User talk:NBeale/Archives

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


Contents

Richard Dawkins[edit]

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.

Reasonable explanation for reverting your edits to Richard Dawkins[edit]

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)

Regarding reversions[1] made on October 26 2006 to Richard Dawkins[edit]

Octagon-warning.svg
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

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)

Blocking[edit]

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)

Wording of "General Notice" 3RR Template[edit]

(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)

217.158.22.35[edit]

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)

Re: Dawkins[edit]

I'll be more specific on the talk page of the Dawkins article. ;) menscht 23:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


Suspected Socks[edit]

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

Regarding reversions[6] made on November 1 2006 to Richard Dawkins[edit]

Octagon-warning.svg
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
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)

Richard_Dawkins/Sandbox[edit]

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)

Hello[edit]

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)

Your Post to Dawkins User Page[edit]

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)

Comments[edit]

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)

I think wikipedia practices censorship in regards to the evolutionary position and...[edit]

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

Warning[edit]

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 04:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

On Propriety[edit]

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)

Dawkins[edit]

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)

Assume good faith in edits on Dawkins talk.[edit]

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)

Creationism[edit]

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)

Simonyi Prof[edit]

Thanks for implementing that change re. origins of the Simonyi Professorship. TimRR 22:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block[edit]

Hi William. I think you may have been misled about these "revert"s. The "third" one was because user Snalwibma posted on Talk:Viruses_of_the_Mind#Additions, about my previous contribution (which had unfortunately got garbled in trying to edit it to meet Sparkhead's objections): "I have tried to make sense of it and have failed. I have therefore removed the addition. If anyone knows what it is trying to say, and can edit it to make sense, please go ahead! Snalwibma 17:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)" As soon as I saw this request I acted on it (at 23:11) and Snalwibma then made some further improvements to the text. I was not therefore in any sense undoing Snalwimba's work, I was specifically doing what Snalwimba asked. I also respectfully point out that even if this and all the other changes were to be considered reverts (though in fact they were attempts to address the objections that were raised, and changed the inserted text substantially in each case)it was only 44 minutes inside the 24 hrs. NBeale 04:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

PS I've now looked at Spark's report and the comments. I don't understand the comment: "Discussion in talk asked for justification for the additions, which was not given." There is extensive discussion on talk - in each case I have replied to requests as soon as possible. Perhaps you were misinformed about this? NBeale 04:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You have 4R, and not for the first time. Please learn caution William M. Connolley 09:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi William. Thanks. I honestly think this is unreasonable - we'll see what the community thinks in due course. BTW can you explain your comment "Discussion in talk asked for justification for the additions, which was not given." There is 2,742 words about this on the talk section of which I contrubited 484 (and would have contributed more but for the block)? Thanks. NBeale 22:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi NBeale! For the record (and because you asked me specifically on my talk page), no, I would not count your reversion of my deletion of those two paragraphs as a revert. You were indeed doing exactly what I had suggested on the talk page. But this is hardly the point. In the circumstances it might have been wiser to address the range of issues raised by a number of editors, not just to correct the syntax, and to discuss first on the talk page. Snalwibma 08:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I notice you're still pursuing this, which of course you're welcome to do. However... next time, just wait before doing things which are, or like like, 3RR. Its simpler all round. These things are seldom as urgent as they seem at the time William M. Connolley 13:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions[8] made on December 4 2006 to Viruses_of_the_Mind[edit]

Octagon-warning.svg
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 24 hours.

Next time it goes up...

William M. Connolley 23:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Positive Contributions[edit]

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)

On Impossibilities[edit]

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)

Cooperation in Evolution[edit]

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)

Bach[edit]

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)

Cooperation in evolution 2[edit]

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)

AfD[edit]

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)

Rough draft of article on creationist organization[edit]

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)

Tower of babel[edit]

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)

Why was Argument from Free Will changed?[edit]

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)

Omnipotence[edit]

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)

Christian Existential Humanism[edit]

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)

Antitheism factcheck[edit]

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)

I assume you are not in the US and probably are an Anglican[edit]

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)

AfD "excuses to delete content"[edit]

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)

Orr link rises from the dead[edit]

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)

Kudos and comment[edit]

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)

Thanks[edit]

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)

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

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)

Humor and Boeing gambit[edit]

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

Gambits[edit]

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)

re:747 argument[edit]

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)

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

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)

Your list - AfD[edit]

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)

DYK[edit]

Updated DYK query 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)


March 2007[edit]

Information.svg

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)

My complaints about your behaviour[edit]

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)

Reasonable criticism[edit]

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)

Unrebuttable rebuttal :)[edit]

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

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

Very disappointed...[edit]

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)

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

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)

About your Current Dispute[edit]

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)

Nicholas Beale[edit]

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)

Martin Beale[edit]

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)

Consensus![edit]

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)

Question[edit]

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)

WP Christianity[edit]

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)

Regarding the recent AfD[edit]

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)

Summary of present situation[edit]

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)

Debrett's[edit]

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)

AfD[edit]

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)

Start-class[edit]

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)

Comment[edit]

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)

So you are a sailor[edit]

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)

FA review[edit]

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)

Epigenetics[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Atheism criticism, suggestions?[edit]

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)

God doesn't exist[edit]

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)

"Facing the truth" and reverting[edit]

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)

Darwin's Angel[edit]

Information.svg 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)

Nuvola apps important.svg 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)

Leave Derek Parfit alone[edit]

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)

MATT RIDLEY: correction[edit]

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)

Northern Rock[edit]

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)

An application of BIO[edit]

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)

AfD nomination of James W. Sire[edit]

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)

Preserving Wikipedia's reputation[edit]

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)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter[edit]

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

WikiCookie[edit]

Just stopping by with cookies for those editors who started new articles today. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter[edit]

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter[edit]

Christianity WikiProject Newsletter - July 2008[edit]

This Newsletter was automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 08:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Taylor[edit]

Thanks for adding biographical information to the new article on Thomas Taylor, but since you must have got that information from somewhere and Wikipedia's policies require that contributions must be verifiable and explicitly sourced, could you please add your source or sources to the article? Thanks in advance! Rovaniemi-5 (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Questions of Truth[edit]

Congratulations on the book. I haven't seen it yet, but I will look out for it - and also (in a slightly different sense) look out for the wikipedia article on it. I know we have rather different outlooks on religion, life, the universe etc, but I hope you'll appreciate my attempts to help the article along. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I look forward to (another) constructive collaboration. I don't really agree with your removing the endorsers but it's not up to me to put them back because of COI. I do however think they add value to the reader, which should I believe be our main criterion. NBeale (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - April 2009[edit]

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - May 2009[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yellow_Air_Taxi[edit]

At this AfD you commented on a lack of references. Did you look at the ones supplied in the AfD or are you !voting on the basis of the status of the article as it stands? If the second, I'd ask that you look over WP:DEL. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

IMHO we can only vote on the Article in the AfD. If someone comes across relevant refs and thinks they make the case against deteltion they should put them in the article. NBeale (talk) 05:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Please be sure to read WP:DEL if you haven't already. The general sense there is that we should look at if the topic is notable, not if the article cites those sources clearly. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Where do you get this from? as far as I am concerned the question is whether the Article should be deleted, not whether some possible article could be written on this topic that should not be deleted. NBeale (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Extensive copy-pasting[edit]

Hello, your contributions to Marie Galway rely excessively on a single source. This is probably a copy-right violation, as you have added entire sentences from the source, such as:

On 26 August 1913 in the Royal Bavarian Chapel, London, she married Sir Henry Lionel Galway. Six weeks later he was appointed governor of South Australia and took office on 18 April 1914. Lady Galway's gifts as a public speaker were soon appreciated throughout the State. She inaugurated the Adelaide branch of the Alliance Française, and gave literary and historical talks to the Poetry Recital Society, the Victoria League in South Australia and kindred bodies.

The striking out is the only editing to the copyrighted material — quotation marks must be used when quoting, and excessive quoting can still be considered a copyright violation. {{Nothanks-web}} has some links about what to do if have permission from the Australian National University to use this material and distribute it under GFDL. 77.4.87.112 (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, it is silly for Anon editors to do such a thing. Secondly the text is certainly fair use. Thirdly there is specific permission from the copyright owner. "Apart from any use permitted by the Act, the ANU grants users of this site a licence to print, download, copy and paste text and search results into other web-based documents and link particular articles within the ADB Online to a user's website, for non-commercial purposes only."
GFDL allows commercial use provided the source is made available. Since you don't believe in anons and also claim fair use, I will ask someone else to comment. 217.189.255.152 (talk) 07:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Nope. That silly anon is quite right, you can't make such close copies of copyrighted material. Wikipedia allows commercial re-use under the GFDL. You can put the copied material inside of quatation marks or take it out altogether. Or you can find a few more sources and put it in your own words... Franamax (talk) 10:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore NBeale, the link you provide above purporting to grant you the right to copy also states The moral rights of the authors of online ADB articles must be respected, therefore any text that is copied from the website must be fully identified as an author's work and must not be altered in any way. You have already altered the text and by not placing it within quotation marks you also invite subsequent wiki editors to rewrite it further. If you wish the text to be properly released, you need to contact the ADB directly and ask them to either submit a WP:OTRS ticket or change their website to indicate that they now allow their works to be freely reused and adapted for any purpose. Franamax (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you a lawyer?!? Clearly permission to paste to a website for non-commercial use cannot impose a subsequent obligation on the use from that website. I've emailed the ANU to ask, but this is really silly. NBeale (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
NBeale, you are missing the concept that to put material into wikipedia it must be acceptable for commercial use. Just because Wikipedia is itself not-for-profit does not matter: you are taking material that is explicitly available for nonprofit only, and putting it into our medium which is making it available for commercial applications, in violation of explicit guidelines of the source. doncram (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I note also that there is copy-pasting from a GFDL source in Nicolas Rashevsky, another article which you wrote. You include sentence: "His later efforts focused on topology of biological systems and the formulation of fundamental principles in biology and hierarchical organization of organisms and human societies.[1]".
Reference

  1. ^ Planet Math page

That sentence, at least, is a verbatim, exact copy of the sentence in the source, and in my view it is improper not to credit the source adequately by quoting it. You sourced it, yes, but did not credit the authors for their exact wording. Without quotes, it looks like it is your/our reworded summary of Planet Math material. I see that Planet Math.Org releases the text under GFDL, but to me it is obvious that wikipedia needs to quote and credit Planet Math. Note, the short Planet Math source article itself has 9 substantial references. We are relying upon the Planet Math writers' credibility in accurately reporting information that they attribute to those sources and we need to credit them/blame them/hold them accountable for their words. It is also not an option for us to paste in their sources as we have not consulted them directly either. I didn't check other sentences in this article. (Note, the specifics I state here are also given by me, with some different wording, as an example of a general problem, at wikipedia talk:Plagiarism, where wikipedia policy type questions are being addressed. Here, I am just trying to provide you, NBeale, with this specific feedback.) doncram (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Doncram - I've googled your phrase and there are no instances. I just don't think it is correct. Where do you get it from. Are you a lawyer? Do you have any legal experience? NBeale (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand your reply: what phrase did you google, towards establishing what? A very good source which is very clear on cases such as here (where there is taking of another's wording which itself relies upon other sources) is Roger Clarke in published version "Plagiarism by Academics: More Complex Than It Seems".
Also, I will say: I don't like your apparent first impulse to question the credentials of wikipedia editors who say something that you do not agree with, as if you want to discredit and dismiss them/me. This is not a credentials-based site, and it runs a bit counter to the democratic ethos here, to either assert your own credentials or to question others' credentials, which are irrelevant here. What you and others say has to stand on its merits, and/or depend upon reliable sources. It rubs me the wrong way, and I believe it tends to work against you, in any wikipedia forum, to claim credentials. That said, to respect and answer your question nonetheless, no, IANAL (I am not a lawyer). I do have some legal experience, including on plagiarism issues, but i don't care to be more specific. I also have other credentials but I don't wish to assert them. doncram (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Doncram. We just don't write WikiPedia articles on the same basis as we write academic papers. No-one is trying to pass of articles as their own work, so the concept of plagarism in the academic sense simply doesn't arise. It seems to me that if you are making confident assertions about another editor's contributions you probably should be required to substantiate them. But you are of course free to edit what I write, and vice versa. NBeale (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Read the source that I suggested to you. It is very clear, and I also fully understand, that writing for an encyclopedia is very different than writing for academic credit in a peer review publication. I think it is helpful to view our writing here as authored by a collective of editors. And we as a collective are seeking credit / seeking to develop and maintain a reputation, based on the quality of our writing and in part on the truthfulness/clarity of our sourcing practices. I use the term plagiarism to refer to situations where less credit is given to a source, than is reasonably expected to be due. I think that in this instance, your copying a sentence (or more) does not give adequate credit, because it does not give credit to the source for the actual wording, so, technically by this working definition, you/we are plagiarizing by that action. There has also been a lot of previous discussion about plagiarism and adequate sourcing in wikipedia, some in the current Talk and some in the Talk archives of wp:Plagiarism, a new guideline that is not yet official policy and not yet fully settled, but it is now a guideline. What confident assertion of mine do you take issue with? doncram (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Doncram. The source is about Plagarism in Academic Papers. WikiPedia is not an academic paper. Furthermore your source says, rightly, that "A pre-condition for plagiarism is that the claim of originality of contribution is either explicit or implied by the manner of presentation; or the presentation may be such that the reader is reasonably likely to infer the work to be an original contribution." But WikiPedia specifically bans WP:OR. The purpose of WikiPedia is that users can get reliable information about notable topics. NBeale (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I can't make you read that one source, which is centrally about an investigation of plagiarism in a textbook (very much like an encyclopedia, where originality is not particularly wanted). And that source is not at all a cornerstone of wikipedia policy on plagiarism; it is more a source that has influenced my own thinking.
There is an implicit claim in a wikipedia article that does not use quotation marks: the claim is that the wording is by wikipedia editors, summarizing from sources given. Verbatim passages without quototation marks are just wrong, in my view, although I will acknowledge that others think that use of an attribution template suffices to cover for that. You didn't use either. Perhaps you could clarify what, if anything, could constitute plagiarism in wikipedia? If you believe it is impossible, then you and I will probably have to agree to disagree, and your beliefs will be in contradiction to what is now a guideline for wikipedia. doncram (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
NBeale, despite your posturing, it's not necessary to be called to the bar in order to spot that you copied and altered text from a website whose permission page says their text "must not be altered in any way". You altered the text, not us. We would all be much better served if you would cooperate with us to identify where the potential problems are. Let's not get into dumb discussions about who is a lawyer and what is the true definition of fair use. That stuff gets us nowhere.
Can you identify any other places where you'vr made verbatim or close to verbatim copies of text? Rgeardless of whether you've placed a cite template next to it, where have you made direct copies of text? This is not a big witch-hunt right now, we still have the opportunity to bring everything within our standards. We can keep the content if we do it right, then everybody wins, especially our readership. It pains me greatly to totally eviscerate an article. I've had to do it once to your writings, I'd rather work out any other solution for the future. Franamax (talk) 10:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Come off it! If you want to spend your time in this way I cannot stop you, but I'm afraid I think this whole discussion is misconceived. NBeale (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Another case: Frederick Nolde[edit]

I looked at a few of the other articles you have created according to your user page. Frederick Nolde is again a case of copyright violation:

During the war[World War II], the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in the United States (FCC) led the effort to shape ideas of global order which culminated in a study that produced "The Six Pillars of Peace." The U.S. government generally embraced these ideas; both the Federal and World Councils of Churches then sought to influence the shape of and support for the UN charter. After the war, a new unit of the World Council, the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs (CCIA), picked up the baton. Directed by Frederick Nolde, an American, it pushed for creation of a commission on human rights, for drafting a declaration of human rights, and, within this, for the protection of religious liberty in the broadest possible terms.

No quotation marks are used, you give the citation for this only in the next paragraph, and you cite the book, while these quotes are from the book review! The person who came up with this eloquent formulation is Jill K. Gill, who is not credited in the article. 217.189.255.152 (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it to add quotation marks around that passage; it may still be a copyright violation, but now we can start talking about fair use. 217.189.255.152 (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Another case: Martin Nowak[edit]

Jeepers, I got a hit on the first one I checked! NBeale, please review here, where I've removed more copied text apparently placed by yourself. Franamax (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It is against Wikipedia's copyright policy to place non-free text into articles except in the manner allowed by the non-free content guidelines, which limit the quantity of text that may be used and require specific formatting and attribution. Except as allowed by the non-free content guidelines, you may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences, unless those sites are verifiably public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

E. M. Delafield[edit]

A portion of this article has been blanked to allow you time to verify if you have permission to place text here from [21]. It may also be necessary to compare against other sources. Archives confirm that starcourse.org published the text in 2002, which considerably predates our use. Whether they are the original publishers of this text or not, their usage proves handily that it was first authored elsewhere. If you have reason to believe that the point of origin has free license, please provide a link to it. The procedures for verifying licensing can be found at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted material, if you are the original author of this text, or Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission if you are not. Alternatively, if you wish to rewrite the passages into your own language, you can do so in the temporary space now linked on the article's face. The process allows seven days for regular contributors to the article to address the matter before an administrator closes the listing.

I recognize from your various posts that you feel you are being retrospectively held to account under criteria of the new plagiarism guideline. However, this placement of text copied from other sources has for many years been acceptable on Wikipedia only under specific circumstances. Wikipedia's copyright policy has been in place since April of 2002. Wikipedia does not accept text copied from previously published sources unless we can verify those sources are freely licensed or ineligible for copyright protection (as with works of the United States government or works in which copyright has lapsed due to age) or unless the material is properly handled according to non-free content guidelines. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

For heaven's sake - I am the author of the website [22] - I can jolly well copy my own text wherever I want. This is getting ridicuous!! NBeale (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
You must follow one of the processes to verify compatible licensing. I have linked to the process pages for doing so above. If you have difficulty with these, please let me know. As the process page explains, the simplest method is to note the release at the website, but you also have the option of e-mailing the foundation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to forestall any future confusion, the current licensing terms of the website are incompatible with Wikipedia's in that they require that users "must email mods@starcourse.org with a short description of the changes you have made and attaching copies of the modifications which can be put on the starcourse downloads webiste, so that people can download them." Wikipedia's licensing does not allow additional restrictions beyond the right of attribution, which is granted under both GFDL and CC-BY-SA. This is why the "Donating copyrighted materials" page specifies that the licensing must be GFDL compatible. There are more GFDL compatible image licenses permitted on Wikipedia than text licenses, although the state of licensing on Wikipedia is currently in flux, as the transition to CC-BY-SA passed by majority on a foundation wide vote which was tallied about a week ago. For this reason, it's important that you co-license as recommended at that document, since in June all material licensed to us under GFDL only after November 2008 unless from a multiuser site like Wikipedia itself will have to be removed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
(a) This only applies to the word documents which are the "Star Course". (b) The author of an original work who is also the copyright holder can place parts of it in Wikipedia (or a newspaper, or anywhere else) without any further copyright formalities. (c) I have nevertheless sent the requisite email NBeale (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. As we have no means of verifying identity at account creation, these external processes are essential. I will check the e-mail queue to see if it has arrived. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
There does not yet seem to be an e-mail in the queue addressing this matter. Until permission is logged, the template should remain in place on the article. If you wish to release the text at the website, it can be restored as soon as that release is placed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
It's in. You sent it to the wrong address (commons is for images), but I am transferring it to the proper queue. Should you ever need to assert permission again, by the way, please be sure to identify the article in question. If another agent had received that note, you would have received a form letter asking which article you were talking about, which would have delayed clearance of the material by possibly up to a few days. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Science of God[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Science of God, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

No references, other than to the book that is the topic of this article, no indication that this book meets WP:BK. Further, this book is merely a summary of author's three volume opus A Scientific Theology

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Another case: Jeremy Butterfield[edit]

Checking your most recent contributions, I see you have copy-pasted distinctive text from an Oxford University Press website into the article on Jeremy Butterfield. I find that quickly by running a google search on the phrase "address fundamental questions about time in philosophy, physics, linguistics, and psychology". I see that you list the source, but you do not credit that exact, distinct and unusual phrasing by quoting it explicitly. An alternative would be to rewrite the passage in your own words. I believe this is both a matter of copyright violation and of plagiarism. doncram (talk) 10:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Don. This is completely ridiculous. The reason publishers put this kind of text on their websites is to encourage people to copy it. No publisher in the world is going to object to a snippet of their book description being placed in a wikipedia article when suitably sourced. And it is unquestionably fair use for copyright purposes. Nor for that matter is it "distinct and unusual phrasing". Please consider WP:NOT and WP:IAR. NBeale (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I put the distinctive phrase in quotes to fix the situation. I agree that the publisher was not going to pursue a copyvio lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation, and it could be fair use. But it is under-crediting / over-claiming for wikipedia to use that distinctive phrase without showing that it is a quote. doncram (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Don - thanks but that's not quite the point. Many people whose copyright has been violated might feel aggrieved but decided not to pursue a lawsuit. Any publisher I know or can imagine (including certainly both of mine) would be delighted that wikipedia was referring to one of their books and using some text from their webiste about it. Far from harming them or misusing their material, we are helping them and using it in the way they would wish. NBeale (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that whether someone is likely to pursue a lawsuit is not the relevant standard. Wikipedia has higher standards for avoiding copyright violations than many publications. It is a distinctive phrase though, in fact to me it is not clear what it really means. It appears to me to be marketing-like rather than encyclopedic, actually, which is another reason for putting it into quotes. To convey honestly to the wikipedia reader that it is a promotional-type phrase, and to put some distance from it.
At my Talk page, you asked: "Hi Don. I suppose I should be flattered that you are taking such a close interest in my recent contributions to Wikipedia, but I am curious as to why you have singled me out for special attention? Best wishes NBeale (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)" I believe you are asking because i just posted above. I am not giving you particularly special attention, but rather i like other wikipedia editors will often/usually "watchlist" a user Talk page if I have posted a question. I noticed you responded to my comment at your page above, so, I responded to you again. Honestly I don't right now recall how our paths crossed at first. Did you post at {{wt:plagiarism]]? Hmm, no, i think it was the non-logged in user who invited others to review what you were doing, which brought me to this page at first. I don't have particular interest in what appears to be your areas of interest, so if this discussion about copyright and crediting issues finishes out, and if there were other topics popping up on your Talk page instead, then I would probably eventually remove your Talk page from my watchlist. That's probably how many other editors would do it, too, i think. Hope this helps you in some way. doncram (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I too began reviewing your edits NBeale because another editor raised concerns. Once those concerns are validated in one case, myself, doncram or any other editor can avail themselves of the opportunity to review every one of your edits - that what the contribution history is for. Our concern here is not to pursue you as a person, it's to ensure the quality of the encyclopedia. You can check all my edits too, and comment on each and every one.
As far as your statements in various places on (paraphrased) "I know him, I'm sure he'd be fine if we copy text from his site" and "publishers would be delighted to have their text copied" - those are your opinions and they may be factually true. But that's not the point, we don't work from pretty sure it's OK. We want to be an encyclopedia, that means we verify everything. We establish policies and procedures and make sure everyone follows them. No-one is hunting you in particular.
You've just been through what turned out to be a pretty simple process to release external text through the OTRS system - it did turn out to be pretty simple, right? And now we have a proper record so that no-one, lawyer or not, can ever challenge you or us (the wiki) on it again. That one is finished. That's what I meant when I said above that it would be best if you worked with us to identify what text you have copied. You could have said then "I copied text from one of my websites" and we could have done it all without tooth-pulling. We're not your enemy, we're all friends of the encyclopedia - right? Franamax (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Franamax. The idea thst "we establish policies and procedures and make sure everybody follows them" seems to me to be completely against the fundamental principles of Wikipedia - see WP:NOT and WP:IAR. Furthermore this new guideline against "plagarism" is not a policy and it is not obligatory for any editor to follow it. And finally the idea that an author must send an email to Wikipedia to give himself permission to place text he has written in Wikipedia is completely absurd. Ah well... NBeale (talk) 06:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Look, I know you feel embattled right now. I can only say it's nothing personal. When I use the "we" above, that's not me as part of a specific group of people, I mean we as in how the whole community thknks and works. You can insist on your right to make direct copies of other people's writing without saying that you've done so. That's fine, you can even resort to IAR (but read the associated explanatory essays thereto) - but then sooner or later your desires and actions may be brought to the attention of the wider community. The whole point of the plagiarism guideline is to provide a reference resource before things get to that incredibly messy and dramatic point, beyond which editors sometimes never return. It's meant to be a good thing. And it's also one stop before WP:COPYVIO, which is the end of the line. You can choose how long you want to ride the bus...
And yes, damn straight an author has to license their text. Are you saying that I could register an account here as User:CocaCola and copy anything I want off of cocacola.com? Can I say that Franamax is my real name and I know Madonna and Cher, and I'm sure they won't mind me copying their song lyrics here onto the wiki? Of course not - but no more can you make assertions about who you are and who you know and what property you own. We have very simple procedures and people willing to help you to confirm that. I'm not saying that you're an impostor, I have no reason to believe you are. But equally I have no reason to take at face value that you are who you say you are - especially when I know that you can use OTRS to prove it.
Honest, this is not about you. It is though about many other people not yourself who have proved to be not telling the truth. Since we can't be sure just from what an account editor says, we sometimes need extra confirmation. Do you agree with any of that? Franamax (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Franamax. I don't think you or anyone else is in a position to say how "the whole community thinks and works". And talking about "your desires ... may be brought to the attention of the wider community" has a pretty Orwellian tinge. Thought-crime is a truly terrible offence against the spirit of Wikipedia. Please read WP:NOT. Relatively new Editors, even if they are admins, might want to reflect a bit before trying to impose their will on everyone else. NBeale (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've never tried to say that I have some special gift of access to how the whole community thinks. I've only tried to work with members of the community to develop a consensus description. And I've tried, by myself and in concert with others, to make a friendly effort to educate other editors on what that consensus is. You may not agree with it, but you've yet to demonstrate that consensus is on your side.
You may have an outlook on "new Editors", but aren't you just a little troubled by the summary of quotes and links found here, statements made by the first editor?
Copyright is not an Orwellian concept, and Orwell wrote about how morality was perverted by goals of the state, resulting in damage to individuals (especially that poor horse). There's no shadowy cabal, this stuff has been openly discussed for years.
I'm rather surprised that you wouldn't welcome a wider look at this. I've not yet seen anyone agreeing with you that it's perfectly acceptable to copy-paste other people's writing without a single change and update the GFDL History section with an entry showing yourself as the author. You could for instance post to Jimbo's talk page asking him to clarify his remarks from 2005. That will certainly draw the comments of a portion of the community. Who knows, you may be completely right. Franamax (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Your note[edit]

Hi, you can take it to Deletion Review. If it really is a new article with good secondary sources, there's a good chance they'll want to keep it. But given that it's been deleted twice, it shouldn't just be recreated. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Slim; This article has not been deleted twice. A much earlier version of the article was (narrowly) deleted after an initial debate was closed improperly. You of all people should know that decisions made some time ago on Wikipedia are not permanent. If you want to delete this article (and I am concerned that it may be for reasons quite unconnected with its merits) then you should propose an AFD NBeale (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Slim is still right, you should have taken it to DRV. But, now that it's in article space, there isn't much point. I've suggested Slim take it to AfD if she desires. Also, you might be interested to know that there's a thread on WP:ANI about this. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Repost of Nicholas Beale[edit]

Information.svg A tag has been placed on Nicholas Beale requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - June 2009[edit]

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - July 2009[edit]

John Carter (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Myers[edit]

Please stop. Given your conflict of interest, you should be very careful about editing the article. When three other editors agree that the material shouldn't be there, you need to stop adding it. Guettarda (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It borders on the hilarious that you are so desperate to defend your "hero" that you want to suppress his publication record. What is it about atheists that makes them so anxious to hide facts that they find inconvenient? NBeale (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
You appear to be edit warring against consensus to introduce information on that article. Please stop. You are also making personal attacks about the motivations of editors who disagree with you. While your religious views may make you think you have mind reading powers, that doesn't cut it on Wikipedia where civility is required. My suggestion is that you should take more care to behave responsibly, and stop making statements which only serve to antagonise other editors. . dave souza, talk 20:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Dave: you and Guettarda (who seems to work together quite often) want to hide this information, I and another editor (who was an anon annoyingly) do not. I am not making a personal attack - I am genuinely curious as to why atheists are so anxious to hide facts that they find disagreeable. Perhaps you can enlighten me? NBeale (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Who are these atheists of whom you speak? . . dave souza, talk 22:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed[edit]

I usually just ignore my talk page, since it's usually just perfunctory/procedural comments. So I didn't notice your friendly little message until today. Yes, I believe it was quite frankly a travesty of justice that the NBeale article was deleted at AFD. Given the discussion, I think it should have been closed as no consensus. It could always be discussed with closing admin (if it hasn't already) and taken to deletion review. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - August 2009[edit]

Edit summaries[edit]

Please don't use false edit summaries like you did with this edit. Regardless of how you want to spin the Pearcy and Forrest and Gross quotes, the Pennock quote says precisely what you claim it doesn't. Guettarda (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Mahler[edit]

No problem. There are several sources [23], so I just chose one. Softlavender (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I did already choose one and added it to the article. Perhaps you misread the above sentence? And did not check the article? Softlavender (talk) 09:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Ahh - I was talking about the article Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen - I see you added the ref in the Mahler article. I've copied it to the other one. Tx. NBeale (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators election[edit]

Sorry about the delay in responding. I actually didn't see your post the first time, because of subsequent posts which needed attention. I am probably myself not the best qualified person to provide leadership here, because I keep finding myself asked to get involved in other content, like right now Falun Gong. What the project needs, primrily, I think, is to be able to bring together interested parties on articles getting focused attention. I notice Kirill still posts each request for peer review, GAC, GAR, FAC, FAR, etc., over at the main MilHist talk page. If we could use anything right now, that would probably be it. Encouaging other editors to get involved in current high-quality content is probably the best way I can think of to get them to work together. I actually now have a 45 page public domain encyclopedia section on Baptism, and another huge one on Nestorianism, I'm going to try to add in. The one big difference I see though between us and MilHist is the frequent existing disagreements between adherents regarding most anything. I honesstly don't know how to address that, but if you can think of anything, I'm more than willing to give it a try. John Carter (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Developing an emerging global team is a big help. Possibly a quick reminder sent to all project members for example: "Elections for Coordinators close in 2 weeks (say). We hope there will be a global team, we currently have nominees from the N America, Europe and Asia - wouldn't it be great to have someone from Africa and S America. The more people get involved the more we can achieve, without excessive workload for anyone. So do offer to stand if you can, and please vote even if you can not, becasue it will encourage the coordinators if they know they have your support" This might be better, and easier, if it were not in a Newsletter.
As for disagreements about Christianity - sadly this may continue for some time :-(. Best wishes NBeale (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
One alternative idea that has occured to me in the past is to try to get individual coordinators to run as "deputies" for the various denominations/types, so, in effect, a Roman Catholic coordinator, a Lutheran coordinator, an Anglican coordinator, etc. Unfortunately, when I did ask for nominees from each group, none came forward, except Tinucherian and the now retired SECisek, so I'm not sure if it would be any more effective a second time. John Carter (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Personally I'd find global team more appealing, but then I'm volunteering already. Assuming a message to the project members is low cost asking once more, globally, and giving a dateline would seem a reasonable idea to me. But it's up to you of course. NBeale (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, NBeale. You have new messages at Rjanag's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Edit warring notice[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Inspector Clouseau. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, IMDB is not a reliable source and there's no point listing random, cherry-picked collections of quotes with no clear inclusion criteria. If you want them included, you need to start a discussion at the talk page rather than edit warring. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Please stop these unwarranted personal attacks. The Anon editor made 3 reverts in 24 hours. I responded by making improvements on the 4th, 5th and 6th Oct. Not even close to WP:3RR NBeale (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
That wasn't a personal attack, it was a notice--perhaps you would do well to not take editing so personally.
As for 3RR, edit warring is still edit warring even if it happens over a couple days; perhaps you haven't read WP:3RR which was clearly linked in the message above. Specifically, the line Policy forbids edit warring generally, and editors may be blocked if they edit war, with or without breaching 3RR, and the same thing in the above message: Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule..rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I know you are a new-ish editor and a v new Admin, but it would be better not to act quite so aggressively. In this case I have made 3 changes in 3 days, in every case trying to address the concerns of the anon editor (lacking a sense of humour is a problem in editing an article about Inspector Clouseau. In English, "several" does not mean three. NBeale (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a new editor, and I'm not being aggressive; I was giving you a notice rather than blocking you outright. Your insistence that issuing a standard notice message is a "personal attack" is not only very immature (especially for someone who wants to have an article written about himself), it also shows that you have a very poor understanding of Wikipedia policies. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry your user page says you have been on wikipedia for less than 18 months. Perhaps this is inaccurate. Please show me other instances where you have complained about someone being in an edit war when they have made 3 edits over 3 days, trying to meet the objections of 1 other editor (esp an anon) and it will become clear whether this is personal or just your normal style. NBeale (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Look through my log and my talk page archives, you will see plenty of instances of my blocking people with less than 3 reverts in 24 hours. It's not just you. Have you actually bothered to read the WP:EW page yet, where it clearly says (in bold letters) that edit warring is still edit warring even if you haven't hit 3 reverts in 24 hours? Or do you just not know how to read? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD notice[edit]

Per your incessant requests, I have restored the article and sent it back to AfD, since you clearly want to hear how bad it is from a bunch of editors instead of just one. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Beale (4th nomination). I hope you enjoy this pointless exercise while it lasts (i.e., before it is SNOW closed). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I saw this message briefly this morning, after the debate had closed. A 1h15m discussion of an article without giving the person who wrote it any notice or any time to improve it is perhaps better than deleting and salting without any discussion at all, though not in accordance with AfD policies either. I never suggested that the article was a good one - it clearly needs a lot of improvement before it becomes an acceptable article - but this level of aggression (completely unique in my experience, can you find another parallel instance?) really makes it hard to work effectively. I ask you to obey process and agreed rules and I am "bugging you". At least I now know who the user is who created the article and he/she can see the concerns that were raised. If they are not so discouraged by being bitten then it might be possible to get them and others to improve it in userspace, and then we could have a proper debate on a decent article. NBeale (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:SNOW is why it was closed. Do you think it would have been any different if the administrator left this AfD open for 7 more days? No, you would have just had 7 times as many users showing up to point out how terrible the article is and how it needs to be deleted. That's the whole reason I speedily deleted it in the first place: because there was no point in wasting time with an AfD that would result in speedy deletion anyway. Perhaps now that you've had yet another reminder of why there should not be an article about you, you can quit glorifying yourself here and go on to do something more constructive. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Baroness Scotland portrait[edit]

I didn't read that discussion because I ignored it after seeing the 2007 timestamp. I was wondering why such an ugly thing was being used. -Rrius (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Is that a Christian way to think about things?Rodolph (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Cant see a Christian objection to saying that a portrait is ugly. NBeale (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
yes, but you more than said it was ugly, you deleted it, which could be seen as rather intolerant? The portrait may be ugly, but so too is much valued painting, but it was perhaps relevant to Ly. Scotland in that it was painted by an illegal immigrant in 2000.
I was particularly upset because someone with a wiki-pseudonym which meant Devil (Memphisto) had a go at me and then you, the opposite, a Christian, went for me from the other, albeit right side. And then when I restored it a few times,
having not had explained to me why it was being removed (each time I restored it I compromised, by making it smaller, etc.,) ,Memphisto gave me what amounts to a parking fine Rodolph (talk) 12:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Malice[edit]

[24] Hard to make a "vaulable contribution" while you're so hung up on yourself and how much you want an article. Perhaps you should remove the log from your own eye before trying to remove the speck from Wikipedia's. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 11:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a fact of life that authors care about what is published about them. Perhaps in an ideal world we wouldn't, but everybody does and it is human nature. Please remember that this is not a RPG, at least for most of us, but an attempt to help add to the world's knowledge and understanding. If people game the system to score points and zap people they don't like it just reduces the quality, drives serious people away, and brings Wikipedia into disrepute. There isn't much in Wikipedia about natural justice but if you think about it you will, I hope, be able to understand that a "trial" (lasting 1% of the time required by "law"), where the "accused" had no chance to put their case, and where the "jury" was packed with people who had already "convicted" and where the "prosecutor" after the trial imposes a "sentence" which was much harsher than even the flawed jury pronounced, is pretty appalling. If you actually had a reasonable case you would handle it fairly. NBeale (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
AfD is not a "trial" and Wikipedia is not a court of law. If you consider yourself one of the "serious people", you would do well to actually learn the policies that you keep ranting about. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
And by the way, your suggestion that editors are opposing you because of your religion (i.e., that they're being "hostile" to you because you're a Christian) is just the latest in a long line of immature and unfounded complaints. You keep trying to accuse others of gaming the system, but look at what you yourself are doing. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
We've told you again and again to DRV. Why haven't you? I'm a Christian, and this isn't some coordinated conspiracy to hold a God-lover down. This is about the fact that the AfD against you closed as delete, and that unless an editor does a damn good job in allaying the notability concerns, or you get the deletion decision overturned at DRV, the rules say that there will not be an article. No amount of complaining on blogs is going to change the precedent set by that AfD, so it would be best to place your effort elsewhere. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks BF. I do not know who created the new article, the first I heard of if was when it had already been deleted. It has been put to me, and I can see the force of it, that it might well be seen as COI if I went to a DRV about an article about NB ;-). But the corollary of that is that, if a 3rd party is kind enough to create an independent new article, it should be given a fair chance. There is nothing AFAIK that says that if Article A about X has been deleted, a completely separate article about X cannot be created, and under WP:BITE we should at least give a new editor a fair chance. How is a new editor to know how they can improve on the "original" NB article if they cannot even see it? I'm delighted to know that you are a Christian, and I have never accused you of being part of the RPG fraternity. But we both know that no-one else has ever been deleted from Wikipedia who has written a notable book, been described by a Nobel Laureate as having an "outstanding reputation" and been a featured speaker at the RS, AAAS, RI, published in the HBR etc... Obviously I put 99.9% of my effort elsewhere. Am at Harvard at present working with two of the world's most notable scientists, one has just given a public lecture where FWIW I was credited twice by name, so I can smile at all this, but unlike almost everyone of my generation I think Wikipedia is really quite important, take a lot of trouble to edit articles, and as a social philosopher I do care about truth and justice NBeale (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

NBeale, I believe that on the whole you pass WP:AUTHOR, but this is a subjective judgment as there is no single item on that list which applies to you unequivocally. If you want, I could put the article in my user space for you to edit, and when ready I could take it to DRV. I suggest you wait with the DRV until the collaborations you talk about above have left some trace in print. Every time your article is deleted, the notability bar is slightly raised. With every admin you manage to piss off, you get another editor (with remarkable amounts of wiki-time) to make the case against you...

Let me know if you want me to restore the article. Knowing the circumstances around here, however, it may be more wise to ask someone more active and more famous on the wiki to do this. [I'm obviously a sleeper account of yours.] If you get tired of waiting, though, I could assist. Vesal (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Vesal. Thanks v much for this. I think we should wait a bit. Although this decision is IMHO manifestly wrong, and certainly violates policy at a procdural level, it would be better if I didn't edit any article about NB unless it was completely non-controversial. We should try and encourage User:Jmt007 to work with you on this, if (s)he doesn't feel too bitten to be bothered to contribute again. There is also a [ |book] coming out for which I was invited to write the foreword, a paper by Bob May in accepted for a Royal Society journal which refers to my work, a [25] John Polkinghorne and I are giving at the Cambridge Festival of Ideas in Oct (which may attract media coverage) and an invited paper I am writing for the Dec issue of Journal of Cosmology. These and others may be helpful collateral (obviously if/when Beale, Rand, Pathy & May is published in a major scientific journal that would I think overcome all but the most absurd and malicious, but that may take a few months). NBeale (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag Arbitration[edit]

Hello. I mentioned you and quoted from your Wikipedia posts in a recently-filed request for arbitration, and I therefore thought it appropriate to notify you of the fact. The request is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Rjanag.

--Epeefleche (talk) 06:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, NBeale. You have new messages at Rjanag's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proposed deletion of Science and Christian Belief[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Science and Christian Belief has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Academic journal without indication of notability, tagged as such since August but no improvement apparent. Journal's own website does not give any indications of notability. Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals).

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Crusio (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - most courteous and proper. There are lots of ghits but it's hard to know how many are about the journal. I've emailed the editor to see if he can help with some useful refs. Though the Editorial Board suggests that this is more notable than most. NBeale (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Science and Christian Belief[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Science and Christian Belief, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Science and Christian Belief. 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Crusio (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag Conduct RfC[edit]

A Request for Comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Rjanag, by his name in this list. This follows the suggestion of a number of arbitrators at the Rjanag RfA. I am contacting you because you are mentioned in this RfC, and discussed Rjanag's conduct at the prior RfA and with him separately.

The RfC can be found here.

If a second user certifies the dispute within 48 hours, it will be moved from the "Candidate pages" section to the "Approved pages" section.

Once it has been certified and opened, editors (including those who certified the RfC) can offer comments, either by:

(a) posting their own view; and/or
(b) endorsing one or more views of others.

You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement, and/or endorse Rjanag's response, and endorse as many views as you wish. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties.

Information on the RfC process can be found at:

  1. RfC Conduct
  2. RfC Guide
  3. RfC Guide 2
  4. RfC Rules

--Epeefleche (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Timing![edit]

I have just realised that twice in the last 12 hours or so I have edited Militant atheism within three minutes of you doing the same. It must look as if I'm watching your every move and waiting to pounce! I'm not. It's sheer coincidence, I assure you. Best wishes - SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, thanks, never occurred to me. We don't always agree but I do value your collaboration. Best wishes. NBeale (talk) 06:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009[edit]

Information.svg If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Faraday Institute, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

A word of advice, if I may[edit]

Nicholas - Please don't keep harping on about how "your" article was deleted, and how unfair it is. I agree that it was inappropriate for the other guy to bring it up in a discussion about the Faraday Institute, but (a) please don't keep the discussion in the gutter by responding in kind, and (b) you know fine that what you should do if you feel that Nicholas Beale was improperly deleted is to take it Wikipedia:Deletion review. If you fail to do this but keep referring to how unfair and "blatantly political" (or whatever) the deletion was, then I and others will rapidly come to the conclusion that it actually suits you better to leave it deleted and bear the grudge, using it as a means of furthering your own agenda of pointing out how biased and unreliable Wikipedia is. In short, put it up for review, or ask someone else to do so, or shut up about it! In the absence of a review, every time you bang on about it and personalise it, the more you get people's backs up and the less likely it is that you will find support for the retention of the article. Finally (I've said this before) if it does come up for review, do you not see how the more the subject of an article pleads its case, the weaker the argument for retention appears? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks v much. But if I took it to deletion review everyone would yell COI. Pure wikipoltics but there we are. There is nothing to "plead" ITRW it is well above WP:N hence being listed in Debretts (run by professionals who know what they are talking about) for >20 years. But we all know that some people here can wikilawyer things to death, despite the increasing public damage to wikipedia's reputation that results. Most of my peers can't be bothered to contribute to wikipedia but I can and think it is at least fairly important. Deletion reviews should not be based on whether people WP:LIKE the subject, or the associated editor. What I think "ought" to happen is that some fair-minded 3rd party should take the stub created by Jmt007 (who seems to have been put off by the WP:BITE of his/her 1st article, put it in userspace and make it properly written to wikipedia standards, without all the extraneous stuff that got added to the original article in response to notability challenges, and then submit it to DRV. NBeale (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of William F. Vallicella[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article William F. Vallicella has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sign of meeting WP:PROF, WP:WEB or any other notability guideline. Tagged for notability since August with no subsequent addition of any sources to show notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RL0919 (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of William F. Vallicella[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated William F. Vallicella, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William F. Vallicella. 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. RL0919 (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Relisting notice[edit]

Per Spartaz's request, I am notifying you that this discussion that you participated in has been relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Una Healy (2nd nomination) in the hopes to gain a more fair consensus due to the participation of three sock puppet accounts in the earlier discussion. The three sock accounts that checkuser confirmed are the same person voted to delete or redirect and made multiple edits to the discussion which closed as "redirect" and therefore may have created a false impression of consensus by vote-stacking. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk

20:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

hallo from Uwe Kils[edit]

I will bring soon written proof, that I received the HEISENBERG AWARD and the 500 000 VOLKSWAGEN FOUNDATION PRIZE, an EB-1 invitation for my whole family, and a book cited 115 times - http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Kils%2C+U%22&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0 (out of 338) - http://www.ecoscope.com/biomass3.htm - another chapter in book http://www.ecoscope.com/polarbe2.htm, another http://www.ecoscope.com/naturwie.htm. His name was in 451 books - http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Kils%2C+U%22%7C%22Uwe+Kils%22&btnG=Search+Books . A certified doctor degree you can find here http://www.uwekils.com/kils15.jpg. You can contact the CAU and they will send you a certified paper edition. For me it would be enough if you call me "Ocean Photographer" with a Doktor degree in Marine Biology, maybe leave the sources and one large image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Krill666.jpg - higher resolution: http://www.ecoscope.com/krill/krill3/index.htm - when I still worked, on my birthday 50, when I gave everything away, there were 22 875 pages with my name on worldwide, only being possible with my students - thank you for your time Uwe Kils 10:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Darwin Arms[edit]

Hi NBeale, sorry I didn't post any comments when I put the arms of Charles Darwin up yesterday. It had been a busy day and I was just to tired to comment once I'd put the work up. I didn't think anyone would be bothered by it anyway. The arms were specifically granted to him (though I am tripple-checking just to make sure). Coats of arms are never granted to a family, but to a person. (Or inheritted by specific individuals, such as Charles.) That's why it could certainly go into Charles' page. Alternatively I guess it could go to the Darwin-Wedgewood family. I'd just hate to have put in a substantial amount of work on it and have it lost due to space considerations. :) Any advice? A1 Aardvark (talk) 05:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I hate to remove something that has taken quite a lot of work. But it might be better to have it in the D-W family. According to this it is a family coat of arms. NBeale (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
That website would not be considered a reliable source; and it is certainly true that at any given moment, a coat of arms is properly held by the current heir to it. If Darwin is himself the grantee (and only if), it would be appropriate in his article; just as the arms which Shakespeare paid to have granted to his father, and to which he was the heir, would be appropriate on Shakespeare's article. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Keira Knightley[edit]

Hi. Following your revert, your input is sought on the Keira Knightley talk page. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

OpenAccessforScience - subsequently Nicholas Beale[edit]

Hi NBeale, Thanks for your message regarding the deletion of e-Century Publishing...Although feel bit of disappointed, I'll respect the decision based on the consensus. To be honest, still I do not think the "consensus" on this deletion is well-informed since some of us may not really know what this “company” is doing. As I mentioned in the original discussion of AfD for this article, we cannot judge the notability of e-Century Publishing with the criteria that we are using for a music band, a local Pisa restaurant, etc, and we should not judge it as un-notable because of it is too young (2 years old). e-CPC is actually publishing five free real professional medical journals, with four of them indexed in the ultimate database for the medical science---Pubmed and Pubmed Central, the achievements which may take decades to reach for a new publisher like this. In addition, it is indeed well accepted by the medical communities as you can see from the journals published by this publisher. Since I am new to Wikipedia in terms of article contribution, and surely have lots to learn, do you think that it would be appropriate to take this case to "deletion review" which may take all of us too much time since most of us have the full time research jobs? Your advice will be highly appreciated....Happy New Year!OpenAccessforScience (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your message. FWIW I have been spectacularly unsuccessful re deletions - despite having co-authored a clearly WP:N book the article on Nicholas Beale has been deleted 4 times and is now in userspace awaiting improvement and possibly a Deletion Review when it meets various people's concerns.
In the absence of any 3rd party coverage of e-century I don't think it will be at all easy to get a DRV. Suggest you put it in the incubator and see what happens. There is also the worry about WP:COI since I suspect you may be connected with the company (as of course I am with N.B.) We could try mutual assistance perhaps ;-) NBeale (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
1) You did not write the book; you co-authored the book, with a clearly more notable co-author. Just because the book and/or your collaborator are notable, does not make you so.Notability is not contagious. 2) Information.svg You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.
Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Mike - to avoid confusion (since your comment is about me not OpenAccessforScience) I'll copy this only my userpage and reply there. NBeale (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Mike - WP:AUTHOR says "3.The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." The is no doubt that I co-authored Questions of Truth (FWIW I wrote about 70% of it), that it is notable, significant and well-known in its field. It has been reviewed in the Financial Times (by Julian Baggini) the New Humanist (by AC Grayling), Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, the bulletin of the Institute of Physics and other periodicals specialising in science and religion. And it has been the subject of special meetings, at which Polkinghorne and I have been the main speakers, at the AAAS (chaired by the then President) the Royal Society (chaired by the then President of the British Academy) the Royal Institution (chaired by Stuart Sutherland) and at Cambridge University (chaired by Simon Conway Morris as well as us having given a joint talk at the Hay Festival. There can be no question about meeting this guideline. Yet when a new user (apparently in New Mexico) created an article it was speedy deleted and then snowed. Ridiculous! NBeale (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Orange--can you give me the best deleted copy of the article on Beale, to review? I may use it to write an article. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    User:Jmt007/Nicholas Beale isn't bad. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    Since I can't judge the quality of each revision and have little interest in reading all of them, I've restored the entire article history to User:Epeefleche/Nicholas Beale, where people can choose which version they prefer. Note that I have never made any statement on whether the topic is article-worthy, and thus I don't really care if anyone takes it to DRV or whatever; I only deleted a version of the article that was poor and met the speedy deletion criteria (as upheld by numerous editors in the 4th AfD) and I have no interest whatsoever in the other versions of the article (other than to point out that they were all deleted by community consensus). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Undoubtedly the article by Jmt007 was "poor" - it was his/her first attempt at an article. But the AfD was closed after only 1.5 hours and no-one was given the chance to improve the article or to deal with the WP:N issue. Given the (as far as I can see) complete clarity of the position about WP:AUTHOR noted above I hope it will be possible for independent expert editors, such as yourself, Mike and Epeefleche, to get this into an acceptable form. There has also since then been a full page article in the FT mainly about the work I do with Bob May & colleagues at Harvard as well as a couple of other relevant publications. I am of course happy to offer suggestions on a talk page but for obvious reasons would prefer not to make any substantive edits to the article. Many thanks. NBeale (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You deleted a section heading in Charles Darwin[edit]

Just a note to inform you that you (apparently accidentally) deleted the "See also" section heading in this fairly important featured article, in this edit [26] which you made on 18Dec2009. It's embarrassing that this sort of big obvious error doesn't get fixed for 12 days in such an oft-viewed article, while several editors were busily arguing and almost edit-warring about minutiae.

Anyway I fixed it, not a big deal, please be more careful next time, thanks! --Seattle Skier (talk) 06:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops - Thanks. But at least we solved the Arms mystery with some moderately deep research. NBeale (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome[edit]

I am estatic to see another veteran editor joining our 300 strong squad. A warm welcome! We have several projects going on beyond saving articles, including a newsletter, check the talk page.

Hi, NBeale, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, which can be fixed and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!

If you have any questions, feel free to post a question on the talk page.

And once again — Welcome! Ikip 15:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A pleasure - I wish I had known about this earlier. NBeale (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Inre this[edit]

Thank you for the aknowledgement... but I actually only "!voted" once... and then added a "note" about continued improvements. However, I just indented the "note" to eleviate any possible future confusions. You had me worried. Whew. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops - sorry. You're right of course. Great rescue work! NBeale (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Professor Kils[edit]

The DFG offered to send a certificate directly to WIKIPEDIA. Can You please give me an address. I also wrote to the Consulate to give you prove of the EB-1 visa but they are always slow. Happy New Year Uwe Kils 16:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year. I have no idea how this should be done, you will need to ask an Admin. NBeale (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

here is the original Press Notice of the HEISENBERG FELLOWSHIP Kils[edit]

http://web.archive.org/web/20020128203143/ecoscope.com/heisenbe.htm you can contact the Media Office if you want a signed copy from the University

there you can also see, that I was faculty at the CHRISTIAN ALBRECHTS UNIVERSITÄT in Kiel, do have a Dr. title and a habilitation in Marine Biology Uwe Kils 14:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of George Lee (British politician)[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, George Lee (British politician), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Lee (British politician) (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're wondering, the reason I nominated this article for deletion is because I noticed it when I was going through your contributions to make a list of your positive edits. I have been considering proposing that you be banned from articles or policies related to yourself, if you must know, and in preparation I have been putting together a list of your good edits to demonstrate why you should still be allowed to edit other areas of the encyclopedia. It was during that process that I came across the George Lee article and noticed it was not substantially different from the old version, so I made a procedural nomination for AfD—if you didn't notice, I have not expressed a strong opinion either way at the AfD and have not responded to any of the users commenting there. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 10:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. First make personal attacks on someone, then spread untruths to try to damage his reputation, then change the rules to justify your position, and then (perhaps) try to get him banned from responding or defending himself. Where have we come across this kind of behaviour before, I wonder? NBeale (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
You are, without a doubt, the most deluded editor I have encountered here in all my recollection. What you keep calling "untruths" are just assessments that you happen to disagree with. Tough, you have to live with that—I'm surprised someone claiming to be an academic has such a low tolerance for disagreement with his ideas. As for changing the rules, I never changed them (in fact, I undid half of the change that was made), and in any case your book wasn't kept or deleted on the basis of how many libraries it's in (the one guideline that was changed) so that has no bearing. As for seeking a ban for "defending yourself"—no, it would be for continually disrupting the project with your personal crusade, including wasting people's time with your repeatedly recreated article, and making controversial changes to WP:NOR and WP:BIO. If you refrain from disrupting those areas, there won't be a problem anymore. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
But your question about where you've encountered petty vendetta-like behavior before is a good one. Hm...I wonder. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Tut tut, NPA. To mention only the most egregious: you claimed that the profiles in Debretts [27] and at the Faraday Institute [28]were "Mini-bios/snippets (bios from his publications or from places where he works)" and that the review by AC Grayling in New Humanist was "without anything about Beale himself". These claims are simply false, and when this was politely pointed out you aggressively refused to retract them. You have already been warned of the need to live up to your responsibilites as an Admin - please reflect on this and desist from your vendetta. NBeale (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me, I'm puzzled – who is it who is making personal attacks? (Yes, of course you are entitled to write any old rubbish on your blog... – and, up to a point, on your user page as well) GNUSMAS TALK 15:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
You can argue about semantics all you want, NBeale, but the fact is that you are an associate of the Faraday Institute [29][30], and most of the editors agreed that those bios were still "mini-bios" and did not constitute significant coverage, no matter where they came from. And the review by Grayling did not have anything about you personally, only about the arguments you put forth in Polkinghorne's book; the fact that you keep insisting otherwise suggests that you really don't know how to read a review. Finally, it is not my "responsibility as an Admin" to pamper editors who care nothing about the encyclopedia and are only here to promote themselves. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes I am an associate of the Faraday Institute but I do not (and never have) worked there. Nor have I ever worked at Debretts. So we can agree, I hope, that your claims about these bios were simply false. Grayling [31] begins his review with "John Polkinghorne's former student Nicholas Beale runs a website on behalf of his mentor, on which questions about religion, and the relation of religion to science, can be posted. This apparently self-published book is a compilation of 51 of these website questions with Beale's and sometimes Polkinghorne's answers". So again your claim (repeated here) that "the review by Grayling did not have anything about you personally" is simply false. NBeale (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Nobody is changing the rules about not recreating deleted articles; or the ones about not editing articles on yourself, your friends, your company, etc.; you just seem to have trouble understanding and following them. --Orange Mike | Talk 11:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The rules they are trying to change are WP:AUTHOR. Also the WP:COI guideline does not say (unless they have changed it) "don't edit" but that you have to be careful re NPoV etc, and FWIW explicitly says "If you believe you may be notable enough, make your case on the appropriate talk pages". NBeale (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"Deleted"[edit]

I did not "delete" your message, I archived it, as all users have the right to do in their own talk pages. This is because I had already left a statement stating that I would not engage in further discussion with you at my talkpage. (And, judging from how closely you follow my edits—closely enough that when you write about me in your blog you think you know what my profession is—I know you saw that message.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Strange vendetta[edit]

Very amusing... Have you stopped to consider the posibility that several editors (and not just the two you pick out) are concerned about misuse of Wikipedia, and are watching you because you have a tendency to break the rules? Maybe you are the one out of step? GNUSMAS : TALK 10:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm well aware that a number of editors don'tlike me or what I stand for, and will bend WP procedures to that end. So far only the 2 I mention have gone so far as a vendetta, but who knows. This kind of thing is what drives serious people away from WikiPedia. NBeale (talk) 11:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it is strange for a WP editor to proudly announce on his home page the POV--sorry, "perspective" -- he is pushing. 1Z (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Peter. There is no "view from nowhere". People are either transparent about where they are coming from or not. Having a perspective is not the same as pushing a PoV. NBeale (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
NPOV is a clear rule on WP. If you think it is impossible maybe you should be somewhere with the same philosophy. 1Z (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
NPOV is about the content of the articles. It is not about pretending that you do not have a perspective. FWIW I've been an editor since July 06. NBeale (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
What you state on your home page is that you edit "from" a perpective. That is POV. 1Z (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Peter: everyone edits from a perspective. Some people hide it (what's yours?) This does not prevent the edits from being NPOV. NBeale (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
No, it is not the case that everyone edits from a perspective. It is possible to research and write up both sides of an debate -- and that is just the NPOV required of WP editors, not some mystical "view from nowhere". 1Z (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
No, everyone has a perspective. That doesn't mean everyone edits from it. A good editor can cast off their POV when editing a controversial article. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This might help[edit]

Keep in mind at ARS, some editors watch the page who have different views about deletion than the vast majority of WP:Article Rescue Squadron members.

I am troubled at how all editors seem to sometimes be snappy and slightly rude with new editors posting on the talk page, asking for help.

I want to wait a couple of days and I will address this, as I don't want to look like I am singling anyone out now. Ikip 09:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If this is not a vendetta, could someone find a precedent?[edit]

I have this on my user page: I have repeatedly asked for another example of the co-author of a notable book which has received mutiple periodical reviews (some from notable reviewers) who has been deleted from Wikipedia. No-one has been able to supply one. It would certainly reassure me on some aspects of this problem if anyone could find such an example. If you can please put it on the talk page.

Responses:

It happens routinely enough that I don't remember any of the particular instances. It frequently happens with non-fiction, and in some cases with fiction, that the book becomes notable but the author remains not. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Mike - thanks. If it is so routine surely you, or someone else, can offer an example or two that is at least comparable. I've only been editing for 3+ years and I have never seen it. NBeale (talk) 07:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I have found an example that I think fits what you are looking for (though not one you might want to be associated with!). Conservapedia is undoubtedly notable, but its founder and chief architect, Andrew Schlafly, is not. The WP article about him has been frequently changed from a redirect to a standalone article and back again, and the consensus seems to be strongly in favour of not having an article about him. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Schlafly (4th nomination). SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
@Snalwibma: I think the discussion that's actually most relevant to the article's current state is Talk:Andrew Schlafly#Merge to Conservapedia, which appears to be where the decision to redirect the article was made. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation[edit]

British Royalty Hi NBeale/Archives, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing.

These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people.

Please help us:

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC) (refactored, thanks.) Ikip 02:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people[edit]

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

  1. Proposal to Close This RfC
  2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Polkinghorne[edit]

You have a COI with respect to the Polkinghorne article. It's badly written and needs to be tidied, so please don't undo efforts in that direction. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 22:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, NBeale. You have new messages at Template talk:Infobox officeholder.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AfD nomination of George Lee (British politician)[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is George Lee (British politician). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Lee (British politician) (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. MBisanz talk 02:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Rich Hickey[edit]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Rich Hickey, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

I'm de-prodding Rich Hickey's page. I agree that more RS should be added inline, but the links section already contained some, and Rich Hickey's current project Clojure seems a well supported page that has not been called out for RS or WPN. Jonabbey (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jon. I agree that Clojure is notable, but (as I know to my cost) creating or co-creating something notable does not make you notable. If this is deleted as non-notable then surely we need a bit more on Hickey. NBeale (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Rescue[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armageddon theology WritersCramp (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Enemy of humanity[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Enemy of humanity has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Given the author's edit history this seems to be a means of tagging Ratzinger as an enemy of humanity - a term which is not adequately defined anyway. At best this is a dictionary definition, at worst it's an attack

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. andy (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Enemy of humanity for deletion[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A discussion has begun about whether the article Enemy of humanity, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enemy of humanity until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Your Oxford questions[edit]

Hi NBeale - I have just spotted User:NBeale/OxQ. This looks very much like an inappropriate use of Wikipedia, in breach of WP:NOT#WEBHOST, WP:UP#COPIES, etc. A user page, and its subsidiary pages, are surely supposed to be used in support of the Wikipedia project, not as a means of hosting your own project. How does the page devoted to your Oxford questions contribute to Wikipedia's aims and objectives? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Snalwibma. More Wikihounding - how nice. This page in userspace is being used to host the output of a conference in Oxford whose participants included many highly notable scientists and philosophers including Anthony Leggett, Roger Penrose, Jeremy Butterfield, Anton Zeilinger and John Polkinghorne. Although not yet WP:N I think it highly likely that it will be. In the meantime the conference organiser accepted my suggestion that we put the questions here so that conference participants could view, comment and modify them. I do not think it would be good for the reputation of wikipedia if you and your colleagues were to interfere with this process, and I would respectfully ask you to keep your hounding away from serious people doing a serious job. NBeale (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Please stop accusing me of hounding you, get off your high horse, and listen to what you are being told without adopting that high-handed attitude. I was, and am, trying to help. My concern here is solely for the Wikipedia project, and it seemed to me that this is not the right place for your conference-related website. Vesal's suggestion below seems a good one - and the only reason I didn't express it that way myself is that I had not heard of Wikiversity. Enough of the persecution complex! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 11:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
It may, however, be completely acceptable at Wikiversity. Please see the research portal at Wikiversity. Taking this project over there would not only save you lots arguments with people here, but I believe it would probably make the Wikiversity people very happy to host a forum of an esteemed group of physicists. It seems the research arm at Wikiversity is still very much in the making (even the policies of research are in "beta" phase), so you could help them move things along more generally as well. Vesal (talk) 11:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Vesal - thanks for this suggestion. Is there a way I can make a seamless redirection? We have 2 tinyurl links that point to this page. Many thanks. NBeale (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if seamless redirection is possible; there is a template for {{soft redirect}} though. Now, if I were God on Wikipedia, I would suggest keeping this stuff here until the conference is over. If you intend to maintain it more permanently after the conference, moving to Wikiversity would be sensible. As far as I see, the content on that page does not seem contrary to the wider goals of the Wikimedia Foundations, although this particular website, wikipedia.org, is dedicated to the encyclopedia. I do not think keeping it here for now is really a huge deal, but I am not an admin, and while I presume all sensible people would like to avoid an MfD debate in its full "glory" as a way to welcome your conference attendants to Wikipedia, who knows what the bureaucracy will do or decide! At least you know the Wikiversity option exists if things should turn ugly. Enjoy the conference, Vesal (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Corina Tarniţă[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Corina Tarniţă has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Per academic notability criteria. --PLUMBAGO 08:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Your PROD statement left it somewhat unclear whether you want the article deleted or userfied, so for the time being I just userfied it without redirect. If you (or Ms. Tarniţă) wants it fully deleted, you can save a copy off-wiki and have the userfied version deleted through the speedy deletion process. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Names[edit]

Any connection? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes - my father. I think I am the only author of a notable book to have been deleted from Wikipedia which is due to a strange vendetta, but there are some bio-details here. NBeale (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
As I am very sympathetic, if not always in full agreement, with Polkinghorne's approach, I do find it strange. But in light of recent events, I think it's clear that these are very emotional issues for many people, and that this can adversely impact judgement. My approach outside of Wikipedia has always been to advocate for my beliefs while bending over backwards to do so with integrity. In my view, there is an alarming amount of frankly dishonest apologetics out there, whose goal is more polemic than intellectual, which I believe ultimately undermines the effort by removing credibility. On Wikipedia, I work to keep everyone honest, even when it means supporting the inclusion of material that I deeply and fundamentally disagree with, or even find repugnant.
Mission statement aside, my concern here is that you're editing an article where there may reasonably be at least the appearance of conflict of interest, and two of the references are to text that you personally control. I was able to find the applicable rule, which suggests such things as declaring your interest on the article talk page, editing by making requests there, and generally acting in a way that is beyond reproach. I see no evidence that your edits have been abusive and have no interest in reporting you. I'm just bringing this up so that you can protect yourself from any misunderstandings, intentional or otherwise. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. But the data are in Reliable sources (such as his Times obit and Biographical Memoirs of the Royal Society) and are purely factual, so I don't think anyone can reasonably object. NBeale (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't happen to have any objections, but I can see how someone might. One of the references is to your own starcourse.net site. Another records that you dedicated a book to him. Both of these are not only caused by you, but are fairly trivial details that might be seen as not being notable. I might pay to openly declare your relationship on that article's talk page and remove any appearance of impropriety by finding independent sources. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:MirandaHart.jpg[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thanks for uploading File:MirandaHart.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. E. Fokker (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've sent the email trail. The "business end" is:

From: josephine green Sent: 15 June 2010 12:48 To: Nicholas Beale Cc: Miranda Hart Subject: Re: FW: pic for your Wikipedia article? -

Hi Nicolas,

Just to let you know that I have contacted Steve and he is happy for the photograph to be used. As long as he is credited. best wishes, josephine

Josephine Green Assistant to Joseph Fiennes, Emilia Fox, Miranda Hart, Alexander Armstrong and Ben Miller

Miranda[edit]

Hello, and happy christmas to you too! Yes, you may infer that I am a Miranda fan. Alternatively, if you prefer, you may infer that I am wiki-stalking you and only editing articles that you have worked on ... I'd go with the first option, if I were you! Best wishes for 2011. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Spong[edit]

Please review WP:BLP. You can't brand Spong a non-Christian just because you don't like his theology. Surely you have been around long enough to know that we don't operate that way around here. Guettarda (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Please take this as a formal warning: do not add potentially negative, unsourced material to biographies of living people, as you did with this edit. Guettarda (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

From Mike Orlove[edit]

Dear Dr. Beals: In the late 1990s I tuned into the BBC at 4AM as I am wont to do and heard either you or Professor Polkinghorne explaining the anthropic theory and the lecture went into this wonderful sequence of a thought experiment of a scholar working into the wee hours of the morning expecting no interruptions when a stranger raps on the door loudly demaning to be let in for shelter lest he be killed by the sniper whose bullets he dodged to get to the door. The scholar is incredulous, asking "if it is so bad, how did you make it thus far?" I was finding the discussion quite fascinating when my landlord banged at the door just to hang out. He was in the area, checking the trash disposal are. I was quiet disappointed having to miss the rest of the lecture, but by now can probably reconstruct pretty accurately how it went.

So you can imagine my disappointment at the present situation! First of all, on Marilyn Vos Savant's webpage she haas a link to a page on the 10 most common logical fallacies. One of them is argumentum ad hominem. Regardless whether the errors are made by Martin Nowak or any person who's gotten through Nature's review process, they must be judged on their own merit. I have it from a reliable source at Oxford (I can play that game too) that one of the reviewers of Nowak et al.'s paper confessed to letting the paper through in spite of it's being "a really bad paper" just to "stir up the pot". Another colleague informs me that Nowak "did this" in order to get revenge on Stewart West over a personal matter.

I sent a perfectly good paper on kin theory to Nature about one week before Nowak et al.'s paper came out, and it was rejected because it wasn't addressing a current topic, not Nowak's paper.

What you have done is considered vandalism in wikipedia parlance. The material you removed has cited all necessary sources. If you choose to argue with it, feel free to add to the article. But destroying other people's work is (excuse the term please) a fascist tactic. I am disabled and must work many more man hours than most people to prepare text or prevail on others to take dictation, and I only got involved in this article at all because it was riddled with confusion and the talk page was requesting that an expert on the subject chime in and correct it. When they were alive, John Maynard Smith and Bill Hamilton regarded me as the world's expert on this subject. This may not actually be true, but it certainly qualifies me to chime in.

I politely suggest that you restore the article to its previous state and perhaps then if you like add some more or open a discussion on your proposed changes on the inclusive fitness talk page. However, if the missing material isn't returned (including the parts that have nothing to do with Nowak), I will have to restore it myself. I am a great believer in a pluralistic society and if Nowak wants to have an alternative point of view, that's fine. But he shouldn't go around disparaging the work of other people. If you want science to evolve to the point where evolution and the existence of god can be reconciled, inclusive fitness theory will get you there a lot faster than a paradigm bereft of it.

Mike Orlove mo42@cornell.edu

PS: If it wasn't for that great lecture in the 90s, I'd just change it back immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhuben (talkcontribs) 21:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Mike. Thanks for all this and for your kind comments about John Polkinghorne. I've responded to the technical points on the talk page of the Inclusive fitness. Whilst paying tribute to your seminal contributions in the 1970s, the field has moved on and (Grafen 2006) would be I think a better reference. As I'm sure you realise the tittle-tattle about Nowak is just ridiculous. NBeale (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Common misunderstandings of genetics for deletion[edit]

The article Common misunderstandings of genetics is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common misunderstandings of genetics until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 12:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

rebuttal[edit]

Please don't do that - the crown was 3000 people and the group that heckled the guy was less than a hundred so you have no excuse to remove a small section of the crowd and if you read this article from today you will see no mention of jew - allegations, only the "your a tory too"" chants. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/student-civil-war-after-leaders-pelted-with-eggs-2199001.html -clearly the claim is disputed so please don't attempt to portray it as as a clear undisputed fact, thanks, Off2riorob (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop removing the simple facts, like it was a small section of the crowd and the reason the students are upset with him, if you have issues with the content wait for consensus as another user also agrees the issue is disputed, if yo8u dispute the reliability of a source them please just tag it thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack[edit]

I'm sorry you must stop this reverting. Rightly or wrongly there are 4 WP:RS reports of anti-semitic abuse. Because you are up in arms about this they need to be in. I know that some people on the blogosphere dispute this - for all I know they may be right - but in WP we deal in what RSs say not in what we think might/must have happened. Wage your student politics campaign elsewhere. NBeale (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not up on arms about anything, personally Imo the reporting of the antisemitic stuff is undue, but I am fine to leave it in for the time being - there is no reason to add excessive reports either. I struck your personal attack, please don't gert me wrong I don't give a damn about the issue. Off2riorob (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Cool, peace. You certainly gave the impression of having a strong PoV on the matter. I apologise if I have incorrectly inferred that you are involved in student politics. Are you in fact a member of the NUS? NBeale (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting or for withdrawing that, no, not at all. I am a roaming wikipedia editor with no interest in anything I edit really apart for working toward the protection of the subjects of our articles, especially living ones through WP:BLP - I have no NUS or teaching connections at all. I stumbled on the Porter BLP on the day it was created or the day after and I have it on my watchlist ever since. I imagine I am the most major contributor - so you could say, I am responsible for it being as good or at least as NPOV and tidy as it is now. As you can see here I am interested in BLP and work with that, I prefer to err on the side of caution as BLP requests us to.and as you realize, there are conflicting reports and some that have decided not to report the antisemitic minor issue at all - I also resisted the addition that he is a jew and it has now been cited that he is indeed not a jew - those are my issues, yours .. well thats up to you. Off2riorob (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. It certainly seems from the blogosphere as though Porter's opponents are making an issue of whether these "anti-semitic" remarks are real although according to the FT which I'd consider an ultra-reliable source Porter say that he was subject to "racist abuse" and per BLP we should in general tend to credit the assertions of notable subjects about themselves esp if they are backed up by RSs. I didn't intend "student politics" as a personal attack, I hope you can see that it was a reasonable inference although I accept your assurance that it was an incorrect one. NBeale (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Big Society Bank[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Big Society Bank, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Cind.amuse 11:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Big Society Bank for deletion[edit]

The article Big Society Bank is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Society Bank until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Cind.amuse 12:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Big Society cartoon[edit]

I think that you are missing the point about the cartoon: It is making a valid political criticism; the reliable source is the Guardian. --TraceyR (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

How on earth do you know whether a cartoon is a "vaild" political criticism. There are plenty of serious commentators who are criticising this, we don't need comedians and cartoonists. Do we have them in articles about other political concepts?
Because it comes from a reliable source. --TraceyR (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Milliband[edit]

Hi, you appear to be edit warring on this article, please take this as a 3RR warning, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Milliband[edit]

You seem to have mistaken what wikipedia and BLP articles is for - it is for long term notable educational and informative content about the major issues is a persons life - it is not to attempt to add whatever the daily derogatory name calling that you can find in the chip shop press in an attempt to demean people you are opposed to. please stop adding what ever negative partisan slurs without any value at all that you can find, even if you have sixteen citations to support it, its of no value apart from to demean - really - it would be better if you didn't edit the BLP at all, also - Bold revert discuss is not where you post a comment on the talkpage and revert, you wait , explain what value you think your content has and see if other editors support you desired addition, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

if you are so emotionally involved in Miliband and/or the Labour party that you cannot bear to have any negative comments reported about him perhaps it is you that should refrain from BLP editing - or telling much more experienced editors how to edit. NBeale (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


Ed Balls March 30 edit summary, "worthless partisan name calling". David Cameron diff added today and removed by me, edit summary, "trim trivia - partisan educational comparison" - I don't care which political party they represent, they are all living people to me WP:BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011[edit]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Richard Dawkins. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Charles (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

op. cit.[edit]

Hi, you edited in 2006 Viruses of the Mind and added op. cit.. Since you used this citing format incorrectly, I don't know which reference you meant originally. Can you use named references or put the references correctly since op. cit., cf., ibid., id., and others are really problematic in Wikipedia. mabdul 16:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Done - though clear enough if context. And to be fair things have moved on in Wikipedia in the last 5 years! NBeale (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Great! That was really fast. mabdul 20:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

New College[edit]

Please don't start the anti-Dawkins/anti-Grayling editing at that article. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

these are reliable sources - too bad if you don't WP:LIKE them. You always try to hide the truth - it will always fail. Please stop your WikiStalking. NBeale (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
If you cause the usual kind of problem at that article I will go to AN/I and ask for a topic ban. And please don't add any more unsourced material, particularly not when it involves living persons. [32] SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
rock-solid sources added. Please stop your wikihounding - thanks. NBeale (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
You have reverted my edits, including restoring a self-published source. Please revert yourself. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Slim what self-published source are you talking about? NBeale (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Nicole Cabell[edit]

I noticed your comment on the "Talk" page and don't see any issues unless you add material which is completely unreferenced!

You may have noticed that I have re-worked the article to present the sections in what seems to me to be a more logical order: e.g. "Debuts" is more logically placed before "Repertoire", the latter being roles/operas which have become standard. I also removed duplicate mentions of the film with Netrebko to the incorporate them both in one place.

Also, I find when editing that constant repition of "she" or "Cabell", etc. to break the flow, so I've given it some variations. Broken links needs to be removed - or researched; otherwise, I just use the magazine and date.

Good luck. Keep us posted on Ms. Cabell's career. I heard her here in Santa Fe in Boheme in 2006. Viva-Verdi (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree the article, which I didn't write of course, needs a lot of restructuring. She was wonderful as Elvira on Sat in Berlin though the production was awful (see starcourse.blogspot.com if you are interested). NBeale (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Argument from love for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Argument from love is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argument from love (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Argument from beauty for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Argument from beauty is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argument from beauty (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Religious_beliefs[edit]

Please be advised that posts such as the one you made here could be seen as a violation of wp:canvass... but as this was the only place you made the appeal, and the location seems natural for such a discussion, it's probably ok. The key is that if you notify a project, to follow the guidelines provided in canvass. Don't do it in secret and keep the message neutral/non-partisan.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 16:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus: May 2012[edit]

Ichthus dark yellow.png

ICHTHUS

May 2012

From the Editor[edit]

Vienna Karlskirche frescos4b.jpg

This month marks the observation of Pentecost, one of the most important feast of the Christian liturgical year. It is our hope here that all of you, regardless of your religious affiliation (if any), find that the holiday, and its accompanying activities, an enjoyable and beneficial experience. We also hope that this "Birthday of the Church" is one which gives you the same joy as the birthday of yourself or your loved ones.

Ichthus is the successor to the long running WikiProject Christianity newsletter, run under the WikiProject Christianity’s Outreach department. As such, you will continue to see information about our latest featured and good articles, DYKs, as well as new members who have joined our project. You might also see links to Christianity related news from the mainstream media!

With that, I wish you all happy reading!

John Carter, Asst. Editor

P.S. Please click here to add the new Christianity-related topics Noticeboard to your watchlist to follow the latest discussions relevant to WikiProject Christianity and subprojects.

Help Bring Wikipe-tan "into the fold"[edit]

Wikipe-tan full length.svg

As many of you may know, our unofficial mascot, dear Wikipe-tan, hasn't yet indicated any particular beliefs. However, yes, as we all know, ahem, some people might object to our beloved mascot running around in a French maid outfit. People do talk, you know. ;) If anyone might be able to develop an image of the dear lady in a image more, well, "Christian," I would like to see perhaps a vote for next month as to which, if any, image of the dear girl we might make our own unofficial mascot. Please post your images here.

By John Carter

Christianity in other wikis[edit]

Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
As many of you might now, there are a large number of other Wikimedia Foundation projects, including WikiSource, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, WikiQuote, and others. I certainly believe that Wikibooks and Wikiquote might be among the more directly relevant sister projects. If any of you can think of any particular efforts in these other projects which you think would benefit from more input, please let us know here, so we can help spread the word around.

By John Carter

Spotlight on the Outreach department[edit]

Handshake (Workshop Cologne '06).jpeg

Ichthus will spotlight a different subproject or workgroup of WikiProject Christianity. This edition will spotlight on our vital Outreach department. This comparatively small, but vital, project unit is dedicated to welcoming new editors to Wikipedia and the Christianity related content, and to providing information to the various project members, in forms like this newsletter.

The scope of articles with which this group deals is truly enormous, and, given the wide variety of material with which we deal, we would very much welcome the input of more individuals, particularly individuals who are particularly knowledgeable of the less well-known and less frequently monitored articles related to Christianity.

Speaking personally, I would be very, very gratified if we were to have this become a very, very large and active unit, with members from the broad spectrum of Christian beliefs, practices, and groups. The broader the spectrum and areas of expertise of members we have, the better we will be able to help manage the content. Please consider whether you believe you might be able to contribute in this vital area.

By John Carter


Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
EdwardsBot (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus: June 2012[edit]

Ichthus dark yellow.png

ICHTHUS

June 2012

Membership report[edit]

The parent Christianity WikiProject currently has 331 active members. We would like to welcome User:Sanju87, User:Psalm84, User:Zegron, User:Jargon777, User:Calu2000, User:Gilderien, User:Ronallenus, Thank you all for your interest in this effort. If any members, new or not, wish any assistance, they should feel free to leave a message at the Christianity noticeboard or with me or other individual editors to request it.

From the Editor[edit]

Ichthus is one of the ways that the WikiProject Christianity’s Outreach department helps update our members. We have recently added some new sections to the newsletter. Please let us know what you think of the new departments, and if there are any other suggestions for departments you would like to see. And if you have anything you would personally like to add, by all means let us know. The talk page of the current issue is probably the best place to post such comments.

With that, I wish you all happy reading!

P.S. Please click here to add the new Christianity noticeboard to your watchlist to follow the latest discussions relevant to WikiProject Christianity and subprojects.

Church of the month[edit]

Katharinenkloster Sinai BW 2.jpg
by Berthold Werner
Saint Catherine's Monastery, Mount Sinai

Vote for the project mascot[edit]

We had last month asked our members to help "bring into the fold" Wikipe-tan as the project's mascot. Voting will take place this month for which image we should adopt at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/Wikipe-tan. Please take a moment to review the images and vote for whichever is your favorite, or, if you so prefer, suggest an additional one.

By John Carter

DYK[edit]

  • ...that Anna of Kashin, a Russian medieval princess, was twice canonized as a holy protectress of women who suffer the loss of relatives?


Calendar[edit]

Thie coming month includes days dedicated to the honor of Beheading of John the Baptist, Saints Peter and Paul, the Nativity of John the Baptist, and Saint Barnabas.

Featured content and GA report[edit]

Alec Douglas-Home recently achieved FA status. This picture, in the Church of the Month section, was recently promoted to Featured Picture status. Our thanks and congratulations to all those involved.

Wikimedia Foundation report[edit]

Wikisource-logo.svg

Wikisource currently has many old texts available, most of them in the public domain. This is a potentially very valuable source for several things, including for instance links to Biblical verses, because we know that it will, basically, be around as long as we are.

By user:John Carter with inspiration from History2007

Christian art[edit]

English - Resurrection - Walters 27308.jpg

This section would include a rather large image of a specific work of art, with a link to the most directly relevant article.

Suggestion: Resurrection of Christ, an English 15th century Nottingham alabaster. Groups of painted relief panels were sold via dealers to churches on a budget , who had wood frameworks made to hold them locally. From a huge new donation of images from the Walters Art Museum to Commons, see


By Johnbod

Spotlight[edit]

A new WikiProject relating directly to Christian history is being developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian history. Also, a group specifically devoted to the Mennonites and other Anabaptists is now up and running at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Anabaptist work group. Anyone interested in assisting with the development of these groups and topics is more than welcome to do so.

By John Carter

I believe[edit]

... in the statements contained in the Nicene Creed. I believe that the Bible is one of the two defining bases for belief. The other is the Sacred tradition, which provides us with means of interpreting the Scriptures, as well as some teachings which have been handed on by God outside of the scriptures. I believe that the Magisterium has been empowered to fill this interpretative function. I believe that clerical celibacy is a rule that should generally be followed. I am a member of the Catholic Church.

By John Carter

Help requests[edit]

Please let us know if there are any particular areas, either individual articles or topics, which you believe would benefit from outside help from a variety of other editors. We will try to include such requests in future issues.



Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
EdwardsBot (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus: July 2012[edit]

Ichthus dark yellow.png

ICHTHUS

July 2012

Membership report
The parent Christianity WikiProject currently has 336 active members. We would like to welcome User:Emilymadcat, User:Toa Nidhiki05, User:DonutGuy, and User:RCNesland, Thank you all for your interest in this effort. If any members, new or not, wish any assistance, they should feel free to leave a message at the Christianity noticeboard or with me or other individual editors to request it.

From the Editor
Ichthus is one of the ways that the WikiProject Christianity’s Outreach department helps update our members. We have recently added some new sections to the newsletter. Please let us know what you think of the new departments, and if there are any other suggestions for departments you would like to see. And if you have anything you would personally like to add, by all means let us know. The talk page of the current issue is probably the best place to post such comments.

With that, I wish you all happy reading!

P.S. Please click here to add the new Christianity noticeboard to your watchlist to follow the latest discussions relevant to WikiProject Christianity and subprojects.

Church of the month

Mission Santa Clara.jpg
by User:JaGa
Mission Santa Clara de Asis

Vote for the project mascot
We had last month asked our members to help "bring into the fold" Wikipe-tan as the project's mascot. Voting will take place this month for which image we should adopt at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/Wikipe-tan. Please take a moment to review the images and vote for whichever is your favorite, or, if you so prefer, suggest an additional one.

By John Carter

Calendar
Thie coming month (mid-July through mid-September) includes days dedicated to the honor of Mary Magdalene, James, son of Zebedee, Ignatius Loyola, Saint Dominic, Joseph of Arimathea, and the Transfiguration of Jesus.

Featured content and GA report
Grade I listed churches in Cheshire was recently promoted to Featured List status. This picture was recently promoted to Featured Picture status. Bartolome de las Casas and Edmund the Martyr were promoted to GA level this past month. Our thanks and congratulations to all those involved.


Wikimedia Foundation report

Wikibooks-logo-en.svg

Wikibooks welcomes the development of textbooks of all kinds, children's books, recipes, and other material. It currently has just under 2500 books, including several Wikijunior books for the 12 and under population. There is, at present, not even a book on Christianity. Anyone interested in helping develop such a textbook is more than welcome to do so.

By John Carter

Christian art

Hans Holbein, the Younger - Sir Thomas More - Google Art Project.jpg

The portrait of Sir Thomas More by Hans Holbein the Younger.

By John Carter

Spotlight
A new WikiProject relating directly to Christian history is being developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian history. Anyone interested in assisting with the development of these groups and topics is more than welcome to do so.

By John Carter

I believe
... in the tradition of Thomas the Apostle, Mar Addai, and Saint Bartholomew. I believe that Jesus had two essences (or natures), human and divine, unmingled, that are everlastingly united in one personality. I am a member of the Assyrian Church of the East.

By John Carter


Help requests
Please let us know if there are any particular areas, either individual articles or topics, which you believe would benefit from outside help from a variety of other editors. We will try to include such requests in future issues.

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
EdwardsBot (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bishop Road Primary School[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Bishop Road Primary School has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable primary school. No independent refs. Notability is not inherited from students.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Bishop Road Primary School for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bishop Road Primary School is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bishop Road Primary School until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - December 2012[edit]

Ichthus dark yellow.png

ICHTHUS

December 2012

Membership report
The parent Christianity WikiProject currently has 350 active members. We would like to welcome our newest member, User:Harishrawat11. Thank you all for your interest in this effort. We would be able to achieve nothing here without the input of all of you. If any members, new or not, wish any assistance, they should feel free to leave a message at the Christianity noticeboard or with me or other individual editors to request it.


From the Editor
Ichthus is one of the ways that the WikiProject Christianity’s Outreach department helps update our members. This newsletter is one of the ways we do try to help people keep up with the project. We would always welcome any input for things to be included in it or additional editors to keep it going. Please let us know if there are changes you would like to see in the format, or if there are any particular things you would like to see included. And if you have anything you would personally like to add, by all means let us know. The talk page of the current issue is probably the best place to post such comments.

With that, I wish you all happy reading!

P.S. Please click here to add the new Christianity noticeboard to your watchlist to follow the latest discussions relevant to WikiProject Christianity and subprojects.

By John Carter


Church of the month

Pisa Baptistry.jpg

This image of The Baptistry of Saint John in Pisa by User:NotFromUtrecht

was recently promoted to Featured Image. Thank you and congratulations for the great image!


Contest of the month
As I imagine many of our editors will be editing at a greatly reduced level for the next few weeks, what with the Christmas and New Year's holidays coming, there is no specific content-related contest this month. The contest, if anything, is to make the most of the season, in whatever way, if any, you deem appropriate.


Calendar
This coming month (mid-December through mid-January) includes the Advent season, and one of the two greatest holidays of the Christian year, Christmas. Other major feasts in the next month include those of the Feast of the Epiphany, Baptism of the Lord, Saint Stephen, Thomas the Apostle, Holy Innocents, John the Evangelist, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, Saint Genevieve, Elizabeth Ann Seton, and Saint Sava.


Featured content and GA report
Since the last report, Anne Hutchinson nominated by User:Sarnold17 was promoted to FA. Grade I listed churches in Lancashire by User:Peter I. Vardy was promoted to Featured List. The image in the Church of the Month and Christian art sections of this newsletter were promoted to Featured Picture status. Come to the Well by User:Toa Nidhiki05 and others, and Dwight Christmas by User:Gen. Quon and others were promoted to GA level. DYKs featured this past month include King's Chapel, Gibraltar, by User:Prioryman, Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (Albany, New York) by User:Daniel Case, Tingsted Church by User:Ipigott and User:Rosiestep, St. Mary's Church (Albany, New York) by User:Daniel Case, Stubbekøbing Church by User:Ipigott and User:Rosiestep, Notre Dame Cathedral (Phnom Penh) by User:Bloom6132, and St. James' Church, Cardington by User:Peter I. Vardy. Our profoundest thanks and congratulations to all those involved!

Christian art

Parish church Urtijei internal view.jpg
The nave of the Parish Church of Urtijëi. This image was created by User:Moroderen. Thank you, Moroderen!

Spotlight

Firstchristmascard.jpg

In the spirit of Christmas, the spotlight for the coming month might actually best be on those people closest to you. We know that a lot of our editors here are associated in some way or another with schools, and many if not most of them are going on rather extended breaks for the holidays. This can give some of us a chance to meet up with old friends, spend time with our families and those close to us, and, in a sense, "recharge" for the new year. So, for all of you who are in some way part of that group, we wish you the very best of holidays. We hope you all return to editing after the holidays with your spirits lifted and with your energies at peak level. There are some small matters in development here as well, and it is our hope that some of them will be ready come the next newsletter. But, until then, we wish you all the happiest and holiest (if appropriate) holidays.


Help requests
Please let us know if there are any particular areas, either individual articles or topics, which you believe would benefit from outside help from a variety of other editors. We will try to include such requests in future issues.

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
EdwardsBot (talk)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - January 2013[edit]

Ichthus dark yellow.png

ICHTHUS

January 2013

Membership report
The parent Christianity WikiProject currently has 354 active members. We would like to welcome our newest members, Alliereborn, Iselilja, Peterkp, and Sosthenes12. Thank you all for your interest in this effort. We would be able to achieve nothing here without the input of all of you. If any members, new or not, wish any assistance, they should feel free to leave a message at the Christianity noticeboard or with me or other individual editors to request it.


From the Editor
Ichthus is one of the ways that the WikiProject Christianity’s Outreach department helps update our members. This newsletter is one of the ways we do try to help people keep up with the project. We would always welcome any input for things to be included in it or additional editors to keep it going. Please let us know if there are changes you would like to see in the format, or if there are any particular things you would like to see included. And if you have anything you would personally like to add, by all means let us know. The talk page of the current issue is probably the best place to post such comments.

With that, I wish you all happy reading!

P.S. Please click here to add the new Christianity noticeboard to your watchlist to follow the latest discussions relevant to WikiProject Christianity and subprojects.

By John Carter


Church of the month

Catedral de Alejandro Nevsky, Tallin, Estonia, 2012-08-11, DD 46.JPG

This image of Alexander Nevsky Cathedral in Tallinn, Estonia by User:Poco a poco

was recently promoted to Featured Image. Thank you and congratulations for the great image!


Contest of the month
No particular contest this month. I am however getting rather close to getting together a more or less complete set of articles relating to different areas of Christianity which can be found in recent reference sources on the broad topic of Christianity, and about various subtopics, which I hope to have finished in the next few weeks. I wonder what the rest of you might think of, maybe, making the contests of future months be basically directed at filling in the gaps of our existing coverage of topics, like those topics given significant coverage in specialized reference works which we don't yet have content on, and giving the thanks, and rewards, whatever they might be, to those who create and develop such content. I am starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Christianity noticeboard#Future contests, and would very much welcome any input from interested parties in how to set it up, determine winners including how many winners, etc.

By John Carter




Featured content and GA report
Since the last report, the image in the "Church of the Month" section of this newsletter was promoted to Featured Image status.

Darzu ist erschienen der Sohn Gottes, BWV 40 by Gerda Arendt and others, Teuruarii IV by Lemurbaby, KAVEBEAR and others, and Peace on Earth (Casting Crowns album) by Toa Nidhiki05 and others, were all promoted to GA status.

Also this past month, the DYKs on the main page included St James' Church, Cardington by Peter I. Vardy, Bishop's Palace, Kraków by Poeticbent, Kippinge Church by Ipigott and Rosiestep, Trinitatis Church, also by Ipigott and Rosiestep, Steindamm Church by Olessi, St Laurence's Church, Church Stretton by Peter I. Vardy, Monastery of the Holy Trinity, Meteora, by Peter I. Vardy, Sonrise Church, by Aboutmovies, St. Peter's Episcopal Church (Albany, New York), by Daniel Case, All Saints Church, Claverley, by Peter I. Vardy, and Church of the Holy Virgin Mary of Lourdes, by Poeticbent. Our profoundest thanks and congratulations to all those involved!

Christian art

Pieter Bruegel the Elder - The Tower of Babel (Vienna) - Google Art Project - edited.jpg
The Tower of Babel by Pieter Bruegel the Elder
This image was created by User:Dcoetzee. Thank you, Dcoetzee!

Spotlight

Christ icon.jpg

The Spotlight this month turns to the the Syriac Christianity work group. The scope of this project includes the various traditions of Syriac Christianity, including the Assyrian Church of the East, Ancient Church of the East, Church of the East, Syriac Orthodox Church, Chaldean Catholic Church, Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, Melkite Greek Catholic Church, Syriac Catholic Church, Syro-Malankara Catholic Church, and Saint Thomas Christians. One of these groups, the Assyrian Church of the East, is considered by scholars to have probably been, for several hundred years, the largest Christian grouping in the planet, with its numerous members in Central Asia and Eastern Asia. Numerous texts, traditions, and practices unique to these groups exist, including the Jesus Sutras and the belief of the Assyrian Church of the East that the bread they use in the preparation of their Eucharist uses the same basic yeast as that used in the bread of the Last Supper itself. Sadly, given the linguistic barriers to much of the content relative to these groups, and the comparative lack of notoriety they have in the Western world, much of this content does receive less attenion, and thus less development, than much other content. There is a large amount of extremely valuable historical material here still waiting to be adequately developed by editors with an interest in the topic, and I personally very much hope that we can draw more attention to these topics, and the content related to them.

By John Carter


Calendar
This coming month (mid-January through mid-February) includes The Presentation of Christ in the Temple or Candlemas and the Conversion of Paul. Other major feasts in the next month include those of Saint Agnes, Saint Francis de Sales, Saints Timothy and Titus, Thomas Aquinas, John Bosco, Saint Agatha, Paul Miki, [{Saint Scholastica]], and Saint Anskar.


Help requests
Please let us know if there are any particular areas, either individual articles or topics, which you believe would benefit from outside help from a variety of other editors. We will try to include such requests in future issues.

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
EdwardsBot (talk)

Barnstar[edit]

BLP Barnstar.png The BLP Barnstar
Dear NBeale, I award you The BLP Barnstar for your efforts in trying to make biographical articles adhere to WP:NPOV. Your contributions are maing a difference here! AnupamTalk 06:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter April 2013[edit]

Ichthus dark yellow.png

ICHTHUS

April 2013

Membership report
The parent Christianity WikiProject currently has 357 active members. We would like to welcome our newest members, Thomas Cranmer, Mr.Oglesby, and Sneha Priscilla. Thank you all for your interest in this effort. We would be able to achieve nothing here without the input of all of you. If any members, new or not, wish any assistance, they should feel free to leave a message at the Christianity noticeboard or with me or other individual editors to request it.


From the Editor

We apologise for the hiatus in the publication of this newsletter due to unforseen circumstances leading to the wikibreak of John Carter, and so I have taken over as acting editor, and have taken this opportunity to move the publication date to the start of each month as planned, to better reflect on the previous month and look ahead to the next. This issue covers the period of time from mid-January to the end of March.

Since the last issue we have seen the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and the election of Pope Francis. This has received much coverage both in the world media and on Wikipedia. While there is still much work to do, several quality articles have been written and the editors involved are thanked for their efforts.


This month we look ahead to Easter and the celebration of God's love for mankind through the crucifixion and resurrection of his Son Jesus Christ. With that, I wish you all happy reading!

P.S. Please click here to add the new Christianity noticeboard to your watchlist to follow the latest discussions relevant to WikiProject Christianity and subprojects.

By Gilderien


Church of the month

Iglesia de San Ildefonso, Oporto, Portugal, 2012-05-09, DD 01.JPG

This image of the Church of Saint Ildefonso, Portugal by Poco a poco was recently promoted to Featured Image. Thank you and congratulations for the great image!


Contest of the month
No particular contest this month. I am however getting rather close to getting together a more or less complete set of articles relating to different areas of Christianity which can be found in recent reference sources on the broad topic of Christianity, and about various subtopics, which I hope to have finished in the next few weeks. I wonder what the rest of you might think of, maybe, making the contests of future months be basically directed at filling in the gaps of our existing coverage of topics, like those topics given significant coverage in specialized reference works which we don't yet have content on, and giving the thanks, and rewards, whatever they might be, to those who create and develop such content. I am starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Christianity noticeboard#Future contests, and would very much welcome any input from interested parties in how to set it up, determine winners including how many winners, etc.

By John Carter




Featured content and GA report
Since the last report;

Grade I listed churches in Cumbria was promoted to Featured List status, thanks to Peter I. Vardy, and the image above of the Church of Saint Ildefonso was promoted to featured picture status.

Martin Luther King, Jr., by Khazar2, was promoted to GA status, as well Third Epistle of John by Cerebellum.

Also these past months, the DYKs on the main page included St Mary's Church, Cleobury Mortimer by Peter I. Vardy; Marion Irvine by Giants2008; Margaret McKenna by Guerillero; Archdiocesan Cathedral of the Holy Trinity by Epeefleche; St Edith's Church, Eaton-under-Heywood by Peter I. Vardy; Vester Egesborg Church by Ipigott, Rosiestep, Nvvchar, and Dr. Blofeld; Undløse Church by Ipigott, Rosiestep, Nvvchar, and Dr. Blofeld; St Martin's Church, Næstved by Ipigott, Rosiestep, Nvvchar, and Dr. Blofeld; St. Peter, Syburg by Gerda Arendt and Dr. Blofeld; Østre Porsgrunn Church by Strachkvas; Church of Our Saviour (Mechanicsburg, Ohio) by Nyttend; Dami Mission by Freikorp; Mechanicsburg Baptist Church by Nyttend; Acheiropoietos Monastery, by Proudbolsahye; T. Lawrason Riggs, by Gareth E Kegg; McColley's Chapel, by Mangoe; Oświęcim Chapel, by BurgererSF; Second Baptist Church (Mechanicsburg, Ohio), by Nyttend; Church of the Holy Ghost, Tallinn, by Yakikaki; Old Stone Congregational Church, by Orladyl Heath Chapel, by Peter I. Vardy; St. Joseph's Church, Beijing, by Bloom6132; Church of St Bartholomew, Yeovilton, by Rodw; and St. Michael's Catholic Church (Mechanicsburg, Ohio) also by Nyttend. Our profoundest thanks and congratulations to all those involved!

Christian art

Bach.jpg

Complete recording

Jesus nahm zu sich die Zwölfe, BWV 22, a cantata by the German composer J.S. Bach, was promoted to GA this month and was written by Gerda Arendt. Many thanks for her continuing work in the area of early 18th Century Church music.

Spotlight

Christ icon.jpg

The Spotlight this month turns to the the Jesus work group. The scope of this project includes the life and teachings of the central figure of Christianity, Jesus Christ and aims to write about them in a non-denominational encylopædic style. Top-priority articles include Jesus, Christ, Resurrection of Jesus, and Holy Grail, whereas High-priority articles include Aramaic Language, a former FA, as well as Sermon on the Mount, Lamb of God, and Passion (Christianity). The workgroup has also published two books, covering Christ's final days and the Parables of Jesus. The workgroup has two GAs, Nativity scene, and Jesus in Islam, but unfortunately the flagship article, Jesus was delisted in 2009. It is also responsible for three WP:1.0 articles, and the WikiWork of the project is 4.56, which indicates the "average" article is between Start and C class.


By Gilderien


Calendar
This coming month (end-March through end-April) includes Easter Sunday in Western Christianity and both Lazarus Saturday and Palm Sunday for the Eastern Orthodox Church. Other major feasts in the next month include those of Saint George, Saint Mark the Evangelist, Saint Stanislaus, James, son of Zebedee, and Benedict the Moor.


Help requests
Please let us know if there are any particular areas, either individual articles or topics, which you believe would benefit from outside help from a variety of other editors. We will try to include such requests in future issues.

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
EdwardsBot (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Atheistic Rant[edit]

Dear Nicholas,

I am wondering if you can point me to the source that shows Nobel Laureates called Richard Dawkins's book with that name.(or any other name). Thank You--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ine Questions of Truth John Polkinghorne describes The God Delusion thus. This book is endorsed by Antony Hewish and William D. Phillips. NBeale (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter (May 2013)[edit]

Ichthus dark yellow.png

ICHTHUS

May 2013

Membership report
The parent Christianity WikiProject currently has 363 active members. We would like to welcome our newest members, Pleonic, MJWilliams1998, Iloilo Wanderer, Jkadavoor, Sir Ian and McBenjamin. Thank you all for your interest in this effort. We would be able to achieve nothing here without the input of all of you. If any members, new or not, wish any assistance, they should feel free to leave a message at the Christianity noticeboard or with me or other individual editors to request it.


From the Editor

StJohnsAshfield StainedGlass GoodShepherd-frame crop.jpg

This month we hear the news that the Bible is to be made into a film after outstanding success of a biblical miniseries on the History Channel, and we have seen the release of Iraqi Pastor Ali Hamzah from his confinement in Iraq.

After last month's spotlight on the Jesus work group, the flagship article, Jesus, was nominated for Good Article status after much work from FutureTrillionaire and History2007, and provisionally passed by the reviewer, although they have requested a second opinion. Our many thanks for the hard work that has gone into restoring this article to a quality piece of work.

This month the second largest denomination of Christianity, the Eastern Orthodox Church, celebrates Easter and the death and resurrection of the Son of God Jesus Christ.

P.S. Please click here to add the new Christianity noticeboard to your watchlist to follow the latest discussions relevant to WikiProject Christianity and subprojects.

By Gilderien


Church of the month

Wells Cathedral from the north crop.JPG

Wells Cathedral was this month promoted to GA status. Rodw has appealed for any help project members can give to improve this article for a FA nomination.


Contest of the month
No particular contest this month. I am however getting rather close to getting together a more or less complete set of articles relating to different areas of Christianity which can be found in recent reference sources on the broad topic of Christianity, and about various subtopics, which I hope to have finished in the next few weeks. I wonder what the rest of you might think of, maybe, making the contests of future months be basically directed at filling in the gaps of our existing coverage of topics, like those topics given significant coverage in specialized reference works which we don't yet have content on, and giving the thanks, and rewards, whatever they might be, to those who create and develop such content. By John Carter


Featured content and GA report
Since the last report;

Featured report; Madonna in the Church, by Ceoil, Truthkeeper88, and Johnbod was promoted to Featured Article status. Crucifixion and Last Judgement was promoted to featured picture status, after nomination by Crisco 1492.

Wells Cathedral, by Rodw, Robert of Ghent, by User:Ealdgyth, Christianity in Medieval Scotland, by Sabrebd, and Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, also by Sabrebd were promoted to GA status.

Also these past months, the DYKs on the main page included Lectionary 311, by Leszek Jańczuk; Herr Christ, der einig Gotts Sohn, by Gerda Arendt; Whalsay Parish Church, by Ipigott, Rosiestep, Nvvchar, Dr. Blofeld; Interpretatio Christiana, by Altenmann; First Congregational Church, Salt Lake City, by Orlady; Church of King Charles the Martyr, Royal Tunbridge Wells, by The C of E; First Church in Albany (Reformed), by Daniel Case; Pope Anastasius II, by AbstractIllusions; Iglesia de Nuestra Señora de la Palma, by Dr. Blofeld, Ipigott, Rosiestep; Colan Church, by Rosiestep, Nvvchar, Ipigott; Notre Dame Cathedral, Papeete, Bloom6132, Church of St. Wenceslaus (New Prague, Minnesota), by Elkman; St. Joseph Catholic Church (San Antonio, Texas), by Gilliam; Doubting Thomas, by Johnbod; Robert of Ghent, by Ealdgyth; and Holy Trinity Church, Holdgate, by Peter I. Vardy. Our profoundest thanks and congratulations to all those involved!

Christian art

Jan van Eyck - Diptych - WGA07587.jpg
This depiction of the Crucifixion and Last Judgement was painted by Dutch artist Jan van Eyck and promoted to Featured Picture this month.

Spotlight

Christ icon.jpg

SPOTLIGHT

This month, we turn our attention to the Encyclopedic articles sub-group, which aims to provide "a collection point for lists of articles contained in other reference sources relating to Christianity, which could serve as a basis for developing our own content". Created by John Carter, it is primarily a list of links, red or otherwise, for subjects which have an article in the reference works listed therein. This serves as a very useful list if any project members are "stuck for what to do" and there remains lots of potential for articles developed from this list.

By Gilderien


Calendar
This coming month (end-April through end-May) includes Easter Sunday for the Eastern Orthodox Church. Other major feasts in the next month include those of Matthias the Apostle, The Venerable Bede, and Empress Helena.


Help requests
Please let us know if there are any particular areas, either individual articles or topics, which you believe would benefit from outside help from a variety of other editors. We will try to include such requests in future issues.

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe remove yourself from the list here
EdwardsBot (talk)17:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library![edit]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
WorldDigitalLibraryLogo2.png
Hi NBeale! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! EdwardsBot (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter (July 2013)[edit]

Ichthus dark yellow.png

ICHTHUS

July 2013

From the Editor

ბუმბული.png
Welcome to the July 2013 issue of Ichthus. We focus on the chronology of Jesus, as well as looking back at the project content improved over the last month.

WP:X has gained another Featured Article, Gospel of the Ebionites, by Ignocrates. The Gospel of the Ebionites is the name scholars give to an apocryphal gospel that supposedly belonged to a sect known as the Ebionites. It consists of seven short quotations discovered in a heresiology known as the Panarion, written by Epiphanius of Salamis, and its original title remains unknown. The text is a gospel harmony composed in Greek, and is believed to have been written during the middle of the 2nd century.

St Mihangel's Church, Llanfihangel yn Nhowyn was promoted to Good Article status, as was two other welsh churches, St Enghenedl's Church, Llanynghenedl, and St Peter's Church, Llanbedrgoch.

The main page also featured several DYK hooks for articles in our project, namely Bob Fu, List of places of worship in Tandridge (district), Catholic Press, Garendon Abbey, St. John's Episcopal Church (Jersey City, New Jersey), Pargev Martirosyan, Praskvica Monastery, Heather Preceptory, St. Augustin, Coburg, Longleat Priory, St Mihangel's Church, Llanfihangel yn Nhowyn, St Enghenedl's Church, Llanynghenedl, Christianization of Moravia, Christianization of Bohemia, Repton Abbey, St Peter's Church, Llanbedrgoch, Medingen Abbey, Elmhurst Christian Reformed Church, St. James on-the-Lines, and Leopold Karl von Kollonitsch.

Church of the month

Chrám svatého Michala v Kyjevě.jpg

St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery is part of Saint Sophia's Cathedral, Kiev in Ukraine. It is a functioning monastery that dates back to the Middle Ages.

Membership report
The parent Christianity WikiProject currently has 367 active members. We would like to welcome our newest members, Newchildrenofthealmighty, Evenssteven, Kerna96, and FutureTrillionaire. If any members, new or not, wish any assistance, they should feel free to leave a message at the Christianity noticeboard or with me or other individual editors to request it.


Focus on...

Christ icon.jpg

THE
HISTORICAL JESUS

When did Jesus live? When did he die? How do we know? We do, in fact, have excellent information about the time intervals for the life and death of Jesus. As in other people who lived and died in the first century, this gives an approximate date range, but still, give or take 3-4 years and we have pretty good estimates confirmed by a number of really diverse sources, ranging from inscriptions in Delphi to Roman and Jewish sources. The Chronology of Jesus article discusses how a wide variety of Christian, Jewish and Roman sources are used to establish the time-frame for the life and death of Jesus.

And all of his data fits together. For instance, the chronology of Paul had been discussed based on the Book of Acts long ago, then the Delphi Inscription is found in the 20th century in the Temple of Apollo. And guess what.. it confirms it and totally dates his trial in Corinth, which helps reaffirm the date of the crucifixion of Jesus. The same date range is independently estimated from the writings of Josephus on the Baptist's death. And it fits Isaac Newton's astronomical models for the crucifixion date as well as the independent lunar calculations of Humphreys. As that article shows, all these dates just fit together.

From the bookshelf

SanDiegoCityCollegeLearningResource - bookshelf.jpg
Chronos, kairos, Christos: nativity and chronological studies edited by J. Vardaman, E. M. Yamauchi 1989 ISBN 0-931464-50-1

This two volume book (with a very apt title) is gem-filled with scholarly research. Paul Maier's article in the first volume is a classic study on the chronology of Jesus and provides a useful summary of a number of issues.

Did you know...

Calendar
This month (July) contains the feast days of Mary Magdalene, and James, son of Zebedee.



Help requests
Please let us know if there are any particular areas, either individual articles or topics, which you believe would benefit from outside help from a variety of other editors. We will try to include such requests in future issues.

Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity.
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe remove yourself from the list here
IchtusWikiproject.JPG
EdwardsBot (talk)20:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

This issue was distributed on behalf of Gilderien, current editor of the Ichthus, at 20:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC). Comments and other feedback are always welcome at his talk page.

Disambiguation link notification for July 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A Date With Luyu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Dobson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013 WikiProject Christianity Newsletter[edit]

Ichthus dark yellow.png

ICHTHUS

August 2013

From the Editor

ბუმბული.png

Welcome to the August 2013 issue of the WikiProject Christianity newsletter. We focus on the historical Jesus and reflect on the last month.

The project has another featured picture, The ruins of Holyrood Chapel, a digitisation of an oil-on-canvas painting. Our top-importance article, Jesus, has been nominated for Featured Article status, the discussion can be seen here; Knights of Colombus has also been nominated as a FAC.

Ecgbert (bishop) and Church architecture in Scotland have both this month achieved Good Article status.

Our project had several of its articles featured in the main page DYK section, including Hinckley Priory, Little Chapel, St Peter's Church, Ropsley, Chip Ingram, St John the Evangelist's Church, Corby Glen, Great George Street Congregational Church, St Mary's Church, Walton-on-the-Hill and Bunge church.

Our thanks go to all of those who have worked to achieve these article milestones.

Church of the month

Maillezais - Cathedrale Saint-Pierre 01.jpg

This image, of Maillezais Cathedral and created by Selbymay was this month promoted to featured picture status.

Membership report
We would like to welcome our newest members, Thechristophermorris, Psmidi and Jchthys. Thank you all for your interest in this effort. If any members, new or not, wish any assistance, they should feel free to leave a message at the Christianity noticeboard or with me or other individual editors to request it.

Focus on...

Christ icon.jpg

THE
HISTORICAL JESUS

What was Jesus like? What did he preach? Did he claim to be the Messiah? Did he predict an apocalypse? What can we know about him outside a religious context? The Historical Jesus article discusses what can be known about Jesus with various degrees of probability. While scholars agree on the over all flow and outline of Jesus' life (his baptism by John, debated Jewish authorities, healings, and his crucifixion by Pilate) they have built various and diverging portraits of the rest of his life. These range from minimalist portraits that accept very little of the gospel accounts to maximalists who accept most of the accounts as historical.

The portraits of Jesus have at times been unwitting reflections of the researchers themselves, and Crossan once quipped that some authors "do autobiography and call it biography". However, the study of historical Jesus has made one thing clear: there is so much to learn about Jesus that the more one looks, the more there is to discover.

From the bookshelf

SanDiegoCityCollegeLearningResource - bookshelf.jpg
Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching by Maurice Casey 2010 ISBN 0-567-64517-7

In this book Maurice Casey not only draws on his special expertise in the Aramaic traditions and the Q source, but provides a comprehensive review of the various approaches to the historical Jesus.

Did you know...

Calendar
This month we celebrate the feasts of St Lawrence, St Bernard, and St Augustine.



Help requests
Please let us know if there are any particular areas, either individual articles or topics, which you believe would benefit from outside help from other editors. We will try to include such requests in future issues.

Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity.
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe remove yourself from the list here

IchtusWikiproject.JPG
EdwardsBot (talk)22:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
--Gilderien Chat|What I've done 22:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael Balls, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Warren S. Brown for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Warren S. Brown is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warren S. Brown until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CorporateM (Talk) 19:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)