports your own world view, I'm sure you do. But please don't infect WP articles with little snippets of your own version of "truth", regardless of consensus and regardless of what makes a good encyclopedia article. WP is an encyclopedia. It is not a means of promoting the Word of God, or an extension to your blog. GNUSMAS : TALK 05:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darwin's Angel

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. --Evb-wiki 21:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I did nothing of the kind. What are you talking about?? NBeale 21:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue removing Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Evb-wiki 21:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

PS Sorry I did accidentally remove the AFD tag. What we should have is the current text, with the AfD but without the OR about Dawkins's response and with the facts about (a) the book and (b) the Guardian response. NBeale 21:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the unsourced part of Dawkins' response. The chapter summaries are unencyclopedic and do not belong. Also, they are also unsourced and pure WP:OR. --Evb-wiki 21:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, to but in, but Nicholas, your edit summaries... what makes you think Evb-wiki is an atheist? He lists as major contributions, St. Martin's Episcopal Church, Trinity Church, Houston, so please do consider the option that he is trying to neutrally uphold his vision of a good encyclopedia.

Not every deletion is because someone wants to suppress information. And talking about this, what was your reason for deleting Dawkins's response? All of it is directly from the cited article... The point is that we are back to the question of what constitutes WP:OR, and in particular, does summarizing and picking from a primary source constitute OR? In many cases we have allowed this kind of picking and summarizing, see for example many other articles we have about recent books, most relevant comparison I guess is The God Delusion itself.

In any case, please apply the same standards to my text as you apply to your own, either both the plot summary and the section I wrote are Original Research, or neither of them is. If you delete one and keep the other, then you are indeed suppressing information. You could still argue that the section on Dawkins response would be giving him undue weight as this article is about Cornwell's book, but I find that a very week argument, given that the book in question is about a guardian angel talking to Richard Dawkins. --Merzul 23:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Merzul. An article about a book clearly needs a summary of what the book says, and it is not OR to provide one. But to make a big table from a response by Dawkins is. All we need is a link to the response and people can see for themselves what he says. NBeale 05:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the huge tables were indeed ridiculous (but in no way original as the entire analysis was provided by Dawkins himself). However, by the time you suppressed well-cited information, this had already been reduced to 3 short paragraphs, which is well within what constitutes due weight: what could be more relevant than the response of the book's main character?

In any case, people need to know the truth about the terrible quality of scholarship, and the immense irony of Mr. Cornwell asking Dawkins to read more, yet himself failing to read even a single book properly...

So, please stop removing material just because you don't like it, and try to avoid further misrepresentations and trivializations of Dawkins's response by picking out the least important of what he says. (Such as his annoyance at the quotation when in fact his main objection was that the argument was taken out of context.)

Thank you, Merzul 11:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leave Derek Parfit alone

Oh, this was really low... It's not Parfit's fault that Dawkins happened to use him as a source! --Merzul 12:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MATT RIDLEY: correction

He is the son and heir of Viscount Ridley (whose family estate is in Blagdon, near Newcastle upon Tyne) and became Chairman of Northern Rock in 2004 [3]

Not the other Blagdon! Nitramrekcap —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Rock

Sorry, my bad. I just noticed that the Wall Street Journal had been mentioned as a source for stories that didn't appear among their archived stories. Well spotted. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An application of BIO

I got involved in Mitch Clem at AfD. Can you look at the references and let me know whether you think I'm right on his notability. He is not an important topic, but this illustrates an important application of the BIO and Notability rules. I think that the Minnesota Public Radio spot is just about enough, then the mention in PC World, while not in-depth clearly is saying this person is noticed. The other comixtalk source is marginal, but I think that it adds to credibilty. It appeares that Comixtalk has a blog section, but where he is covered is more akin to an online magazine in a scheduled and dated issue. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 15:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of James W. Sire

I have nominated James W. Sire, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Sire. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Jfire (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Preserving Wikipedia's reputation

Good afternoon. I've been trying to look into wikiphilosophies after noticing that the current shouting mat disputes about fiction on Wikipedia involve little discussion about, and evaluation of, the underlying issues. If you're up for it, I'd like to ask about the reasoning behind the comment here, where you supported the deletion of several articles - and in general a large category them - because they make Wikipedia look silly.

You should be warned that my current ability to participate in discussion is erratic due to involuntary factors mainly involving an ADHD test gone sublimely ironic. I wouldn't normally seek to take on additional obligations, but this is a particularily important subject and will make a honest effort to give prompt replies.

My concern is a matter of principle. Destroying content, not because it's untrue, illegal, or immoral, but to preserve our image, is a fundamental shift from previous operations. It means subjecting our coverage to opinion. Once we start destroying content because it made us look bad , should we delete articles on pedophilia? The intricacies of fetishes? Terrorist modus operandi? Tibet as a nation, because that offends the Chinese? Hong Kong as a part of China, because that offends the United States? Chemistry instructions that could be used to build explosives? Should we have deleted the Mohammed cartoons that we hosted because of the significant backlash against them meant that we did damage our image with a lot of people? Once we make our articles contestable on the basis of our image, where do we stop?

Articles, studies and personal opinions about the effects of the extent of our coverage would also be helpful. I am personally under the impression that we get more bad press for trigger-happy deletions and squabbles over content than we ever do for having more detailed content than we should; here are a few entries. Wikipedia's coverage of fiction seems to give reason to laugh at it to those who want to laugh at it in the first place. Prime complainers are The Register, which is firmly against the concept of the site, and Something Awful, which is firmly against everything, hence the name. --Kizor 17:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

We are meant to be an Encyclopedia, not a collection of non-notable trivia. NBeale (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So your opinion on the inclusion - and deletion - of content is based on rules, not on how it makes us look? --Kizor 17:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's based on judgement, informed by the WP policies and guidelines. NBeale (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Christianity Newsletter

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter! Issue IV - April 2008 Monthly Challenge: Article News Go on over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity. A lot is going on and your input is needed! Look over the recent changes list for recent improvements to articles, other changes and vandalism. Articles needing improvement can be found in Category:Christianity stubs. Twenty four articles are at FA level and Forty four are GA level articles. You can help by adopting a topic. Christianity Articles by Quality Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively. Christianity articles Importance Top High Mid Low None Total Quality FA 1 9 10 31 51 A 2 1 2 5 GA 5 6 16 61 8 96 B 42 95 154 261 245 797 Start 12 58 306 1248 1866 3490 Stub 16 132 2100 1656 3904 List 2 18 18 67 105 Assessed 62 187 636 3721 3842 8448 Total 62 187 636 3721 3842 8448 Project News WikiProject Christianity Coordinators : The project coordinators are generally responsible for maintaining all of the procedural and administrative aspects of the project, and serve as the designated points-of-contact for procedural issues. They are not, however, endowed with any special executive powers, nor with any authority over article content or editor conduct.The Lead Coordinator bears overall responsibility for coordinating the project; the Assistant Coordinators aid the Lead Coordinator and focus on specific areas that require special attention. The nomination period for coordinators is currently ongoing at Election 2008 Nominations for open positions will be open through 23:59 (UTC) on April 30 and project members should vote for any candidates they support by April 11 2008. The election will be conducted using simple approval voting. Any member of the project may support as many of the candidates as they wish. The candidate with the highest number of endorsements will become the Lead Coordinator (provided he or she is willing to assume the post); the next four candidates will become Coordinators. Two new workgroups formed - Indian Christianity and Methodism Portal:Indian Christianity launched. Member News Our membership continues to expand. It is currently at 184 users. 86 new users have joined the WikiProject since last issue. Please make them feel welcomed! Archives of previous newsletters can be found here. To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, add your name here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, let ~ Tinucherian know. This newsletter is automatically delivered by BetacommandBot.

- Tinucherian (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)