User talk:24.94.18.234

August 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to The God Delusion, 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. - DVdm (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetting

- Against clear consensus on the talk page, you have tried to add the Shermer trivia 5 times in less than 24 hours now ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) in the Richard Dawkins article. That is clear-cut edit warring, and using different IP's for that is sockpuppetting. That behaviour will get you blocked. - DVdm (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Rather than accusing people, you are encouraged to take part in discussion. Those edits belong to long before we started the discussion and you are bringing them up now. You leave me wondering why.--24.94.18.234 (talk) 03:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you or have you been using the follwing username and IP's?

• Kazemita1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 24.94.18.234 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 216.31.219.19 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

If you are user Kazemita1, please note that you are not allowed to edit in logged-off mode. - DVdm (talk) 06:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

Hello, I'm DVdm. This might not have been intentional, but I noticed that you recently removed some content from Richard Dawkins without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, DVdm (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess this is done by your automatic tool as I already explained in the edit summary the reason for the edit.--24.94.18.234 (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Richard Dawkins with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Registering on wikipedia

Greetings editor 24.94.18.234,

I see you have been busy in the New Atheists page on the criticisms section. I am sure you have found some resistance huh? Well don't get discouraged. I think you should register on wikipedia so that you get a reputation here. Editors will probably not remember your IP address and this could lead to them dismissing your edits more often because they don't know its you. It seems most editors see IP address edits with skepticism since no one knows who is behind the edits. Once you have a name, you can build a type of trust where people will respect your additions. My additions usually are from academic sources so those who know me rarely question my additions anymore. I had to duke it out a few times, but now I have more credibility because of my habits. Just wanted to mention this since you have done a bunch of edits and I think this would help you get reverted less. Also, if you have questions or want more reading materials on atheism issues feel free to give me a holler. --Ramos1990 (talk) 07:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ramos1990,

Thank you so much for your helpful comments. Most of what I wanted to be posted in New Atheism and Criticism of Atheism was covered by your wordings and I am happy because of that. However, I must admit that I was not able to post any of what I had in mind in Richard Dawkins article due to excessive resistance by certain editors. I spent many days collecting materials and many days discussing them with the other users, but we almost never reached consensus; partly because I was outnumbered by the other side, and partly -now I think- because English was not my first language. If you look at the talk page of RD's article, you can see it for yourself (p.s. At that time I had a user ID :) )--24.94.18.234 (talk) 07:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Greetings editor 24.94.18.234,

I am glad to be of service. Your ideas were very useful for the criticism of atheism page. I was planning to contribute what you had in mind before you posted there, but you beat me to it. Appreciate your willingness to contribute. In terms of the Richard Dawkins page, I saw some of your attempts there. The best tip I can give is to get academic sources which note what you want to mention. This will neutralize all attempts from other editors from at least removing your sources. They only thing they may try to do is reword a few things or say the source is not on topic. You may have to backup the credentials of the source. I noticed that sometimes you use websites as sources. I would be careful with these since websites are already seen with suspicion because anyone can make a website about anything and many websites are not really reliable sources.

If any of your sources are disputed, I would suggest you provide a quote in the citation which shows the point you want to make since if a reliable source says it, its ok. This means you will probably have to be very detailed in your reading of sources find good summarizing points. I understand that English was not your first language - I am in the same situation as you. English was my 2nd language. But just read constantly and you will get better at it. To be honest, your writing is impressive and it never crossed my mind that English was not your first language. You are as good as anyone else. If you are not able to reach a consensus in the Dawkins page, don't feel too bad. Most people never care to look at biographies in wikipedia and those articles are probably not taken seriously by general readers because most biographies look incomplete and usually biased to some extent. --Ramos1990 (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the complement about my English :) Fortunately, I was able to put the material regarding RD in the other Wiki. What you said about reading and practice is indeed true and I will work on that. But as an example, how would you reflect this criticism toward Richard Dawkins or The God Delusion?--24.94.18.234 (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey editor 24.94.18.234, I looked at the Pape and Dawkin's issue. Hmm... it seems Dawkins just blurted a simple remark on suicide bombing in a hasty generalized fashion. People like Dawkins are crazy and say dumb things every once in a while, but what Dawkins said doesn't carry much weight at all. If the sources were to explicitly focus on criticizing Dawkins for that remark, then maybe those sources can be included, but since Dawkins' remark is just not significant then maybe it would not be useful to add this to the article. Don't feel too bad about it. One thing you should remember is that most people who use wikipedia are college students and above [6] which are not the majority of people in any given country. The majority of people are not reading this stuff either way, and most who read these articles probably are not willing to take whatever is written as completely true either. Furthermore, Dawkins and his book are not really socially significant. Most people will never read or care about him or his book also.--Ramos1990 (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha.--24.94.18.234 (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)