User talk:Ramos1990

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Ramos1990! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing!   — Jess· Δ 18:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do

August 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Atheism, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 23:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been watching the editing at Atheism, and I'd like to suggest that you discuss your reasoning for your edits at Talk:Atheism. I realize that you are a new editor, and I want to make sure that you don't get into an edit war. Thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Please take Tryptofish's advice to heart and come to the talk page to discuss. Trypto and I can be pretty patient... not everyone is for things like this. Your synthesis of the cites you use is in direct contradiction to what they actually say. That's not how we do things, as it introduces original research which is prohibited here. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 23:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Atheism. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 23:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I appreciate it really. However, I think that if you do read it you will notice that 17% IS out of the hate crimes in 2009 which are 7,775.

Here is what the website says: 7,775 offenses total for hate crimes in 2009.

The website says "Law enforcement agencies reported 1,376 hate crimes motivated by religious bias."

1,376 / 7,775 = .1769 which is 17.7%.

I was not wrong on this.

Religiously biased crimes are not 17.7 out all Violent crimes in 2009 which are about 1.3 million.

What do you think?

Editing the article[edit]

Greetings. I wanted to know what was the main complaint on my edit. You claimed that I was making new research, when I have just regurgitated the sources themselves. The only plausible objection that I see is my assertion that most violence in America is indeed secular since the FBI tables show that very few people commit crimes based on religious beliefs. Template:Unsigned:Ramos1990

Please help me make my post better.

Hi, thank you for asking. You need to find a reliable source that says such. The FBI tables show that over 17% are religiously motivated. That's contrary to what you wrote. You can start working on some additions in your userspace, and I will see if I can help you - but you should read up on things like WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to see what things you cannot add to articles. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 00:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, please remember to put your responses after mine, and I'll put mine after yours, etc. OK, here's the problem. Your original research/synthesis is in thinking that the hate crime numbers have anything to do with other crimes. There are many crimes that are not deemed (by the law) hate crimes that may be caused by similar reasons. So, the stats simply can't be cross-applied to come up with the original research you did. You'd have to know, of all crimes, what the stats were for religiously motivated ones - which I do not see. You cannot extrapolate. We can only allow an expert that we can cite do that. Best ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok I see your point. I will exclude this part.

How about the rest of the stuff I put in? These rest was sociological data on the religious beliefs of atheists from the first world wide study on atheists from all over the world.

Can I add this? Or do you see a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramos1990 (talkcontribs)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Hi, it's a pretty extensive section. Perhaps what you want to do is post a message on that article's talk page and ask everyone who works on that article for their opinions and suggestions. Also, that way you can join into the discussions on that page. Also, remember when you make a post on a talk page to sign your posts. You can do that really easily simply by putting ~~~~ at the end of your posts and it will automagically be turned into your signature. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 02:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey Ornithikos thanks sooo much for your suggestions!! I am very grateful for your recommendations! Thanks also to RoberMfromLi!! I will try to introduce the newest research on atheism in the "talk atheism" section you recommended! Both of you are very good at allowing people into wikipedia. I really am humbled by it. Ornithikos, yeah, it seems wikipedia is really about passions firing at each other constantly especially with matters of religion. The removals of valuable information here are worse than for peer reviewed scientific research.
I should know since I published a research paper in the "Journal of Chemical Physics" last year. Oh well... we'll see if wikipedia is a decent place to contribute data on.
Thank you both once more
Ramos1990 (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


I thought I might be able to say something useful about why people reverted most of your changes to those pages, even though the changes contained reasonable information. One problem is that the pages, and all others in their general category, are elaborate compromises that arose from actual years of people arguing back and forth about every conceivable alternative, based on every conceivable perspective, working towards every conceivable goal. The current state is therefore such a precarious balance between multiple irreconcilable passions that almost any significant change will constitute a step backwards to one faction or another.

Consequently, any big change will probably either be reverted, or worse yet incite another conflagration, which probably has already happened anyway, possibly more than once. The best way to make significant changes at this point is to describe them first on the Discussion page, and conduct the probable firestorm there. If you can manage to get some kind of consensus, which is difficult but not impossible, you could then move the result to the main page, and probably make it stick given that it does indeed represent a consensus; not that "consensus" itself is well defined. Writing for Wikipedia is something like joining a herd of dragons.

Feeling myself underutilized, I wanted to see if I could do anything useful in Wikipedia, so I tried something that I recommend. I made a shortcut that selects a random article ( and put it in my browser's shortcut toolbar. Whenever I want to look something up in Wikipedia, or whenever the spirit moves me (which it often does) I click that shortcut, then see if the article that appears seems like it could use anything I might provide without causing undue commotion. I've not only learned of many things I didn't even know existed to be ignorant about, I've sometimes been able to make changes that lasted. Ornithikos (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey Ornithikos thanks sooo much for your suggestions!! I am very grateful for your recommendations! Thanks also to RoberMfromLi!! I will try to introduce the newest research on atheism in the "talk atheism" section you recommended! Both of you are very good at allowing people into wikipedia. I really am humbled by it. Ornithikos, yeah, it seems wikipedia is really about passions firing at each other constantly especially with matters of religion. The removals of valuable information here are worse than for peer reviewed scientific research.
I should know since I published a research paper in the "Journal of Chemical Physics" last year. Oh well... we'll see if wikipedia is a decent place to contribute data on.
Thank you both once more
Ramos1990 (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Any time. Also, keep in mind, the stronger your references, and the closer you stay towards saying only what they said, the easier it is to get content into an article without going though a long battle. I'll join you on the article talk page and help out as I can. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 03:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Appreciate your support and agree with you completely on sticking literally close to the sources and what they say for acceptance. I submitted my suggestion on the talks atheism page you suggested. I guess now I wait. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Awesome! (and thank you). I regularly keep an eye on that page, so I'll chime in if it seems appropriate. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 05:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey Marco[edit]

OOOOHHHHH YYYEEAAAAHHHH Brother! FFUUUAAAA!! Brother why don't you pick up your calls and answer your e-mails? Kester has been asking for you too! Hope you graduated from Chemical Engineering this last year. How was senior project with Dr. Li? Dr. Pang left when I graduated in 2010 and he was excellent for our chemical plant design - ethylene. Which one was yours?

Are you still in the Inland Empire? We gotta meet. Give me a call or shoot me an e-mail. I've been trying to contact you for the last few months.

I see you are a well established watchdog for wikipedia. Good for you brother.

Holler back when on my talk page and delete my Talk back on your talk page.

Ramos1990 (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"Religious violence" section edit[edit]

Hey Marco and Robert,

Kindly check out my latest updates for the Religious violence page. I added some valuable resources in a shorter and more neutral manner for the "Religion, secularity, and violence section" which was previously called "Religion as inherently violent".

I am amazed that such sloppy and biased research was left posted on that article. This was an outrage since the page seems to just be sloppy with many missing citations and bogus claims that were clearly biased.

Kindly review and privide feedback if what I added was acceptable for wikipedia.

Ramos1990 (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey Franklin, I took the liberty to make you a toolbox that's displayed on your front page. I also made you a sandbox where I added the section you wanted to modify. Treat this sandbox as a testing ground for potential permanent edits to articles.-- Marco Guzman, Jr  Chat  03:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey thanks for the support Marco. The new tool box will help me out quite a bit! Ramos1990 (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Franklin and Marcos, I'll try to read through tomorrow and see if I can help out. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 04:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Template: Criticism of Religion[edit]

Hey Ion Zone,

Thanks for the heads up on this page. I have placed my comments where you directed me. Man these people are pretty stupid and crazy. The whole template is completely stupid and retarded since all of their notable critics are non-experts on these issues and are completely unreliable on these issues.

If there are any more idiot pages like this please continue to inform me. I will help you out in making these pages more neutral and balanced.

Keep up the good work. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


Thanks to you too. :) I think that if we get enough opposition we can at least get some actual experts on there. :P
Ion Zone (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey, Ramos, I have just discovered the Criticism of Religion page, it has to be the most ridiculously non-factual, POV and COI page I have ever seen, would you be interested in helping me do something about this mess? :)
Ion Zone (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh yeah this page is pretty messed up. It looks like people came randomly, pooped in there and didn't clean up. Sure I'll help make this article more neutral and accurate one small piece at a time. If you find some errors just change them. I'll help you if there are edit wars. I saw some you already had. Since this page is very controversial, I would suggest you make your edits small and build it little by little since writing whole sections would alarm other editors. I had this experience once. You have some good points. I noted that there are "counterargument" sections throughout the article on many topics, perhaps you can add your material (piece by piece) there or create "counterargument" sections as you see fit. Ramos1990 (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


Allaroundamazingbarnstar.png All Around Amazing Barnstar
Dear Ramos1990, thank you for all of your amazing contributions to Religion and Science related articles. Your contributions are making a difference here on Wikipedia! Keep up the good work! With regards, AnupamTalk 18:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Atheism[edit]

Thanks, Ramos1990, for your invitation to provide my input on the New Atheists section, in the Criticism of Atheism Talk page. I've been offline for the last ten days and am just catching up now. I've had a glance at the Talk section, and seen how much discusssion has taken place! I'll look through it in detail over the next day or so and see if there's anything useful I can contribute. -- Jmc (talk) 08:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your positive feedback on my latest tweaking - and for carrying it over to the main 'Atheism' article. That particular section has been bashed around quite a bit, and that was one point where it seemed to have lost coherence. And a more general thanks to you for being such a vigilant guardian of the article as a whole! -- Jmc (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again, Ramos1990, for your taking the trouble to point me to the Eller paper online. Its anthropological approach certainly is a refreshing change. I do agree with you that it's "one of the few reasonable papers on atheism, secularity, and religion to date". Having read the full context now, I'm not so sure that the extract does belong in an article on the criticism of atheism. But I'll wait to see how the Talk page discussion plays out. -- Jmc (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution[edit]

Hello. Is there any reason for your continually deleting my contribution to wikipedia page Criticism of Atheism? I believe my point is completely valid, and there is no reason for it to be deleted. Can you compromise with me on this? There is an overwhelming amount of information indicating the possibility that atheism is considered a religion, however, not nearly enough information supporting the other side of the debate.

Political commentator, television host, and author, Bill Maher, has stated in his New Rules segment on February 3, 2012, "Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position," indicating that atheism cannot possibly be considered a religion, and the notion of such is as absurd as calling the absence of sex, sex. He also stated in his segment that "idiots must stop claiming that atheism is a religion."[1][2][3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slickarette (talkcontribs) 20:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey Slickerette, Glad to hear your thoughts. I will respond on your talk page. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Ramos1990, thank you for your helpful hints. I did make a "sock puppet account" for Slickarette2 since I thought I had been banned. I did not, however, make any more "sock puppet accounts", and am not sure what you are referring to when you said "WHOA! Clam down please. Right now I checked your edits. I am telling you - you are going to get blocked soon if you keep this up! Its now becoming WP:VANDAL. Also it seems you have created a sock puppet account as "IhategodYEah". I am giving you a heads up on whats going to happen. --Ramos1990 (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slickarette (talkcontribs)

Hey no problem. I am glad to help. I understand you felt you were banned, but it looks like you are still ok. I am not sure if "IhategodYEah" was you, but since the edits looked the same as yours and then you did the same edit as "Slickarette", then I made the inference. It still looks that way to me. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. If you feel there is an addition that may cause controversy in any article, you should bring it up first in the article talk page to diffuse any objections other editors may have. Its just better since some pages are "guarded" more than others and one is bound to find more resistance. You will get used to it.--Ramos1990 (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey, not sure of the specifics, but if you find sockpuppets try and go the the right noticeboard to have it dealt with, going 7RR with sockpuppets isn't a great idea. Report them at WP:SPI and maybe WP:RFPP. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Demarcation discussion[edit]

Hi Ramos1990,

In the recent discussion you said that "most of philosophy is independent of historiography or history." That statement reflects our fundamental disagreement and I thought it would be helpful to briefly spell out my perspective. I was trained as a historian of science (in the history of ideas tradition) and disagree strongly with that statement. No philosophy, (or science of religion for that matter) is independent of history; all ideas are developed by specific historical actors working within specific historical contexts and are, to varying degrees, influenced by those historical contexts. To treat the development of philosophy (or science or religion) as the growth of disembodied ideas is glaringly incomplete. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Steve McCluskey, thanks for your comment. I originally noted that I partially agreed with your original Kant quote, because of course all people interact with their peers in their time and they even take information form their predecessors on top of making original and novel ides. No doubt about that. You noted some good points though. But most of philosophy, I didn't mention science or religion, is focused on ideas - past and present - without detailing much of a historical account or historical review. Generally if a philosopher notes significant ideas form their present and the past, they are noted along with possibly who espoused the idea, but the bulk of the arguments are focused on ideas themselves which are for the sake of ideas, otherwise no new philosophical ideas would emerge due to constant historical reviewing. If there is some historical review in a given writing (say Plato or Aristotle), its not for the sake of history nor are they acting as historians (whose main job is to detail things from the past), they may use historical objects to build up on on ideas and perhaps to lay down context to continue to build up ideas. I agree with what you said, "To treat the development of philosophy (or science or religion) as the growth of disembodied ideas is glaringly incomplete.", but to treat philosophy as just historical would be a gross error as writings of philosophers have not been primarily about history or historical accounts. Those writings have been about ideas, concepts, metaphysics, heuristics, principles,approaches, methods, etc. which are meant to represent systems of ideas. More people know about Deontology, Platomism, Falifiability, Epicureanism, etc from just hearing about the concepts, not by reviewing their history or historical data. I hope this clears up my view.--Ramos1990 (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I still think we're talking past each other. History isn't just listing one damn thing after another or presenting the sources of a particular idea; it asks questions about why people in particular times and places chose to do certain things; for example, why certain philosophers chose to address the question of demarcation. In the case of Aristotle and the Hippocratic writers (to grossly oversimplify) they addressed the question of demarcation because it provided a useful tool to put down those philosophers and medical practitioners they disagreed with on other issues. This doesn't deny the intrinsic interest of the demarcation problem, but the underlying motivations that drove the protagonists to address such philosophically interesting questions are part of what makes the problem historically interesting. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Historical interest on any given topic is not the same as philosophical discourse necessarily. Historical arguments proposed for an an idea would be philosophy, and they may include other historical references to enhance an argument. This should not be a problem. I know philosophy does intersect with many fields including history, perhaps this is what makes this tedious. But there would need to be a distinction between the history of an idea (which includes many dimensions - social, cultural, political, etc.) and philosophical discourse of an idea (focuses mainly on conceptual construction of ideas). After all, historical uses of deontological ethics are a different context than the formulation and construction of deontology itself, no? I am sure you will agree that philosophical discourse is not the same as historical discourse in terms of nature, scope, and aim. One difference is that philosophical discourses are known to be very tedious and very narrow in scope and sometimes very long (i.e. Kant's critique of judgement). I hope this clarifies further. --Ramos1990 (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Nice discussion; as historians and philosophers we'll probably continue to see things differently. Steve (SteveMcCluskey (talk)) 00:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of religion and theology[edit]

I've added a great deal to Criticism of theology and History of criticism of religion. Your input would be appreciated. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Proxima Cantauri, appreciate you seeking input from others. I will see what you have worked on soon and maybe offer some edits per wikipedia protocols. --Ramos1990 (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I think a great deal of what was taken out can be put back when I've had time to look up sources. I haven't much time today but I'll make a start. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey Proxima Centauri, absolutely. That is what I noted in one of my edits. I also restored one of your points (with 2 sources) which I thought was easy enough to find. Pretty much any entries put into an article which make very specific claims like "X,Y, and Z were critics of ...." or "A and B have disputed ...." should contain sources which specify that point. It gets problematic when one reads more into a source than the source allows. For instance the Bruno sources did not say he was a critic of religion, but was a heretic. A heretic is a person who has different views, not necessarily a person who criticizes other views, let alone whole categories of life like religion, since they come to believe their views irrespective of "resistance" by any other group.
On a side note, for entries here, the focus of the article should be kept in mind - it is about religion in general, not specific religions. Other articles exist for specific religions. A criticism of Hinduism is not in itself a criticism of religion unless a source links the criticism to a general concept of religion in some way. The Criticism of religion page has had much over-interpreting due to overlooking this simple distinction, which I have been removing little by little. However, I will assist you in what I can find available as sources. Also, just a footnote, I noticed that in your edits you normally do not write things for the "edit summary". Its probably a good idea to write things in there so that other editors can see reasoning for your contributions. It helps us all get an idea of what you are trying to accomplish and gives others context. Good job overall. --Ramos1990 (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree Criticism of religion and Criticism of Christianity are distinct but in practise much criticism of religion happened in western societies with a Christian tradition. Therefore frequently the same people criticised/criticise both religion generally and Christianity in particular. Western critics of religion sometimes criticise many different religions as well as criticising religion generally but tend to focus criticism on Christianity. I feel the article on Criticism of religion should point this out and link to the Criticism of Christianity article where appropriate. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey Proxima Centauri, good job on the recent edits with citations. I agree with you in that many "criticisms" of religion are extrapolated from criticisms of Christianity mainly, but most criticisms are not broad or even diverse to even be applicable to other religions. Criticism of general concepts like theism, atheism, animism, mindsets, behavior, violence should be the focus in the article since they are broad as is and not religion-specific per se. So broad things like criticism of theology would be ok to link in the crit. of religion. Though I do think that most criticisms come from Western Judeo-Christian traditions, I don't think we should link "Criticism of Christianity" or other specific religions in the *main* sections of the article. Actually, if you look at the very bottom in the "See also" section, it already has the links to the criticism of all sorts of religions. This is appropriate as it does not disturb the focus of the article.
However, since your point is quite important and since most of the article is saturated with Western religious contexts, maybe you can state in the intro to the article that many criticisms of religion in general are extrapolated from Western cultures and Western religions to highlight your point. It would help summarize the article too. Just a few thoughts. What do you think? --Ramos1990 (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Today I added to Criticism of religion but I came across material about Madeleine Bunting, she criticises the critics of religion and the critics of religion unsurprisingly criticise her. That gets a bit complex. Anyway the Madeleine Bunting article is a stub so I added a bit there too. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. I did a little more copyediting to make it more clear what your addition said. I think it is a relevant source.--Ramos1990 (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

American Scholar Barnastar[edit]

American scholar barnstar.png The American Scholar Barnstar
For your use of Aristotelian logic and reason to improve theology-related topics. In Oh Yeah! I trust. Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  19:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins[edit]

Dear Editor,

I saw your name in the edit history of some religion/atheism related articles and you seem to have a lot of experience in religion/atheism related articles. I therefore invite you to join the ongoing discussion in the talk page of the RD's article. To give you an introduction, there has been many occasions where people wanted to add a criticism section or a criticism article about Dawkins, but were told that it is a better practice to include the criticism in the main article (per WP:CRIT); only if the amount of criticism is too much one may then make allocate a separate section or article for criticism. Though, this by itself is a valid argument, there has always been a problem with choosing what to include and what not to include as due criticism in the main article which leaves the article with very little criticism relative to the huge amount of criticisms out there about Dawkins.

I would like to know your opinion on this.--User 99 119 (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings User 99 119, Thank you for the invite to the RD page. I have been invited once before, but for me I am not really interested in researching Richard Dawkins as he seem to be a negligible person and is not really a person worth wasting my time on. I usually don't do much on biographies at all. I usually do major topics. However, based on your info on the article, what "main article" is the one being referred to? Richard Dawkin's? Criticisms relating to him as a person should be a part of an article on him and it looks like some criticisms are already in the article already. Are you trying to make a section of criticism? If so, then you can check out WP:BITR for dealing with criticisms on individuals. Coat racking is easy to commit and maybe much of the issues you have seen are of this nature. Criticisms are generally quite awkward because simple statements like "X said that Y is wrong", could or could also not be considered a criticism.
For some so called "bitching" statements, they could be considered criticism but they are usually not allowed either. I've been doing criticism pages for a while and there is lots of gray areas since even informing that something is wrong or incorrect is sometimes perceived as not being criticism. It depends on the sources intent, context, and aim. Some editors will just revert because they don't like the certain legitimate criticisms too. Since Richard Dawkin's article is supposed to be about a person, it is best to simply include criticisms within the general sections already there or create topical subheadings (maybe call one "Views on religion" and include criticism of his views there) instead of sections per se (i.e Rush Limbaugh as this is about a person and perhaps it would not be wise to make major highlight of criticisms on this page. Public figures get criticized often (i.e. Barack Obama) and there does seem to be a liberal bias on wikipedia, but you can balance it out with a few option I noted. I hope this helps. --Ramos1990 (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Hey, you seem to be edit warring some content at Relationship between religion and science which appears to have been in the article a long time. It's generally expected that people discuss issues when their bold change is reverted. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate your concern, but I have not gotten into an edit war yet as I only did a revert once. Since my only revert was reverted I discussed in the talk page. --Ramos1990 (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Picture of William Palley[edit]

You moved the picture of William Paley back to the right hand side in the Watchmaker analogy article. The problem with that position is that it is obscured by the quotation. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, appreciate your comment. Yes I did that since it was consistent with the other biographies there. Also the image being on the left was actually worse because you have to read around it. I don't see how it is obscured by the quotation if it is on the right. Looking at Darwin's section is the same situation. Perhaps removing the long title in the Paley picture would remove the problem. I'll try it and you can change it if you want. --Ramos1990 (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The problem may relate to my settings (although I can't imagine that mine are particularly unusual). For the Paley picture, the quotation sits on top of the picture and thus makes most of it unviewable. For some reason, in the case of Darwin, the picture sits on top of the quotation and thus both the picture and the quotation are readable. I have no idea why, although presumably it is something to do with the quotation template. I tried removing the "right" tag, but that didn't do any good. The other (less serious) problem with the picture in its present position is that it results in an area of white space after the heading, before the text. Both problems can be solved by moving the picture down - still on the right, but after the quotation. Would that be acceptable? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I've just had another look. The quotation template is correctly recognising that the picture is there. It puts in new lines to prevent the text appearing over the picture. But the resulting white space itself obscures the picture. Go figure.Rjm at sleepers (talk) 09:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
For the moment, I have changed to the quote template which seems to solve the problem, revert if you don't like the result.Rjm at sleepers (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I think your last change was reasonable. Does the same problem exist for Darwin? I think we can remove the quotations template also so that there is no issue and it will be consistent with the style of the article. I'll try it. Feel free to revert if there is any issue. --Ramos1990 (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
For some reason the Darwin quote was OK, but using the quote template is consistent. I have now moved the picture again. On my screen it appears in more or less the same place, but without the white space. Feel free to revert if you don't like it. 05:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm good with your latest change. Maybe the bowsers or the screen size that we both have are what is making the biggest shift in what we see, but I think everything looks good to me from my side. --Ramos1990 (talk) 07:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Re:Article for Deletion/Keeping[edit]

Dear User:Ramos1990, thank you for your message on my talk page. I must apologize for seeing it so late. It looks like the article in question is no longer active, which is how I feel about such an article anyways. I am happy to see that outcome and really appreciate you thinking of me! Happy Easter to you and yours! With regards, AnupamTalk 03:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It was taken care of. Happy Easter to you too Anupam!--Mayan1990 (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi Ramos1990. Once upon a time you thanked me for an edit in the article atheism. Currently it seems to me that an editor is trying to bulldoze through the deletion of the entire section dealing with state atheism. Whilst I can agree with him that the pre-exisiting was too long, I can't agree with him that state atheism is irrelevant. You might like to review the talk page to see if you have anything to contribute? Ozhistory (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).