16:1016:10, 2 November 2012diffhist−1,050
William Lane Craig
→Debates: Stop lying. You're violating Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality and you put its reputation at risk with the publication of libellous material. You also show yourself to be dishonest propagandist.
01:3601:36, 1 August 2012diffhist−549
Ontological argument
→Other criticisms: That you require consensus to remove this absurdity is deeply worrying. See comments on the talk page. Please do not revert this edit as you are vandalising this article and ruining the respectability of this site by doing so.
16:5716:57, 29 July 2012diffhist+627
William Lane Craig
RD's 'general policy' is not mentioned in the source. What is mentioned is a very specific criticism of Craig which merits a response per Wiki NPOV guidelines. See my response on the talk page.
15:4815:48, 29 July 2012diffhist+627
William Lane Craig
The conclusion of our last discussion was to exclude the Dawkins affair entirely. We can't have criticism (or personal attacks in this case) of Craig without a response (NPOV and all that-see my comments on the talk page).
13:2713:27, 29 July 2012diffhist+478
William Lane Craig
→Debates: Genocide was not mentioned in the article cited. The current edit represents a more honest and accurate description of its general tone. I've also tried to improve overall flow (e.g. overuse of 'prominent', over long opening etc).
22:1922:19, 1 July 2012diffhist−467
William Lane Craig
→Apologetics: How does he use the Shroud of Turin? This statement us so vague that it is useless to the lay reader or the informed reader who is not aware of Craig's work.
21:3521:35, 1 July 2012diffhist+34
William Lane Craig
→Apologetics: Improved the structure and flow of the section. It clearly makes more sense to start with what Craig has done rather than a bunch of quotes singing his praises.
21:1121:11, 1 July 2012diffhist−398
William Lane Craig
→Other views: YouTube is not a reliable source and we try to avoid using it. Secondly, this is not a trivia page. It is designed to provide information about Craig's professional life not about every single opinion he holds.
21:0521:05, 1 July 2012diffhist−2,698
William Lane Craig
→Debates: I have improved the flow of the section and removed the clutter. You are also violating consensus-this was discussed with you before and we decided not to include the Dawkins affair. Please do not revert this edit.
12:1112:11, 1 July 2012diffhist−2,697
William Lane Craig
→Debates: The transcribed versions of his debates can be added to bibliography-mentioning it here is just clutter. The Dawkins affair has been discussed before-you are going against consensus. Be sure to add sources for Carrier and Price.
13 June 2012
21:5121:51, 13 June 2012diffhist−544
Ontological argument
This is article is here to provide information on a philosophical argument. It is not a trivia page. Dawkins adds nothing whatsoever to it.
19 March 2012
21:2421:24, 19 March 2012diffhist+14
William Lane Craig
I see no POV in 'Craig is a prolific debater'. It's factual statement. Anyway, I've changed it to something that conveys the original point.
20:2820:28, 15 March 2012diffhist+187
William Lane Craig
→Debates: This link directs you to the sponser of the Dennett/Craig debate. It states that Craig presented a lecture and Dennett commented on it. It contains a link to the debate. There is no 404-I had no problem opening it. Cheers!
16:1016:10, 2 November 2012diffhist−1,050
William Lane Craig
→Debates: Stop lying. You're violating Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality and you put its reputation at risk with the publication of libellous material. You also show yourself to be dishonest propagandist.
01:3601:36, 1 August 2012diffhist−549
Ontological argument
→Other criticisms: That you require consensus to remove this absurdity is deeply worrying. See comments on the talk page. Please do not revert this edit as you are vandalising this article and ruining the respectability of this site by doing so.
16:5716:57, 29 July 2012diffhist+627
William Lane Craig
RD's 'general policy' is not mentioned in the source. What is mentioned is a very specific criticism of Craig which merits a response per Wiki NPOV guidelines. See my response on the talk page.
15:4815:48, 29 July 2012diffhist+627
William Lane Craig
The conclusion of our last discussion was to exclude the Dawkins affair entirely. We can't have criticism (or personal attacks in this case) of Craig without a response (NPOV and all that-see my comments on the talk page).
13:2713:27, 29 July 2012diffhist+478
William Lane Craig
→Debates: Genocide was not mentioned in the article cited. The current edit represents a more honest and accurate description of its general tone. I've also tried to improve overall flow (e.g. overuse of 'prominent', over long opening etc).
22:1922:19, 1 July 2012diffhist−467
William Lane Craig
→Apologetics: How does he use the Shroud of Turin? This statement us so vague that it is useless to the lay reader or the informed reader who is not aware of Craig's work.
21:3521:35, 1 July 2012diffhist+34
William Lane Craig
→Apologetics: Improved the structure and flow of the section. It clearly makes more sense to start with what Craig has done rather than a bunch of quotes singing his praises.
21:1121:11, 1 July 2012diffhist−398
William Lane Craig
→Other views: YouTube is not a reliable source and we try to avoid using it. Secondly, this is not a trivia page. It is designed to provide information about Craig's professional life not about every single opinion he holds.
21:0521:05, 1 July 2012diffhist−2,698
William Lane Craig
→Debates: I have improved the flow of the section and removed the clutter. You are also violating consensus-this was discussed with you before and we decided not to include the Dawkins affair. Please do not revert this edit.
12:1112:11, 1 July 2012diffhist−2,697
William Lane Craig
→Debates: The transcribed versions of his debates can be added to bibliography-mentioning it here is just clutter. The Dawkins affair has been discussed before-you are going against consensus. Be sure to add sources for Carrier and Price.
13 June 2012
21:5121:51, 13 June 2012diffhist−544
Ontological argument
This is article is here to provide information on a philosophical argument. It is not a trivia page. Dawkins adds nothing whatsoever to it.
19 March 2012
21:2421:24, 19 March 2012diffhist+14
William Lane Craig
I see no POV in 'Craig is a prolific debater'. It's factual statement. Anyway, I've changed it to something that conveys the original point.
20:2820:28, 15 March 2012diffhist+187
William Lane Craig
→Debates: This link directs you to the sponser of the Dennett/Craig debate. It states that Craig presented a lecture and Dennett commented on it. It contains a link to the debate. There is no 404-I had no problem opening it. Cheers!