User talk:Devilishlyhandsome/Atheism 3.0

This is a subpage of Devilishlyhandsome's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Created Again

The old article needed to be improved not deleted and was not properly discussed and defended. Also, an important link was simply deleted. To do that in the course of a dispute raises some questions.
Not any longer single sourced. Several reliable sources and they are widely reposted, demonstrating that these seminal article are influential. Thus, notable.
This is an emerging trend in a highly controversial topic area which has received cited scholarly attention and attention from thoughtful writers in several existing and forthcoming books.
There is already an article on this topic at Conservapedia, which is highly critical of WP and is highly POV by its own admission. Web readers have a right to a NPOV article on this topic and it would be inexcusable to neglect to provide a balanced, NPOV WP article on this topic.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your points in order.

You apparently disagree with the consensus for deletion that formed. While it is your right to disagree, recreating a just-deleted article is combative and unconstructive. You should have created this in your userspace and fleshed it out with sources first. Recreating it in article space in this way is inappropriate.
You've included the old sources (which were deemed unacceptable) and supplemented them with a smattering of blogs. None of these new sources meet WP:RS.
That assertion is yet to be sourced.
Wikipedia does not operate based on what conservapedia does. — Jess· Δ ♥ 01:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed [1]

Clearly, the afd was not conducted properly if two of four who supported deletion thought of this as "votes". You know it was supposed to be an in depth discussion not a straw :::vote.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to "Created Again 1"

RE: You apparently disagree with the consensus for deletion that formed.

I dispute that there even was a "consensus". Three wanted keep, one merge, four talked about delete. Of those four, two thought it was a matter of voting. It is not. So you had two to four people who, without in depth discussion of any issues relevant here, went along with the admin closure. Two or four deletionists are not "consens". There was no notice to a broader community,anyway. Furthermore, even if there was a true consensus among the eight, that is not "the community". It would be eight people. But it wasn't. It was four. I was not invited. IF you insist on a voting paradigm, that would make it 4 keep 4 delete 1 merge.

Further, you overlook a distinction between a made up mind to keep vs. a contest of the closure and a contest of the validity of the process.

You overlook that this is a new and different article.

There is no right to create a perpetual or time certain recreation ban

There was no recreation ban

I have cured the major flaw of the old article as far as I can determine

I still have not received a copy of the old article. You deleted it. That is not a good thing its a bad thing.

My original comment stands. I understand you disagree with consensus. This is not the way to go about "fighting it". — Jess· Δ ♥ 02:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Created Again 2

You've included the old sources (which were deemed unacceptable) and supplemented them with a smattering of blogs. None of these new sources meet WP:RS.

Utterly denied. Three misconceptions.

(1) you've included the old sources (which were deemed unacceptable)

They were not deemed to be unacceptable sources by any kind of binding consensus. Just YHO. There were not enough of them' Since when is a Harvard chaplain unacceptable? Another Ph D college professor. Who says they are unacdeptable? YHO? Was ther one of these "votes"?

2b

and supplemented them with a smattering of blogs.

I am still assuming good faith, but this characterization of the reference list is misleading. There are several published books, doctorates, and organized Section 501(c)3 organizations which do in some but not all cases communicate via either blog hosts or via their own server on what they call a blog. That does not invalidate them nor their Ph D'

I was building the site adding citations and you guys are hijacking me and now I am having to waste time arguing this which should be spend building more better writing and links. I wonder if this is just a POV thing going on but I am reserving judgement. But this kind of WIkiLawyering is highly destructive and I am at this point losing interest in anything about WP except for fending off this kind of horrendous miscarriage of its purpose by WikiLawyering which present company excepted is being waged to convert WP into a platform for proselytizing religious recruitment and indoctrination. You are having an effect yes I am weary of this. Please cease and desist I am taking a break. Why dont you just post a copy of the old one - show me the beef - it was probably just a poorly done article to begin with. Please state your COI too.Devilishlyhandsome (talk)

Some of this is bordering on WP:CIVIL. Your objection to being "hikacked from working on the article" is precisely why I recommended you userfy the page, work on it, and then move it to article space when it was ready. The article was discussed, deemed non-notable, and deleted, when you immediately recreated with identical sourcing. That's something which needs to be addressed. Accusing me of proselytizing is just silly. — Jess· Δ ♥ 02:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No there you go now implying a policyviol with this WP:CIVIL. In itselg that borders on WP:UNCIVIL. If you notice I was not aware of the old delete I am new to this topic. You (cunningly???) write as though I was privy to that and pounced the next day. But no. You know full well I am new to this topic. So please lay off the suggestion that I "immediately" did anything. There is no base point to refer to so it is meaningless to say "immediately".

But yes the topic is so popular that a totally new person, being myself, thought hey what's up why is there no articel on this. That just goes to prove the deletion was in error. And yes I do feel highjacked timewise are WP editors forbidden to state this? At this point I have had to spend more time arguing about whether I can continue writing than writing. No wonder so many people are in fact leaving WP disatisfied. Go to meta and read all about it. And you are WP:WIKILAWYERING. Why dontcha lay off for a day or two, let me read over all the old stuff and the afd and maybe I will agree. Otherwise I have to insist on a full and fair re-hearing and that is I believe in order. I didn't come here to be a lawyer I came here to write you're really turning me off to the whole idea of one big happy wiki it seems like a place for brutal intellectual combat. The end of innocence. I suggst we take a break from this edit war in any case. If you want to userfy then template. I insist on a full RM debate. That's what it takes to save WP and its intellectual integrity you should be thanking me not throwing legalisms at me. Try WP:NICE Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand the second half of your reply. For instance, "if you want to userfy then template". I suggested on your talk page that if you had any trouble moving the page to userspace, that I could do that for you. Are you asking me to move it? I'd be happy for you to work on it further there, and it would save it from a second deletion. — Jess· Δ ♥ 03:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be obvious that I oppose the userification and I can't help but wonder why you are acting as though that is not clear. You know full well what a template is and an RM template is and you can't not know that when I "insist on a full RM debate" that I expect you to follow the rules and have an open discussion of the proposed move to userspace which I objected to. Since you claim to be a knowledgable WikiLawyer who has expert knowledge on why this article supposedly does not meet notability you should not be unaware or pretend to be unaware of what a Request Move template is. Oh, I will still assume good faith, but your remarks appear to be disingenuous - do you really expect me to believe that you honestly think that I somehow need your assistance to perform a userification which I have clearly objected to? Why are you so stubbornly opposing this artice - if you don't mind, may I ask for a COI disclosure: are you a member of an organization such as a church? Are yiou a member of a fundamentalist church? I think that this is all appropriately COI disclosures. I don't mind disclosing to you yes I am a member of the Christian Church, myself. I am willing to provide what I ask, and I do respect the fact of some other users who, although strenuously opposing my every edit, evenmy username, at least have the integrity to disclose their church affiliation. In any case, I don't insist that you must make a COI disclosure, but it seems that under WP policy you probably are required to do so in which case, if you can't cite contrary Wikipedia policy, I am making this request. But not in a meanspirited or accusatorial way. It just seems that you are obstinately POV on this article and it would clear the air if you admit that you are a "bekliever" and we can proceed more honestly. Again, I am not an atheist, myself. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outrageous

Re: "That assertion is yet to be sourced." It most certainly is sourced. Read again. It is in the article. Not worded that way. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article was just deleted

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Atheism_3.0 Abhishikt (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was never properly written nor was it properly noticed and defended. The old article is irrelevant, measure this one by the rules. We all know that POV warriors just want to suppress this topic anyway so if you win you lose because no one will ever trust WP if it lets POV warriors thwart this valid discussion. Please knock off the edit war against atheist thinking - I am not one but I swear I will disavow the Christian church if you POV warriors don't stop this incessant edit waring against valid intellectual content. Enogh all ready, leave it alone. People who are interested in truth can edit and read others please go read the Gospel and ask yourself why you are trying to crucify Jesus all over again by turning his church into a reverse form of Stalinism. Stop attacking this article. Thanks. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What this is and what this is not

This is not a "recreation"" (SIC) [re-creation] of a deleted page it is a novel creation from scratch by a different writer who had nothing to do with previous coverage and was not aware of the previous article nor of any deletion discussion. It is inaccurate to label this a "recreation". It is a new and different article.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]